This makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time (http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070401/cx_db_uc/db20070401). So true.

That will definitely make some people on here have a meltdown reaction.

That will definitely make some people on here have a meltdown reaction.

I bet some people claim it is justification to be rude to me. :lolhit:

I think this one hits closer to home......


http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/MichaelRamirez/2007/03

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OH MAN!! Both were SO not funny.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OH MAN!! Both were SO not funny.
editorial cartoons rarely are..they're meant to be thought provoking.

editorial cartoons rarely are..they're meant to be thought provoking.
They are corny, partisan and incredibly annoying.

I think this one hits closer to home......


http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/MichaelRamirez/2007/03

Patent idiocy.

Michael Ramirez' cartoon suggests that the troops are being "undermined", as if they will somehow be caused physical harm.........when in fact {as the other cartoon so perfectly illustrated} if their funding is cut they will inevitably have to be pulled OUT OF the hellhole they are in and will come home alive to be with their families, instead of fighting and dying for the RightWing's goddamned oil war.

I think this one hits closer to home......

Nah, that one seems like propaganda. The first one I posted seems more realistic.

You don't support the troops by putting them in harms way for an indetermined period of time, with no achievable goals and no viable plans.

Thats the opposite of supporting the troops.

Just because they voluteered does not mean they are expendable.

They deserve better than that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OH MAN!! Both were SO not funny.

That Doonesbury toon would be a lot funnier if it weren't so true and therefore sad.

Late Night With Jay and Conan

Hillary Clinton said that her childhood dream was to be an Olympic athlete. But she was not athletic enough. She said she wanted to be an astronaut, but at the time they didn't take women. She said she wanted to go into medicine, but hospitals made her woozy. Should she be telling people this story? I mean she's basically saying she wants to be president because she can't do anything else." --Jay Leno

"Well, the big story -- Hillary Clinton will be running for president in 2008. You know why I think she's running? I think she finally wants to see what it's like to sleep in the president's bed." --Jay Leno

"Top Democrats have mixed feelings about Sen. Hillary Clinton running for president. Apparently, some Democrats don't like the idea, while others hate it." --Conan O'Brien

"In a fiery speech this weekend, Hillary Clinton wondered why President Bush can't find the tallest man in Afghanistan. Probably for the same reason she couldn't find the fattest intern under the desk." --Jay Leno

"Former President Bill Clinton said that if his wife, Hillary, is elected president, he will do whatever she wants. You know Bill Clinton -- when he makes a vow to Hillary, you can take that to the bank."--Jay Leno

"Did you know Bill and Hillary Clinton were born under the same sign? Know what sign? 'For Sale.'" -Jay Leno

"A student from the University of Washington has sold his soul on eBay for $400. He's a law student, so he probably doesn't need it, but still, that's not very much. Today, Hillary Clinton said, 'Hey, at least I got some furniture and a Senate seat for mine." -Jay Leno

"Hillary Clinton said today that she wants legislation to allow all ex-felons to vote. See, this way all the Clinton's former business partners can vote for her in 2008." --Jay Leno

Those were pretty funny, SMW. :)

"In a fiery speech this weekend, Hillary Clinton wondered why President Bush can't find the tallest man in Afghanistan. Probably for the same reason she couldn't find the fattest intern under the desk." --Jay Leno

"Did you know Bill and Hillary Clinton were born under the same sign? Know what sign? 'For Sale.'" -Jay Leno

"A student from the University of Washington has sold his soul on eBay for $400. He's a law student, so he probably doesn't need it, but still, that's not very much. Today, Hillary Clinton said, 'Hey, at least I got some furniture and a Senate seat for mine." -Jay Leno
hehheee excellant

Nah, that one seems like propaganda. The first one I posted seems more realistic.

It would be to a liberal like yourself, dammit.

You don't support the troops by putting them in harms way for an indetermined period of time, with no achievable goals and no viable plans.

