General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2178568

    Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

    Locked

    by jdclyde ·

    [b]Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself.[/b]

    On “Face the Nation”, Sunday December 4th, 2005, the Senator took to that airwaves accusing the US military of acts of terrorism against “kids and children, you know, women” and that it is the Iraqies that should be terrorising them instead.

    [i]”And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not…

    [b]SCHIEFFER:[/b] Yeah.

    [b]Sen. KERRY:[/b] …Iraqis should be doing that.”
    (end of page 4, beginning of page 5)[/i]

    This is the man that was ALMOST President of the most powerful Country in the world? How is that for a scary though? And to think we MAY run again in 2008?

    Read the interview if you didn’t see it on TV before responding. Would hate to see people accusing anyone else of taking things out of context.

    Do you think Sen. John Kerry is way out of line and should apologyze to the US forces, or is he stating something that is true but a hard pill to swollow?

    Full transcript here in PDF format.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3126245

      It’s nothing new

      by master3bs ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      He’s been doing that kind of thing since Vietnam.

      And what about Howard Dean saying that we could not win? What does that do to the morale of the troops? What does it do to the morale of the Iraqi terrorists?

      • #3130301

        This should be sedition

        by castorm3 ·

        In reply to It’s nothing new

        Kerry and Dean are abhorrent. We need to read the laws pertaining to sedition because these two should be brought up on charges. Kerry escaped once but should not escape a second time. I’m really astonished at how stupid they both are and how far they’ve made it in their respective careers. I’m not being mean, I’m serious. It’s shocking just how inarticulate they are when they are not spouting sound bites. I welcome a rigorous debate of ideas, but the opposition party today is just a cesspool. Very poor representatives of the party of Scoop Jackson, Jack Kennedy, Pat Moynihan, etc.

        • #3130281

          Last of the decent Democrats

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to This should be sedition

          Those men you named were the last of the now almost-extinct breed of decent Democrats, who may have been liberal in some ways, but still loved their country and stood up for it. Joseph Lieberman is the one of the few prominent Democrats that I still respect and is still worthy of honor.

        • #3124448

          If Joe L. ran for Prez vs. John McCain..

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Last of the decent Democrats

          I would hang a chad next to the (D) candidate.

          I still haven’t forgiven McCain for killing the McDonnell Douglas Tomohawk plant in Titusville, FL.

          If I were the Republican Party Chair, I’d offer Howard Dean McCain in trade for Joe L. and throw in a first round draft pick next season.

          Even where we disagree, at least I respect Joe L. because he believes in what he says. There isn’t enough of that in Washington these days….

          What the man lacks in charisma he more than makes up for in integrity.

        • #3120888

          Can’t win an election

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to If Joe L. ran for Prez vs. John McCain..

          Because as Pres Clinton showed us, it is a popularity contest. The “average” voter won’t get behing Liberman as was shown in the Dem primary last time around. Not to menion, as much as it blows my mind, there are still people that worry if someone is Jewish or not before voting for them.

          “Joe-mentum” is going no where at a presidential level.

        • #3124441

          Sedition – definition

          by mirrormirror ·

          In reply to This should be sedition

          I agree!

          From http://www.thelawencyclopedia.com/term/sedition

          “n. the federal crime of advocacy of insurrection against the government or support for an enemy of the nation during time of war, by speeches, publications and organization. Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy. Sedition is a lesser crime than “treason,” which requires actual betrayal of the government, or “espionage.” Espionage involves spying on the government, trading state secrets (particularly military) to another country (even a friendly nation), or sabotaging governmental facilities, equipment or suppliers of the government, like an aircraft factory. During U.S. participation in World War II (1941-1945) several leaders of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization, were tried and convicted of sedition for actively interfering with the war effort. Since freedom of speech, press and assembly are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and because treason and espionage charges can be made for overt acts against the nation’s security, sedition charges are rare.”

          Text of the Sedition Act..

          “Section 3.

          Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service…”

          Sounds like sedition to me.

          It saddens me that anyone in the US military will ultimately be the ones to pay for these types of statements. You and I know that these types of statements get broadcast on Al Jazerra and used by all of the America Haters. What good can it possibly do for our country for someone in our government to say things like this when our military are laying their lives on the line. Take out the Dem or Republican, pro-war or ant-war, pro-Bush or Anit-Bush agendas and feelings and REALLY look at what he said. It does the United States NO GOOD. I’m not saying Kerry is un-American, I’m saying Kerry is stupid. Dean is right there with him.

          When will the right time be to say things like this??? When we are not actively engaging terrorists anymore. Now is not the time!

    • #3126232

      Of course he should be ashamed

      by jdmercha ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      After all he is in politics.

      From the Greek Poli, meaning many, and tic meaning blood-sucking insect.

    • #3126214

      This is true Kerry

      by road-dog ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      He did the same thing after Viet Nam, accusing his fellow servicemen of atrocities in order to ensure his own political advancement.

      This man has no shame. To ask it of him is to ask for something the man cannot offer.

      Personally, I think Howard Dean has surpassed Kerry in outrageousness. But then he’s well known to be a nutjob. Putting him in charge of the DNC was Carl Rove’s masterstroke, if you believe that he’s the penultimate puppeteer that the Democrats try to paint him as.

      Kerry ‘s statements are a calculated political position. He’s wrong, and I wouldn’t worry about him in 2006. His words will hang over his head like the proverbial albatross. He’s reached his peak, politically.

    • #3126196

      I didn’t get terrorist

      by antuck ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      When I read this, I don’t get the idea he is calling the troops terrorists. More I read the terror part being that the military is in someones house and this causes terror. I know if in a war time situation and the military is going through my house it would cause some terror. Especially if the military is from the invading country.

      But hey I still don’t know the real reason were are in Iraq. So maybe I’m wrong in here.

      • #3126178

        Re-read it without pre-conceived notions

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to I didn’t get terrorist

        Forget being Anti-Bush, Anti-Iraq, or any other forms of Anti.

        Forget being Pro-Bush, Pro-Iraq, or any other forms of Pro.

        Start fresh and take it for what it is.

        First, the majority of the Iraqi citizens do NOT think of us as an invading country. The majority may not want us to stay around much longer, but they know they are better off now than they were under Saddam.

        As for his statement standing on its own though, it can’t. Even without laughing at his mis-speaking (people LOVE it when Bush does this.) it comes down to one simple thing.

        Do YOU believe in your heart that our soldiers are terrorizing the Iraqi civilians?

        If you DO believe that we are, would it then be acceptable if it was Iraqis that were performing the terrorizing of Iraqi civilians instead?

        A terrorist is someone who inflicts terror. If our soldiers are going around inflicting terror on [b]innocent civilians[/b] then they would be terrorists, right?

        He used that word on purpose, you can bet the farm on that.

        How about him blasting the administration for not doing the withdrawl of the 20,000 troops like he thinks it should happen, only to find out that is already the stated plan of the administration?

        Can he make mistakes or is he without flaw? Was this one of the mistakes or not?

        Who benifits from this statement of his? Does the military personel get helped by being accused of terrorizing children and women, as well as violating their religious beliefs (whatever that is, he doesn’t clarify on that point and the interviewer let him have a pass on it).

        Does this help The Administration? No.

        Does this help the Democratic party? Only to show how extreme the fringe side has gotten, causing the true main stream democrats to distance themselves from them even more.

        Politically, this is GREAT for the Republican party.

        Have you read Lebermans recent letter about the withdrawl that was refered to in this interview?

        • #3130134

          No preconception

          by antuck ·

          In reply to Re-read it without pre-conceived notions

          My reading that was without any preconceived notions. No Pro\anti – Bush, no Pro\Anti – Iraq, no Pro\Anti anything. My thoughts were if a military were coming into my house it would cause terror. Why are they here? what are they going to do? are they after me or someone in my house? This is what I read it to be. Causing a panic.

          Personally I think the words terror, terrorism, terrorists are being way over used. It keeps the fear factor planted in peoples heads.

          If the US were occupied by an opposing military and I saw tanks and soldiers walking around with automatic weapons, this would cause terror. Does this mean all militaries are terrorists?

          You can also bet your a$$ he used the word terror on purpose. Much like the current administration countinuously uses the word terror. It invokes fear, and if people are afraid they will follow who ever promises them the road to a safe place.

          I did think his comment about the withdrawal of 20K troops was odd since it was stated that was part of the plan. Although, that was the first time I had heard they were talking about withdrawing 20K troops. I guess will see after Dec 15.

          Yes he does make mistakes, much like all politicains when they open there mouths.

          Again, I didn’t take his statement to mean he was calling the troops terrorists. Just what I mentioned at the begining.

        • #3130119

          double talk

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to No preconception

          doing something that causes this “terror” does not make you a terrorist.

          Turning around and sanctioning someone else to do the same action that is causing the “terror”, is sanctioning terror.

          And the citizens KNOW why the army is there, looking for the REAL terrorists. Which you well know too.

        • #3129884

          Triple talk

          by donniebnyc ·

          In reply to double talk

          “And the citizens KNOW why the army is there, looking for the REAL terrorists.”

          This citizen KNOWS that the REAL terrorists are regrouping in Afganistan while the REAL terrorist’s leader (Bin Laden, remember him?) laughs at us from his undisclosed location. How did this happen, you may ask?

          It happened because our fearless leaders pulled OUT of Afganistan before the job was DONE. I live in NYC. I watched the towers fall from my roof. As far as I was concerned, we should have NUKED Afganistan until Bin Laden was a confirmed KILL. Bush had my support for that and I didn’t even vote for him.

          Instead of doing the job we needed him to do, he turned his back on us, yes us, and went running into Iraq with a “plan” devised by incompetents. I will never forgive him for that.

          As I write this, more than 2000 young Americans lay dead. When will ditto heads like you understand how stupid and needless this is? Perhaps you will see the light when the number of American war dead exceeds the number killed on 9/11.

          My children ride the subway every day. I do not feel safer today than I did on 9/12. I feel LESS safe. It must be wonderful to sit in Lansing, Michigan supporting Cowboy George and his idiot posse as they bomb Iraq and torture suspects until a democracy magically appears. Your fellow citizens in cities like New York and Washington do not have that luxury.

        • #3124741

          Support of who?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Triple talk

          By saying it is wrong to call out troops terrorists is supporting “cowboy george”?

          If you have a grip with GWB, fine and dandy.

          That in NO WAY changes the facts of what [b]I[/b] had said here against what Sen John Kerry has done and IS doing.

          Rationalize it or excuse it away if you want, but it doesn’t make it right. Trying to distract from the point doesn’t make it right either.

          And we are still in Afganistan. Had we “nuked” them, there would be NO “confirmed” kills. Haven’t you ever seen what a Nuke does? Oh, and what about Afgan civilains? Colateral damage? No. I know you did not mean the Nuke part so don’t worry about defending that.

          Don’t excuse one persons bad behavior with anothers. If you have a very specific complaint, feel free to start a discussion on that complaint with the unbiased supporting documentation to back up the validity of your claim (like I have done here).

          My Aunt is about five blocks from you, and I understand your point a view very well. It just has nothing to do with justifying what Kerry is doing against our troops.

        • #3124671

          A calmer reply

          by donniebnyc ·

          In reply to Support of who?

          I was responding to one statement you made that I quoted. And yes, if you think we are in Iraq chasing the REAL 9/11 terrorists then you are either sadly uninformed or a mindless supporter of Cowboy George. Of course, I admit I may have misjudged you.

          I know we are still in Afganistan. But as you said, my complaints are off topic and belong in a different thread. And thank you for realizing my reference to nukes was hyperbole.

          I have just read the entire transcript. First, let me say I am no fan of John Kerry and I hope he does not run again. However, I do not believe that he purposely called American troops terrorists. Despite the fact that Kerry wasn’t a C student, I cannot believe he is stupid enough to call our troops terrorists and then think he can run for president. Your willingness to jump to this conclusion tells me that you may want to reflect on your preconceptions and biases.

          Kerry was using this interview to attack the administration’s execution of the war. Given the fact that Bush and company have screwed up everything they’ve touched, I believe Kerry was saying we need to question the plans they have for our troops in Iraq. He was trying to point out in his usual obtuse way that the administration has treated the troops badly — not supplying them, giving them an impossible task, etc. He was also responding to the president’s speeches that amount to little more than “Trust me.” Everything we were told leading up to this war was either wrong or a lie. Seriously questioning every decision this president makes seems like a good idea to me.

          If you really think Kerry feels that our troops are terrorists, then I have nothing more to say. You are a lost cause.

        • #3124649

          Lost cause

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Support of who?

          Well, it has been four days since he said this. He as not stepped up and clerified anything that someone taking him at face value would hear and understand.

          He was clear that our soldiers were terrorizing women and children AND violating their religous beliefs.

          If you know of a statement or interview he has done since then to either clerify or applogize, please link to it.

          A simple “I miss spoke” or “That was not my intention” from him would be good enough for me. If he does, I will come back in here and retract what I have said. Fair enough?

        • #3129838

          And that’s the point

          by antuck ·

          In reply to double talk

          “doing something that causes this “terror” does not make you a terrorist.”

          I see Kerrys comments as exactly what you said. He is not calling the troops terrorists. But I’m sure that when going through someones house it does cause terror (painic). I see what he is saying that we DO NEED TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. Let Iraq handle there problem.

          We had no business going into Iraq. Seriously tell me how Saddam was so different then 1991? And when did Iraq ever attack the US? Remember it was Bin Ladin and his idiots that were responsible for the attacks on the towers.

        • #3124740

          Ever hear of the “no-fly-zone”?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And that’s the point

          He has been shooting at our troops all along and has even shot down unmanned drones.

          What is different? Nothing.

          The question isn’t why now, but why so long to wait?

