Gosh...!

[Dr Grump]

One doesn't have to be "there with Kerry" to have a professional opinion of his four-month stint in Vietnam.

But apparently one doesn't have to apply the same test re Bush, which was Trobinet's point ...as for a four month stint, two things: 1) It was four months longer than Bush; 2) Somebody said in another post that Kerry spent two years on boats in Vietnamese waters. That doesn't count as Viet Nam? So those navy personal who served in the Bay of Tonkin etc during the time can no longer call themselves vets of the Viet Nam war?

He's either a liar, or he was a shitty officer and derelict in his duty to immediately report crimes to the next higher up in the chain of command. That in itself, makes one complicit in the crime per the UCMJ.
My opinion is he's the former. A liar. He used the Vietnam war and every war crimes cliche the left spouted to jumpstart a fledgling political career.
Is falsley accusing others of wrongdoing that could adversely impact their lives a virtue? Oh, I fogot my audience. YOu libs have tried to make a living off that MO, haven't you?

He was never charged with anything, which suggests you are wrong. I don't think he did what he did in an attempt to kick-start his political career, I think he did it out of a genuine concern not to see any more servicemen killed over there in a war the US was never going to win. As for falsely accusing people of things, watch Hannity. Coulter and O'Reilly - libs don't have a monopoly on false accusations or innuendo.

 

[CSM]

Just so you know:

http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx

The National Guard called up about 23,000 for active duty and approximately 9,000 served in country during Vietnam.

 

[trobinett]

DR Grump posts:

But apparently one doesn't have to apply the same test re Bush, which was Trobinet's point ...as for a four month stint, two things: 1) It was four months longer than Bush; 2) Somebody said in another post that Kerry spent two years on boats in Vietnamese waters. That doesn't count as Viet Nam? So those navy personal who served in the Bay of Tonkin etc during the time can no longer call themselves vets of the Viet Nam war?

No Grump, MY point was that Kerry was, and IS a traitor. He ALLOWED his self to be USED by our enemy, AGAINTS our soldiers. He made his bed, now he has to sleep in it, no amount of time, nor spin can change what he did.

If you want to spin the time that Kerry spent in 'nam's territorial waters as time Kerry spent in harms way, its ok by me, I don't agree, and most combat troops wouldn't agree either. How far does the left want to push this dead carcass?

Our President has never tried to present his military service for anymore than it was. The same can not be said for Kerry, PERIOD.

 

[Abbey Normal]

DR Grump posts:



No Grump, MY point was that Kerry was, and IS a traitor. He ALLOWED his self to be USED by our enemy, AGAINTS our soldiers. He made his bed, now he has to sleep in it, no amount of time, nor spin can change what he did.

If you want to spin the time that Kerry spent in 'nam's territorial waters as time Kerry spent in harms way, its ok by me, I don't agree, and most combat troops wouldn't agree either. How far does the left want to push this dead carcass?

Our President has never tried to present his military service for anymore than it was. The same can not be said for Kerry, PERIOD.

Kerry's entire tour of duty in Viet Nam was from 12/1/68 until 4/11/69.

 

[archangel]

Kerry's entire tour of duty in Viet Nam was from 12/1/68 until 4/11/69.

damn those pencils and paper cuts!

 

[Gunny]

But apparently one doesn't have to apply the same test re Bush, which was Trobinet's point ...as for a four month stint, two things: 1) It was four months longer than Bush; 2) Somebody said in another post that Kerry spent two years on boats in Vietnamese waters. That doesn't count as Viet Nam? So those navy personal who served in the Bay of Tonkin etc during the time can no longer call themselves vets of the Viet Nam war?

He was never charged with anything, which suggests you are wrong. I don't think he did what he did in an attempt to kick-start his political career, I think he did it out of a genuine concern not to see any more servicemen killed over there in a war the US was never going to win. As for falsely accusing people of things, watch Hannity. Coulter and O'Reilly - libs don't have a monopoly on false accusations or innuendo.