A worse idea when fighting a guerilla war is for members of the government to attack their own President repeatedly and broadcast to your enemies that they're going to do their best to pull the troops out at a specified date. Makes the enemy believe that if one can hold on just a bit longer, not win you understand (actually, I'm sure you don't I'm rather hoping others understand) just FIGHT you can eventually dislodge the enemy.

Also, if one does wish to show solidarity with the U.S. soldiers, they don't let John Kerry do the talking, telling college students that either they get smart or they'll get stuck in Iraq.

Just because they voluteered does not mean they are expendable.

Yes, and you don't do your best to make sure all their sacrifices were in vain just to make Bush look bad, dammit. Which is what the Left has done from day one, dammit.

A worse idea when fighting a guerilla war...

We aren't fighting a guerilla war. We are not fighting a war. "Mission Accomplished", remember?
We are attempting to police a civil war while an insurgency is going on.



is for members of the government to attack their own President repeatedly

Spare me your hypocritcal lectures.
It wasn't all that long ago, you people like you were doing the attacking.

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."
-Michael Savage




Also, if one does wish to show solidarity with the U.S. soldiers, they don't let John Kerry do the talking, telling college students that either they get smart or they'll get stuck in Iraq.

At least Kerry was a combat veteran, which is more than your chickenhawk war "planners" can say.


Yes, and you don't do your best to make sure all their sacrifices were in vain just to make Bush look bad, dammit.

I don't have to do anything to make Bush look bad. He does that all by himself.
If their sacrifices are in vain, that is the fault of those at the top who planned this debacle.

"dammit" :lolhit:

Patent idiocy.

Michael Ramirez' cartoon suggests that the troops are being "undermined", as if they will somehow be caused physical harm.........when in fact {as the other cartoon so perfectly illustrated} if their funding is cut they will inevitably have to be pulled OUT OF the hellhole they are in and will come home alive to be with their families, instead of fighting and dying for the RightWing's goddamned oil war.

So bitter you are, brother Freethinker.

One would assume that you've got some heartfelt story to tell about your own wartime experiences. (I myself have held-check when the opportunity came to relate my own wartime experiences in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. But with no agenda to push, I've been by and large quiet and reserved, out of respect for friends lost and commanders still in positions of authority.)

You on the other hand seem to have some bitter and personally-compelling stories that lay just beneath the layer of ugliness, regret and contempt.
As one Veteran to another, I implore you, sir.

Please share with us those stories.

And you too, dharmabum.

At the seasoned age of 34, surely you've got some tales of wartime service and servitude to the evil and contemptible Dogs Of War to relate.

Let's hear them.
Here, among friends.
Let's hear them, sir.

Let it out, man.
We're here for you.

That’s RIGHT, fellows.

You have NOT been to war.
Whereas I have.

You want to engage in a debate about the relative merits of Microsoft Windows XP versus Apple Quicktime? Then go right ahead.

You want to engage in an intelligent debate about the relative merits of the new Toyota Camry versus the Ford Fusion? Then go right ahead.

You want to engage in a thoughtful, spiritual debate over the relative merits of George Lucas’s original Star Wars trilogy versus the later Episodes I - III ??
Then go right ahead.

Otherwise, please just shut the hell up.
Because when it comes to matters of war and policies of war-making?
I don’t respect your credentials, gentlemen.

One would assume that you've got some heartfelt story to tell about your own wartime experiences.

If one did, one would be an imbecile.

Your smarmy little fucking quips aside, I have never made the slightest hint or suggestion that I have had "wartime experiences".

Let it out, man.

Here, among friends, may I implore you, "sir", to insert it into your anus.

That’s RIGHT, fellows.

You have NOT been to war.
Whereas I have.

You want to engage in a debate about the relative merits of Microsoft Windows XP versus Apple Quicktime? Then go right ahead.

You want to engage in an intelligent debate about the relative merits of the new Toyota Camry versus the Ford Fusion? Then go right ahead.