        • #3129996

          What?

          by shifty78 ·

          In reply to Re-read it without pre-conceived notions

          The Iraqi civillians don’t see the USA as an invading country? How on earth would you know?
          I have a friend out in Basra working in a charitable capacity and this is not the picture she sees. And anyway, regardless of how the Iraqi’s see it the USA and my own country, the UK, both illegally went to war to dispose of a leader we didn’t like. I really, really hate Bush and don’t agree with any of his foreign policy. Does that then make it ok for me to enter the USA and take him out? Or is it one rule for the USA/UK and another for everyone else? I feel sorry for the soldiers of both our countries who have been forced into this horrible situation by egotistical, greedy, stupid fools.

        • #3124751

          Say what again?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to What?

          I heard people spill that drivel saying “USA and UK went to war illegally” and still don’t know what law was violated. The US Congress and the UK Parliament both approved going to war against Saddam Hussein to liberate Iraq, and remove the threat to world peace he was. Since Congress and Parliament approved the action, it is therefore perfectly legal. The USA and allies came as liberators, and those I know in Iraq tell me that the majority of Iraqis see the coalition forces as liberators. Saddam Hussein is now on trial for his atrocities instead of formenting terrorism and threatening his neighbors and own citizens with chemical warfare. Yes, there were WMDs, Saddam Hussein used Mustard Gas against the Kurds. He just conveniently got rid of them in the months leading up to the war, because he saw it coming. I would not be surprised if he sent the WMDs to Syria.

          I pity you for the hate you feel for those who are defending our freedom and fighting the terrorists. You do not deserve to benefit from their sacrifice with that attitude you have, but you do anyway.

        • #3124733

          So you think

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to What?

          it is acceptable for John Kerry to make statements like this that only serve to make the soldiers look bad to the world?

          What would you say about someone making wild-eyed statements against the soldiers of the UK militarty? Take it a step further and they intentionally chose words that ONLY serve to inflame and do not accurately describe the situation?

        • #3130426

          Response to Tom

          by shifty78 ·

          In reply to So you think

          I don’t think its acceptable for anyone to make statements that make innocent soldiers look bad. (except for the scumbags taking pics of themselves abusing naked prisoners etc). Like I said, I feel sorry for the soldiers forced into a horrible situation like this. I’m not really sure what Tom means by ‘I heard people spill that drivel saying “USA and UK went to war illegally” and still don’t know what war was violated’. How do you violate a war??? If you mean what law was violated then as Kofi Annan says “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.” What don’t you understand about this? The USA or the UK for that matter should not be above International law. Especially with a right wing, fundamentalist moron like Bush in charge. If you seriously believe we should be led into wars like this by a guy who believes he is doing ‘what God told him to do’ then you in my opinion are no better than the Muslim fundamentalist nutters who support suicide bombers and suchlike. I have never argued that Saddam didn’t needed to be gotten rid off but I don’t think we’ve done ourselves any favours by basing our reasons for going to war on a student’s thesis. By going to war on what was a LIE and by further trying to cover up this dishonesty we (USA and UK) have succeeded only in polarising opinion within our own countries and giving terrorist harbouring countries even more ‘reason’ to attack us. What about the 45 minute threat? Did Saddam manage to move all his WMDs to Syria in less than an hour? I doubt it.
          To summarise, I have nothing whatsoever against the vast majority of soldiers from either the USA or the UK or anywhere else for that matter. My problem is with the self serving liars who send these guys to die and the blinkered fools like you who blindly follow them.

        • #3130294

          Just what I thought

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Response to Tom

          Just as I suspected, the “illegal” action referred to “International Law”, a nebulous concept at the best. What Kofi Annan says is not important, he is a toady of the socialists and left wingers. The only “International Law” that is relevant is treaties and agreements, and none were violated by the action to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, Saddam Hussein violated the cease fire agreement by kicking the inspectors out of Iraq. Where do you get the “45 minute threat”? Saddam had months to move the WMDs out of Iraq, the months that led up to the war, where Saddam was given more than enough opportunity to let the inspectors back in but did not. “International Law” is conveniently used by those who oppose fighting oppressors and terrorists, it seems.

          You show more of your irrational hatred by calling Bush a “moron”. He may be “right-wing” but the problem is that he is not right-wing enough in that he has allowed the socialist nanny state to expand instead of contract. He may be “fundamentalist”, if by that you mean he is a faithful Christian, but that should be considered a good thing.

          As far as going to war as a “LIE”, there is no evidence, other than that trumped up by the enemies of Bush and Blair. There was evidence that there was WMDs in Iraq before the inspectors were pulled out, Saddam just moved them. You are actually one of the “blinkered fools” that blindly follow the left wing media that has an axe to grind.

          As far as the war supposedly creating terrorists, that is total BS. Those who hated the USA and the West (such as Al-Zarqawi and the Al-Qaeda organization) already did before the war, and would have attacked anyway, it would be outside of Iraq instead.

          Bush and Blair are heroes and should be honored as such for their efforts to defend freedom and fight terrorism.

        • #3130235

          What Liberals don’t seem to understand

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Just what I thought

          The job of the Weapons Inspectors was not to spend over ten years playing a shell game.

          They were there for one reason, to witness and document Saddam dismanteling ALL of his WMD, some that he had already used in the past.

          It is a very stupid or dishonest person to step up and say “weapon inspections were working”.

          For years, they were denied access.

          How many times were they thrown completely out of the country?

        • #3130233

          Bush a hero???

          by antuck ·

          In reply to Just what I thought

          For what? You mentioned for their efforts to defend freedom and fight terrorism. Really, How come Bin ladin is still free? I had thought that Bin Ladin was the one responsible for the terrorist attack on the towers. Or did the left wing media lie about that and in reality it was Saddam?

          I keep hearing people get upset about when Bush is called a liar. Well when has he told the truth? He made such a big case of going to war with Iraq. Yet the reasons he gave were false. Should we say he made false allegations, or he lied? I guess it depends on how people like to hear things.

          Going to war in Iraq has not stopped terrorism nor will it. There are other countries, Iran, North korea, Syria (if that is where the WMD really went) China and more countries in that region that are of great concern.

          Bush a hero. Again for what?

        • #3130206

          Reply To: Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

          by shifty78 ·

          In reply to Just what I thought

          ‘International law, a nebulous concept at best’ -Does this mean you think the UK/USA should be allowed to set the agenda for the rest of the world to follow? And you wonder why people argue with that? The UK/USA don’t agree with it so lets just make our own rules and stuff anyone else who doesn’t agree with us. Incidentally, its always puzzled me how someone whose brother disenfranchised so many minorities to allow him to become president the first time around has the gall to sanction thousands of deaths around the world in the name of democracy. What a joke! ‘What Kofi Annan says is not important’ – Well in my opinion what Bush says is even less so.

          Tony Blair went on the tv news over here and lied to the British public by stating that Saddam had weapons with which he could attack us within 45 minutes. There has never, ever been any evidence of this. Also the vast majority of the British public were against sending our troops to war but this made no difference to Tony Blair. Is this an example of the kind democracy we are so generously exporting around the world?

          I certainly don’t oppose fighting oppressors and terrorists. Exactly why I disagree with pretty much everything Bush stands for.

          “He may be “fundamentalist”, if by that you mean he is a faithful Christian, but that should be considered a good thing” – why should this be considered a better thing than being a faithful Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Jedi for that matter? Lets face it – nobody from any faith can prove any of it is true and they use their blind faith to excuse any number of crimes. Just like Bush.
          Maybe I’d have more respect for him if he was able to string a sentence together.

          And I don’t hate the USA. In fact, I lived and worked there for two years and had a wonderful time and made some very good friends. I think its a wonderful country with a lot of great people and lots to offer the world. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with with its despot leader. Except now it does doesn’t it? ‘If you’re not with us, you’re against us’ he said (or something very similar). So much for free speech.

        • #3124473

          My dear Shifty78

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Just what I thought

          Your sources do you a dis-service and make you look pretty silly.

          It has been shown that “disenfranchised so many minorities” never happened and is yet another lie spewed over and over until people believe it.

          Several newspapers, as well as people like Jessie Jackson went over ALL the ballots with a fine tooth comb after everything was said and done LOOKING for something to rub Bush’s nose in and found nothing. So the whole “stole the election” was just stupid people repeating what other stupid people were saying. A shame it made its way all the way over to the UK.

          International law. Who exactly wrote this law, and under what authority, and will enforce that law how? The UN AND Kofi Annan has been shown to be corrupt and was looking out for his own interests, NOT the worlds interests, not to mention covering for his equally corrupt son. This is the person to tell us what is right and wrong? What charges has Annan filed against the US and the UK And the other nations that went into Iraq?

          You agree Saddam should be taken out, just not by Bush?

          As for Bush and his religion, he never said he was taking Bush out because God told him to take Saddam out. Please provide an unbiased source that shows Bush was following Gods marching orders.

          Also, provide documentation showing more than an opinion that Bush and Blair lied rather than being wrong. Again, not from wingnuts at moveon.org, but legal documented proof. Not a he-said-she-said witch hunt.

          Difference between a Christian man of God and a Funamentalist Muslim? A Christian man of God does not believe in killing all the non-believers. how is that for a difference?

          With us or against us. This is aimed directly at countries that harbor terrorists KNOWINGLY. There isn’t a middle ground on that. If you support the terrorists and allow them to use your country as a haven as well as training grounds then you are an enemy to the rest of the free world. You can have all the free speech you want, but as soon as you hide and protect a terrorist it isn’t a matter of speech anymore.

          For us, or against us. Right on.

        • #3130284

          Please tell me

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to Response to Tom

          What LIE are you refering to?

        • #3129903

          I just love the irony

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Re-read it without pre-conceived notions

          They try and justify a statement using a dictionary definition of a term, rather than its common usage. This, coming from a group who has named themselves using a word whose dictionary definition is the polar opposite of their political belief, is BEYOND belief 🙂

      • #3129963

        Reason? How about exterminating terrorists?

        by raleighrealtor ·

        In reply to I didn’t get terrorist

        Until every terrorist is wiped off the face of the planet, there will be recurrances of what happened in New York on September 11, 2001. And if you think for one moment that Saddam is not a supporter of terrorism, especially against the US and Israel, then you have your head buried so far in the sand that you will never see sunlight. Terrorism has to be dealt with summarily and swiftly . . . and it’s much more preferable to do it where it is than in the streets of America. Folks who wonder why we are in the middle east conducting this war are blind to two important facts: 1.) militant Islamics hate the Western way of life and 2.) they hate Americans and will kill them when and where they can.

        • #3124653

          Reply To: Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

          by hitoweruk ·

          In reply to Reason? How about exterminating terrorists?

          Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! You forgot number 3. They didn’t hate Americans until you stuck your noses into Iraq, in what is now clearly, an unjustified invasion NOT an excercise in anti-terrorism! You are right, Saddam is a supporter of terrorism, there is no doubt about that. He has ruled iraq with fear and human rights abuses for years but, let’s be frank here, Al Queda links into Iraq have not been as obvious as links into Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries. Are you proposing to invade them in the name of anti-terrorism as well in your vain attempts to wipe out world terrorism? How many times does it need to be said; Terrorists are not militarily precise armies, they are ordinary (but extreme) groups who will stop at nothing for their cause. They will never lose the “war” just as much as the world will never win it because it is not a proper war. We need negotiation in place; we need to understand others cultures and respect them, but most of all, we need to understand why they hate western civilisatrion so much! No one in their right might would disgaree with you that terrorism is an atrocity that needs wiping out, but you cannot be naive enough to think that it can be removed “summarily and swiftly”? These people are cowards; they are faceless thugs. They will never be a visible enemy. They don’t share our values for human life and they are everywhere. Terrorists are in the streets of London and on the streets of New York. They are already there with you in the US as they are here with us in the UK.

        • #3124646

          Negotiation?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Reply To: Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

          with people that you have already admitted [i]”don’t share our values for human life”[/i].

          The extremists are looking to make what is called a “Muslim super State”, and eventually globalization of the radical extremists way of life.

          You can not reason with an insane person. It is crazy of you to think you can.

          And no, you can not use the cop-out of blaming Bush for this. This has been going on for decades and decades.

        • #3130287

          Negotiation?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Reply To: Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

          These terrorists do not see reason and cannot be negotiated with, they want to see the end of Western Democracy and Capitalism. I understand that the UK was able to negotiate peace with the IRA after years of conflict, but Al-Qaeda is not the IRA. The IRA could be reasoned with to join the political process instead of engaging in terrorism, but Al-Qaeda will not see the light of reason. Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda hated the USA before the war, they are now concentrating their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war did not create terrorists, that is a feeble attempt to justify their actions, it seems.

          I do agree that it will be a long struggle against them, that we may not ever wipe them out completely, that they are cowards and faceless thugs. However, we can do whatever we can to reduce their numbers, attack them wherever they can be found, instead of waiting for them to attack. It will be a long struggle, but to give up and give in would be much worse. True, terrorists have attacked outside of Iraq and Afghanistan after 9-11, including London, Madrid, Indonesia, and other places, but these attacks would be more frequent and stronger all over the world if they were not concentrating in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war has concentrated the terrorists, making it easier to find them and destroy them.

          Disclaimer: I am in no way an IRA supporter, and considered the actions that the UK took against them to be completely justified. I am just glad that they saw reason and put down their arms and negotiate with Ireland, the Ulster Protestants, and the UK, that it would be better for everyone involved to try to settle things peacefully.

        • #3130276

          Ummm

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to Reply To: Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

          “They didn’t hate Americans until you stuck your noses into Iraq,”

          I think you’ll find that they have hated the US and the UK after we supported the establishment of Israel.

          Before that you will will find that they have zero tolerance for non-muslims. (Keep in mind we’re talking about the Muslim extermists.)

        • #3127300

          No not having that

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Reason? How about exterminating terrorists?

          You want to kick ’em in the nuts, because you don’t like them fine, because they don’t like you, fine. Don’t try and justify it with this sort of thing though.
          The UK has supported terrorists, so has the US, course we called them freedom fighters, so we could stay on the side of the righteous.

          You can’t beat terrorism by going around sticking guns in peoples faces, you’ve got to take away the reason for the conflict. Difficult to impossible I know, but much more likely to succeed than invading the rest of the planet.