Each is held accountable for their actions; which, are not comparable. Neither are the results of their actions. If Bush screwed anyone ducking a pysical, he screwed himself. Kerry on the other hand tried to screw every military vet who served in Vietnam in and/or around him.

The fact that Kerry was not charged with anything does not suggest I am wrong. It suggests that he lied to Congress. The fact is, he testified before Congress concerning crimes HE personally witnessed; yet, there is no documentation existing that suggests he attempted to do anything about any crimes committed in his presence as the UCMJ dictates.

In the political atmosphere of the day, no one was going to try and charge him with anything, but it would have been as simple as what I have posted in this and my previous thread. He's guilty of one or the other. Each spells "scumbag."

Sell the "genuine concern" BS to someone willing to believe it. He's a political hack and liar.

 

[Annie]

Each is held accountable for their actions; which, are not comparable. Neither are the results of their actions. If Bush screwed anyone ducking a pysical, he screwed himself. Kerry on the other hand tried to screw every military vet who served in Vietnam in and/or around him.

The fact that Kerry was not charged with anything does not suggest I am wrong. It suggests that he lied to Congress. The fact is, he testified before Congress concerning crimes HE personally witnessed; yet, there is no documentation existing that suggests he attempted to do anything about any crimes committed in his presence as the UCMJ dictates.

In the political atmosphere of the day, no one was going to try and charge him with anything, but it would have been as simple as what I have posted in this and my previous thread. He's guilty of one or the other. Each spells "scumbag."

Sell the "genuine concern" BS to someone willing to believe it. He's a political hack and liar.

You said it, wish I could do more:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyL again.

 

[Dr Grump]

Kerry on the other hand tried to screw every military vet who served in Vietnam in and/or around him.

Total crap. He never accused the military as a whole. I saw his evidence in front of congress.

The fact is, he testified before Congress concerning crimes HE personally witnessed; yet, there is no documentation existing that suggests he attempted to do anything about any crimes committed in his presence as the UCMJ dictates.

If he saw it, he should have done something, true.

In the political atmosphere of the day, no one was going to try and charge him with anything, but it would have been as simple as what I have posted in this and my previous thread. He's guilty of one or the other. Each spells "scumbag.

Oh, so now we have the "political atmosphere" as a reason? You could argue the same about some of what he said/alleged. I find Bush hiding behind his daddy's skirt the action of a scumbag, too. Go figure.

Sell the "genuine concern" BS to someone willing to believe it. He's a political hack and liar.[/QUOTE?]

Unless you have spoken to him personally, all you have is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to.

 

[Gunny]

Total crap. He never accused the military as a whole. I saw his evidence in front of congress.

The fact that he portrayed war crimes as the rule rather than the exception IS an indictment against the military as a whole.



If he saw it, he should have done something, true.

As a commissioned officer in the US Armed Forces he more than "should have done something." He is honor-bound as an officer, and legally bound as a member of the US Armed Forces to report ANY and ALL crimes he has witnessed to the next senior person in his chain of command.

In his case alone, he could have been charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, dereliction of duty, and being complicit in the crime by not reporting it.


Oh, so now we have the "political atmosphere" as a reason? You could argue the same about some of what he said/alleged. I find Bush hiding behind his daddy's skirt the action of a scumbag, too. Go figure.

How is Bush hiding behind his daddy's skirt?

So now you want to play dumb regarding the post-Vietnam War era political atmosphere? That would mean either you weren't around, or you had your head up your ass.

The US government was villified. The US military as an institution was villified. While people who may or may not have actually committed crimes or witnessed them walked around "baring their souls," and not being held personally accountable for their actions. Everyone was too busy blaming "the man."

Kinda like you lefties still do to this day.

Sell the "genuine concern" BS to someone willing to believe it. He's a political hack and liar.[/QUOTE?]