You want to engage in a thoughtful, spiritual debate over the relative merits of George Lucas’s original Star Wars trilogy versus the later Episodes I - III ??
Then go right ahead.

Otherwise, please just shut the hell up.
Because when it comes to matters of war and policies of war-making?
I don’t respect your credentials, gentlemen.

Quicktime is just a media player:eek:

otherwise, you're spot on, Mr. Sparky, Sir.

If one did, one would be an imbecile.

Your smarmy little fucking quips aside, I have never made the slightest hint or suggestion that I have had "wartime experiences".



Here, among friends, may I implore you, "sir", to insert it into your anus.

Ow, snap.

References to anuses always trump real-life experiences in the art and science of war.
You therefore have bested me, fair and square.

I bow to your admitted mastery and dominance when it comes to the topic of the anal arts. Sir.

Clearly, you win again.

At the seasoned age of 34, surely you've got some tales of wartime service and servitude to the evil and contemptible Dogs Of War to relate.

Perhaps I do, but they wouldn't be any of your business would they Sparky?



Here, among friends.


You are not my friend.

I don't know you.

You don't know me.

It would be better for you if you didn't try to pretend otherwise, since you are dripping with insincerity.


We're here for you.

The truth is, that is the exact opposite of why you are here.

I have to wonder why someone as passive/aggressive as yourself needs to pretend like this?

If you really were such a knowledgable and wise war veteran you would not be wasting everyone's time with this sophistry.

You have NOT been to war.
Whereas I have.

Suuuuure you have.

And Mikezila is a rhodes scholar... :rolleyes:

Otherwise, please just shut the hell up.

How about you fuck off instead? :)


Because when it comes to matters of war and policies of war-making?
I don’t respect your credentials, gentlemen.

And I don't respect yours.

So what?

Grow up and learn to stand by the merits of your argument instead of your imaginary "credentials".

Suuuuure you have.
Uh oh! :eek: :corn:

The truth is, that is the exact opposite of why you are here.

I have to wonder why someone as passive/aggressive as yourself needs to pretend like this?

If you really were such a knowledgable and wise war veteran you would not be wasting everyone's time with this sophistry.

Ah.

So now we come down to the crux of it all.
The wasting of the time, and the hysterical anti-war, anti-American, anti-Bush sophistry.

Tell the truth.
Why are YOU here?
To sway the next election in favor of Hillary, Obama, or Al Gore?

I myself have no such ambitions.
I don't give two rats-asses who occupies the White House next time around.

I give two HUGE rats asses about the war-Veteran who pays the bills around THIS house next month. And the month after that.
And that would be me.

I visit this web-forum in order that I might find some friends.
In order that I might find an audience for my short-stories and web-based musings. That's all.

Because if I felt the way that you and your elder brother Freethinker apparently do about Gee Dubya Bush and his evil Henchman Dick 'The Executioner' Cheney, then I would very likely want to ramble on for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours about all of their alleged crimes and misdemeanors.
And I would surely go as mad as you and your older brother have gone.
(At great risk to my credibility and my reputation as a rational, freethinking human being.)

But you two go right ahead.
You've got this whole business of war and war-making all figured out.
God-speed to both of you in all of your future endeavors.

PS Call me, young sir.
My phone number is (256) 679-5567.
You and I and the Department of Defense can chat about my war-time experiences until the cows come home.

Thats RIGHT Sparky,

This is the internet.

Anyone can claim to be anything or to have had any experience.

Those experiences can be used in anecdotes to make a point.

However when you try to claim that your opinions are more valid than others based solely upon those supposed experiences instead of an actual argument or point, then that betrays the fundamental weakness of your overall position.


have a nice day. :)

Tell the truth.
Why are YOU here?

For intelligent debate with posters of like and counter minds.


I visit this web-forum in order that I might find some friends.

That is sad.
Take a class.
Get a dog.
Call some of your "army" buddies, surely you have some of those, right?




