michaeledward
Grandmaster
Tgace said:
Please? You're kidding right.
I believe that one aspect of Kerry's plan is to mend relationships with our (former) allies, who Bush and his administration has managed to alienate, and bring them and the U.N. into the picture. I think Kerry knows that we are committed for a while in Iraq. That means we need more funding for our troops - including NOT cutting their wages and benefits, as Bush did. The long-term picture, in terms of preventing terrorist attacks, is on solid relationships with other countries, as well as adequately funding our own Department of Homeland Security.
Tgace
Grandmaster
To be fair to Mr. Kerry. I did find an interview with the Foreign Leigon where he said some interesting things....
http://www.legion.org/?section=publications&subsection=pubs_mag_index&content=pub_mag_kerry
http://www.legion.org/?section=publications&subsection=pubs_mag_index&content=pub_mag_kerry
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Tgace said:
A good article. Thanks for posting it. Kudos to the AMERICAN Legion for printing it. I believe Kerry has yet to do an article with the Foreign Legion...that gallant French fighting force that celebrates all its defeats. Kerry speaks French though, so maybe he'll get around to it.
In analyzing what Kerry will do on the WOT ("War On Terra"), one must consider what Bush is doing. Bush's Middle East policy is currently being driven by a number of Neo-conservatives ("Neocons") who have an expressed agenda involving the overthrow of a number of "rogue states" that threaten us. Their stated goal is to reform Islam--by force if necessary.
Here's an article outlining their agenda by the "Godfather" of the Neo-conservative movement, Norman Podohertz:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
This is something paleo-conservatives (and Bush detratctors) like Pat Buchanen think is impossible. Islam, Buchanen points out, means "submission." It is a religion that does not tolerate the notions of freedom and Democracy...even though freedom and democracy have been amazingly tolerant of Islam.
Interestingly, neo-conservativism grew from a liberal movement. Michael Lind has observed, "Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history." Their economic policies are anything but conservative, and they've been a major impetus behind the globalization of the world economy.
So, TGace and others...if you accept their economic and global strategies, by all means vote for Bush. If you favor containment of rogue states via the old method, with increased use of police action in rounding up terrorists and use of an international forum for taking them on, then Kerry might be the route to go.
I do NOT think, however, that we can forcefully effect a Neocon notion of a "New World Order." If we attempt it, we'll surely bankrupt the country. It looks like we're wll on our way as it is.
A good write-up on neo-conservatism.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Neo-conservatives
Regards,
Steve
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Concerning President Bush's Service Record.
This article gets most of the facts in evidence straight .... and tells us what facts are missing, for the most part. They still don't mention the physical requirements prior to his 27th birthday, but it's a start.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5922174/
This article gets most of the facts in evidence straight .... and tells us what facts are missing, for the most part. They still don't mention the physical requirements prior to his 27th birthday, but it's a start.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5922174/
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I'm not sure if this should be posted here .... but, yet another attack on War Service ...
The man is basing his entire campaign on his so-called heroics on that river...
It is time that America takes a closer look at what really happened.
http://www.rowboatvets.com
The man is basing his entire campaign on his so-called heroics on that river...
It is time that America takes a closer look at what really happened.
http://www.rowboatvets.com
One thing I wonder about Kerry... in the 70s, he said on meet the press that he helped burn down village, didn't bother to stop tortures, and watched as limbs were hacked off. One question I have for Kerry, why did he do these things? Why did he burn down villages? He said that he did so himself. Here are his exact words:
"They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
Now, one thing I wonder, why did he do these things? Why hasn't he publicly come out recently, and defended his actions? Was he just "following orders", a tactic that was ruled inadmissable for defense by the Nuremberg trials? I would just like to hear someone defend Kerry's atrocities.
"They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
Now, one thing I wonder, why did he do these things? Why hasn't he publicly come out recently, and defended his actions? Was he just "following orders", a tactic that was ruled inadmissable for defense by the Nuremberg trials? I would just like to hear someone defend Kerry's atrocities.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Well, that was disingenuous.
What he actually said was that, as a soldier in Vietnam, he felt he had some moral responsibility for the deaths of some 3 million Vietnamese. You know--moral responsibility? Ring any bells?