Unless you have spoken to him personally, all you have is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to.

You might get over with that one with others, but not with me. The entire premise of that statement is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't have to personally speak to him. He's been a public figure since the early 70s and gone on record with his opinions and stances many, many times. His votes on issues in Congress are a matter of public record. He was in our faces on the tube campaigning fro President for most of a year.

I stand by what I said as evidenced by HIS public behavior.

 

[nt250]

I don't care if you were there before, during or after Kerry. I'm only interested if you were there WITH HIM. That was your criterion when chastising Jillian about her opinion regarding Bush. If you served on a swift boat or out on the ocean with Kerry I stand corrected.

I don't presume ANYTHING with what you have seen. Never have, never did. I agree re Kerry and Bush being apples and watermelons. I'd even go as far to say both are not worth crap...

Here's the problem I have with the whole Bush/Kerry military service argument:

Bush, who never made his service an issue, is always judged by much tougher standards than Kerry, who did make it an issue. Kerry based his whole campaign on it. But nobody in the media, or on the left, ever scrutinized Kerry's record to the same extent that Bush's record was examined.

Bush signed the 180 and all his records were released long before the election of 2004. Kerry refused to sign the 180 and it was a known fact that there were at least 100 pages of his record that were not made public. When challenged, which was rare, Kerry claimed he would sign it. But never did sign it during the campaign. He apparently did sign it in 2005 and nothing outrageous was found, like the speculation that he received a dishonorable discharge which was reviewed and upgraded to an honorable discharge in 1978.

But consider this: we know that George W. Bush had a dentists appointment on a Saturday in Alabama, but nobody knows why John Kerry did not get an honorable discharge from the Navy Reserves until 1978, a full 6 years after his first tour should have ended. A tour that he never completed. He never re-upped. By 1970 Kerry was no longer in the Navy, yet his official disharge took 8 more years.

It's the contrast in coverage of the two men. The media poured over every document they could find about Bush's Guard service. But nobody on the left (which includes the media) cared that Kerry refused to release his records, and nobody asked about all the contradictions that are in the records he did release.

The Swiftees were treated like scum. Nightline, one of the best news programs on television, sent a team of reporters to Vietnam to interview old men about Kerry's "tour of duty" and used those interviews to try and make John O'Neil look bad. He wiped the floor with Ted Koppel.

The election of 2004 showed the mainstream media for the biased, liberal, tool it is. Just in it's blatantly one sided coverage of the two candidates military service alone.

 

[1549]

He's a political hack and liar.

Wednesday is not yet old, but word out of Iraq is that another 28 people have been killed in Baghdad bombings. Bush's needless invasion of Iraq, the ill planned occupation and the consequences of it all dwarf your claims of "politcal hackery".

 

[trobinett]

Wednesday is not yet old, but word out of Iraq is that another 28 people have been killed in Baghdad bombings. Bush's needless invasion of Iraq, the ill planned occupation and the consequences of it all dwarf your claims of "politcal hackery".

1549, have you ever heard the term "deflection"?

 

[Avatar4321]

Wednesday is not yet old, but word out of Iraq is that another 28 people have been killed in Baghdad bombings. Bush's needless invasion of Iraq, the ill planned occupation and the consequences of it all dwarf your claims of "politcal hackery".

by what standards was the invasion needless and the occupation ill planned? It looks pretty good to me and if you dont think Saddam needed to be taken out then I dont know who does.

 

[1549]

by what standards was the invasion needless and the occupation ill planned? It looks pretty good to me and if you dont think Saddam needed to be taken out then I dont know who does.

-Castro is a terrible man and has done horrible things to his people, he is still in power.
-China has gone through terrible dictators, we did not invade China...and they have since opened up their economic system and become a trade partner.
-The USSR killed more of its citizens than Saddam Hussein could have dreamed of. The USSR died with time, not by the barrel of a US gun.