Because if I felt the way that you and your elder brother Freethinker apparently do about Gee Dubya Bush and his evil Henchman Dick 'The Executioner' Cheney, then I would very likely want to ramble on for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours about all of their alleged crimes and misdemeanors.

And if you had half a brain, you could actually debate us on those points instead of wasting time with nonsense like this.


(At great risk to my credibility and my reputation as a rational, freethinking human being.)

Reputation with who? Your "friends" on here?
:lolhit:


But you two go right ahead.
You've got this whole business of war and war-making all figured out.
God-speed to both of you in all of your future endeavors.

Thanks, at least FT and myself are making an effort to educate ourselves through socratic debate.

you seem to have given up completely.


PS Call me, young sir.
My phone number is (256) 679-5567.


That was a mistake.
Your "friend" Napsterbater is probably signing you up for all sorts of unsavory lists as I type.


Have a nice day. :)

Damn, there's no satisfying you.
Are you sure you aren't my ex-wife?

Anyway, I am getting sleepy now.
(I am, after all, much older than you, though admittedly much younger than Freethinker.) I am off to bed.

Call me tomorrow if you wish.
Or email me at the address provided in my profile.
We can converse freely and without fear of retribution about my 'alleged' wartime experiences.
No harm, no foul, young sir.

Who knows, you just may be the gatekeeper to some sort of alternate universe, and all my many years of service to my country, through the Cold War and the Gulf War, were just fabrications in my mind and in the mind of the folks who apportioned me my salary for over 25 years??

Damn, there's no satisfying you.


Sure there is.

Grow up and stop this sophmoric behavior.

That would satisfy me.

Have a nice night, old man. :)

At least Kerry was a combat veteran, which is more than your chickenhawk war "planners" can say.

Ever hear of Benedict Arnold? Being a "veteran" of a war doesn't give one blanket immunity to lying and backstabbing fellow soldiers, dammit. Kerry sold out his fellow Vietnam Vets to win a Congressional seat, plain and simple, dammit.

If their sacrifices are in vain, that is the fault of those at the top who planned this debacle.

And we're just supposed to overlook the idiots who were calling the Iraq war a quagmire six DAYS into the invasion of Iraq? I don't think so, dammit.

Being a "veteran" of a war doesn't give one blanket immunity to lying and backstabbing fellow soldiers, dammit.

Please provide the evidence that Kerry lied about his VietNam experiences. Oh wait!...you can't, because you do not have any.

The fact of the matter is that many other vets --some of whom have told me in person in no uncertain terms --have said they saw and experienced virtually the same sort of atrocities that Kerry spoke of. That in and of itself ought to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was telling the plain and unvarnished truth.


Kerry sold out his fellow Vietnam Vets to win a Congressional seat, plain and simple, dammit.

You can call it whatever makes you feel better....but to continually claim that he was lying is unconscionable. I'd wager that virtually every soldier who served in the field in VietNam is aware that Kerry spoke the truth. They may not LIKE that he revealed it, but they know it is true.

And we're just supposed to overlook the idiots who were calling the Iraq war a quagmire six DAYS into the invasion of Iraq?

Yes....let's overlook all five (out of a couple hundred million Americans) of them.

IF you can even name five people who made such a statement.

And we're just supposed to overlook the idiots who were calling the Iraq war a quagmire six DAYS into the invasion of Iraq?

Blaming YOUR OWN failures on the people who warned you against them is the height of stupidity and irresponsibility. Which explains why you embrace that tactic.

Also, those "idiots" were absolutely correct, so what does that make you?

I would tell you but it would be "rude".

Ever hear of Benedict Arnold? Being a "veteran" of a war doesn't give one blanket immunity to lying and backstabbing fellow soldiers, dammit. Kerry sold out his fellow Vietnam Vets to win a Congressional seat, plain and simple, dammit.

Would you rather have him remain silent on the atrocities American soldiers committed? They raped and killed innocent Vietnamese, should these crimes not be brought to light? Good luck trying to back up the claim of lying, it's a well-known fact that some American soliders did horrible things to innocent civilians.

