News: Swift Boat Vets are liars and Bush tools

D

dennis_t

CAGiversary!
Wow, didn't take long for the light of day to send the roaches scurrying.

Several of the Swift Boat Vets have long and continuing ties to Bush's campaign -- one was a steering committee member as last as Aug. 19, this Thursday. (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...teeringCommittee.aspx+Cordier+NAM-POWs.&hl=en)

A Bush campaign worker in Florida was caught handing out promotional materials for the Swift Boat Smearers, even though the campaign continues to say it has nothing to do with the group or its ad. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/20/18115/6359)

And it's taking very little work for journalists to find that many of the Swift Boat Vets have praised Kerry effusively in the past. There's this from Knight Ridder:

Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam, George Elliott, said in an attack ad: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

But during the Vietnam War, Elliott recommended Kerry for the Silver and Bronze Star medals for valor in combat and gave him the highest possible praise in his officer efficiency reports.

"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTjg Kerry was unsurpassed," Elliott wrote in 1969. He went on to rate Kerry as "calm, professional and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire."

Elliott added: "(Kerry) emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group." In 16 categories on Kerry's officer efficiency report, ranging from professional knowledge to moral courage to military bearing to reliability, Elliott gave Kerry the highest possible rating - "is not exceeded" - in 11 categories, and the second highest, "one of the top 10" in five other categories.

Elliott in 1996 supported Kerry in his re-election campaign for the Senate and during an appearance in Boston declared that Kerry had earned the Silver Star "for an act of courage."
Click to expand...

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9455159.

And this from the New York Times:

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/p...&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=

Again, I ask -- is there any level to which Republicans will not stoop in their drive for power? Have they no sense of shame or decency? Or do they figure the country is just one big open sewer, so what's a little more slime going to hurt? If their ideas are so good, why do they have to smear and lie to get votes?
 
If you think only the Republicans are involved in dirty politics, you're naive.
If you're absolutely certain that the Democrat's aren't, you're stupid.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']If you think only the Republicans are involved in dirty politics, you're naive.
If you're absolutely certain that the Democrat's aren't, you're stupid.[/quote]

I just gave you a proven example of Republican dirty tricks.

Now give me a similar example from the Democrats.

"Everyone does it" is not much an argument, and it's even less of one if you don't bother proving it.
 
Thats a good show, they had the whole 'winter soldier' speech before congress (not the testimony).

It is public television at its best.
 
It's intelligent media not like that CRAP on NPR for Political. No offense but to Conservatives but NPR isn't what I'd remotely consider Left leaning and they don't really open peoples eyes to much although I DID appreciate a story done on a guy who wrote a book about America's prisons. They discussed some of the argument of "Rehabilitation vs. Reincarnceration", something we don't hear discussed often enough. Quite often the...
Shit never mind I'm digressing here. Anyway check out the book if you're interested in reading up on some of the problems. "A History Of Injustice: The Crisis In America's Prisons".
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Again, I ask -- is there any level to which Republicans will not stoop in their drive for power? Have they no sense of shame or decency? Or do they figure the country is just one big open sewer, so what's a little more slime going to hurt? If their ideas are so good, why do they have to smear and lie to get votes?[/quote]

Again, I ask -- is there any level to which Democrats will not stoop in their drive for power?

Making up stories about Vietnam, potentially self-inflicted wounds. Hell, this guy has personallly commited war crimes by his own words. Bush might be bad but he hasn't violated the Geneva Conventions yet.
 
Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo
 
[quote name='helava']Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo[/quote]

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?
 
Look, there is a HUGE difference between self-inflicted wounds and freindly fire.