        • #3121491

          The reason?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No not having that

          The “reason” is the mere existence of the parties. Ultimately one or the other must be destroyed. It is the way huimanity has always been, and will always be. There’s nothing really to do except… choose a side.

        • #3121266

          Not having that either

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to The reason?

          The reason is ignorance always has been always will be.
          What side, one wants me to kneel to poverty igorance and Allah, the other to penury, ignorance and God. F***’em both.
          I’ve been poor, the choice of God, Allah or the Jungle god Umbumweh doesn’t impingeon my conscience, but no way an I doing homage to some twat benefitting from keeping me ignorant.

    • #3126175

      Not only is it bad what he says about US troops

      by montgomery gator ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      Not only is it bad what he is saying here, accusing US troops of unproved acts of terrorism, he is saying the Iraqi forces should be doing it instead, at least that is what his reply sounds like. So, why would it be OK, according to Kerry, for the Iraqi army to do this stuff, but not the US forces?

      Kerry is going back to his treasonous accusations he did during the “Winter Soldier” hearings of bad-mouthing our forces in the field with unsubstantiated charges of atrocities.

      Kerry should apologize for this statement and his “Genghis Khan” statement he made during the Vietnam War.

    • #3130146

      Terrorists

      by mjd420nova ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      Terrorists have families too, and should they
      hide among them, then steps must be talen to root them out, at what ever costs must be
      undertaken. In this country, if a criminal is hiding at home or anywhere, do we knock??
      Indeed we do, and VERY loudly too. Why is
      this any different over there?

    • #3130086

      Naivety

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      One sending a polite note requesting an appointment for a raid might be self defeating.

      From the accounts I’ve read US and UK forces are kicking doors in and taking names, however expecting an Iraqi to be happy about several blokes with guns smashing their way into his house and running round shouting might make us as naive as the senator.

      The stupidest thing he said though is iraqis (police?) should be doing it. So terrorising women and kids is OK if you are from the same country?. Man’s a complete twonk.

      • #3130085

        Where is NeilB when we need him?

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Naivety

        What pray tell, is a “twonk”? I’m sure Kerry is one, but I have no idea what it means!

        • #3130048

          “twonk”

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Where is NeilB when we need him?

          It’s another regional version of “idiot”. I’ve only ever heard it used by Brummies but it must stretch further north.

          You can find it in my lexicon between “twocker” and “twunt”.

          I think that Tony is doing this on purpose!

          Supplied free by Neil’s Translation Services despite the fact that he’s up to his eyeballs in a SAN reorganisation.

        • #3124732

          A tribute

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “twonk”

          to Neil’s Translation Services, for actions above and beyond the call of duty!

          So, exactly where would a “Yank” find this “lexicon” so that future words of puzzlement can be looked up?

          Not to mention, it makes it easier for me to get away with insulting people if I can find innocent sounding words that are bad bad bad! ]:)

        • #3130430

          Oh all right then

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to A tribute

    • #3130051

      Now imagine if a Republican said something similar

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      The press gives this scumbag a free pass but they are all too ready to hang the any Republicans…

    • #3130050

      Of course.

      by stan20 ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      Kerry has sided with America’s enemies in every confilct during his adult life. Why would anyone trust him to defend the country when everything he has done is the exact opposite?

      He should get down on his knees and apologize to every member of the US Armed Forces, past and present, and retire from public life.

      I wonder if any democrat will condem his remarks, or those of Dean or Durbin. Or any of the others of their ilk.

      • #3124831

        WOW!

        by prolific0ne ·

        In reply to Of course.

        I had to read all of the replies before I made my own, so here goes… I can’t tell from reading if any of the respondents have served in the military, but I have. I am middle of the road politically and a registered Independant so I hold BOTH sides accountable for their public statements. I saw the Kerry interview, (I dozed off at times, he’s boring) and I agreed with a lot he said.
        The things missing in this current debate, as well as most debates on the Iraq War issue are:
        1. Few in this debate recognize the concepts of truisms or universality when it comes to diplomacy.
        2. Most immediately take a partisan side and fail to see any merit in an opposing view.
        3. Name calling and parroted talking points replace research, fact and comprehention.
        4. It is American to disagree, both with your government or individuals, if you think they’re wrong.
        5. Voicing of opposition to the gov’t doesn’t make me “unAmerican”. Saying I should leave the country because of it, is.

        I’ll conclude with point number 1, but I have to preface even that. America should NOT sit idly by and allow itself to be attacked for any reason. Period. We retain the right of self-protection, regardless of the provocation. ( or lack of it) Having said that, if our aim is to combat terrorism around the world by punishing and attacking nations that harbor and aid terrorist organizations and individuals, would Chile, Haiti, Sudan, Saudi Arabia or Honduras be justified in attempting to occupy Washington DC because we wont extradite individuals who commited terrorist acts in THEIR countries? THAT is the concept of universality. All things apply to everyone equally. THEY don’t HATE us because of our western way of life. They hate that our government has troops on Holy land and that we support the state-sanctioned terror of Israel against Palestine.
        I support our troops by sending them things I know they need. I spend my own money, which helps the economy. I also want the safe return of my brothers in arms. If all you do to support the troops is repeat Republican rhetoric and brand ANY opposition to the government as anti-American, then you do a diservice to the men and women fighting and dying to protect your right to do so.

        • #3124726

          Voicing opposition

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to WOW!

          Saying American soldiers are terrorizing women and children AND violating their religions beliefs is just an “opposing view” of the government?

          Turning around and saying this same terrorizing activity should be done by the Iraqis is just an “opposing view”

          Where is the “universality” in that?

        • #3124641

          Reply To: Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to WOW!

          “4. It is American to disagree, both with your government or individuals, if you think they’re wrong.”

          But one should consider restraint when doing so publicly may give comfort and/or motivation to America’s enemies.

        • #3130300

          Yes and no

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Reply To: Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

          It isn’t American to disagree, it is American to be ABLE to disagree.

          Too many partasians hide behind that little difference and will disagree with any and everything Bush says not because it is wrong, but because that is politics as usual.

          You have a RIGHT to be able to disagree but you have a responsiblity to be honest and consider your actions.

          Kerry has not down this, and neither have the people that have hijacked the Democratic party. Many Democrats aren’t taken seriously because there are so many raving lunitics that make the whole party look like a bunch of wingnuts. Once you compare someone like Bush with someone like Hitler, you have blown any crediblity you would have had otherwise as well as show your complete lack of knowledge of history. Only a “twit” would say such a thing, and only a “twonk” would agree with it. (I think I got those right)

        • #3120893

          Agreed.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yes and no

          Many people don’t realize that every “right” comes along with an associated “responsibility”.

      • #3124730

        Your a funny guy!

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Of course.

        As long as it is against Bush and the current administration, there is a free pass on all such bad behavior.

        Yet another reason MANY MANY MANY “progressive liberals” disgust me.

        When a Republican says something stupid like this, they are done. Wasn’t too long ago at Stroms Bday party a Republican ended his political life with a single misspoke comment.

        Yet Kerry and Kennedy can do no wrong and say no wrong.

        Pathetic.

      • #3124728

        Don’t agree with what he said, but

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Of course.

        you’re giving the guy credibility with statements like
        ‘sided with america’s enemies all his adult life’.

        So he went to Vietnam when he was a kid or he was fighting for the other side ?

        Obviously not true, therefore if you are lying, he’s telling the truth ?

        Seems to be an outbreak of self harm (shot self in foot) going round.

        • #3124656

          Siding with America’s enemies

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Don’t agree with what he said, but

          does not mean he took up a gun and fought against US forces.

          It means he advocates for the other side everytime, and undermines the US side.

          This is not the first time he intentionally lied or distorted reality.

          His testamony in front of Congress (about Nam) was originally that he personally witnessed the attrocities. When he was questioned why he did nothing to stop the attrocities it changed to stories he was told and he was relating. It then came out that none of the stories were even true. All much more serious crimes than what they are now going after “scooter” libby over.

          Funny that you can’t BUY a copy of his book. good thing I have it on pdf.

        • #3124638

          But is it legal to share it

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Siding with America’s enemies

          on P2P networks? 🙂

        • #3130230

          UNBELIEVABLE

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to But is it legal to share it

          It is available on Amazon USED for $95 US.

          p2p? probably not. And not knowing email addresses, I couldn’t even do that….

          The NEW Soldier, not Winter Soldier. It was BASED on that idea. (oops) But a mistake is alright if your man enough to step up and face AND correct it. I have done both. B-)

        • #3124546

          Its sad but trye.

          by stan20 ·

          In reply to Don’t agree with what he said, but

          ‘sided with america’s enemies all his adult life’.

          As soon as he got back from Nam he did the following:

          1. Lied about atrocities that he said American soldiers committed. Repeatedly. Even though if he had actually witnessed any, it washis duty, as an officer, to report any such atrocities. He even said he had committed some, but later changed his stories. His statements, before congress, were used by North Viet Nam in their propaganda broadcasts.

          2. He went to France and met with the North Vietnamese, even though it was illegal for him to do so while still an active member of the US armed forces.

          3. He joined the most rabid anti-war group he could find, while still in the military, and did what he could to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

          And thats just the start.

        • #3130411

          Let me get this straight

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Its sad but trye.

          He went to war for his country, led his fellow country men into battle. Risked his life for his country. But he sided with america’s enemies because he didn’t agree with the reasons (political ones at that) for the war?.

          I’ve got far more time for Kerry on that front than the people who initiated the war and then sent him to die in it.

        • #3130386

          We sometimes don’t agree

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Let me get this straight

          with the course of action our bosses take or propose, but we don’t publicly criticize them because of it (not if we want to keep our jobs anyway). Especially when that criticism gives the competition (enemy) an edge.

          In any earlier conflict than Vietnam, he would have been court-martialed and probably executed.

          BTW, wars are always for political reasons. Even “religious” ones.

        • #3130227

          Well that was an interesting

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to We sometimes don’t agree

          sidelight on democracy in the land of the free. You are allowed to die for your country and you will die if you disagree with why you are allowed to die for it.

          Saying that the UK is no better, we arrest 87 year old political dissenters under the anti-terrorism act and prosecute young students for reading out the names of our fallen in public.

          Just remember this short of crap might shut up people who disagree with the goverment you agree with, but it will also muzzle you when you don’t agree with the government.

          You have as much freedom as everyone else, take away theirs, you take away yours.

        • #3120883

          It’s not taking away freedom.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Well that was an interesting

          I am not advocating a removal of the right to disagree, nor the right to voice that disagreement. I am just pointing out that a person is responsible for the consequences of voicing that disagreement.

          You do know what ‘responsible’ means, don’t you?

          If I yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and the rush to exit the building kills someone, I am responsible for their death.

        • #3197242

          What was that crack for ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Well that was an interesting

          My left nut has met more reposnsibilities than any politician I’ve ever heard of.
          I expect Kerry to take any responsibility for a reduction in enthusiasm for the war in Iraq. I expect the same from Bush as well.
          Criticising the war effort has always been seen as counter productive, how Kerry’s foolish remarks can be seen to be doing more damage, than the constant security failures, injustice, pain, degradation and malfeasance that were involved before he made them I fail to see though. Anyone, anywhere in the world says Guantanamo or Abhu Graiv or Extreme Rendition or WMD, they do you the cause for the war in Iraq far more damage than this pratt.

        • #3197238

          Reply To: Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Well that was an interesting

          I don’t see a crack.

        • #3197148

          Responsibility if you know what that means.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Well that was an interesting

          Crack has many uses in colloquial english, this one was in the context of abuse, insult etc.
          I’m not that thin skinned I just wondered why you though it was necessary to throw that in.

          It seemed like a, I refuted my own argument, I’ll call him names sort of thing to me.

          Sort of like, in the pursuit of liberty, freedom and justice we’ll lock people up without trial and avoid breaking our own laws by doing it in a another country sort of thing ?

          Or we do not torture our prisoners, we just fly them to places with a reputation for overly-zealous interrogation.

          If you see what I’m saying.

          We’ve been badly let down in the world, after various high profile cases civil and military we can’t even stand on our national honour, because as much as we might give a damn, far too many people are wiping their arses on it.

          No point in throwing bricks about anymore, the mote in someone else’s eye will have to stay there for a bit. A considerable amount of housekeeping is required before we earn more than fear and contempt on the world stage again. You want to start with Kerry, fine, don’t stop there though.

        • #3197046

          I see.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Well that was an interesting

          I see now how it could be taken as offense and I apologize. I did not intend to offend but to emphasize, and chose a phrase poorly.

          Too many people throw around words like “freedom” and “rights” without understanding that these concepts do not and cannot stand alone. They are always accompanied by a “responsibility” to try to use that right or freedom without infringing on a right or freedom of someone else.

          I surely have the right to flail my fists wildly about, but the instant one of them connects with some poor fellow’s jaw, there are going to be consequences for which I am going to be held responsible.

          Words can have just as much power. Most places I’ve been have laws on the books regarding inciting a riot, and, telling or asking someone else to commit a crime is itself a crime in most places. On the other side of the coin, many jurisdictions have “intense or continuing provocation” as an affirmative defense against an assault charge. I believe at least one jurisdiction calls it the “fighting words doctrine”.

          Again, I am sorry for my poor choice of words.

        • #3197802

          A graceful apology,

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Well that was an interesting

          there’s hope left for the world yet.
          Was watching newsnight (UK current affairs) program last night. Next Democrat presidential nominee (Robert Mcgovern ?) was on. He was much more erudite than Kerry, the two main points he was trying to score off the ‘Bush administration’ was
          The burnt bridges and lowering of resepect for the US amongst it’s allies after the ‘My way or the highway’ policies.
          The other one he was hitting on was how even rumours of policies like extreme rendition, undermined the US’s campaign for democracy and freedom in the world. I know a lot of you guys don’t like democrats, but this guy was looking like a dangerous one, certainly he chose his words more carefully than Kerry and managed to string them together to make a sensible statement.