Saddam Hussein was a bad man, the world is full of them. You and I both know that if Saddam Hussein was the ruthless dictator of a random Southern Pacific nation he would still be in power today. He was overthrown primarily because he is a risk to our oil supplies. Others have suggested that this administration is enfatuated with dominating the middle east and its wealthy black gold...I think this theory takes it too far.

In regards to WMD's: Outside of the conservative blogosphere, there were none. A government panel said the intelligence was: "dead wrong" and suggested sweeping changes to prevent further intel failures. The best our chief weapons inspector could come up with: "Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions". The bloggers are looking for anything to suggest the existence of weapons, but our government learned of their mistake in 2003. It is not an issue of "damn we thought Saddam had them...maybe they were taken away"...US weapons inspectors found upon further review that Saddam was not even capable of making them. The report can only conclude that it is something Saddam may have pursued if UN sanctions were lifted.

The bad intelligence leads to new questions. Was our intel community so gung-ho for war that they set Bush to fail? Perhaps they knowingly jumped to conclusions because they watned to see the Iraq war. Maybe it was the other way around? The intel community could have been conservative in their estimates, but Bush was anxious for war and decided to roll with it. Either way, I do not think that Bush or the intelligence community were too certain about Iraq's WMD's. But, they knew the public would buy into it. When thousands of lives are going to be lost...you should be 100% certain the cause is righteous.

That is why the invasion was needless. Here is why the occupation was ill planned:

Saddam Hussein is a Sunni muslim. The Sunni's are a minority in Iraq, they make up 25-35% of the population. The shi'ites are the majority, they make up 60-70% of the population. Under most natural circumstances, wealth and power is balanced across a country or (for better or worse) the majority has the edge in wealth/power. In a few rare cases, a minority group will take control of a nation: this is what happened in Iraq.

When a minority group is more wealthy and more powerful than the majority, disaster awaits. Violence may manifest itself while the minority is in power or it could be held off until the minority is toppled. Any country that has an economic dominant minority is more or less a barrel of gun powder. When we invaded Iraq, we threw a match into that barrel. In the past, the ensuing violence has resulted in mass genocide of the minorities. Unfortunately, this is not a rare phenomen. Mass killings (though not always on a genocidal level) and civil war have followed the fall of nearly every single economic dominant minority in modern history. It almost seems to be human nature--perhaps a revenge complex.

To think Iraq could go through a natural transition into a democracy is laughable. If the evolution of nations is viewed as chemistry, the U.S. is trying to pour vinegar into baking soda without creating the reaction. It is not going to work. We are seeing the death toll of sectarian violence climb by the hour. Hopefully the presence of our troops will prevent anything on the scale of genocide, but a civil war may be inevitable. A civil war means that the new government will be completely worthless (what can it do if its own people are at war with eachother?) and it means we will be tied down for years to come.

Sorry for the length of this post.

 

[trobinett]

-Castro is a terrible man and has done horrible things to his people, he is still in power.
-China has gone through terrible dictators, we did not invade China...and they have since opened up their economic system and become a trade partner.
-The USSR killed more of its citizens than Saddam Hussein could have dreamed of. The USSR died with time, not by the barrel of a US gun.

Saddam Hussein was a bad man, the world is full of them. You and I both know that if Saddam Hussein was the ruthless dictator of a random Southern Pacific nation he would still be in power today. He was overthrown primarily because he is a risk to our oil supplies. Others have suggested that this administration is enfatuated with dominating the middle east and its wealthy black gold...I think this theory takes it too far.

In regards to WMD's: Outside of the conservative blogosphere, there were none. A government panel said the intelligence was: "dead wrong" and suggested sweeping changes to prevent further intel failures. The best our chief weapons inspector could come up with: "Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions". The bloggers are looking for anything to suggest the existence of weapons, but our government learned of their mistake in 2003. It is not an issue of "damn we thought Saddam had them...maybe they were taken away"...US weapons inspectors found upon further review that Saddam was not even capable of making them. The report can only conclude that it is something Saddam may have pursued if UN sanctions were lifted.