Kerry stood up for what was right. The fact that you are condemning him for exposing rapists and murderers is laughable and it makes me question your reasoning ability.

For intelligent debate with posters of like and counter minds. At least FT and myself are making an effort to educate ourselves through socratic debate.


Outstanding. Please, by all means then, bring on the socratic debate.

Your smarmy little fucking quips aside..... here, among friends, may I implore you, "sir", to insert it into your anus.

Ow. There's some debate worthy of Socrates all right.

How about you fuck off instead?

Ah, that's much better. Surely Plato and Aristotle engaged in just such cerebral discourse.

Suuuuure you have.
And so-and-so is a rhodes scholar...

Outstanding. Exactly the sort of highbrow intellectual debate that I came here for.

Thank God for you two Mensa candidates and your thought-provoking, intelligent dialogues. If I had to rely upon my mouth-breathing, caveman-like Army buddies for such sophisticated, urbane conversation, I would surely be in trouble.

Sparq - as long as they keep paying their taxes we keep getting our pension checks.

dharmabum just because you have no combat experience is no reason to denegrate those who do. Feeling envious? Unable to qualify for the military? Are you so convinced of your imagined worth to society that you've decided it could not do without you while you served your country for a few years? You're young enough to still join up & go in search of some "baby - killer" ribbons (to use a phrase made so popular by the anti-Vietnam crowd) - what's stopping you?

Outstanding. Please, by all means then, bring on the socratic debate.


You have had every opprotunity to jump in and join the discussions in any thread.

Yet you have not.

Instead you have chosen this path of claiming your great and awesome Military "experience" means that only you know anything about war and that everyone else should "Shut up".

Instead you have chosen this passive/aggressive sniping tactic.

I have some news for you, Mr. All-knowing military veteran... That isn't debate.

dharmabum just because you have no combat experience is no reason to denegrate those who do.

News fo ya es,

Just because someone on the Internet CLAIMS to have military experience is no reason for them to denegrate those who do not make that claim.

Go back and reread the thread. Sparky was the one who tried to claim that I should "shut up" because he claims he is a vet and he thinks I was not.

They are corny, partisan and incredibly annoying.
And people here are not partisan and incredibily annoying?
Yea right.

News fo ya es,

Just because someone on the Internet CLAIMS to have military experience is no reason for them to denegrate those who do not make that claim.

Go back and reread the thread. Sparky was the one who tried to claim that I should "shut up" because he claims he is a vet and he thinks I was not.

I've run into many who've made claims, and have been able to disregard many due to their inability to discuss even the most basic of military knowledge.

Are you a veteran?

Those of us who've been in uniform tend to view things a bit differently than those who've not.

And people here are not partisan and incredibily annoying?
Yea right.
Have you noticed me posting much?

Please provide the evidence that Kerry lied about his VietNam experiences. Oh wait!...you can't, because you do not have any.

The fact of the matter is that many other vets --some of whom have told me in person in no uncertain terms --have said they saw and experienced virtually the same sort of atrocities that Kerry spoke of. That in and of itself ought to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was telling the plain and unvarnished truth.
Like you know any combat veterans...

If you were as candid with them as you have been with us, then I don't think you'd be breathing right now.

Those of us who've been in uniform tend to view things a bit differently than those who've not.

Agreed, but that does not excuse trying to claim that ONLY your opinion matters, as sparky tried to do.

Like you know any combat veterans...

If you were as candid with them as you have been with us, then I don't think you'd be breathing right now.

I knew quite a few combat vets and they are all more open minded in real life than you seem to be on here.

I have some news for you, Mr. All-knowing military veteran... That isn't debate.

Hee hee hee!!

Like there's any room for debate with somebody like you, dharmabum.
You are demonstrably narrow minded, judgmental, and combative.
You are also overly-defensive, prickly, easily hurt, and anybody who dares to argue with you is branded as a liar.

