TomAiello 26 #26 August 26, 2004 QuoteI doubt you care what I think of it though. Actually, I do care. I find it disturbing that you don't differentiate between greater and lesser crimes. I mean, heck, even the justice system (at least in the US) differentiates between misdemeanors and felonies.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #27 August 26, 2004 QuoteActually, I do care. I find it disturbing that you don't differentiate between greater and lesser crimes. I mean, heck, even the justice system (at least in the US) differentiates between misdemeanors and felonies. I do differentiate, just certainly not as much when it comes to people vying for the position of President. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #28 August 26, 2004 Sure it is. There's nothing wrong with driving drunk. I've driven while over the lmit but under my tolerance (I don't any more only for fear of losing my job). Now, causing an accident, that's not victimless, and is a crime. However, I"m not really going to argue this one with you. Drunk driving needs to stay illegal because too many people don't learn to take care of themselves. However, I think checkpoints are the biggest bunch of BS. If a person hasn't done anything wrong, why go after them? Oh yeah, revenues are falling as of late... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,153 #29 August 26, 2004 A former colleague of mine, now dead, was a medical orderly in Vietnam. He said that when he had spare time he (and lots of others) would cadge rides in Hueys so they could shoot out the side doors. He said he (and lots of others) pretty much indicriminately shot at any Vietnamese they could see in the fields. Ron, you are getting all worked up about a miniscule part of dreadful stuff that happened years ago. The problem isn't Kerry or my friend, the problem is that the US should never have been there in the first place. Vietnam was one big FU by the US. Much as I despise GWB, he (and Clinton and Ashcroft and Cheney) really were the smart ones to dodge duty over there. Hard to commit a war crime while AWOL from defending Alabama or studying in Oxford.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #30 August 26, 2004 QuoteSure it is. There's nothing wrong with driving drunk. I've driven while over the lmit but under my tolerance (I don't any more only for fear of losing my job). Now, causing an accident, that's not victimless, and is a crime. However, I"m not really going to argue this one with you. Drunk driving needs to stay illegal because too many people don't learn to take care of themselves. However, I think checkpoints are the biggest bunch of BS. If a person hasn't done anything wrong, why go after them? Oh yeah, revenues are falling as of late... Wow…I’m surprised to hear you say stuff like that, Kennedy. However, I used to think the same thing. I’ve done my share of driving under the influence and under “what I thought” was my tolerance. Luckily, I never got hurt or killed or did the same to anyone else. “If a person hasn’t done anything wrong, why go after them?” Because in the case of driving drunk, many times if you wait till the drunk did something wrong, it’s too late for the other guy and somebody dies. Not really anything corrective punishment can correct in reference to the victim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #31 August 26, 2004 I'm not really arguing for the change, just saying my piece. However, isn't that the point of all laws and law enforcement, to show up after the fact, when it's too late for the victim? (except for prior restraint, of course)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #32 August 26, 2004 Definite job security for you! There's no shortage of idiots out there. "Whacha gonna do? ...Whacha gonna do when they come for you?." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #33 August 26, 2004 QuoteRon, you are getting all worked up about a miniscule part of dreadful stuff that happened years ago. No I find it funny that Kerry will admit to doing it, but you guys go up in arms over the current prison situation in Iraq....So its OK back then its water under the bridge, but today Bush should go down for something smaller? QuoteThe problem isn't Kerry or my friend, the problem is that the US should never have been there in the first place. Vietnam was one big FU by the US. That is still debatable. Popular no, but a big FU? QuoteHard to commit a war crime while AWOL from defending Alabama 1. You still have not proven that, we have proof Kerry is a war criminal. 2. So National Guard are not "real" soldiers?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #34 August 26, 2004 QuoteWhen he found out that he, and others, were in fact violating the Geneva conventions he spoke out about it, which is what he is usually criticized for. Let me see if I've got something straight here. Kerry is calling for Rumsfield to resign because of the Iraqi prison scandal, because he was the man in charge at the top, and this makes him unfit to be the Secretary of Defense. And at the same time, Kerry confessed to committing war crimes in sworn testimony before Congress, yet he is still fit to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces? How funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 August 26, 2004 QuoteLet me see if I've got something straight here. Kerry thinks that Rumsfield should resign because of the Iraqi prison scandal, because he was the man in charge at the top, and this makes him unfit to be the Secretary of Defense. And at the same time, Kerry confessed to committing war crimes in sworn testimony before Congress, yet he is still fit to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces? How funny. Why am I not surprized that you understand this, and they don't?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #36 August 26, 2004 Let's see, one is in power now, and has yet to admit fault. The other did it over 30 years ago, when he was in his early 20's, recognized his mistake and tried to rectify it. Yeah, that about sums it up. Who would you rather have, someone who does bad things now while they are in office, or one who did them and learned from his mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #37 August 26, 2004 QuoteSorry, just wanted to demonstrate in simple terms the basic tactics of the current campaign from both sides. Let's have a big hand for Ron for helping in this demonstration. And you did MARVELOUSLY - we state facts - you say Neener Neener My daughter did that at age four. yep - that about covers it.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #38 August 26, 2004 Your facts are the equivalent of "he has cooties", hence the responce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #39 August 26, 2004 QuoteYour facts are the equivalent of "he has cooties", hence the responce Um our facts are along the lines of "You guy admitted to commiting war crimes".....You guys then say things like "Bush was AWOL" Which you can't prove. We proved our point by your guy ADMITTING to commiting war crimes."