        • #3127444

          I have no problem with “real” Democrats,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Well that was an interesting

          On the other hand, this current bunch I wouldn’t call Democrats, but rather “Anti-Republicans” and I have always been leery of people who try to prop themselves up by trying to tear other people down. The Republicans of today act more like the Democrats I grew up with than current Democrats do. I don’t always agree with Bush either, but I know that he’s doing what he believes is right, and not for the purpose of sticking it to the Democrats.

        • #3130267

          more flawed logic

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to Let me get this straight

          “He went to war for his country, led his fellow country men into battle. Risked his life for his country. But he sided with america’s enemies because he didn’t agree with the reasons (political ones at that) for the war?.”

          This could well describe another American hero – Benedict Arnold.

        • #3130229

          Had to look him up

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to more flawed logic

          Chap seems to have taken policy disagreement a bit further than calling his own side names. In fact based on a glance, he’s seems to be a nasty rotten traitor who sold out his country for personal gain. So a similar comparison might be Adolf Hitler and George Bush as they both went around invading countrys.
          I’m not making that comparison, it’s as valid as Kerry and Arnold though.

        • #3130268

          Flawed logic

          by jdmercha ·

          In reply to Don’t agree with what he said, but

          “Obviously not true, therefore if you are lying, he’s telling the truth ?”

          I say the sky is green. You say the sky is purple. I’m lying, so the sky is most definately purple.

        • #3130237

          What’s logic got to do with it ?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Flawed logic

          If the two choices you are offered are purple or green and it’s not green ….

          Name’s Hopkinson, not Kerry and not Bush, nor is it Blair or Cameron !

          Proved my argument anyway. Didn’t like the point I was making therefore I must be talking crap.

    • #3130173

      I don’t get it

      by jck ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      What’s wrong with someone expressing that Iraqies should be performing military and police duties in their own country?

      Last I heard, you backed the right to free speech, jdclyde.

      I think it more pitiful that Bush is allowing, through whatever you want to call it…mishandling…ineptness…stupidity…naiveity, the chance that the United States armed forces will run out of Reserve and Guard military because of the rule that they can only be deployed for a maximum of 24 months in a 60 month period.

      Nice to know he’s running our country short of military to save another country.

      Poor project planning…that’s what most executives would call that in the business world. Open ended budget, no timeline, no milestones, and no schedule.

      Bush’s administrative tactics would get him fired for incompetence in the business world. Oh wait…he did get fired in the business world…and bankrupted 2 companies.

      Guess that’s why he’s a politician. The one job that if you smile a lot and don’t divulge things…and you can get up the ladder quick.

      Sorry…I’m full of hate today. Tough crap, if you don’t like it.

      • #3124486

        What Kerry said

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to I don’t get it

        From the way I interpret it, Kerry is accusing American soldiers of terrorising Iraqi citizens. He says that is not appropriate, but it is OK for the Iraqi soldiers terrorize Iraqis. So, why would it be OK for Iraqi soldiers to terrorize people, but not American soldiers?

        John Kerry may have the right to say these things, but I have the right to call what he says wrong, misguided, and playing into our enemies’ hands. Kerry should not be prosecuted in the court room for what he said, but he should be called out and “prosecuted” in the court of public opinion.

        The way I see it, it is wrong for either American or Iraqi soldiers to terrorize Iraqi citizens. But it is also wrong, and playing into the hands of our terrorist enemies (and the enemies of or Iraqi allies) by making unfounded claims that American and Iraqi forces are committing acts of terror. They are there to defend the freedom of Iraq and defeat the terrorists that are trying to drag Iraq into anarchy after it was liberated from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

        George W Bush seems inept to you only because you have bought into the left wing propaganda of certain media outlets.

        You have the right to be “full of hate” and misguided if you want to, also. 🙂

        • #3124460

          A well measured response

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to What Kerry said

          Hit on every point, without making it a personal attack on the points.

          I don’t recall saying Kerry doesn’t have freedom of speech anywhere.

          But if you say things that are disgraceful, then yes you should be ashamed of it.

          He should be ashamed of himself, as well as each and everyone that feels what he said is just peachs and cream.

      • #3124457

        Too bad your hateful mood

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to I don’t get it

        is only directed along your normal biases.

        [i]”What’s wrong with someone expressing that Iraqies should be performing military and police duties in their own country?

        Last I heard, you backed the right to free speech, jdclyde.”[/i]

        It is HOW he is intentionally describing this as terrorizing women and childred as well as claiming they are violating their religious beliefs. Can you say the words “Inflamitory”?

        And after making this inflamitory statement as if they are doing something terrible, to say it would be acceptable for Iraqies to be doing this terrible thing? That is just pathetic of him to say this, and pathetic of you to diminish it and rationalize it away.

        Then your typical ploy of redirection. Sorry buckwheat, but Bush isn’t the topic here. John Kerry saying our troops are terrorizing kids is the topic. You what to go on about the administration? Go for it, here or in another discussion dealing with just that. But don’t try to excuse bad behaviour with bad bahaviour.

        • #3120915

          keep twisting

          by jck ·

          In reply to Too bad your hateful mood

          First of all, it is “terrorizing” when someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night…whether it’s a burglar, police, or military. It isn’t “terrorism”, in the respect you’re trying to twist it into with relation to the terroristic insurgency.

          Just remember, he didn’t call them terrorists. He labelled their actions of hunting down insurgents based on soft intelligence as “terrorizing kids and children”.

          Second, part of the devout practice of the women of the Muslim faith is that men outside their family do not see their uncovered face. Whether you know it or not, Islamic women don’t sleep in a burka. So if U.S. military are busting into homes in the middle of the night and seeing these women without their traditionally worn clothing, that is but one religious custom they are breaking irreverently in the process.

          Whether or not it is anymore right for Iraqi soldiers to do it is another story. But, it would be self-governance and a choice of their own to make of what is “crossing the line”.

          Third, I think you need to read the whole of that interview transcript. It is clear they are discussing Iraqi self-reliance and how having the United States military do the police actions that “27 million Iraqis” should be able to do for themselves is building a dependence on our military rather than themselves.

          It had nothing to do with Kerry labelling anyone terrorists or belittling the United States military. It had to do with taking all those Americans out of harm’s way and letting the Iraqis take care of themselves.

          Therefore, your remarks on Kerry’s statement were no less inflamatory than Kerry’s statement on the United States military.

          You tried to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

          Nice try.

          As for normal biases, this is also an example of how you are as much, if not more, biased than myself in trying to twist the word “terrorizing” as a term which is exclusively applicative as a descriptor of extremist, religious terrorism activity, against someone from the Democratic party who was using it to express that it is the right of those Iraqis to be performing those police actions and that Iraqis should become self-reliant rather than depend on the United States to police themselves.

          As for bad behavior, I again point the man was speaking his mind. If that is bad behavior, then you are a really, really bad boy jdclyde 😀

        • #3120878

          Twisting? Getting dizzy

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to keep twisting

          Hmm, I should not confuse terrorizing someone with being a terrorist? What is it that makes someone a terrorist? OH OH! I KNOW! PICK ME, PICK ME!

          Yes jd?

          Ok, a terrorist is someone that terrorizes other people.

          Very good jd. You get a blue star next to your name for the day!

          It amazes me the pass you give to Kerry on this. Violation of religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable if done by Iraqies? Please stop saying such stupid things…..

          And yes, I read the entire trasncript before starting this discussion.

          As I said before, he has freedom of speech and can speak his mind. But when he intentionally choses inflamitory words to describe our military and portray them in the worst light possible (always) then I have a problem with that.

          Anything I have ever said here or anywhere else will not worsen a global situation, and make someone pick up a bomb and go kill someone. But you will not be honest enough to admit that not all free speech is good speech.

          The funny part is, after everything that Sen John Kerry has done, you still back him up like this yet your quick to run off about how you feel Bush lied to everyone. Too bad their is proof that Kerry lied, but not any that Bush did.

          Yeah, there goes MY bias again…. (yeah right)

          All you have done is made excuses and condoned bad behavior.

        • #3197211

          here we go again

          by jck ·

          In reply to Twisting? Getting dizzy

          Gotta try and use the tags…gets hard to read without em…here it goes.

          [i]Hmm, I should not confuse terrorizing someone with being a terrorist? What is it that makes someone a terrorist? OH OH! I KNOW! PICK ME, PICK ME!

          Yes jd? [/i]

          You know, you should seek help for talking to yourself like that. 😉

          [i]Ok, a terrorist is someone that terrorizes other people.

          Very good jd. You get a blue star next to your name for the day! [/i]

          But you get an F for failing to understand that terrorizing does not exclusively fall within the capability of terrorists. A rapist terrorizes women. A molester terrorizes kids. A murderer terrorizes humans. Looking in the mirror terrorizes me. :^O

          [i]It amazes me the pass you give to Kerry on this. Violation of religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable if done by Iraqies? Please stop saying such stupid things…..

          And yes, I read the entire trasncript before starting this discussion.[/i]

          Firstly…I never said it was okay…I said that it was self-governance…and, it is their right to be self-governing and choose if their government can break or uphold/respect religious traditions *within their own borders*. I never said it was okay. Don’t say I did.

          It amazes me you take things out of context too.

          So I suppose since it’s okay to take things out of context, I guess when Bush told those college kids he spoke to that they could be a screw-off in school and still become President of the United states like him, that he was telling our college students not to try and go out and snort coke like he did and commit an act of drunk driving like he did?

          [i]As I said before, he has freedom of speech and can speak his mind. But when he intentionally choses inflamitory words to describe our military and portray them in the worst light possible (always) then I have a problem with that.[/i]

          Like Republicans haven’t said inflamatory things? Maybe you should go read some Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney statements. Or, do you need me to go look those up for you?

          And…I think you are sorely short on understanding what “worst light possible” means…because if he had said “our troops are nothing but a bunch of terrorist scumbags raping women and killing their husbands”…that’d be a lot worse than him saying they are “terrorizing kids and children” by raiding homes in the middle of the night. Think about that. I think you’re exaggerating the content of his statement.

          [i]Anything I have ever said here or anywhere else will not worsen a global situation, and make someone pick up a bomb and go kill someone. But you will not be honest enough to admit that not all free speech is good speech. [/i]

          Not all free speech is good speech. Dubya is proof of that. “…the American people is with you.” Great speech there.

          Of course, one person can not make another go do something with speech. That person has to do it of their own action. We’re humans, not voice-recognizing command-following robots.

          [i]The funny part is, after everything that Sen John Kerry has done, you still back him up like this yet your quick to run off about how you feel Bush lied to everyone. Too bad their is proof that Kerry lied, but not any that Bush did.[/i]

          Bush didn’t lie? not any proof he did?

          Rather than quote you tons of links, I’ll give you a Canadian one that quotes US and British news sources, official CIA documents, and other things.

          http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html

          Go read some of that info from several credible, reputable sources…then come back and tell me Bush and his staff haven’t been lying about Iraq.

          Forged documents, anyone? Ignore CIA information, anyone?

          [i]All you have done is made excuses and condoned bad behavior.[/i]

          And you back a President who is the poster boy for bad behavior…not just making bad statements. This is a guy who says his past doesn’t matter in relation to his politics. Of course, he picked at John Kerry’s not being able to remember where he was 30 years ago in SE Asia.

          If you don’t believe me, go research his drunk driving record. I believe you’ll find no drunk driving conviction on Senator Kerry’s record.

          Anyways, I’m going to lunch. I have better things to do…like…eat a sandwich.

        • #3197185

          Pathetic

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to here we go again

          Nice unbiased source you sent me to.

          No documentation, and more ranting and raving.

          Waste of my time.

          I thought it would at least be a BBC link or something with at least SOME pretense of credibilty and unbiased aproach to reporting. Should have known better.

          Contine to support (distract from) Kerry by saying how someone else is worse. That always works, right?

        • #3197071

          hahaha

          by jck ·

          In reply to Pathetic

          [i]No documentation, and more ranting and raving.
          [/i]

          No documentation? Are you blind? They quoted speeches, gave dates and events for them…that doesn’t document it? Do you actually need the video clip or something? Do I need to get you a gift certificate to LensCrafters?

          [i]I thought it would at least be a BBC link or something with at least SOME pretense of credibilty and unbiased aproach to reporting. Should have known better.[/i]

          Evidently, you either are trying to yank chain (feigning wanting a real debate of facts), blind as a bat (I’m heading to Lenscrafters if that’s the case for your Christmas present), or you don’t know how to click an HTML link (c’mon man…don’t tell me you can’t do that…).

          These are all links within the page I gave you. Go back and read more carefully…you will find them if you actually read the whole thing. And, one [b]*is*[/b] a BBC link.

          http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

          http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

          http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154574,00.html

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/iraqtonyandthetruth.txt

          And I’m supposed to be the obtuse one here, eh?

          BTW, I’m gettin you a Cheney 2008 sticker made custom…so you can be the first to pledge your allegiance to corporate America. :^O

          good luck…

        • #3197019

          About your “source”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Pathetic

          I love how the page you link is titled “Bush’s lies about WMD’s”. All of the links I had followed when I first went there were all internal links.

          I go back and find all kinds of interesting things. The beheadings were all done by the CIA?
          Racism in Canada?
          Euthanasia Rights? Followed directly by “Suicide, Talking to suicidally depressed people”. (sometimes suicide is good and other times its not?)

          I can’t even begin to discuss my thoughts about the child porn posting there that [b]encourages[/b] hand drawn and CG pics of small children. Did you read it? You won’t like it.

          “It attempted to steal the second largest oil reserves on the planet worth trillions.”

          “It sent thousands of Iraqi children to hideously painful deaths.”

          Do I need to go on?

          I will look at your other links in the morning, but I am done with this “source”.

        • #3197792

          look carefully, jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to Pathetic

          In my reference to that site, I told you it was:

          [i]Rather than quote you tons of links, I’ll give you a Canadian one that quotes US and British news sources, official CIA documents, and other things.[/i]

          I gave you a website that contained credible sources. You went there, looked at the first few screens, and took a first-look stance rather than going through all the information available.