And typically, (and this is a curious lot like one of our other posters, a young fellow from Oregon by the way), you want to set the rules of exactly how one is to debate you.
And anybody who doesn't debate by your curious and particular set of rules is the object of scorn and derision.

Haven't you picked up on a curious trend when it comes to to the threads you frequent?
There are usually one or two postings related to a given topic, followed by some heated pissing contest between you and usually one other poster who disagrees with you, and then finally you are left by yourself arguing that the other guys is a jackass for arguing with you.
(Or for not arguing by your set of rules.)

And then the thread dies from lack of interest.

And if that's how you want it, then that's how it's going to be, I guess.
You are, after all, always the one in the right.

You are demonstrably narrow minded, judgmental, and combative.

http://www.sketchyconcepts.com/Pot%20and%20Kettle%20web.gif

ROFL!!!

You are wound awfully tight for someone named "sparky".

Let me know if you ever get over yourself.

Maybe we can have a conversation instead of you just sniping at me, for once.

Like you know any combat veterans...

My father -- Korean War

My uncle-- Korean War

My uncle-- Vietnam, 3 tours

numerous peers ---Vietnam

If you were as candid with them as you have been with us, then I don't think you'd be breathing right now.

Probably correct. And I was not candid with them.

Like you, they are very closed minded and rather ignorant about the way things work in this country, and deplore hearing anything that challenges or threatens their carefully crafted (extremely rightwing) worldview.

But they (the ones who were in Vietnam) were very candid with me about their war experiences, and they (long before I'd ever heard of John Kerry) informed me almost verbatim of the same things occuring over there that John Kerry --in perfect honesty-- would later reveal.

Blaming YOUR OWN failures on the people who warned you against them is the height of stupidity and irresponsibility. Which explains why you embrace that tactic.


Blaming my own failings on the people who warned us against going into Iraq? These are the same group of IDIOTS who warned Reagan not to tangle with the Soviet Union, who were screaming at Bush Senior before the first Iraq war and those IDIOTS were wrong both times, dammit. Oh, and those IDIOTS were the ones who shut up real quick when it was Bill Clinton going into Haiti and Kosovo and using the same arguments W made when he spoke out against Iraq in a U.N. speech. Those IDIOTS put politics first, beliefs second. Those IDIOTS are dope smoking, maggot infested, out of touch with reality types I wouldn't trust to wash my car, never mind dictate foreign policy to me. Though I'm sure that "insurgents" everywhere take comfort that they are doing their best to undermine Bush and have achieved a slim lead in the Congress, dammit.

Also, those "idiots" were absolutely correct, so what does that make you?

See above, dammit.

I would tell you but it would be "rude".

You mean you'd tell me, but some left wing blogger hasn't made the effort of describing me for you to copy and paste and are completely unable to come up with an original thought of your own, outside of the petty insults of course, dammit.

Blaming my own failings on the people who warned us against going into Iraq?

Yes, you are. And unlike you, "idiots" this this were absolutely correct:

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.




These are the same group of IDIOTS who warned Reagan not to tangle with Ronald Reagan,

You have no room to call anyone else an "idiot". :rolleyes:

Would you rather have him remain silent on the atrocities American soldiers committed? They raped and killed innocent Vietnamese, should these crimes not be brought to light? Good luck trying to back up the claim of lying, it's a well-known fact that some American soliders did horrible things to innocent civilians.

Kerry stood up for what was right. The fact that you are condemning him for exposing rapists and murderers is laughable and it makes me question your reasoning ability.

*irritated*

Attrocities against Vietnamese civilians were not endemic to the activities of the American soldiers. Nor did the U.S. have a policy of terrorizing Vietnamese civilians. When Mai Lai came to light, the men involved were prosecuted, their crime wasn't covered up.