What he also said, in the same interviews, was that he sympathized with the kinds of soldiers he'd been, and blamed the generals and politicians who sent them out to kill and die on false pretenses. You know--kinda like when the President ignores competent advice, as Johnson did, trumps up "facts, as Johnson did, throws troops to the wolves, as Johnson did, pushes pointless bombing campaigns, as Johnson did. Or when a succeeding President ups the ante on all this evil crap, as Nixon did.
I am surprised by your lack of sympathy and support for an American soldier, who whatever his flaws did not stay home in a safe ANG job or with a college deferment, as a lot of politicians did. Fortunately, we do not have such politicians running the country now, let alone politicians who would go and send people off to fight and die in the kinds of wars they carefully avoided, based on trumped-up "facts," like Johnson, and...
Hey, wait a minute. I forgot.
What he actually said was that, as a soldier in Vietnam, he felt he had some moral responsibility for the deaths of some 3 million Vietnamese. You know--moral responsibility? Ring any bells?
What he also said, in the same interviews, was that he sympathized with the kinds of soldiers he'd been, and blamed the generals and politicians who sent them out to kill and die on false pretenses. You know--kinda like when the President ignores competent advice, as Johnson did, trumps up "facts, as Johnson did, throws troops to the wolves, as Johnson did, pushes pointless bombing campaigns, as Johnson did. Or when a succeeding President ups the ante on all this evil crap, as Nixon did.
I am surprised by your lack of sympathy and support for an American soldier, who whatever his flaws did not stay home in a safe ANG job or with a college deferment, as a lot of politicians did. Fortunately, we do not have such politicians running the country now, let alone politicians who would go and send people off to fight and die in the kinds of wars they carefully avoided, based on trumped-up "facts," like Johnson, and...
Hey, wait a minute. I forgot.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
How do you suppose that killing and maiming as an everyday occurrence, while attempting to function at your peak primal capabilities under the stresses of malnourishment and sleep deprivation might influence your moral judgement? The lines between cilvilian and enemy are already blurry, as the enemy and civilian look to be the same. You witness the gruesome death of all around you, your brothers being blown apart by gunfire and explosives.deadhand31 said:
Put yourself in those shoes.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
One thing I wonder about Kerry... in the 70s, he said on meet the press that he helped burn down village, didn't bother to stop tortures, and watched as limbs were hacked off. One question I have for Kerry, why did he do these things? Why did he burn down villages? He said that he did so himself. Here are his exact words:
"They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
Now, one thing I wonder, why did he do these things? Why hasn't he publicly come out recently, and defended his actions? Was he just "following orders", a tactic that was ruled inadmissable for defense by the Nuremberg trials? I would just like to hear someone defend Kerry's atrocities.
Kerry didn't say he watched as limbs were hacked off...leastwise not during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting. He said he did those things you list in the last paragraph. This was DOCTRINE. He was ordered to do those things. That was the crux of his speech.
Read the speech, deadhand.
Regards,
Steve
"They told the stories [that] at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
Now, one thing I wonder, why did he do these things? Why hasn't he publicly come out recently, and defended his actions? Was he just "following orders", a tactic that was ruled inadmissable for defense by the Nuremberg trials? I would just like to hear someone defend Kerry's atrocities.
Kerry didn't say he watched as limbs were hacked off...leastwise not during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting. He said he did those things you list in the last paragraph. This was DOCTRINE. He was ordered to do those things. That was the crux of his speech.
Read the speech, deadhand.
Regards,
Steve
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
At the risk of mentioning little things like, "morality," and "Christianity," it may be worth remarking that nobody's ever said that decent behaviour was easy.
They said that it was right, and essential to one's spirit.
They said that it was right, and essential to one's spirit.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
You know deadhead ... oops, I mean deadhand ... if you bothered to put any effort into the truth, it would be refreshing. Here, let me help. This is the the relevant part of the quote. You can find the entire transcript here;
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082204F.shtml
Now ... let's pay attention to this first paragraph ... OK ... try not to get glazed over by that Sean Hannity track on your IPOD.
OK ... now, onto the second paragraph. You see, this is a continuation of Mr. Kerry's thoughts; I'll change to bold face the stuff to pay particular attention too.
You still with me? OK... stop fantasizing about Ann Coulter ... and lets take a look at that third paragraph.
I highlighted the first word of this paragraph. This word, is a plural pronoun. All pronouns in the English language need to have an 'anticedent' that will tell us exactly what the pronoun is referring to; in this case, you need to look two paragraphs earlier to understand that Mr. Kerry was referring to the 150 honorably discharged soldiers.