          My original comment on the site was in reference to its links (which are to the BBC, London Times, the CIA website, and a couple others) where it references news sources and official government documents…not all the stuff at the top you hastily judged the site on (even though the site author does provide dates and what the material was from).

          Again, enjoy the sources I pointed you to rather than the site that contained them.

          Anyways…have a good morning. 😀

        • #3197178

          It’s hard to take Islamic custom seriously

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to keep twisting

          Quite frankly, I DO see his statement as inflammatory viewed in conjunction with similarly outrageous statements he’s made in his shameful public life. He could have used a synonym that was much less accusatory had he wanted to, after all,isn’t his command of the english language much better that the President’s?

          He used the verb ‘terrorize’ for a reason. He’s vested his political future in the failure of the US in Iraq and will continue to undercut the success of our efforts even when he must disparage our men in uniform to do so. He is without honor and his statements reflect this.

          As for kicking in door in search of terrorists…

          Funny how Ramadan does’t stop terrorists.If they have no respect for religious custom, we unnecessarily tie our own hands by respecting it.

          When a woman cannot leave the house uncovered, but can be a suicide bomber, you cannot allow Islamic custom to impede the pursuit of terrorists.

          Why would a woman become a martyr anyway? She can get her 70 virgins on any given week-end here in the US at a Star-Trek convention….

        • #3197063

          Where and when

          by jck ·

          In reply to It’s hard to take Islamic custom seriously

          is the next Star Trek convention…I’m gonna see how many girls are there! :^O

          I don’t think his words were what I would have used to phrase it. However, I don’t think his words were at all meant to disparage anything other than the White House’s policy of continuing to foster the dependence of Iraq on our military resources, rather than aggressively implementing their own to do the job in *their* country, according to *their* law and *their* religious observances.

          As for how the White House and Defense Department are running this military action:

          If we should not “play fair” with terrorists, then why are our troops being picked off like crows in a farmer’s pecan field? Why aren’t there hordes of bomb sniffing dogs there being used to detect the devices being carried in on people and in cars to kill others? Why are dogs such as these not being brought in to patrol with the soldiers in an effort to catch the devices in transit, rather than them blowing up at police stations, military checkpoints, and in road-side attacks?

          Personally, I think Kerry understands better than Bush does because he’s actually been in active, deployed service. He can relate to what those men and women are going through and probably sees no point in endangering the lives of our troops when there are 27 Million Iraqis, of which I would think that probably 10 percent are of the age and ability to be trained and put into service doing the job our military is currently performing.

          Surely, we could recruit enough men in Iraq to defend their own country from a few thousand insurgents…couldn’t we?

          And, why has it taken so long to recruit and train a combat fighting force when we train our own men and women in a matter of months, but we’ve been training them about 2 years?

          Something just doesn’t smell right among all this and I don’t everything said by any politician…Democrat or Republican.

        • #3196985

          FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Where and when

          He ran a pretty good war as results show. Not a pre-existing war hero.

          Quite frankly, Kerry’s 7 months and 3 band-aid purple hearts don’t make him an any better military authority than a fighter pilot as President Bush was. The consensus of his fellow “river rats” is that he was a dip$hit back then, too.

          Troops are getting picked off because we are not searching every Iraqi on every street. Now, THAT would be a violation of Islamic custom, patting down their women for explosives.

          Think about what you’re saying. Bomb sniffing dogs can’t keep up with a convoy moving at 50 MPH sniffing every car as they go by. It takes over a year and thousands of dollars to train a bomb dog.

          They change tactics, we change tactics. We catch them placing a bomb, an Apache shoves a hellfire missile up their a$$. The body parts are collected and S-4 figures out what new tricks they’re using. The daily battle continues….

          Look around your neighborhood. If you had explosives, couldn’t you do a lot of damage in spite of all the police in your town? They cannot be everywhere. Now imagine if you had a couple of hundred friends with explosives. That is what exists in Iraq.

          If this is such a simple and easy task, why was the IRA in business so long, in spite of Protestant militants and Brit troops hunting them? Even the much vaunted SAS (COMPLETE badasses in any estimation) unable to stop the bombings and killings?

          Training troops in counterinsurgency ops takes us lots of time and cross-pollination of experience. This takes advantage of a cadre of experienced NCOs to pass along hard-earned lessons to junior troops on an ongoing basis. We have an ongoing cycle of mentoring going on all the time.

          The fledgeling Iraqi defense forces are starting from scratch. There is no hard-core NCO class to pass this vital experience along. The Iraqi army was 2 tiered, Saddam loyalists and draftees. No NCO class to provide institutional continuity.

          Trained and equipped Iraqis will take over in time. To turn things over too early is foolhardy.

          Our troops are doing a difficult and dangerous job. My brother was so close to an IED explosion that he had body parts fly over his head. To have Kerry insulting these honorable and valiant men is a cross we bear for our tolerance of dissent. He has the right to be an a$$, and I have the right to call him what he is.

        • #3197782

          again…I think you’re overexaggerating

          by jck ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          … Kerry’s statement.

          Kerry didn’t call them anything…he didn’t call them “terrorists”…or “dip$hits”…or “a$$eS”… he simply said that what they were doing terrorized kids and children…and that there were Iraqis who should be performing that duty of going into homes.

          And if you don’t think someone crashing in your house in the middle of the night isn’t terrorizing to your kids, then you haven’t had it happen to you.

          Hint: just say no to drugs :^O

          As for putting dogs out to detect bombs:

          Most of the bombings of the Iraqi police stations and recruiting drives and within Baghdad have been by terrorist insurgents who were on foot and detonated their devices. There have been a smaller number that have been detonated from within vehicles, and the majority of those were parked vehicles…not ones travelling 50 mph.

          The dogs would be useful in detecting the explosives before they are detonated and saving military and civilian life.

          And detecting one on a woman wouldn’t mean there would have to be any infringement of their religious belief…it would mean that a man could not search them. We do have female military there who could perform those searches without breaking any religious standard.

          As for Kerry’s service career:

          The 3 band-aid purple hearts were given to him by superiors under military standard for the award…not because Kerry jerked his way into them.

          As for his “river rat” buddies…well, I’ve heard some say he was no good…I’ve heard some say he was a hero…so, I guess whose “river rat” you listen to that makes the difference.

          Again, I think Kerry would know more about being in a live, action-front military role since he went to Vietnam where he was shot at…unlike Bush, who got to stay home near mom and dad in Texas and fly jets.

          Hence, I think he better understands the situations and dangers our military is in better than Bush based on military experience.

          As for why it’s taking so long to train them:

          One of the reasons could be, according to a counterinsurgency expert at Rand:

          [i]”Efforts to train the Iraqi security forces floundered for 18 months after the fall of Mr. Hussein, enabling the insurgency to take root and flourish.” – Nora Bensahel[/i]

          I work with 3 retired military folks, one of which who was in the Marines and involved in special forces ops.

          He told me that you don’t plan to do this kind of thing quick and dirty…and that re-establishing Iraq back to a stable country is measured not in the scale of a couple of years, but more like a couple of [b]decades[/b]. This is a guy who knows what he’s talking about and has been trained in the stuff.

          Yet, the Bush administration keeps hinting at that they have a strategy…they have a plan…yet, you don’t hear the real deal from them…you don’t hear about milestones or goals they will meet…and just keep hearing the same vague, feel-good rhetoric like “things are going well” and “we are making progress”. They keep playing like they’re going to get this done quick and easy and they have it under control.

          Well I got news for ya…this kind of thing is never quick…and it’s never easy. Hence in the meantime, they’re pumping out warm-and-fuzzies and hoping they can cover their a$$ when something comes up they didn’t tell the public about up front.

          Besides…Bush had to hide the facts…do you think if he would have said “We’re going to invade Iraq, oust Hussein and… then we’re going to spend the next 20 years and $1.3 trillion rebuilding their country.” that he’d have been able to convince the American people that it was a “just cause”?

          I think not.

          I’m all for liberating people from the scoundrels of the world and making the planet a peaceful place. However, I think that has been FAR too much “floundering” in the process. We are supposed to be the one remaining “superpower” on the planet, yet we’re botching so many things when it comes to successfully re-establishing the country of Iraq.

          So, who in the end is responsible for that?

          The Bush Administration

        • #3197749

          Bush and his military record

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          .
          People who criticize President Bush for his military experience, and/or make light of how he served, fall into one of two categories. They are either doing it for purely political smear reasons, or they don’t know much about the roll of the ANG in the late 60s and early 70s.

          GWB flew an F-102 fighter interceptor jet, he logged more than 600 hours flying time over his weeks and weekends, and was, along with hundreds of other ANG pilots, the nation’s first line of defense against air attack from the outside. And for those who won’t acknowledge that threat, they don’t know their history or didn’t live at that time.

          I served in the active duty Air Force at about the same time GWB was in the guard. And I, too, was in a position to be involved in the front line of defense for the USA. People have no idea how many thousands of times that a pair of ANG fighter interceptors, including the F-102s from GWB’s duty station, were scrambled to intercept a lone, or even a squadron, of unknown aircraft approaching US air space.

          The southeastern USA was especially busy because of the constant air traffic from Russia to Cuba, many of which were Russian military aircraft being met by Cuban military aircraft, flying into US air space. Those F-102s were, at times, out-gunned and out-manned up there, but they were the first on-site. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if GWB was among those pilots scrambled, and he may have even had the pleasure of looking into the eyes of an enemy pilot flying a faster and more lethal MIG.

          It happened all the time. I saw it happen. I was involved in it happening. Active duty and ANG, working together, to defend the air space of the USA. And believe me, it was a mission that was, and should have been, taken very seriously. The threat was very real.

          GWB did his part. Just like the hundreds of other ANG pilots who were the nation’s first responders. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a foolish and ignorant dolt. And to criticize GWB for doing his part, they’re also criticizing hundreds of others who did the same thing.

        • #3197733

          Believe what you like

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          You can believe the 21 of Kerry’s teammates who are against him or the one who backed him.

          You can believe that Bush chose Air National Guard to be near “mom and dad”. Perhaps you also believe that the thousands of NGs in Iraq are there to be near their parents also.

          Were all those others who had jobs in stategic defense of Conus tyring to be near mom and dad also?

          Your assertion that the primary modus operandi of terrorists is bombing of static targets is simply wrong.

          The IED War in Iraq
          by James Dunnigan
          April 14, 2005
          http://tinyurl.com/8shh7

          Just how deeply into the minutae of the “plan” do you need to be briefed? The plan has always been to clear, hold, and build.

          The plan has always been to establish commerce infrastructure.

          The plan has always been to create an environment in which an electoral process could be created and fostered.

          The plan has always been to create infrastructure to create a higher standard of living for Iraqis.

          To the truly objective observer, these ARE mission objectives with economic, military, and diplomatic components. By any fair estimation, this is bold and honorable.

          You can find information on all this if you care to look and have the courage to have your worldview disputed.

          Get out of the echo chamber man!!!

          BTW, would FDR have gotten the American people on board in WWII if he told everyone that we would be in Germany and Japan 50 years later?

          Did he give the American people a “hedgerow by hedgerow” plan for the war plans?

          To those who will be critical, no amount of detail is enough, no level of success is enough, no amount of evidence is enough.

          I’ve got news for you too; the President said this was going to be a long hard slog. He chose to proceed because he believed that it was the right thing to do. Your “revelation” might be news to some who get their information only from a few sources that echo their own belief system, but it isn’t “news” to me.

          If you understand that this will take 20 years and over a trillion dollars, then how can you say this is floundering? If you plan to raise a child and expect the process to take 20 years, are your efforts “floundering” if the child acts 10 years old 10 years into the process?

          Please post a link to the news story where the President said this would be quick and easy. You can create a false opposing argument and then argue against it all day….. Personally I like life in the real world. Care to join me?

        • #3197725

          Road-Dog – Outstanding message

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          .
          Well said. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

        • #3197715

          Accurately reflect the article you cite!

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          You have a funny way of making your argument. Your bias is laughably apparent as indicated by the point at which you stopped quoting your source material. Had you gone just gone ONE SENTENCE FURTHER, you would have been a little more fair, but that isn’t your objective, is it?

          Allow me to paint a more accurate picture of the article’s assessment of the situation:

          =============================>
          Efforts to train the Iraqi security forces floundered for 18 months after the fall of Mr. Hussein, enabling the insurgency to take root and flourish. Several months ago, the United States made the training effort its top priority, and the early results are promising. Iraqi military and police forces are increasingly conducting joint patrols with U.S. and coalition forces and are starting to build the capacity for independent operations.
          ================================>

          Hmmm. seems to paint a little bit different picture, doesn’t it? Face it, you’re busted. If you want to cite an article that supports your myopic view, at least wear your glasses and interpret it with some amout of intellectual honesty. There are plenty of hacks out there that share your penchant for cherry-picking items that support your biased view. Cite them and at least the casual observer can “consider the source”.

          On a side note, Ms. Bensahel’s bio doesn’t say how much combat experience she got while studying polital science at Stanford. Maybe serving in Vietnam is not a prerequisite for expertise in this venue….. Or is combat experience only relevant when it is attached to an opinion that suits your views?

        • #3127396

          a few points

          by jck ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          Q) how long does it take to realize you’re not doing your job effectively?

          A) Takes the Department of Defense 18 months, evidently.

          Making something your top priority after 18 months of screwing up doesn’t mean it wasn’t a screw-up you made. It’s not a myopic view…it’s realism.

          If you or I did our job wrong for 18 months, we’d be fired for it…and probably long before then.

          ===============

          Q) Did I state that terrorists’ “modus operandi” was “static targets”?

          A) No, I pointed out that most of their human targets had been ones that were static. However, I neither said those were their only or exclusive targets, nor their “modus operandi” (or lone pattern of strategy).

          Terrorists are opportunists. And, static targets are the easiest ones to hit. Therefore, terrorists are going to do what is easiest for them to do the most damage.

          I thought that would be quite obvious for anyone to realize.
          ===============

          Needless to say, being over the flatlands of west Texas is not the same as being shot at by SAMs or AAF over the jungle of Vietnam, let alone being on the ground and trying to avoid the VC.