NOW, as you say, if Kerry merely told the truth about what happened in Vietnam, how come he won't have the book he wrote detailing the attrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam republished? Kerry wrote a book called "The New Soldier," you'd like it, it supposedly details all the horrible things U.S. troops committed against Vietnamese citizens, yet that book is nowhere to be found. It's valuable, people WANT to read it. For a while it was selling for hundreds of dollars on e-bay. Yet Kerry wants to pretend he never wrote that book. Very, very odd behaviour for someone who, as you say, was telling the truth and was standing up for right, dammit.

Kerry also changed his "Christmas in Cambodia" story when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" started making noise about his accounts. Again, odd behaviour. Getting involved in top secret operations would tend to stick out in one's memory and if Kerry did as he claimed, he wouldn't have been changing his story, now would he? Dammit.

In short, Kerry is a phony. He got his Purple Hearts from a rather bad encounter with a can opener while on patrol, he then came home and told a Congressional Committee a pack of lies about U.S. soldiers committing attrocities in Vietnam to make himself look good to the anti-war left and get himself elected into Congress, he writes a book detailing said attrocities, then pretends he did no such thing, he "protested" the war by throwing someone ELSES medals over the Whitehouse Gates, he was changing his story about his Swift Boat activities into Cambodia. Then he goes and accuses U.S. soldiers in IRAQ of terrorizing Iraqi civilians in the middle of the night (hey, it worked last time!) and tells a group of college students that either they work hard or they'll get stuck in Iraq.

Kerry is the P.o.S type two faced, backstabbing, lying, cheating, arrogant politician that gives other politicians a bad name, and THAT is saying something, dammit.

and it makes me question your reasoning ability.

I question your logic and patrioticism, with cause, dammit.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Out of curiosity, where'd you get that at?

Dammit.

Out of curiosity, where'd you get that at?


It is from one of those "idiots" whom you claim "warned Reagan not to mess with Ronald Reagan"... :rolleyes:

It is a speech Barak Obama gave in Oct. 2002.

In short, Kerry is a phony. He got his Purple Hearts from a rather bad encounter with a can opener while on patrol,

I question your sanity and patriotism. You are spitting on every soldier who fought in Vietnam.

It is from one of those "idiots" whom you claim "warned Reagan not to mess with Ronald Reagan"... :rolleyes:

Whoops.

Dang.

Hate it when I make a gramatical flub of that magnitude.



It is a speech Barak Obama gave in Oct. 2002.

Point being that you may want to try to come up with your own ideas. It's generally a good idea to cite sources, but there is a limit to the cutting and pasting, dammit.

NOW, as you say, if Kerry merely told the truth about what happened in Vietnam, how come he won't have the book he wrote detailing the attrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam republished? Kerry wrote a book called "The New Soldier," you'd like it, it supposedly details all the horrible things U.S. troops committed against Vietnamese citizens, yet that book is nowhere to be found. It's valuable, people WANT to read it. For a while it was selling for hundreds of dollars on e-bay. Yet Kerry wants to pretend he never wrote that book. Very, very odd behaviour for someone who, as you say, was telling the truth and was standing up for right, dammit.

Ok, you got me. He wrote a book awhile ago and it's no longer being published. This is undeniable evidence that he lied about the conduct of some American Soliders.

Kerry also changed his "Christmas in Cambodia" story when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" started making noise about his accounts. Again, odd behaviour. Getting involved in top secret operations would tend to stick out in one's memory and if Kerry did as he claimed, he wouldn't have been changing his story, now would he? Dammit.

In short, Kerry is a phony. He got his Purple Hearts from a rather bad encounter with a can opener while on patrol, he then came home and told a Congressional Committee a pack of lies about U.S. soldiers committing attrocities in Vietnam to make himself look good to the anti-war left and get himself elected into Congress, he writes a book detailing said attrocities, then pretends he did no such thing, he "protested" the war by throwing someone ELSES medals over the Whitehouse Gates, he was changing his story about his Swift Boat activities into Cambodia. Then he goes and accuses U.S. soldiers in IRAQ of terrorizing Iraqi civilians in the middle of the night (hey, it worked last time!) and tells a group of college students that either they work hard or they'll get stuck in Iraq.

