turtlespeed 226 #51 August 26, 2004 Quote Read it, you might learn something. Let's not go off half cocked - and jump to conclusions.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
kallend 2,153 #52 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteRon, 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? Real soldiers don't go AWOL.... 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
PhillyKev 0 #53 August 26, 2004 QuoteYou 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. That's a good point. And then were back to the old argument that they are then civilian criminals, which are covered by international law that we are not following either. Take your pick, they're either violating the Geneva Convention or they're violating international law. I don't see much difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #54 August 26, 2004 QuoteThat's a good point. And then were back to the old argument that they are then civilian criminals, which are covered by international law that we are not following either. Take your pick, they're either violating the Geneva Convention or they're violating international law. I don't see much difference. It's not one or the other (Legal combatants or civilian criminals). It's neither. They are illegal combatants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #55 August 26, 2004 QuoteThey are illegal combatants. Not according to the supreme court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #56 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey are illegal combatants. Not according to the supreme court. Yeah...but that's what they should be in my world! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #57 August 26, 2004 QuoteReal soldiers don't go AWOL. And since you can't PROVE GWB went AWOL..Then you are saying he is a real soldier then."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
Kennedy 0 #58 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey 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? Umm... could be because the prisoners ARE NOT COVERED by the Geneva Conventions. Show me where they fit into the conventions, please. (you can find the text of all conventions on the UN website).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
PhillyKev 0 #59 August 26, 2004 keep going a few more posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #60 August 26, 2004 >And you defend a guy who is a war criminal but won't admit it. So I > guess we're even. There are people out there who will crucify anyone who admits a mistake. Such actions encourage lying - if you're going to be crucified for telling the truth, why not lie and see if you can get away with it? You see this in our "victim culture" all the time. Everyone's a victim, it's never anyone's fault. Personally, I admire people who admit their mistakes and work to correct them - but I realize I am in the very great minority. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #61 August 26, 2004 QuotePersonally, I admire people who admit their mistakes and work to correct them - but I realize I am in the very great minority. I don't think so. I think that they (the hypothetical mistake-admitters) are.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,153 #62 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteReal soldiers don't go AWOL. And since you can't PROVE GWB went AWOL..Then you are saying he is a real soldier then. You can't PROVE anything about Kerry, either. All you can do is produce hearsay and internet links. Since Kerry has never been found guilty by a competent court of justice, he is ipso facto not guilty of anything and is not a criminal. GWB had most of his record sealed, but we know he has been convicted of DUI.... 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
turtlespeed 226 #63 August 26, 2004 Quote You can't PROVE anything about Kerry, either. All you can do is produce hearsay and internet links. Since WHEN is self admition not proof? Or was Kerry LYING again?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
kallend 2,153 #64 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuote You can't PROVE anything about Kerry, either. All you can do is produce hearsay and internet links. Since WHEN is self admition not proof? Or was Kerry LYING again? Do you have the signed affidavit of admission, or are you relying on hearsay too?... 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
SkyDekker 1,465 #65 August 26, 2004 QuoteAnd since you can't PROVE GWB went AWOL Weren't you the same guy screaming earlier that nobody could prove Bush was a criminal. I am surprised you are not still busy trying to remove a foot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #66 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote You can't PROVE anything about Kerry, either. All you can do is produce hearsay and internet links. Since WHEN is self admition not proof? Or was Kerry LYING again? Do you have the signed affidavit of admission, or are you relying on hearsay too? I have seen video of Kerry's admission on the Dick Cavett Show,1971. Or wait are you informing us that this was not really Kerry but an imposter?If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,153 #67 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You can't PROVE anything about Kerry, either. All you can do is produce hearsay and internet links. Since WHEN is self admition not proof? Or was Kerry LYING again? Do you have the signed affidavit of admission, or are you relying on hearsay too? I have seen video of Kerry's admission on the Dick Cavett Show,1971. Or wait are you informing us that this was not really Kerry but an imposter? Well, Ron brought up the topic of PROOF. Proof is not established by hearsay or old videos or internet links to blogs. Ron claims that Kerry is a war criminal and I claim to have just as much actual proof that Bush was AWOL.... 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