          Again, I’d like to point out to you, since you can’t seem to distinguish these things:

          -being deployed to Vietnam was being sent into a combat theatre.
          -being deployed to Iraq is being sent into a combat theatre.
          -being deployed to the National Guard airfield near your family home is [b]NOT[/b] being sent into a combat theatre.

          1+1 doesn’t equal 5, bud.

          ===========

          As for Ms. Bensahel’s:

          My point was spot on. The Department of Defense screwed around for 18 months (or as she phrased it “floundered”) before they realized they were making no progress…yet they can tell in 10 weeks if someone is going to make a good soldier or not.

          And, that led to the insurgent terrorists getting dug in (as Jesse Ventura said in Predator) “like an Alabama tick”.

          Nice try there. What they did in the past “several months” does not validate the “floundered” 18 months they wasted.

          That is in the eyes of an expert in counterinsurgency…they took too long…which is what I was pointing out to you by prefacing that quote with this:

          [i]As for why it’s taking so long to train them:

          One of the reasons could be, according to a counterinsurgency expert at Rand:[/i]

          ==========

          Now I’d like to ask one thing of you, road-dog:

          How many guys do you know got stationed during Vietnam on active manuevers stateside with the NG or Reserves within 100 miles of their home?

          It was not chance Dubya got put where he did. Prescott was his grandfather. George was his father. He wouldn’t have been put anywhere else but near his home or there would have been political repercussions.

          He got preferential treatment. That’s obvious. There were others who did too…who got waivers to attend university rather than serve…etc… because of their family status.

          He’s not the only one, but to imply his record is somehow equivalent to Kerry’s active combat record when Bush was flying in a non-combative zone…is daft.

          Plus, it’s kind of funny that many of his papers from the Texas Air National Guard are missing now and no one can find them even though they are considered government service records and no one has been held accountable for it.

        • #3127394

          hey Max

          by jck ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          I’m not discussing things with you…remember? You are not worth my time.

          Have a nice day. :^O

        • #3127351

          how long does it take..

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          for you to realize you aren’t making your point effectively?

          you took issue with our troops being picked off. I pointed out (correctly) that the primary way our troops are attacked is via roadside IED, where bomb dogs are unhelpful.

          Are you aware that in Islamic culture dogs are considered an “unclean” animal? Dealing with cultural hurdles is something that has to be taken into account. Maybe Kerry would like our troops to walk amongst Muslims with dogs, further “terrorizing” Iraqis, so he can further insult our troops.

          As for Dubya’s service in the TANG, think about it this way. The president is the CEO of the company. Joe trooper is the equivalent of working on the loading dock of the company. Does having worked in the loading dock of the company qualify one as the CEO, moreso than someone with a background elswhere in the company? Further, Does the CEO need to know the number of boxes that can be shrinkwrapped on a single pallet? no non sequitur. Your logic doesn’t follow. The Presidency is a “big picture” position.

          No, 1+1 doesn’t =5. too bad (for you) I wasn’t trying to make it so. You are drawing a false connection and I’m calling you on it. Too bad you are so tied up with Bush’s proximity to his family. You might be considered as rational otherwise. BTW, I’m not sure his Dad was in Texas, as he was in the CIA and presumably in DC at the time.

          No, I don’t know anybody in the guard during Vietnam. I DO know that you enlist and join a particular unit. My brother is in the FNG, and his armory is within jogging distance from his house. It is not like the regular army where you can be assigned anywhere.

          His service records were located, remember? Dan Rather found them, with the ink still drying. His drill time has been picked over ad nauseum. Nothing preferential found. Deal with it. Your profound desire for it to be so doesn’t make it so.

          As for taking 18 months… Do you recall when the Iraqi forces were being initially built up? There were desertions, stolen equipment, and numerous incidences where they turned tail and ran when the heat was on. There were incidences of misplaced loyalties. Many were indeed unfit for modern military service. How is this the fault of DOD?

          Of course an armchair General such as yourself would have created the perfect plan and executed it with flawless precision and the Iraqi defense forces would have followed you without reservation, becoming super soldiers overnight. The insurgents would have bunkered down in easily identified fortified positions where they could be dispatched with ease and aplomb.

          Please reread the article. Training was made a “top priority”. This doesn’t mean it was not a priority previously. More emphasis probably was placed at some point, possibly after pacifying the Sunni triangle, if one applies a minimal amount of reasoning. Obviously your bias prohibits you from accurately reading written words and reaching a cogent interpretation. Your filter is so thick that no opposing reality can permeate it.

          Your criticism is symptomatic of myopia. Self-inflicted. You have an opinion and bash reality to fit it. I won’t continue to waste my time, what you’re reading is probably nothing resembling what I’ve typed anyway….

        • #3127323

          Road-Dog – You’re wasting your time trying to reason with jck

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          .
          It simply can’t be done. The guy is scrambled. And I’ve debated the guy into more corners than I can count. He’s in his own little la-la land. Trying to reason with him is no more than an effort in futility. Try bricks. They’re easier to reason with.

        • #3121484

          titles, myopia, and priorities

          by jck ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          [i]”As for Dubya’s service in the TANG, think about it this way. The president is the CEO of the company. Joe trooper is the equivalent of working on the loading dock of the company. Does having worked in the loading dock of the company qualify one as the CEO, moreso than someone with a background elswhere in the company? Further, Does the CEO need to know the number of boxes that can be shrinkwrapped on a single pallet? no non sequitur. Your logic doesn’t follow. The Presidency is a “big picture” position.”[/i]

          Yes, that is very true…and obvious.

          However the President, like a CEO, is responsible for the policies, operation and success (or lack thereof) in setting and overseeing the operations of his organization.

          Knowing that 18 months had past and Iraqis weren’t being trained effectively isn’t a “knowing how many” reasoning. That is a broad analysis that would have been easily noticed by DOD leadership, and would have been inquired of by an effective head of an organization.

          So either he made bad decisions, or he did not get “full briefings” from his subordinate commanders. Either way, he is still fully responsible for the failings. He can’t just take the good and the glory for it when it does happen.

          [i]”you took issue with our troops being picked off. I pointed out (correctly) that the primary way our troops are attacked is via roadside IED, where bomb dogs are unhelpful.”[/i]

          *ALL* IEDs account for 28.7 percent of attacks which lead to deaths of coalition deaths.

          Note: Not *roadside* IEDs alone.

          The DoD calls bombs left in police stations and cafes and in neighborhoods an “IED”, so it’s impossible to tell which were roadside and which were not.

          IEDs have not been brokendown by the DoD into “roadside” and “other”, so I can’t give you specific statistics on what is what without going back and counting all 4 years of deaths up and reading every DoD death report release.

          [i]”No, 1+1 doesn’t =5. too bad (for you) I wasn’t trying to make it so. You are drawing a false connection and I’m calling you on it. Too bad you are so tied up with Bush’s proximity to his family. You might be considered as rational otherwise. BTW, I’m not sure his Dad was in Texas, as he was in the CIA and presumably in DC at the time.”[/i]

          I said family…not just his dad. “mommy and daddy” is a term indicative of being near your home.

          And besides, are you implying that George Herbert Walker Bush wasn’t allowed to go home while working for the CIA? haha

          [i]”As for taking 18 months… Do you recall when the Iraqi forces were being initially built up? There were desertions, stolen equipment, and numerous incidences where they turned tail and ran when the heat was on. There were incidences of misplaced loyalties. Many were indeed unfit for modern military service. How is this the fault of DOD?”[/i]

          Well…you can’t prevent cowardice. That’s true.

          Of course, shouldn’t the DoD be smart enough to station troops to prevent theft of US military assets?.

          As for it happening, still is according to the AP:

          http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13395684.htm

          49 of 209 haven’t returned. Wonder if they’re not paying them enough.

          [i]”Of course an armchair General such as yourself would have created the perfect plan and executed it with flawless precision and the Iraqi defense forces would have followed you without reservation, becoming super soldiers overnight. The insurgents would have bunkered down in easily identified fortified positions where they could be dispatched with ease and aplomb.”[/i]

          Your skepticism is flattering…and again daft.

          I would have done one thing very different in the beginning: Secured the borders.

          We do have hundreds desert-ready attack helicopters equipped with night vision and infrared that would have been more effective in keeping out the initial influx of insurgents (that were crossing the borders in the desert) than ground patrols. And, you can’t tell me a bunch of men scrambling through the desert aren’t easy to pick out on infrared at night.

          As for you not addressing me anymore, that’s fine. I could care less. Just means you’re as intolerant of differing opinion as Maxwell or Dubya.

          I’m just glad you didn’t do like someone else and say that my speaking of Bush’s service in the TANG (not on the level of Kerry’s service in military action) was belittling the entirety of anyone who served in the National Guard.

          But still, you don’t see there are obvious incompetencies that have been let to continue. That is a very lackadaisical stance to take when tens-of-thousands military lives are at stake while the administration meanders through the process.

          oh…and…btw…that Bush quote you wanted?

          President Bush said in a televised address from the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pa., May 24, 2004:

          [i]”Given the recent increase in violence, we’ll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment — 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April. Our nation appreciates their hard work and sacrifice, and they can know that they will be heading home soon. General Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq are constantly assessing the level of troops they need to fulfill the mission. If they need more troops, I will send them. The mission of our forces in Iraq is demanding and dangerous. Our troops are showing exceptional skill and courage. I thank them for their sacrifices and their duty.”[/i]

          Well, that was all good and well as they started moving them back.

          Of course, the DoD then within 90 days re-deployed part of those same men and women of the 1st Armored back to Iraq on July 11, 2004.

          Guess he for got the “…for just a little while.” on the end of “…will be heading home soon.”?

          Guess Bush gave General Abizaid back the 1st Armored even tho they’d just finished better than a year of deployment not 2 months before they were sent back.

          As for the 2nd Light Armored, they got returned to the states and restructured.

          Open, honest truth would be refreshing…not vague language and terms of condition which leaves interpretation open to those who wish to and can/do manipulate the situation.

          *ADDED NOTE*:
          I just communicated by email with a friend whose husband is in Iraq with the US Army. They were told, initially, that it would be a 12 month deployment. It’s been 16 now for his group and have been told they *might* be coming home in 2 months but they’ve been told they might get a *3rd* extension.

          This is just to prove that their “plan” is not meeting “scheduled deadlines”.

          Reminds me of working for a corporation…gotta work overtime for the boss when stuff has been poorly planned.

        • #3121317

          Max…king of the mudslinging

          by jck ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          Of course, this is coming from someone who quoted an expert in astromonical/stellar research for a reference in climatology.

          I also heard Max consulted Stevie Wonder on colour schemes for his new dayroom. :^O

        • #3121279

          jck

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          “How many guys do you know got stationed during Vietnam on active manuevers stateside with the NG or Reserves within 100 miles of their home?”

          I don’t think that question was even well thought out. I’m pretty sure his home wasn’t deliberately built to be within 100 miles of the base. there are millions of homes that aren’t.

          “It was not chance Dubya got put where he did.”

          As I was a little young for Vietnam I can’t speak to that, but I can state that in 1976, I was allowed to choose where I took my training (as long as an opening existed) and I assume permanent station would be the same, within limits. So while you are correct that it wasn’t chance, there is no valid negative connotation that can be logically drawn from that fact. Now if you could prove that there were no openings at the time of his request, that would have meant someone would have to be transferred to make room, and you might have something.

          “Plus, it’s kind of funny that many of his papers from the Texas Air National Guard are missing now and no one can find them even though they are considered government service records and no one has been held accountable for it.”

          It’s funny that in August of 1976, the medical building at Fort Sill, Oklahoma burned down, just when I was getting ready to be transferred, but I didn’t think it was a grand conspiracy designed to make me have to get all my shots retaken!

          Oh, and don’t confuse “not found” with
          “missing”. You obviously don’t know the finer points of government document handling 🙂

        • #3125669

          adunlap

          by jck ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          I work for a government department. I know how we’re required to keep documentation, what we have to keep filed with what agencies, what documents must be submitted to Washington, and what we can or can not throw out.

          Basic rule of thumb for me: don’t throw it out until the director says it can be.

          I’m pretty sure your military medical records were kept in a complex in Virginia as well, assuming you were full-time US Army.

          Having been at Fort Sill in Lawton, Oklahoma, I would assume you were U.S. Army.

          As for Dubya’s records, I just find it out of the ordinary that there were service records from other members of his unit found, but his (which were the ones in question) were nowhere to be “found”.

          Also, I didn’t say his family home was purposefully built out there. But, he got stationed on active maneuvers there which is kind of ironic.

          I’m gonna call a friend of the family who is retired National Guard and ask him about how units were deploy in the NG during Vietnam for active maneuvers. And if he can’t answer my question, I’ll call my mother’s relatives in Texas and see if they know anyone retired from the Texas Air National Guard and can give me definitive answers on how they stationed people.

          Needless to say…when something doesn’t smell right, I don’t take a bite.

        • #3125625

          Not quite believable jck

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          [i]”when something doesn’t smell right, I don’t take a bite.”[/i]

          Yet you have dug your molars deep into the Democratic party and every twisted, hateful, leaching thing they stand for?

          Now go give Kerry the big wet kiss that you seem to think he deserves. ;\

          (can’t you just see the sarcasm dripping from this post?) :p

        • #3126106

          better that it be sarcasm…

          by jck ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          dripping from it than something else…

          hahahahahaha :^O

          “Damn stain…” – Monica Lewinsky

        • #3126040

          About Monica

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          I saw a billboard of her during the last election. It said “I am voting Republican this time. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth last time”.

          too friggen funny!

        • #3125445

          Political ads

          by jck ·

          In reply to FDR – Wartime president, Polio sufferer.