Kerry is the P.o.S type two faced, backstabbing, lying, cheating, arrogant politician that gives other politicians a bad name, and THAT is saying something, dammit.

I question your logic and patrioticism, with cause, dammit.

This is all fine and dandy but none of it backs up your claim that he lied about the crimes American soldiers committed against Vietnamese citizens. Saying he's changed one story or exaggerated another doesn't prove jack shit.

What cause have I given you to question my "patrioticism"? Because I believe Kerry is telling the truth?

Ok, you got me. He wrote a book awhile ago and it's no longer being published. This is undeniable evidence that he lied about the conduct of some American Soliders.

Sarcasm aside, it IS odd behaviour. If someone does blow the whistle on a terrible situation or people responsible for attrocities, they usually don't go and pretend they did no such thing. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law, but it is something that people need to take into consideration.


What cause have I given you to question my "patrioticism"? Because I believe Kerry is telling the truth?

How quick are you to attack actions by the U.S. and how slow are you to condemn actions committed by other countries? It's something that irks me, dammit.

Point being that you may want to try to come up with your own ideas. It's generally a good idea to cite sources, but there is a limit to the cutting and pasting, dammit.

WTF?

You were making unsubstantiated claims about some vague group of unnamed "idiots".

I was talking about the people, like myself, who opposed this invasion before it began. Barak Obama being a very public and prominent example, is a perfectly valid subject to counter your claims about your imaginary "idiots". Mostly because his speech is 100% correct.

The thing that gets me the most about this nonsense is that if I don't post information to backup what I say, you complain.

Now when I do post information that backs up what I say, you complain.

It seems your only real point here is that you are going to complain about whatever I say, no matter what that is.

NOW, as you say, if Kerry merely told the truth about what happened in Vietnam, how come he won't have the book he wrote detailing the attrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam republished?

No doubt because a huge group of goddamned self-deluded whiners who cannot bear to hear the truth be told began --despicably-- to allege that he was lying.

.....he then came home and told a Congressional Committee a pack of lies about U.S. soldiers committing attrocities in Vietnam

Again, where is your evidence that he was making it up? Where? What could you possibly present to prove that no atrocities occured in Viet Nam?!?!?!?

Several people who served in Viet Nam have told me, in private conversations, many years ago, with NO possible reason for them to lie or to embellish or to invent a falsehood, stories about just such atrocities happening as Kerry spoke of.

To be perfectly honest with you, I have to question the sanity of any person who imagines that John Kerry --or any other human being-- would fabricate stories of Viet Nam atrocities to ingratiate (???:confused:???) themselves with some group.

Military awards are only important while one is in uniform. They account for promotion points and make people ask lots of questions. Once you're out, they're meaningless, unless the individual was awarded the Medal of Honor, in which case they might get a stretch of Interstate or something named after them.

John Kerry was Cpt of his own boat, even if it was a rowboat. As such, all paperwork had to be sent out under his signature, to his immediate superior, who apparently approved every award that came across his desk. Kerry put himself in for those awards.

As with most other things thirty plus years old, they're meaningless.

My father -- Korean War

My uncle-- Korean War

My uncle-- Vietnam, 3 tours

numerous peers ---Vietnamburn...
If you were as candid with them as you have been with us, then I don't think you'd be breathing right now.

Probably correct. And I was not candid with them. Playing the "War vets are violent fascists" card, good move Prea.

numerous peers ---Vietnam.
Speaking of which, how did you manage to avoid serving your country, FT? Perhaps you took one too many droppers of LSD in the back of a Volkswagen Mini Bus?

Playing the "War vets are violent fascists" card, good move Prea.
No, I wasn't. I was just playing the "war vets don't take kindly to presumptuous cocks who revel in bashing their country" card, but then again, I wouldn't expect a dilettante like you to understand. You play cards for shit.