AND ONLY ONE OF THE SWIFT VETS ACTUALLY KNEW KERRY! THEY WERE TOTAL STRANGERS WHO SAID THEY FOUGHT BESIDE HIM! THEY ARE LIARS!
 
more than likely Bush doesnt have anything to do with them, and the fact that his promotional person was handing out fliers supporting them, doesnt mean that he has anything to do with what their saying. If i was running for office, and there were some people out saying something that made me look better, i'd probably give out fliers telling about them too.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='helava']Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo[/quote]

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?[/quote]


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out
 
[quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='helava']Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo[/quote]

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?[/quote]


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out[/quote]

And? He didn't lie about it. He didn't commit war crimes. He didn't rape, cut of heads, shoot at random civilizans, and so forth.

I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?
 
I'm so sick of this "Oh me, oh my!" crap about Sadaam doing all these wretched things. Where the fuck are the Republicans OR Democrats for that matter when China is committing Human Right's abuses. Did George Bush pull MFTN status from them when this track continued? China never does ANYTHING about it and all they do is get critisized a bit and nothing happens so before you or Democrats but especially Republicans or anyone pulls the "Look at what Sadaam did." I say look at people tolerating China's behavior. Granted it's not as bad but it's still a valid critisizm to people decrying what Sadaam did or a far better example would be for Republicans to have critisized Reagan for ruining...Panama or whichever country it was down in South America. God I'm out of it. Be consistent I guess I should say.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='helava']Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo[/quote]

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?[/quote]


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out[/quote]

And? He didn't lie about it. He didn't commit war crimes. He didn't rape, cut of heads, shoot at random civilizans, and so forth.

I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?[/quote]

You cant be serios right, lmao, where the hell does saddam come in? we were talking about the candidates vietnam record(or lack there of in gop case) every time a gop feels thretend they bring up non related subjects, go home.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='helava']Ah, so you've bought the GOP's new meme, eh?

1.) "Self inflicted" wounds are still wounds in the course of duty, and still eligible for the Purple heart.

2.) The wounds in question were caused by a grenade. A grenade of the type that Kerry's crewmates insist were not present on his boat.

In terms of the war crimes he committed, if you are a soldier, you do as you're ordered. that's one of the reasons I don't find say, Lynndie England necessarily responsible for Abu Ghraib - if someone tells you to do something, in the military, it is your job to do it, however repusive. What are you other options? Insubordination? Fragging your commander? The point was that Kerry was protesting the policy, and the command - not the individual soldliers, or their actions.

Bush, incidentally, has violated the Geneva Conventions, from the command side - something Kerry *hasn't* done. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners, for instance, and the "ghost" prisoners in Iraq, who were never reported to the Red Cross, are in fact explicit violations of the Geneva Conventions.

So, now, gamefreak - tell me - you think it' the Democrats who are stooping? the Swift Boat Veterans are liars - GOP-funded liars, coordinating with the Bush-Cheney campaign. Both those labels are *proven*, 100%, and documented. Something the Swift Boat Vets' claims are explicitly *not*.

Try again, gamefreak. Try harder.

seppo[/quote]

I didn't say that self inflicted wound were "out of the question" or what have you. Purposfully hurtting yourself to get out of the war is a downright irresponsible and dirty thing to do. I am extreamly hesitant to take Kerry's word, one that he has changed many times, over a group of soldiers.

So Kerry knew what he was doing was wrong but didn't stand up for the "American Way" and whatnot? You'd have someone as president who'd rather shrink his duties and do what others say instead of what is right?[/quote]


Dear god, a brain can come in quite handy.....

I cant belive that you have the nerve to say that kerry was trying to get out of the war by hurting himself when HE volunteered for it, while Gerogie boy, for all intensive purposes, DODGED THE WAR, "Dont throw stones when u live in a glass house" -out[/quote]

And? He didn't lie about it. He didn't commit war crimes. He didn't rape, cut of heads, shoot at random civilizans, and so forth.
I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?[/quote]

Don't make yourself look like an idiot by implying Kerry cut off heads, rape, etc. He was quoting some of the winter soldier's statements. If you even bothered to read couple of words before it....
 
Gamefreak, get out of this forum, u dont know what ur talking about, u just keep making up G.O.P bullshit that ur mis-repeating from P.A.D, at least PAD makes points (even if they are flawed) ur just a repeating monkey, please go home.
 