          I saw one like that too on the net years ago…had Donna Rice on it…said:

          “My heart is with Bush, but my bush is with Hart.” :^O

      • #3124204

        In Russia its called,

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to I don’t get it

        toughski shitski.(ain’t that a neat way to get around the censors)Suck back a few Guinnesses; it won’t change sweet FA but will improve your mood. :^O

        [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3120912

          actually

          by jck ·

          In reply to In Russia its called,

          Guinness wasn’t potent enough…

          I drank…er…well…a lot of margaritas this weekend…

          was a mighty fine weekend ]:)

    • #3124475

      Yes this is an illegal war. Anybody still respect the Constitution????

      by dc guy ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      Like most threads, this one has gotten too long. TR should do something about this. Other BBS’s I belong to do not have threads that grow to hundreds of postings in a few days so nobody can possibly keep up with them.

      So forgive me if I’m repeating someone else’s ideas and making this long thread even longer.

      The reason that it’s not legal for our troops to be in Iraq is that it is NOT a war. Congress did not declare war! Congress merely “approved” the President’s unconstituional actions, making themselves a party to an unconstitutional abuse of government power.

      The United States has never declared itself at war with Iraq, just like it didn’t do with North Vietnam or North Korea. All of these little adventures were unconstitutional and the people who were responsible should have been prosecuted.
      There is only one circumstance under which the Commander in Chief is permitted to send troops into a sovereign nation to attack its armed forces and leaders, and that is when Congress has declared war.

      If we didn’t have that Constitutional protection, why heck, every time some bumbling, immature, incoherent, hubris-intoxicated stooge with a few election victories that were bought by his daddy’s rich buddies in the energy industry got into the White House, he could go around arbitarily starting little wars anywhere that might be of benefit to his puppeteers.

      • #3124453

        You must have missed that day in class

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Yes this is an illegal war. Anybody still respect the Constitution????

        The Pres CAN send troops anywhere he wants, anytime he wants for up to 90 days (I believe that is the magic number) without the approval of Congress.

        In this case, he had the full authority of Congress to use whatever force he felt was necessary.

        Unconstituional actions? Please link to the specific section of the Constitution that was violated in going to Iraq with the full blessings of Congress.

        Glad to see that even though your not up on your Constitutional law, your as fair and unbiased as ever.

        [i][b](That was sarcasm boy. You may have heard of it before!) :\[/i][/b]

        As for lengths being restricted, then it wouldn’t be much of a discussion would it? Do we limit the discussion to only the first five that show up? Give each member only 2 chances to posts something? Again, it would not be much of a discussion in an open forum, now would it?

      • #3124293

        Have you read the War Powers Act of 1973?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Yes this is an illegal war. Anybody still respect the Constitution????

        .
        And I mean really read it, in its entirety, not interpreted (loosely or otherwise) by others? And have you read and fully understood every document on which those actions (and presumably your opinion) is based?

        I didn’t think so.

        How can you make a claim such as you did when it’s so painfully obvious that you aren’t in a position to make such a determination. You claim something is illegal, but you haven’t considered the documents on which your very claim is based. Just because YOU say it’s illegal, doesn’t make it so.

        Provide supporting documentation for such a claim, or you should provide a disclaimer that it’s no more that a baseless and emotional outburst. Some people read “opinions” such as yours and consider it fact. And in your case, it’s mere fantasy.

        …..This has been a public service announcement.

      • #3124278

        Legislative Process

        by road-dog ·

        In reply to Yes this is an illegal war. Anybody still respect the Constitution????

        Actions speak much more loudly than words.

        You see, the very same democrats who demagogue the war have an opportunity to “pull the plug” so to speak every time funding legislation comes to a vote. Yet each and every time the war continues to be funded. In other words, they say one thing and do another. They want to “own the position” yet not take any real steps that would cause their “desired” ends to come to pass!

        This indicates (to me anyway) that this is indeed demagoguery rather than a reasoned and heart felt opposition. The left is more interested in political positioning than any other aspect of the debate. I call this cynicism at it’s basest. They are using insult of the troops and outright seditionary statements to erode the war effort for their own political fortunes.

        As for taking on the Constitutional aspects of the debate, perhaps the US should notify the UN that we will no longer act to enforce any UN resolution without a declaration of war. That alone will show the UN to be the empty debating club that it is. Frankly, I’d welcome a position along those lines. I’d like the UN to try to carry any global authority without any teeth.

        • #3124210

          What I would like

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Legislative Process

          is to scrap the UN and start over.

          some rules and ethical standards would be a good place to start.

          And this is just talking about it’s own staff, for starters. After that, then go for the membering countries. You want in the UN, you will adhear to a standard of human rights. Their goes a third of the members now.

        • #3197125

          Human rights would be a thorny issue

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to What I would like

          Our European allies think that we’re a bug violator of human rights. Unfortunately the term “human rights” is a relative term.

          [i]The White House says the United States is the world leader on human rights.

          Spokesman Scott McClellan said the U.S. demonstrates that commitment by “supporting the advance of freedom and democracy” and “supporting those in countries that are having their human rights denied or violated, like North Korea.” He goes on to say the U.S. shows it “by liberating people in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

          But there’s outrage in Europe over reports of secret CIA prisons where terrorism detainees may have been mistreated. Concerning those reports, McClellan said, “The president had made it very clear that we do not torture, he would never condone torture or authorize the use of torture.”

          The administration has refused to address the question of whether it’s operating secret sites that may be illegal under European law, citing the constraints of classified information. [/i]
          Source: http://www.wyff4.com/news/5455467/detail.html?rss=gs&psp=nationalnews

        • #3197033

          Well, this is a simple one.

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Human rights would be a thorny issue

          Each of those nations should search within their borders and should they find prisoners being detained or treated in a way not consistent with local law, then go in and deal with it.

          I suspect that those nations where these prisons “exist” are aware of them and there is some complicity with the “host” government.

          This is a ruse really. Secret prisons MAY exist where prisoners MAY be being mistreated. Then the US is expected to refute this.

          Every journalist and foreign official who is pushing for a confirmation should be asked to provide proof that they have never had sex with a farm animal.

          They have no evidence, so they make the allegation to push their anti-US agenda using a willing press to create a story where none exists.

          They are getting the proverbial cart before the horse. They might want to find something to be outraged about first. Maybe their energies would be better spent saving their outrage for terrorists who have press releases when they torture and kill illegally held prisoners….

        • #3197006

          D’oh!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Well, this is a simple one.

          There was me thinking that the whole idea was that we were [b]better[/b] than the terrorists because we [b]don’t[/b] torture prisoners and we [b]don’t[/b] take photographs of the torture (which doesn’t happen of course) of prisoners.

          At least in the UK we have had the law Lords, the highest stratum of judiciary, declare that the use of evidence extracted by torture – wherever and whenever it was done – is inadmissible in any court.

          Trust me, in this war, there’s enough outrage to go round!

        • #3197701

          Neil, do you really?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to D’oh!

          think that humiliating people is torture?

          If that is the case, then I have people from back in high school that I need to go report, quickly, before they can get away!

          Beating? Yes, that would be torture. Hurting their feelings or even making them fear for their safety is not.

          All put into PROPER perspective when you look at what Saddam did in his prisions, and what goes on today in Castro’s prisions and see what REAL torture is.

          We don’t hear the outrage againsts that though. Funny how that works, huh?

        • #3127406

          JD – I don’t tend to judge us by their standards

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to D’oh!

          I certainly don’t feel that I can use what Saddam Hussein may or may not have done to justify anything that might be done in my name by my country’s representatives. I don’t know too much about Castro so I won’t comment on him.

          As for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, yes, from what I have heard, there’s been torture. I don’t belive that it was necessarily policy to do it but we need to know whether there was tacit approval from them upstairs.

          Can’t help it, mate. You should know by now that I’m an anti-war liberal wimp…

          Never mind. You have a Happy Egg-Nog!

        • #3197004

          I agree in principle, road-dog

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Well, this is a simple one.

          I think those prisons where this tortrure allegedly is taking place is actually in countries that allow such appropriate means of pulling information from terrorist thugs. The issue the Europeans supposedly have is that we used European airports to fly the scoundrels to those countries. I have no problem with yanking out terrorists’ toenails one by one. The problem is being sure the guy really is a terrorist and not a case of mistaken identity. Too often we rely on the guy’s name. Hell, they’re all named Mohammed. Can’t tell them apart by their names.

          It sure would be great if we could fight fire with fire and have press releases when we beat the hell out of terrorists, just like those thugs used to have when they chopped people’s heads off. Thankfully, even terrorists have a few brains and realized that publicizing such a heinous act hurt their astronomically high public opinion in certain parts of the world.

        • #3197016

          Some of *are* a little worried

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Human rights would be a thorny issue

          The problem is, Mark, that you set yourselves up as the example for others to follow. You and JD implicitly assume that a definition of “Human Rights” would come from the US. The term “Human Rights” is indeed relative but by telling the rest of the world how it should be done, you set yourself up to be scrutinised. I don’t think that you’re a “big” violator of human rights but you ain’t whiter than white!

          We look at Guantanamo Bay where your country incarcerated some of my countrymen and charged none of them despite lengthy detention and treatment that [b]we[/b] might define as torture. All ex-detainees were freed within 24hrs of their return to Britain. We wonder what is happening with “Extraordinary Renditions” and how much has been covered up in Abu Graib

          According to British Home office figures, the US has the highest prison population in the world. At the end of 2004 there were 3,218 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,220 per 100,000 for Hispanic males and 463 per 100,000 for white males.

          Sorry, Mark, but something isn’t right.

          Neil

          p.s. Why is Guantanamo in Cuba. I thought that you didn’t like them and that they didn’t like you? By the way, you’re talking to a man who would give Gibraltar back to Spain and probably even Ulster to the Irish…

        • #3197002

          Guantanamo is an existing base

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Some of *are* a little worried

          from the pre-Castro days. I never got assigned there, but the consensus from acquaintances is that aside from the Cuban Snipers, isolation, and mosquitos, it’s a slice of heaven.

          As for the prison population breakdown, take a walk down MLK avenue in any metropolitan area. If you survive, you will know why the numbers shape up as they do.

          As human rights go, detention seems pretty compassionate in comparison to the alternatives available around the world.

          As for definition of human rights; look at the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 29 paragraph (3)

          These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

          http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

          Human rights have their limits, even to the UN, the supposed arbitrary authority.

          Extraordinary crimes require extraordinary responses.

        • #3127361

          Indeed they do.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Guantanamo is an existing base

          Would the american public be really unhappy about people involved in terrorist activities being poked with a sharp stick, I doubt it. Being viewed as a nation of lying hyprocrites has got to be a problem though surely.

          I’m not saying you are liars and hyprocrites but your words ‘Defender of freedom and democracy’ and your deeds lock any suspicious bugger up without trial don’t match up.

          Defenders of America, **** with us and we’ll **** you up, is not a problem though, why hide it, as though is was bad or dishonourable, it isn’t. If your opponent won’t play by the rules, then **** the rules, they were invented to protect you not them. That’s what your doing, if you want respect for it though, make it what you’re are saying as well.
          If we can get GWB to be honest about it maybe poodle Blair will follow him again. We live in hope anyway.

          Strange attitude for a renowned pinko commie left wing faggot tree hugger isn’t it. ?

        • #3196999

          Good comments, Neil

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Some of *are* a little worried

          I understand what you’re saying. I don’t necessarily agree with the U.S.’ go-it-alone “this is how it should be done” policy. And I am not privy to know what is going on in Guantanamo so I cannot even offer much of an opinion on the prisoners there, other than most of those guys were picked up in Afghanistan where they were ostensibly fighting for the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Enough said on that…

          I’m not sure what the demographics of American prisons has to do with human rights violations. Why in the world is the British Home Office compiling statistics about AMERICAN prisons? Wouldn’t the UK be better served if they were doing something about their own seething population of malcontents that set off bombs in subways?

          As far as why we have a military base in Cuba…We like Cubans; it’s only communism that we have a problem with. A base next door to Fidel is a convenient way to keep him in check. Just like we used to have military bases all over Europe to keep the Russian bear out of the homes of you and your friends. 😉

        • #3196987

          Demographics and stuff

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Good comments, Neil

          It’s been widely reported that at least a couple of the UK detainees were visiting family in Pakistan, near the Afghan border, and were kidnapped by Afghanis, shipped over the border and sold to US forces as “al-Qaeda fighters” for a couple of thousand dollars. I can’t say that this is true but I can certainly believe it!

          Like all governments in the world, we collect stuff. How can we know if we’re any good unless we compare and we have a Freedom of Information Act which means I get to see it. As for prisoners, we are well above the median which means that I can’t be smug. The figures for the US actually came from the US government but the Home Office comparison paper just happened to pop up at the top of my google.co.uk search.

          As for “seething” – most of the “suicide bomb fodder” are seething about Iraq. The recruiters and trainers recognised that and 7/7 was the result. Without the Iraq war, I think it was less likely to happen as it did.

          As for “keeping Fidel in check”. Do you have the moral right to do it? You may have some sort of treaty from the 1950s but, when all is said and done, they are a sovereign state even if you don’t like their politics! They’re hardly any danger to you now. To the outside observer it seems quite vindictive – and stupid – to refuse to trade with Cuba when that is the one thing that would bring communism down fastest.

          The Russian Bear. Face it, Mark, it was in your own self-interest too. A totally Russian Europe would have shagged the world economy, including yours, in nothing flat!

          But we’re grateful. Really. We are! :p

          (The French hate you for it, though)

          😀

        • #3196981

          Subway bombers, Fidel and the Russian bear

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Good comments, Neil

          Neil, are you blaming the subway bombers’ crime on the fact that British armed forces are involved in Iraq? You seem like a sensible fella, so surely you aren’t going to blame the US for a crime that British citizens committed against other British citizens?

          As for keeping Fidel in check, I wholeheartedly agree that our policy against Cuba is stupid. Trading and open dialogue would solve a lot of problems if given a chance. I’d be willing to be that every American president since Kennedy has no idea why our policy toward Cuba is as it is. They’re just following what the previous administration did because of events from past history. Personally, I think wily ol’ Fidel is smart enough to knock cross an invisible line in the sand (or at least not get caught doing it) and that has always been a frustrating thorn in the side of the US government. However, we aren’t do anything to impinge on Cuba’s rights as a sovereign state. Since when does having a military base across the border and not trading with a country impinge on their sovereign rights?