Now, pay attention ... because here is where the truth really starts to become blinding obvious, even to ditto heads.
You see, John Kerry did appear on Meet the Press (You know, the TV Show kinda like STAR TREK) and here is what he said there.
1 - shootings in free fire zones.
2 - harrassment and interdiction fire
3 - search and destroy missions
4 - burning of villages
Now, look closely ... nowhere did Mr. Kerry state that he took part in ... how did you put it ...
You just can't combine two different quotes, from two different interviews into one thought. Plain and simple that is lying. Of course, if you are auditioning for a job with FOX, you're doing a great job.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082204F.shtml
This quote, incidently is from the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, it was not from 'MEET THE PRESS.
Now ... let's pay attention to this first paragraph ... OK ... try not to get glazed over by that Sean Hannity track on your IPOD.
So, first, Kerry is reporting on what he heard from 150 honorably discharged, highly decorated veterans. He is not reporting first hand experiences.
OK ... now, onto the second paragraph. You see, this is a continuation of Mr. Kerry's thoughts; I'll change to bold face the stuff to pay particular attention too.
Here, Mr. Kerry is telling the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations that 150 honorably discharged soldiers felt they were directed (ordered) to take actions in Vietnam.
You still with me? OK... stop fantasizing about Ann Coulter ... and lets take a look at that third paragraph.
OK ... so, here is the damning stuff. Again, this is from the SENATE, and not MEET THE PRESS (FYI - they are two different things. The Senate is the most powerful legislative body in the world (maybe the 2nd most powerful) - Meet the Press is a TV Show --- you know, like 'The X Files').
I highlighted the first word of this paragraph. This word, is a plural pronoun. All pronouns in the English language need to have an 'anticedent' that will tell us exactly what the pronoun is referring to; in this case, you need to look two paragraphs earlier to understand that Mr. Kerry was referring to the 150 honorably discharged soldiers.
Now, pay attention ... because here is where the truth really starts to become blinding obvious, even to ditto heads.
You see, John Kerry did appear on Meet the Press (You know, the TV Show kinda like STAR TREK) and here is what he said there.
Now, deadwrong ... oops, deadhand, in this paragraph, you see a different kind of pronoun. This is the first person singular pronoun; " I ". Here, Mr. Kerry makes several claims about what he did. Let's enumerate them:
1 - shootings in free fire zones.
2 - harrassment and interdiction fire
3 - search and destroy missions
4 - burning of villages
Now, look closely ... nowhere did Mr. Kerry state that he took part in ... how did you put it ...
But oddly, in his Meet the Press interview .. he did answer your questions. Let's review your questions, and then check what Mr. Kerry said that answered those questions.deadhand31 said:
deadhand31 said:
Now ... this is a pretty sarcastic post. But, every time I turn around, you seem to be posting something that has no truth in it whatsoever. And you get snotty when we say stop listening to talk radio. In less than 2 minutes on Google, you could have found this stuff, and answered your own questions. Instead, you want to spread the mis-information as widely as possible.Mr. Kerry Meet the Press 1971 said:
You just can't combine two different quotes, from two different interviews into one thought. Plain and simple that is lying. Of course, if you are auditioning for a job with FOX, you're doing a great job.
Umm, those aren't two different interviews. They were from the same interview, the same show, the same date. But I just want a good yes or no answer here: Did he or did he not do these things:
1 - shootings in free fire zones.
2 - harrassment and interdiction fire
3 - search and destroy missions
4 - burning of villages
And if he did, and he thought they were so wrong, why did he do them?
1 - shootings in free fire zones.
2 - harrassment and interdiction fire
3 - search and destroy missions
4 - burning of villages
And if he did, and he thought they were so wrong, why did he do them?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Did you read the transcripts? I posted them for you to use. I cited the sources. They ARE different statements, from different dates.deadhand31 said:
- Meet the Press interview = April 18, 1971
- Senate Foreign Relations statement = April 22, 1971
Please, eat your Wheaties.Mr. Kerry on Meet the Press said:
But let's take a closer look at your earlier post:
So, are you asking about what Mr. Kerry did .. or what he said in the 'Winter Soldiers' statement? Now, are you going to apologize for lying about what you claimed Mr. Kerry did in war?deadhand31 said:
Now, I want a simple yes or now answer:
Did George Bush abandon his million dollar flight training while serving in the Texas Air National Guard?