[quote name='spyhunterk19']Gamefreak, get out of this forum, u dont know what ur talking about, u just keep making up G.O.P bullshit that ur mis-repeating from P.A.D, at least PAD makes points (even if they are flawed) ur just a repeating monkey, please go home.[/quote]

First off, this is a free forum. Telling people during an argument/debate to get out is just childish.

Second, why do you hate George Bush? If it's because of the Iraqi war, see the above statement I have made. If it's about the economy, I have a site you should view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

I'll give you a hint, when a country is hit by something like 9-11, the economy doesn't exactly skyrocket. People become scared, they stop spending. Jobs are cut. And you can't exactly wave a magic wand and make everything ok.

If you hate him because of the drilling in Alaska: Alaska is bigger than Texas. While it might not be the best thing to do, the carbau still have plenty of land and now we don't have to pay people money which they can in turn use to buy guns to shoot at us with.
 
Ur posting is just annoying, i hate when you and the gop tries to tell people what THEY want.....Georgie boy dosn't understand that Iraqis WANT to be IRAQIs, they dont want to be Americans, and theyre never gonna relize that, and btw, can we go back to the VIETNAM record topic, not ur campaign speach for bush that isn't backed up by any facts but a link u found to wikipedia, wow good job there. Oh, and btw, i took microeconomics at duke, answer me this , whats marginal revenue supposed to equal? Oh, darn , wikipedia dosnt' tell u that one now does it.

Ok, back to vietnam, i hate when people bash kerry for the one purple heart that might have not been that serios, ok, so what! even if that never happend, he still got 2 purple hearts and more awards , while george was trying to start up his 3rd failed oil company backed by saudi money, ur glass house just got shattered.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']
I have a question for you. Would you rather Saddam be in power right this instant? Let me remind you, he has gassed, raped, murdered, and overall made Iraq a not nice place for his people. I can also guarentee you the fact that he would not have stepped down had France et al demanded it. Can you honestly condone the things he has done? How could you wish such horrible things on the Iraqi people and the world overall?[/quote]

Ah, lovely. So it comes back to Saddam was a bad man. Seriously, I love the fact that people keep falling back on this, because it's *so easy* to see how stupid an argument this is.

I would rather Saddam was not in power. There's your straw man. But the *real* question is not, do you wish he was in power or not - the real question is, was the price we paid to get him out of power worth it?

No.

Not by a long shot.

We didn't need to sacrifice a thousand of our brothers, sisters, children, fathers, to get him out of power. We didn't need to alienate our allies to get him out of power. We didn't need to create a terrorist breeding ground, and really thoroughly piss off the entire Middle East by invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us to get him out of power.

If anything, the inspections post-invasion have shown that the measures we took against him in the past were working. He had no capability to make WMD's. He was no threat to his neighbors, much less to us.

There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Am I glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Sure. But I would *NOT* have paid the price we have to get him out of power. Not by a long shot.

Had we had competant leadership, which would have worked with the international community, then by all means, we should have done it. But we didn't. Bush did this alone, being prodded by the AEI in the rest of the neocons. He caused this problem. He made us pay such a heavy price to depose a tyrant we propped up in the first place, who was no direct threat to us, and no ally of Bin Laden, not to mention completely uninvolved in 9/11.

Now. Would *you* have paid this price to remove Hussein? Then let me ask *you* a question. Who would you *not* have paid that price to remove, and why? Kim Jong Il? The leadership in Iran? Rwanda? Where does it end? What justification do we use? They might potentially be a threat at some point in the future, so we have to deal with them now? They might have terrorist ties, maybe, so we have to remove them? We can't prove jack or shit that they're doing *anything*, but I've got a hunch, so I'm gonna send a thousand Americans to die because I'm a completely fucking moron?

Try again, Gamefreak. But I ask you to please, grow a god damned brain before you do.

seppo
 
[quote name='"helava"'][quote name='gamefreak']
There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Am I glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Sure. But I would *NOT* have paid the price we have to get him out of power. Not by a long shot.