          Yep, reining in the Soviet bear was in our self-interest too. But a totally Soviet Europe shagging the world economy? Do you really think so? Look at the economic state of the Eastern bloc countries prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain. You can’t blame that on the quality of people living in those countries. For example, East Germans and West Germans were all the same kind of industrious, hard-working Germans before WWII. So there can be only cause: Soviet rule.

        • #3197819

          July Bombers

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Good comments, Neil

          In no way am I blaming the US for our July bombings. I’m blaming the bombers and, above all, the people who were able to subvert these ordinary guys to the extent that they did what they did. What I do think, though, is that the UK’s involvement in Iraq made it easier for the recruiters and continues to make my country less safe. So far, the “War Against Terror” – at least in its visible manifestations – is a crock of crap.

          Cuba? I don’t really know the history but I still don’t know why there’s a border on the island that cuts off a small portion which is occupied by an unfriendly foreign power. If the roles were reversed and Cuba occupied (ligitimately in their eyes with treaties to prove it) a portion of Florida, you’d be spitting chips of teeth until you got it “back”.

          As for Russia, in no sense was I saying that a totally Soviet Europe would have been good for [b]anybody[/b]. NATO kept the balance.

          Neil

        • #3124206

          It has never made any sense to me………

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to Legislative Process

          That the civilized first nations of the world permit themselves to be jerked around by a bunch of clowns who just staggered out of the bush, vertually, yesterday. They do not adhere to any civilized practices, repress their peoples and commit genocide. Until they start to follow basic rules of common decency and the simplest forms of international law they should not be allowed any position on the international scene and they, perhaps, should be quarantined and driven back into the jungles from which they came. The UN is a study in failure and futility. Any nation which reverts to barbarianism should have its ties severed in all forms and fashion. Profit is an unacceptabe excuse to remain in contact with these types and only encourages the worst excesses of these people. If necessary we can, by force, take our profits and impose the rules of law and civilized decency. The world has gotten too small to be wasting precious time and resources on matters like this. The bleeding heart liberals will tell you we can’t do this but unless we do many more lives will be lost and more time and opportunities will be lost.

          Also we have now reached the point where we should be restricting immigration and limiting our acceptance of refugees. Note: I said restrict not eliminate. We will always need immigration of properly qualified people to enlarge our economies and do the jobs native born people are unwilling to do or take on. It would also be a good time to slash the welfare rolls by cutting the welfare of any capable person who refuses any job regardless of the persons qualifications or the menial level of the job. While we’re at it, the right to vote should be restricted to only those who contribute to society i.e., those who pay taxes. It will never come about but its nice to dream, isn’t it???

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3121177

          I would vote for you

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It has never made any sense to me………

          twice!

          But like you said, it will never happen.

          That is because liberals “feel” this or that, but as jck and dc_guy show, they don’t “THINK”.

          All this feel good crap is why everything is getting worse instead of better.

          Good thing that the top Democrats are listening to the far left wackos who have hijacked the democratic party as well as the ACLU, NAACP, Greenpeace, Siara club, and on and on. They make wingnut statements about hitler and illegal wars blowing any hope at credibilty and sit around wondering why they are ignored and are losing more and more seats in the US government.

          Of course for you to fix this, you would end up declairing martial law. As we have seen in the US , people like Kerry are HOPING that we will lose the war in Iraq (that is already over) because it would hurt the Republican numbers. Anything that is bad for the country is bad for Republicans and thus good for the Democrats. Disgust is more and more the word of the day.

          Of course, we will now hear how they FEEL Bush “LIED” to the world. And how this man they never pass up a chance to say is stupid, “mislead” the nation, as well as all of our allies. Too bad the only time there has EVER been PROOF, it was always fraudulent. I laughed my a$$ off when they stated that the story was true, just the evidence was false. (and kept a straight face)

        • #3121126

          Thanks jd but I could never qualify.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to I would vote for you

          I wasn’t born in the US or in any of its territories and I’m not a US citizen, so unless you are willing to move here and assume citizenship, you’re not likely to get much of a chance.

          If you want to see something truly ignorant and stupid; our wonderfully gallant Prime Minister has just announced he is going to ban all handguns in Canada. BTW the opposition leaders aren’t any better, although they do profess slightly different slants. There is supposed to be a buy back program put in place and rewards for finking on your neighbors who you suspect of having illegal guns. Of course this will only be given out if your accusations prove true and a conviction is obtained. Shades of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. These are the same clowns who instituted a program of compulsory firearms registration which was only to cost a few million but whose costs have escalated beyond $300-$400 million. It has been estimated that over 60% of all firearms in Canada are still unregistered; so much for the success of that program. Wouldn’t it be nice to think that if someone is going to rob you or wants to kill you; he’ll be doing it with a legal gun registered to him. Yeah, right!!!! True brilliance from politicians!!! Oh, BTW this new program is supposedly only going to cost the tax payer something in the region of $638 million. Based on past performance; this one I’ve got to see.

          As for myself; they want my guns??? I’d rather take my chances being judged by twelve than being carried by six. If they want my guns they can come and pry them from my cold dead fingers.
          BTW I highly recommend a little device by L.W. Seecamp in 32 cal. 6 shot clip or 7, which I recommend, if you have one up the spout. No one has yet to make one of these accidently discharge and they do have a somewhat longish take-up and heavy pull. Not much for distance but within 12 feet, the distance of most confrontations, positively devastating, especially when loaded with hollow point Silver Tips, the optimum round which the weapon was designed for. The things can literally lie within the palm of your hand. They are light weight, hammerless, with no rear sights and they aren’t cheap. You can carry one in a pocket and no one would be the wiser. A brace of them with extra clips could see you safely through the midst of a gang war.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3121097

          good backup gun

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Thanks jd but I could never qualify.

          Small, low profile, nothing to hang up on a panic draw. DA only is good for simpicity’s sake.

          I’d really think twice about carrying one illegally if I were you. The “judged by 12 than carried by six” concept is sound in dire circumstances. Unless you reside in a crime ridden area or typically engage in robbery prone business, you are probably more likely to encounter a cop rather than a robber. Your local constabulary and judiciary might decide to make an example of you.

          For this weapon, I’d advise you to find aftermarket grips and/or a magazine that have a finger grip on the floorplate, as the grip is short. Even with smaller caliber and smaller hands, muzzle flip can be a problem and spoil a second shot in a pinch. This is a typical tradeoff when seeking a lower profile. This is standard equipment with Walther PPK and similar offerings.

          Practice periodically with the ammo you will carry with and make sure you can clear malfunctions naturally.

          I recommend doing a set of push-ups immediately before firing at the range to simulate the body’s operation in extreme stress and help you decide if you are really ready to hit a target (even at close range) under duress. You will want to get a feel for handling the weapon with your heart racing and muscles twitching. You also will want to know if your stance and grip tend to pull in any direction…..

          Remember, you gotta hit to survive, and equipment only gets you so far.

        • #3121076

          .

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to good backup gun

          .

        • #3121075

          Couldn’t agree more but …………………….

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to good backup gun

          I’ve carried mine for some time and short of being patted down, it’s never been discovered. My wallet and/or Palm Pilot make bigger bulges and note I did say it wasn’t a hell of a lot of good for accuracy beyond 12 feet. I have managed 3 1/2″ groups at 10 yards and 4 3/4″ at 15 yards on the range but this was with a modified Weaver stance and if you try that kind of crap in an up close situation you’ll end up deader than yesterday’s lunch meat. What you need to do is have the action and trigger worked over by a qualified smith and try lots of finger pointing type shooting for those up close type situations. My normal weapon of choice is a Beretta 92F and I have carried a Glock 17L but the damn things stick out regardless of where or how you carry them but either of those beats hell out of my old sentimental favourite a 1911A Colt carried cocked and locked, as far as concealment is concerned. Nothing like a .45ACP to put a bad guy away, permanently. The Seecamp sits totally concealed within a specially modified pocket and to date no one has picked up on it, not even cops asking for my driver’s license when stopped for a traffic infraction. It might be hard to explain away if caught but it hasn’t happened yet and that’s in a country that throws screaming fits over all firearms never mind handguns.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3120870

          We got a Canuk here

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Thanks jd but I could never qualify.

          for a Governor in Michigan. Sure, she is a terrible goveror, but I would bend her over her desk! ]:)

          Their has also been wild-eyed talk about removing that American by Birth restriction, on the left for her and the right for the Governator.

          don’t see it happening.

          Besides, their is too much red tape and party politics so you would never be allowed to do anything. After all, if you did something good, it would make the “other” party look bad and that just isn’t allowed.

          As for side-arms. Sig P239 357auto. That is my baby! Traded in my Glock 24 40cal for it.

          As for defensive rounds, they have blue ones, I think it is glass or fiberglass rounds? They will tear a person up, but won’t go through a wall and tear someone in your family up IF you were to miss. They also won’t go through the wall and hit your neighbors house.

          Load the clip with a few of those, and finish the clip with some golden sabers or hydroshocks!

          As for registration, that is the first step to taking them away. Just like “down under”.

          The thing that REALLY burns my jets are the ANTI-Gunner scumbags that carry a gun themselves or have body guards that carry a gun. (someone please slap Rosie O’donnal if you ever get a chance)

        • #3197281

          Another world!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to We got a Canuk here

          Seriously, completely and utterly alien this talk of “what gun to use to blow away your neighbourhood burglar”.

          I’m not commenting on the politics or ethics of it – just on the fact that I’ve never had to think about thinking of owning a gun.

          Just occasionally, I really notice the difference…

          Neil 😀

        • #3197195

          Glaser slugs

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to We got a Canuk here

          I think that’s what you’re describing. They are a group of pellets encapsulated in a plastic shroud. The shroud disintegrates on contact and the pellets disperse into the target medium shedding all their inertia over a very short period of time. This maximizes the shock as opposed to the typical bullet that cuts through the target and leaves the exit wound to expend it’s energy elsewhere. (possibly in a bystander or innocent)

          These shells are pretty good and I’d think that these are probably what the sky marshals use, unless there is something better that I’m not aware of.

          I also like the black talons, but they are hard to come by these days. Silvertips and hydra-shocks are solid performers as well. The expansion of the round is key.

          Staggering magazines is a solid concept, keep a couple of jacketed or ball rounds at the bottom of the magazine in case the bad guy finds light cover or thick clothing.

        • #3197193

          Another world indeed

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to We got a Canuk here

          When the crimials have more rights than the victom, the victom has to stand up for themselves.

          Although hearing this from a Canuk was suprising as it is suppose to be a peaceful utopia up there where everyone lives in harmany with nature and each other!

          Another thing that has been happening when there are budget cuts, instead of cutting fundings to the libray or social programs, they (politicians) gut our fire fighters and police forces.

          Can you believe with the reputation that Detroit has for crime (EARNED reputation, mind you) that they have been cutting back on law enforcement?

          If there are less cops in your neighborhood, you are left taking care of you and your family on your own.

          Note: My guns are not for personal protection. They are locked up in my gun safe as there is a greater chance of my boys playing with them then that there may be a break-in and I would be closer to the gun that the criminals.

          I shoot competition. Fun stuff.

        • #3197118

          Corporate greed leads to liberalization of govt policies

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to It has never made any sense to me………

          [i]”Profit is an unacceptabe excuse to remain in contact with these types and only encourages the worst excesses of these people.”[/i]

          All you have to do is take a look the companies that brokered financial deals with the likes of Saddam’s Iraq and Iran. You can probably guess where most of these companies are headquartered.

    • #3124203

      All Democrats should be ashamed of themselves

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      .
      Especially the citizens who continue to support them.

    • #3124202

      The only good Democrat is

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      .
      …Joe Lieberman

      (And I’ve been saying that for years.)

      • #3121131

        Are you going soft???

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to The only good Democrat is

        I thought you would have said, a dead one and I would have agreed with you. :^O

        [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3197028

          Dead democrats

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Are you going soft???

          The problem with Democrats is that they keep on voting even when they are dead. In fact, some people who were life long Republicans or independents end up voting Democratic after they die. This phenomenon is common in Chicago and in some of the rural counties in western Alabama.

          Another similar phenomenon is people who would never vote for a Democrat when they are of sound mind end up voting for Democrats by absentee ballot after they have gone senile or insane and are in a nursing home or mental hospital.

          The dead, the senile, and the insane are three constituencies that the Democrats have locked up.

        • #3197839

          Those three catagories

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Dead democrats

          pretty much sums up the[b] entire[/b] Democratic party! :^O

        • #3121275

          Yet even with all that…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Dead democrats

          … they still manage to lose on occassion.

      • #3121065

        I like Joe Lieberman too

        by av . ·

        In reply to The only good Democrat is

        Yikes! I think I might agree with you. I thought he was the only good thing in 2000 about the Democratic ticket. I don’t understand though why he was ever a Democrat. It seems now like he is trying to defect to the other party. Bush even acknowledged his remarks in one of his speeches.

        I can’t blame him. The Dems are sinking fast. They are divided and don’t have a cohesive counterplan for Iraq except for leave now. That would be nice, but its not going to work. He realizes that both parties have to work together to come up with a partisan solution to Iraq, like it or not. There are no easy answers, but the first step is to stop skewering Bush.

    • #3121068

      He’s not helping

      by av . ·

      In reply to Sen John Kerry should be ashamed of himself

      John Kerry’s comments about our soldiers were totally out of line and not constructive in anyway. I think all he did is embarrass himself and his party. He does have a right to say it and make a fool of himself though, without apologies.

      Yes, he almost was the President and thats scary, but the President we have now is even scarier. I hope Kerry doesn’t even think about running for President again. Even scarier than both of them – Hilary Clinton. How about a Clinton/Kerry ticket? Oh Please, don’t let her be our first female President.

      I’d like to see more work going on in Washington from both parties instead of partisan politics and scandals. Its just shameful and has to stop. We have many big problems to solve and our government shouldn’t waste one more moment on anything else.

Viewing 13 reply threads