turtlespeed 226 #68 August 26, 2004 There is a word that I am not allowed to use here that describes your thought processes here. If that is what you REALLY believe, I truly feel sorry for those you are trying to teach logic to.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
pajarito 0 #69 August 26, 2004 Maybe I missed this. I haven't read all of this B.S. But didn't Bush produce the LES's (Leave & Earnings Statements) i.e. pay stubs from that time period in the National Guard? If so, what the hell's the problem. There's no better proof than that. If I'm wrong, I appologize. It's just that the LES is pretty much the primary source of paperwork used to prove just about anything to do with your service in the military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,153 #70 August 26, 2004 QuoteThere is a word that I am not allowed to use here that describes your thought processes here. If that is what you REALLY believe, I truly feel sorry for those you are trying to teach logic to. Logic doesn't apply until you have defined your terms. Proof of criminality (Ron's claim) is not established by hearsay or old videos. We have legal procedures for establishing criminal guilt. Bush has never been found guilty of AWOL, and Kerry has never been found guilty of war crimes. You have already established that you think the sun shines from GWB's posterior, no need to repeat.... 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
turtlespeed 226 #71 August 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteThere is a word that I am not allowed to use here that describes your thought processes here. If that is what you REALLY believe, I truly feel sorry for those you are trying to teach logic to. Logic doesn't apply until you have defined your terms. Proof of criminality (Ron's claim) is not established by hearsay or old videos. We have legal procedures for establishing criminal guilt. Bush has never been found guilty of AWOL, and Kerry has never been found guilty of war crimes. You have already established that you think the sun shines from GWB's posterior, no need to repeat. Then explain to me - what tools would be used to prove guilt? Proof - Video is proof. Dance around the subject all you want - at the end of the day - when you go to bed - as you close your eyes and fall asleep, you know that I am right.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
kallend 2,153 #72 August 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere is a word that I am not allowed to use here that describes your thought processes here. If that is what you REALLY believe, I truly feel sorry for those you are trying to teach logic to. Logic doesn't apply until you have defined your terms. Proof of criminality (Ron's claim) is not established by hearsay or old videos. We have legal procedures for establishing criminal guilt. Bush has never been found guilty of AWOL, and Kerry has never been found guilty of war crimes. You have already established that you think the sun shines from GWB's posterior, no need to repeat. Then explain to me - what tools would be used to prove guilt? Proof - Video is proof. Dance around the subject all you want - at the end of the day - when you go to bed - as you close your eyes and fall asleep, you know that I am right. In our society, being found guilty by a jury of your peers after they hear all the evidence, hearsay excluded, is considered proof of guilt of a crime. There is a presumption of innocence (unless incarcerated in Bush's Camp X-Ray). I'm surprised you weren't aware of that. Anyhow, C-Span has now exposed the deceit of those using the out-of-context quotes to attack Kerry.... 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
peacefuljeffrey 0 #73 August 27, 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. Ahh, the Nuremberg Defense! I thought that had gone out of style! Is there really an officer in a war who doesn't know you're not allowed to shoot defenseless civilians in the back and burn their villages? I'm leery of having such an ignorant person run the risk of becoming president of the United States... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #74 August 27, 2004 > But didn't Bush produce the LES's (Leave & Earnings Statements) > i.e. pay stubs from that time period in the National Guard? Yes, just as Kerry produced the actual commendations that led to his medals. That's not nearly enough nowadays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,153 #75 August 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteYep. 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. Ahh, the Nuremberg Defense! I thought that had gone out of style! Is there really an officer in a war who doesn't know you're not allowed to shoot defenseless civilians in the back and burn their villages? I'm leery of having such an ignorant person run the risk of becoming president of the United States... - We already have a President who is running a prison camp in Guantanamo that has been declared in violation of the Geneva Conventions by the ICRC. I guess we should be sure to kick him out. As far as "ignorant person", well, TheAnvil has GWB pegged on that score: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1075575#1075575... 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