Had we had competant leadership, which would have worked with the international community, then by all means, we should have done it. But we didn't. Bush did this alone, being prodded by the AEI in the rest of the neocons. He caused this problem. He made us pay such a heavy price to depose a tyrant we propped up in the first place, who was no direct threat to us, and no ally of Bin Laden, not to mention completely uninvolved in 9/11.

Now. Would *you* have paid this price to remove Hussein? Then let me ask *you* a question. Who would you *not* have paid that price to remove, and why? Kim Jong Il? The leadership in Iran? Rwanda? Where does it end? What justification do we use? They might potentially be a threat at some point in the future, so we have to deal with them now? They might have terrorist ties, maybe, so we have to remove them? We can't prove jack or shit that they're doing *anything*, but I've got a hunch, so I'm gonna send a thousand Americans to die because I'm a completely shaq-fuing moron?

Try again, Gamefreak. But I ask you to please, grow a god damned brain before you do.

seppo[/quote]

"There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.".
Chile anyone? Btw Henry Kissinger you're still wanted to be tried for War Crimes you son of a bitch.
If we really want to look at the problem in the Middle East seriously Bush needs to look in the family tree. Look at Iran. If I'm not mistaken one of his lineage helped create it.
Honestly if we'd try to be FAIR about this shit and not let corporations pwn us whenever possible we wouldn't deal with as much of this bullshit and maybe not have a 9-11. Who knows though? Maybe shit like Nicaragua would still lead up to it.
Yes Kim Jong Il is dangerous. I remember watching a thing on 60 Minutes how they further twisted Anne Frank's story to brainwash the students into being "Killbots" for their "beloved leader". They called Frank weak because she didn't get out there and fight the Germans.
Anyway, I'm getting off subject. I re-iterate WHY Kerry did this whole war thing. Conservatives or rather Republicans would LIKE to believe they own the Military or are the only one's who give a shit about it when it's not simply the case. Kerry used the "War Hero" bit to take away their thunder and frankly the Republicans don't like it. They also don't like considering the fact that someone who was in the military or is in it would NOT vote Republican and I know another person as well. Anyway, soon enough Republicans won't have a lock on any of their "key" issues except for a few like "Prayer In School" for example. chuckles.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='spyhunterk19']Gamefreak, get out of this forum, u dont know what ur talking about, u just keep making up G.O.P bullshit that ur mis-repeating from P.A.D, at least PAD makes points (even if they are flawed) ur just a repeating monkey, please go home.[/quote]

First off, this is a free forum. Telling people during an argument/debate to get out is just childish.

Second, why do you hate George Bush? If it's because of the Iraqi war, see the above statement I have made. If it's about the economy, I have a site you should view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

I'll give you a hint, when a country is hit by something like 9-11, the economy doesn't exactly skyrocket. People become scared, they stop spending. Jobs are cut. And you can't exactly wave a magic wand and make everything ok.

If you hate him because of the drilling in Alaska: Alaska is bigger than Texas. While it might not be the best thing to do, the carbau still have plenty of land and now we don't have to pay people money which they can in turn use to buy guns to shoot at us with.[/quote]

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there is only enough oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to last for 6 months. Is it worth destroying this natural resource for such a small amount of oil? The Republicans say yes, but that oil won't make a bit of difference. It is less than 1% of what the U.S. imports.
 
I've heard this account before but I've really heard varying accounts of the amount of Oil but I still don't think we should drill there.
Look at how we're progressing right now. I saw some of a show on PBS discussing alternative fuel cars and it was great stuff. Supposedly some of this may be coming in the next few years even.
 
[quote name='"Sarang01"'][quote name='helava'][quote name='gamefreak']
There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.

There are far greater immediate threats to the US that Hussein. North Korea, for instance, threatens not only South Korea, Japan, and all their immediate neighbors, but us as well. And it's Bush's fault, directly, that they potentially have nuclear capability, because he was too petulent to negotiate with them and work through the Sunshine policy that was in place before.