I will admit, I misread the source, and the first paragraph was not in the same interview.
However, even if he burned villages down with permission, it's HIS FAULT. "Just following orders" is the way out for cowards and spineless jellyfish. The nazis had permission from their government to gas jews. However, I will condemn any nazi that herded the jews into the gas chamber, and any nazi that threw the zyklon-b into the gas chamber. They are spineless cowards who deserve to be condemned. Consequently, I will condemn any veteran that intentionally burned down a village, and did any of the atrocities that Kerry described.
As for Bush abandoning his training... let's set up a scenario...
A company in the 1970s pays for a guy to learn the COBOL programming langauge. They invest time and money in him to learn COBOL. So he becomes a COBOL wizard. However, later on, they move away from COBOL, and he decides not maintain his COBOL certification, since he's not going to be using COBOL in the future anyway.
If you think that man abandoned his company's investment in him, then by that definition, it would be abandonment. However, if you think that the guy really couldn't have made use of it, and it's not his fault that COBOL went obselete, then you really can't blame Bush.
However, even if he burned villages down with permission, it's HIS FAULT. "Just following orders" is the way out for cowards and spineless jellyfish. The nazis had permission from their government to gas jews. However, I will condemn any nazi that herded the jews into the gas chamber, and any nazi that threw the zyklon-b into the gas chamber. They are spineless cowards who deserve to be condemned. Consequently, I will condemn any veteran that intentionally burned down a village, and did any of the atrocities that Kerry described.
As for Bush abandoning his training... let's set up a scenario...
A company in the 1970s pays for a guy to learn the COBOL programming langauge. They invest time and money in him to learn COBOL. So he becomes a COBOL wizard. However, later on, they move away from COBOL, and he decides not maintain his COBOL certification, since he's not going to be using COBOL in the future anyway.
If you think that man abandoned his company's investment in him, then by that definition, it would be abandonment. However, if you think that the guy really couldn't have made use of it, and it's not his fault that COBOL went obselete, then you really can't blame Bush.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Nothing here surprises me ...deadhand31 said:
You were wrong about the quotes. And a rabid Bush support is angry about Kerry's actions. And what has been your stance on Donald Rumsfeld and Abu Ghraib?
And then, you demand a 'Yes' or 'No' answer from me ... but then want to play a scenario when the same is asked of you.
Lt. Bush did not just abandon his post, he did so when such training was required. The Texas Air National Guard was placed on alert for possible sneak attacks while Bush was dodging his duty. According to your scenario .... COBOL was still very much in demand when Bush was missing. Lt. Bush also agreed to perform his duties for 6 years, but when he got tired of it, he just left.
Your problem is that you can not engage your brain. You want to blindly follow Bush because Sean Hannity tells you to (how do you think I know why your quotes were wrong).
Face it .. you are wrong.
You know, I don't have problem with people who are conservative, or even Republican, when that take that position based on their principles. My best friend has a Bush Cheney sticker on the back of his jeep. But you, sound just like talk radio. .... just keep screaming the lies long enough and maybe someone will believe you.
Good Grief
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
However, even if he burned villages down with permission, it's HIS FAULT. "Just following orders" is the way out for cowards and spineless jellyfish.
Then the Swift Boat Veterans for truth are indeed cowards and spineless jellyfish (the latter of which is a redundancy), and Kerry's atonement by maligning such practices is to be commended, correct?
We must recognize that sanctioned village burning is everyone's fault throughout the entire chain of command. Those that issue the illegal order are to blame as well as the ones torching it. Note that NOBODY was ever held responsible for burning people's homes during the Viet Nam war.
Consequently, I will condemn any veteran that intentionally burned down a village, and did any of the atrocities that Kerry described.
Get hot on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, then. They did it.
Burning villages was routine. Bombing them, shelling them, and napalming them was as well. Here's more testimony before Congress from a Marine officer who served in Viet Nam (remember Kerry wasn't the only one):
"One happened on my mother’s birthday, October 27, 1966, northwest of the Chu Lai perimeter, at a village called Duc Pho. It was a large village complex. A sniper killed a staff sergeant, so the skipper pulled us back and then ordered nape [Napalm] on the village itself. “Just napalm the hell out of it.” When we went in later, after the fires burned down, there were many, many bodies of old women and men. But I think the worst was thirty dead children who had been laid out for us to see by the survivors, who got the hell out of there before we got in. They laid these children out for us to see in one courtyard, and from being completely — just their bodies mutilated, to some of these kids looking like they’d just been sunburned, all of them were dead, all of them were very young — boys and girls both.