The bad intelligence leads to new questions. Was our intel community so gung-ho for war that they set Bush to fail? Perhaps they knowingly jumped to conclusions because they watned to see the Iraq war. Maybe it was the other way around? The intel community could have been conservative in their estimates, but Bush was anxious for war and decided to roll with it. Either way, I do not think that Bush or the intelligence community were too certain about Iraq's WMD's. But, they knew the public would buy into it. When thousands of lives are going to be lost...you should be 100% certain the cause is righteous.

That is why the invasion was needless. Here is why the occupation was ill planned:

Saddam Hussein is a Sunni muslim. The Sunni's are a minority in Iraq, they make up 25-35% of the population. The shi'ites are the majority, they make up 60-70% of the population. Under most natural circumstances, wealth and power is balanced across a country or (for better or worse) the majority has the edge in wealth/power. In a few rare cases, a minority group will take control of a nation: this is what happened in Iraq.

When a minority group is more wealthy and more powerful than the majority, disaster awaits. Violence may manifest itself while the minority is in power or it could be held off until the minority is toppled. Any country that has an economic dominant minority is more or less a barrel of gun powder. When we invaded Iraq, we threw a match into that barrel. In the past, the ensuing violence has resulted in mass genocide of the minorities. Unfortunately, this is not a rare phenomen. Mass killings (though not always on a genocidal level) and civil war have followed the fall of nearly every single economic dominant minority in modern history. It almost seems to be human nature--perhaps a revenge complex.

To think Iraq could go through a natural transition into a democracy is laughable. If the evolution of nations is viewed as chemistry, the U.S. is trying to pour vinegar into baking soda without creating the reaction. It is not going to work. We are seeing the death toll of sectarian violence climb by the hour. Hopefully the presence of our troops will prevent anything on the scale of genocide, but a civil war may be inevitable. A civil war means that the new government will be completely worthless (what can it do if its own people are at war with eachother?) and it means we will be tied down for years to come.

Sorry for the length of this post.

Hey, no worries about the length mate. The "meat and potatoes" of the post though is WITHOUT merit.

Things change, shit happens, people die, rivers jump their banks, ME countries become democracies, it could happen. We just gave the bastards a shove.

So whats wrong with a civil war, it cleared the air around these parts. Might do the same thing for the wackos in Iraq.

ALL governments are worthless, some more than others, whats your point?

Hell, if our military wasn't there, they'd be somewhere else. Might as well get some oil for our trouble.:dev1:

 

[jillian]

Hey, no worries about the length mate. The "meat and potatoes" of the post though is WITHOUT merit.

Things change, shit happens, people die, rivers jump their banks, ME countries become democracies, it could happen. We just gave the bastards a shove.

So whats wrong with a civil war, it cleared the air around these parts. Might do the same thing for the wackos in Iraq.

ALL governments are worthless, some more than others, whats your point?

Hell, if our military wasn't there, they'd be somewhere else. Might as well get some oil for our trouble.:dev1:

I don't care if they have their civil war, but it's not our military's responsibility to be in the middle of it. Why should their lives be risked because shi'ites and sunnis can't get it together?

 

[trobinett]

I don't care if they have their civil war, but it's not our military's responsibility to be in the middle of it. Why should their lives be risked because shi'ites and sunnis can't get it together?

Their WON'T be a civil war Jillian, not as long as our military is there, got it?

Of course its our responsibility, we shoved them, we want to see how they land.

If your in the military, your life is at risk, no one ever told you that?

Have another "hit" jillian.:bong420:

 

[Gunny]

Wednesday is not yet old, but word out of Iraq is that another 28 people have been killed in Baghdad bombings. Bush's needless invasion of Iraq, the ill planned occupation and the consequences of it all dwarf your claims of "politcal hackery".