Am I glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Sure. But I would *NOT* have paid the price we have to get him out of power. Not by a long shot.

Had we had competant leadership, which would have worked with the international community, then by all means, we should have done it. But we didn't. Bush did this alone, being prodded by the AEI in the rest of the neocons. He caused this problem. He made us pay such a heavy price to depose a tyrant we propped up in the first place, who was no direct threat to us, and no ally of Bin Laden, not to mention completely uninvolved in 9/11.

Now. Would *you* have paid this price to remove Hussein? Then let me ask *you* a question. Who would you *not* have paid that price to remove, and why? Kim Jong Il? The leadership in Iran? Rwanda? Where does it end? What justification do we use? They might potentially be a threat at some point in the future, so we have to deal with them now? They might have terrorist ties, maybe, so we have to remove them? We can't prove jack or shit that they're doing *anything*, but I've got a hunch, so I'm gonna send a thousand Americans to die because I'm a completely shaq-fuing moron?

Try again, Gamefreak. But I ask you to please, grow a god damned brain before you do.

seppo[/quote]

"There are far worse people in power - that the US has installed by overthrowing democratically elected governments to place in power, than Saddam Hussein.".
Chile anyone? Btw Henry Kissinger you're still wanted to be tried for War Crimes you son of a bitch.
If we really want to look at the problem in the Middle East seriously Bush needs to look in the family tree. Look at Iran. If I'm not mistaken one of his lineage helped create it.
Honestly if we'd try to be FAIR about this shit and not let corporations pwn us whenever possible we wouldn't deal with as much of this bullshit and maybe not have a 9-11. Who knows though? Maybe shit like Nicaragua would still lead up to it.
Yes Kim Jong Il is dangerous. I remember watching a thing on 60 Minutes how they further twisted Anne Frank's story to brainwash the students into being "Killbots" for their "beloved leader". They called Frank weak because she didn't get out there and fight the Germans.
Anyway, I'm getting off subject. I re-iterate WHY Kerry did this whole war thing. Conservatives or rather Republicans would LIKE to believe they own the Military or are the only one's who give a shit about it when it's not simply the case. Kerry used the "War Hero" bit to take away their thunder and frankly the Republicans don't like it. They also don't like considering the fact that someone who was in the military or is in it would NOT vote Republican and I know another person as well. Anyway, soon enough Republicans won't have a lock on any of their "key" issues except for a few like "Prayer In School" for example. chuckles.[/quote]

It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.[/quote]

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.
 
The swift boat veterans smear campaign is very similar to the smear campaign used against McCain in the 2000 primary. People who think that the rich texans who support bush and are responsible for the ad money have nothing in common are too far up bush's ass to see the shit.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JSweeney']It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.[/quote]

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.[/quote]

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JSweeney']It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.[/quote]

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.[/quote]

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...[/quote]

He volunteered for service and didn't speak out against the war until after he had experienced it. I see nothing wrong with him being proud of the medals he earned there. If he had received those medals for commiting any atrocities, that would be a problem. But he received his for defending his boat and fellow soldiers.
 
^^-He can be proud that he served when his country needed him, he can be angry how he was used and the reasons for the war. They are 2 dif things.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']Anyway. Would you be willing to pay the price of a chemical bomb going off in a city? Maybe even a small nuclear weapon? People in Saddam's government thought they could make/had WMD, heck, he might have even thought so. As far as diplomacy, Saddam wasn't cooperating. Sure, "I'll let you interview my scientists with my personal thugs standing in the background" sounds like it would get results but it's a bit of a stretch. Let me remind you that this little bit is against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the UN basically just quits right there. Are we to let someone who thinks they have WMD run free? If you're in a movie theater with an insane man who might have a gun, do you get security to check or do you let him wait untill he can use it?