Another time we destroyed two entire villages — which was a month earlier than that. One of our old men, a man who had been around for six months, got hit by a sniper. The battalion went into a frenzy and destroyed these two villages in the Pineapple Forest, which was southwest of Tam Ky about ten miles. Everything living died. It was just — it was mad, it was insane. Everything died and burned, and there was nothing left, nothing left of those two villages.
The general trend in Vietnam at that time that I was there, for the entire year, if you received incoming rounds, sniper rounds from a village, one or two or three, you called in artillery strikes on that village, you napalmed that village; whether it was artillery or air, whichever was the closest. And this was indiscriminate and this was usual."
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/vietnam-nviuswcv-19701201.html
The quote from Viet Nam goes thus: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Regards,
Steve
Then the Swift Boat Veterans for truth are indeed cowards and spineless jellyfish (the latter of which is a redundancy), and Kerry's atonement by maligning such practices is to be commended, correct?
We must recognize that sanctioned village burning is everyone's fault throughout the entire chain of command. Those that issue the illegal order are to blame as well as the ones torching it. Note that NOBODY was ever held responsible for burning people's homes during the Viet Nam war.
Consequently, I will condemn any veteran that intentionally burned down a village, and did any of the atrocities that Kerry described.
Get hot on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, then. They did it.
Burning villages was routine. Bombing them, shelling them, and napalming them was as well. Here's more testimony before Congress from a Marine officer who served in Viet Nam (remember Kerry wasn't the only one):
"One happened on my mother’s birthday, October 27, 1966, northwest of the Chu Lai perimeter, at a village called Duc Pho. It was a large village complex. A sniper killed a staff sergeant, so the skipper pulled us back and then ordered nape [Napalm] on the village itself. “Just napalm the hell out of it.” When we went in later, after the fires burned down, there were many, many bodies of old women and men. But I think the worst was thirty dead children who had been laid out for us to see by the survivors, who got the hell out of there before we got in. They laid these children out for us to see in one courtyard, and from being completely — just their bodies mutilated, to some of these kids looking like they’d just been sunburned, all of them were dead, all of them were very young — boys and girls both.
Another time we destroyed two entire villages — which was a month earlier than that. One of our old men, a man who had been around for six months, got hit by a sniper. The battalion went into a frenzy and destroyed these two villages in the Pineapple Forest, which was southwest of Tam Ky about ten miles. Everything living died. It was just — it was mad, it was insane. Everything died and burned, and there was nothing left, nothing left of those two villages.
The general trend in Vietnam at that time that I was there, for the entire year, if you received incoming rounds, sniper rounds from a village, one or two or three, you called in artillery strikes on that village, you napalmed that village; whether it was artillery or air, whichever was the closest. And this was indiscriminate and this was usual."
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/vietnam-nviuswcv-19701201.html
The quote from Viet Nam goes thus: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Regards,
Steve
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Good to know that "deadhand," agrees that we should be prosecuting any U.S. soldier, as well as their commanders, who engage in war crimes. Good to know, too, that he feels they bear the moral responsibility for what they've done--which is what John Kerry said, explicitly.
I would very much like to read his explanation of why this should NOT apply to, say, Gen. William Westmoreland, folks like Robert MacNamara and Henry Kissinger, to say nothing of the soldiers and commanders responsible for events such as shooting down an Iranian airliner for no good reason, blowing up a baby girl in Libya, strafing a wedding in Iraq, and torturing prisoners.
I'd also be interested to read the moral justification for trashing the Constitution and habeas corpus in assorted "detention camps." Especially with the kids we've been holding in them.
I would very much like to read his explanation of why this should NOT apply to, say, Gen. William Westmoreland, folks like Robert MacNamara and Henry Kissinger, to say nothing of the soldiers and commanders responsible for events such as shooting down an Iranian airliner for no good reason, blowing up a baby girl in Libya, strafing a wedding in Iraq, and torturing prisoners.
I'd also be interested to read the moral justification for trashing the Constitution and habeas corpus in assorted "detention camps." Especially with the kids we've been holding in them.
Similar threads