BR-549, aside from you being a mindless parrot for any left-wing propaganda, want to try and back any of your hackery with some FACTS?

Needless

Saddam was a tyrant. He murdered his own people and the only thing that kept him from murdering the people of other Nations was the US. His invasion of both Iran and Kuwait will suffice as evidence.

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds. This shows posession, intent and the willingness to use WMDs.

If he in fact didn't have any WMDs at the time we invaded, then he was a big f-ing fool for acting as if he did for 13 years and giving inspectors the run-around, that led everyone, including most of you nitwit, side-switching libs to believe Saddam's posession of WMDs was a forgone conclusion.

But I don't believe you thought he had them because President Bush said so. That would be too easy. You believed it because President Clinton basically said the same thing, and y'all'd believe that MFer if he told you the sky was yellow.

All you libs do is Monday morning quarterback. You spout of crap just to be Bush-hating, simple as that. Any logical-thinking person would know Saddam posessed and used WMDs, manufactured them AFTER the First Gulf War, and he surely wasn't going to abandon pursuing them just because the UN and the US said so. What other UN Resolution did he adhere to?

Saddam supported terrorism. I don't CARE what you call it. al Qaeda, Hezbolla, Fatwa ... who gives a rickety-rat's ass? They're ALL scumbags and murderers and if he supported one, he supported them all.

You libs bitch about getting shaken down at the airports, well how does being snatched off the street and fed feet first into a tree shredder sound? Just for the amusement of his sick whelps? Yeah, you got it tough.

How'd you like to be burned alive or beheaded by Saddam's fleeing army just because you happened to be a Kuwaiti?

How'd you like to deploy for 6 months only for it to turn into 13 months just because that nimrod decided to invade another nation to steal its oil? Then spend six months at a whack five more times in 9 years babysitting his border? That didn't cost the AMerican taxpayers much, did it?

Of course not. Becuase your boy BIllybob sent us over with half our shit broken and half the ammunition and supplies we should have had because he was too busy making the numbers in his ledger even out.

I guess what I'm really trying to say here is shut the fuck up and go educate yourself. When you posess even a modicum of knowledge on the topic, THEN get back to me.

 

[jillian]

Their WON'T be a civil war Jillian, not as long as our military is there, got it?

Of course its our responsibility, we shoved them, we want to see how they land.

If your in the military, your life is at risk, no one ever told you that?

Have another "hit" jillian.:bong420:

There already IS the start of a civil war. And it isn't our job to stop it even if we could, although we destabilized the country enough for it to happen.

Sunnis, once dominant under Saddam Hussein, are now the core of an insurgency against the Shi'ite-led government. Maliki, hoping to defuse the rebellion, has included Sunnis in his national unity government.

But many Sunnis say Shi'ite militia operating within police forces are partly responsible for a wave of killings that have seen victims discovered bound, tortured, shot and dumped in the streets of Baghdad every day.

Fourteen bodies, tortured and with bullet holes in the head, were collected in different areas of Baghdad on Monday, a Ministry of Interior source said. More than 200 such apparent death squad victims have surfaced in Baghdad in the last six days.

One group that has tried to stay out of the firing line in Iraq's violence are the country's million or so Christians. But last week's comments by Pope Benedict that angered Muslims have raised fears that Christians could be targets.

A Sunni insurgent umbrella group led by al Qaeda's Iraq branch vowed war against "worshippers of the cross" on Monday, and about 150 protesters in mainly Shi'ite Basra burned the Pope in effigy.

Iraq's government has called for Muslims not to take their anger out on their Christian neighbours.

-- Reuters

http://www.itv.com/news/index_5d6af660b42b2022541fba5979721270.html

Better lay off that kool aid, trob... it clogs the arteries in the brain.

 

[Dr Grump]

When you posess even a modicum of knowledge on the topic, THEN get back to me.

You first. You are just a Bush apologist...