I'll answer your question with another; where would you be willing to pay the price? Jong Il? Mussolini? Hitler? If people like Saddam were to gain enough power I am certain they would hesistate not one second in using it in destructive means like the aforementioned.[/quote]

Are you saying those are the only two options? Let the UN continue inneffective inspections or start a war that leaves a power vacuum and creates a breeding ground for new terrorists?

Why couldn't we have supported the UN with tougher sanctions and punishments for Saddam for not complying? Containment was working for Saddam, he was no longer a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Yes, that sucks big time for the people inside of Iraq but it was not in our best interests to invade the country and create the political instability that we have now.

We could have been more involved with the UN and ferreted out the corruption in the Oil for Food program.

War should be a last resort, not one of our first.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='gamefreak']Anyway. Would you be willing to pay the price of a chemical bomb going off in a city? Maybe even a small nuclear weapon? People in Saddam's government thought they could make/had WMD, heck, he might have even thought so. As far as diplomacy, Saddam wasn't cooperating. Sure, "I'll let you interview my scientists with my personal thugs standing in the background" sounds like it would get results but it's a bit of a stretch. Let me remind you that this little bit is against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the UN basically just quits right there. Are we to let someone who thinks they have WMD run free? If you're in a movie theater with an insane man who might have a gun, do you get security to check or do you let him wait untill he can use it?

I'll answer your question with another; where would you be willing to pay the price? Jong Il? Mussolini? Hitler? If people like Saddam were to gain enough power I am certain they would hesistate not one second in using it in destructive means like the aforementioned.[/quote]

Are you saying those are the only two options? Let the UN continue inneffective inspections or start a war that leaves a power vacuum and creates a breeding ground for new terrorists?

Why couldn't we have supported the UN with tougher sanctions and punishments for Saddam for not complying? Containment was working for Saddam, he was no longer a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Yes, that sucks big time for the people inside of Iraq but it was not in our best interests to invade the country and create the political instability that we have now.

We could have been more involved with the UN and ferreted out the corruption in the Oil for Food program.

War should be a last resort, not one of our first.[/quote]

Sanctions that would do what? He has all the food and toys he needs, his people are the ones suffering. And we can't exactly not buy any more oil.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='gamefreak']Anyway. Would you be willing to pay the price of a chemical bomb going off in a city? Maybe even a small nuclear weapon? People in Saddam's government thought they could make/had WMD, heck, he might have even thought so. As far as diplomacy, Saddam wasn't cooperating. Sure, "I'll let you interview my scientists with my personal thugs standing in the background" sounds like it would get results but it's a bit of a stretch. Let me remind you that this little bit is against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the UN basically just quits right there. Are we to let someone who thinks they have WMD run free? If you're in a movie theater with an insane man who might have a gun, do you get security to check or do you let him wait untill he can use it?

I'll answer your question with another; where would you be willing to pay the price? Jong Il? Mussolini? Hitler? If people like Saddam were to gain enough power I am certain they would hesistate not one second in using it in destructive means like the aforementioned.[/quote]

Are you saying those are the only two options? Let the UN continue inneffective inspections or start a war that leaves a power vacuum and creates a breeding ground for new terrorists?

Why couldn't we have supported the UN with tougher sanctions and punishments for Saddam for not complying? Containment was working for Saddam, he was no longer a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Yes, that sucks big time for the people inside of Iraq but it was not in our best interests to invade the country and create the political instability that we have now.

We could have been more involved with the UN and ferreted out the corruption in the Oil for Food program.

War should be a last resort, not one of our first.[/quote]

Sanctions that would do what? He has all the food and toys he needs, his people are the ones suffering. And we can't exactly not buy any more oil.[/quote]

The sanctions prevented him from building the weapons that we couldn't find
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']^ and they are still suffering, whats your point[/quote]

Yes, your right; Saddam and his cronies are still out there murdering and raping people daily.
 