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #40 August 26, 2004 QuoteYep. Because he was doing what he was told to do, what everyone else was doing, what he thought he was supposed to do, and what he thought was legal to do. When he found out that he, and others, were in fact violating the Geneva conventions he spoke out about it, which is what he is usually criticized for. So since you claim he lied about his vietnam service, is he lying about this too? Or do you believe him when it suits your purpose? That is a crock of shit, Kev. As a military officer with more than 21 years of service (and counting), the first thing that happens when you get in to a situation like that is to go over the ROE (rules of engagement.) For 50 cal weapons, the rules have been well known to both enlisted and officers since the beginning of Vietnam. To say that he didn't know is admitting dereliction of duty, plain and simple. Frankly I don't care if he is lying or not, he is on both sides of these issues in Nam, and he is wrong on both accounts. I think the point is that a guy who admits war crimes and admits dereliction of duty, and then touts the fact that he earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts doing it somehow qualifies him to be President. HELLO? Politics aside, can't both sides see the irony in this? No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #41 August 26, 2004 Does "cooties" equal no morals and willing to lie when it serves? If so I agree with you.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #42 August 26, 2004 QuoteYour facts are the equivalent of "he has cooties", hence the responce. No - you are deliberately ignoring and selectively acknowledging - Kerry HIMSELF said he did these things - part of the training an officer goes through TO BECOME AN OFFICER, is a study of the geneva convention. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong. He admitted that he did it. What part don't you understand?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #43 August 26, 2004 Please tell me how many times the ROE were modified in Vietnam. Here's a hint, you need more than both hands and feet to count it up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #44 August 26, 2004 QuoteNo - you are deliberately ignoring and selectively acknowledging - Kerry HIMSELF said he did these things - part of the training an officer goes through TO BECOME AN OFFICER, is a study of the geneva convention. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong. He admitted that he did it. What part don't you understand? And you're ignoring the fact that it was 30 years ago, when he was a kid, and he's changed since then. Bush and Rumsfeld are committing their attrocities now. What part don't YOU understand? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #45 August 26, 2004 QuotePlease tell me how many times the ROE were modified in Vietnam. Here's a hint, you need more than both hands and feet to count it up. The fact that the Johnson administration ran the war from the Oval office and modified the ROE daily isn't the issue (though you are trying to distract from the main point.) I defy you or anyone else to come up with the legitimate directive that allowed US Service Personnel to use mounted 50-Cal weapons as an anti-personnel weapon. YOU CAN'T. Now, if you were to stay on the subject about Kerry, I'm really interested in how you can justify what he has done directly. These aren't the republican words or tactics...these are Kerry's own. It's a losing argument....but it's really fun to watch you try. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #46 August 26, 2004 QuoteAnd you're ignoring the fact that it was 30 years ago, when he was a kid, and he's changed since then. Bush and Rumsfeld are committing their attrocities now. What part don't YOU understand? Hey, war crimes have no statute of limitations. He wasn't a kid, he was a man and a military officer who admitted to war crimes. What attrocities are Bush and Rumsfeld committing? They are fighting a war and keeping the Genevia Convention in tact while doing it. Even with Abu Gra, they are proscecuting the offenders. Just because we don't agree with your drivel doesn't mean we don't understand. What is even funnier is that the fact that Bush will win in Nov. I love America! No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #47 August 26, 2004 I haven't read all of this but just had to comment on how much I like the Barrett 50cal sniper rifle. Noice!!! I know...I know...can only legally be used to destroy equipment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #48 August 26, 2004 QuoteThey are fighting a war and keeping the Genevia Convention in tact while doing it. What? Then why do they bend over backwards to make sure that prisoners are not classified so that they are covered by the Geneva convention? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #49 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo - you are deliberately ignoring and selectively acknowledging - Kerry HIMSELF said he did these things - part of the training an officer goes through TO BECOME AN OFFICER, is a study of the geneva convention. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was wrong. He admitted that he did it. What part don't you understand? QuoteAnd you're ignoring the fact that it was 30 years ago. when he was a kid, and he's changed since then. And he STILL TO THIS DAY uses that as a selling point in his career and his bid for the Presidency. Changed? NO. Bush and Rumsfeld are committing their attrocitiesdoing what needs to be done, and what needed to be done during the previous administration,as well as probably the one before that as well, now. What part don't YOU understand? The selectiveness in which you choose your differences between right and wrong. We tried - we gave him chance after chance after chance to comply with the wishes of the international community. What is it again that you DON'T understand? I only ask that because you don't seem to want to answer the questions posed - you just like to try to side step the questions.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #50 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey are fighting a war and keeping the Genevia Convention in tact while doing it. QuoteWhat? Then why do they bend over backwards to make sure that prisoners are not classified so that they are covered by the Geneva convention? You bet! The Geneva convention is clear. If you aren't a uniformed combatant, then you aren't a legal combatant. Therefore, you are NOT COVERED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTION. Read it, you might learn something. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