[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']^ and they are still suffering, whats your point[/quote]

Yes, your right; Saddam and his cronies are still out there murdering and raping people daily.[/quote]

Theres a big news story today u might have missed it, Saddam was captured!!!!! Ohh wait the date reads 12/3/03. We are doing harm their and there is still battling where innocense is caught in the crossfire
 
[quote name='JSweeney']If you think only the Republicans are involved in dirty politics, you're naive.
If you're absolutely certain that the Democrat's aren't, you're stupid.[/quote]

:applause:
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever'][quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']^ and they are still suffering, whats your point[/quote]

Yes, your right; Saddam and his cronies are still out there murdering and raping people daily.[/quote]

Theres a big news story today u might have missed it, Saddam was captured!!!!! Ohh wait the date reads 12/3/03. We are doing harm their and there is still battling where innocense is caught in the crossfire[/quote]

It was sarcasm. At least now no one is killing them on purpose.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='JSweeney']It would likely be better for Kerry to focus on other things than his war record, as he's begining to look like your run of the mill duplicitous two-faced politician. How does it make any sense to get up and say America's involvment in that war was a terrible, horrible thing, and then around 20 years later try and use your medals and service record from that terrible, horrible thing as a way to bolster your political aims?

I really wish they'd stop hashing this over and just get back to issues that really matter.[/quote]

You know it is possible for someone to perform heroically defending his fellow soldiers in a horrible, terrible war that you disagree with politically.[/quote]

Yes, that's true. But if you're so politically against that war, you don't go around using those medals which you treated with such disdain then and pick them back up 20 years later to use as badges of honor.

You can't have it both ways...[/quote]

He volunteered for service and didn't speak out against the war until after he had experienced it. I see nothing wrong with him being proud of the medals he earned there. If he had received those medals for commiting any atrocities, that would be a problem. But he received his for defending his boat and fellow soldiers.[/quote]


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425-1.html

I'm sorry, but there is a bunch of wordplay there and Kerry still seems to be trying to play both sides of the fence.

Ribbons and medals are basically the same thing...each part of one award. The ribbons are always worn, but the medals are worn with only with the dress uniform. Throwing away part of the award (the ribbon) and not the other as part of a political statement, and then saying you didn't throw the medal (award) away is just splitting hairs.

He's on the record playing up both sides of the issue, and in my eyes that really hurts his credibility.
 
Its easy to call someone a flip flopper when it fits your needs. If a Democrat switched parties and became a Republican, u would never here anything about him changing his mind or crap like that. Its good to have a new opinion everyonce in awhile. Better than our new president never admitting he did one thing wrong
 
He needed the medals to take on Nixon.

He needed those medals to show the media and people that he was what he said he was, it was a sort of damage control when another leading anti-war veteran lied about his rank and what medals he had earned.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']Its easy to call someone a flip flopper when it fits your needs. If a Democrat switched parties and became a Republican, u would never here anything about him changing his mind or crap like that. Its good to have a new opinion everyonce in awhile. Better than our new president never admitting he did one thing wrong[/quote]

It's auctually quite easy, espically when you have evidence.

Kerry voted for many of the things he is now critizing Bush for. The war in Iraq and the Patriot Act being only two.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4356093/ for more.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']
Anyway. Would you be willing to pay the price of a chemical bomb going off in a city? Maybe even a small nuclear weapon? People in Saddam's government thought they could make/had WMD, heck, he might have even thought so. As far as diplomacy, Saddam wasn't cooperating. Sure, "I'll let you interview my scientists with my personal thugs standing in the background" sounds like it would get results but it's a bit of a stretch. Let me remind you that this little bit is against the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So the UN basically just quits right there. Are we to let someone who thinks they have WMD run free? If you're in a movie theater with an insane man who might have a gun, do you get security to check or do you let him wait untill he can use it?
[/quote]
If you're gonna call that let's be fair and bring Israel up on violating the Non-Proliferation pact as well. It's only fair and to be honest they SHOULD be brought up on it. We all know they're probably the most flagrant violator of that but they get away with it because they're our baby and the only one's with Democracy in the Middle East with the exception of Turkey and they got problem too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top