Recommended Posts
juanesky 0
Officers in particular are held, in higher regards, responsible for the men, equipement and accomplishment of the goals. It is punishable by law and court martial everything he stated he did in congress. Particularly for the office because it is demanded by them to punish the offender or seek punishent. I Can relate this over a pm later, it;s long.
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
kallend 2,146
QuoteDoes anyone have a link to a transcript of Kerry's testimony about Viet Nam in front of congress? Please, no link to newspaper articles, but to the actual transcript.
Ignoring the out of context audio clips (Michael Moore would be proud) here is the whole thing:
www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>What they didn't see (obviously) was how Bush said, "I don't think we can
> really win it." The word, "it" referring to terrorism. When he said the word,
> "it" he put his hands up and did the quotation mark sign with it.
I guess it depends on what the definition of what "it" is.
> really win it." The word, "it" referring to terrorism. When he said the word,
> "it" he put his hands up and did the quotation mark sign with it.
I guess it depends on what the definition of what "it" is.
kallend 2,146
QuoteHe was referring to terrorism when he said the word, "it". He said the word, "it" while making quotation marks with his hands.
What he said was 100% correct and right on. Can we win the war on terrorism? Yes. Can we really win the war on terrorism? No. Why? Because there are no winners in war.
I don't think you can get much lamer than that excuse.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Funny how the truth is always, "lame" to liberals.
Forty-two
Forty-two
QuoteCan we win the war on terrorism? Yes. Can we really win the war on terrorism? No.
Pls excuse if I dare to correct the above, just seen from my side of the big big water:
That probably was lame, but much more it was repeating what GBW said many times in TV, something wrong with our German TV? My ears?
dudeist skydiver # 3105
kallend 2,146
QuoteFunny how the truth is always, "lame" to liberals.
The excuse you gave is lame to any reader. Ann Coulter would never use a lame excuse like that, she'd lose all credibility.
PS, you must have thought it lame yourself, since you have since deleted it.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
juanesky 0
Yea, but, but BUSH LIED
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
Like the old saying goes...There are no winners in war.
Is that statement true? Absolutely.
Does anyone hesitate to say the US and our allies won the war against Germany and Japan in WWII?
Nope.
Not lame when you open your eyes and think outside of the liberal box.
Forty-two
Is that statement true? Absolutely.
Does anyone hesitate to say the US and our allies won the war against Germany and Japan in WWII?
Nope.
Not lame when you open your eyes and think outside of the liberal box.
Forty-two
Quote
Not lame when you open your eyes and think outside of the liberal box.
Hey Tunaplanet,
I opened my eyes, as I am old enough for that. And since I entered this site, wow: I learned so much!
How could you know that I'm liberal? I am not, but with a big touch of green
and a big interest in liberals' policy.
What you call old saying "there are no winners in war" is hackneyed. Nonsens. There were too many wars, I feel sure none of us wants another one, right?
OK, let me just talk for Europe.
BTW: WWII is not in question here, right? We should neglect that one
dudeist skydiver # 3105
juanesky 0
Non sense? It is, for since man is on this planet there has been wars. Otherwise no countries would have armed forces IMO....
This is just like a hostage situation, you kill all the kidnappers, yet you don't really win, you adverted a worse possible outcome. Is this clear enough?
This is just like a hostage situation, you kill all the kidnappers, yet you don't really win, you adverted a worse possible outcome. Is this clear enough?
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
I wonder how many people on this forum have actually bothered reading Kerry's testimony before congress. From either side. I have heard so much bullshit from both sides, and finally got to read it, and was quite amazed.
How many have truly read it?
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
How many have truly read it?
"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
juanesky 0
I read it, but still he states that he had to commit those atrocities, with the knowledge even officers *he was one*.....
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
kallend 2,146
QuoteI read it, but still he states that he had to commit those atrocities, with the knowledge even officers *he was one*.....
Reading and understanding are not the same thing. What is there is an indictment of the system and the Johnson/Nixon administrations, not of the individual soldiers.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteIs this clear enough
It always was in my eyes but, I would prefer to receive orginal poster's reply on that,
so come on Tuna, let me see!
dudeist skydiver # 3105
QuoteNo, they're apparently not allowed to question Bush as he's their C-in-C and thus to do so would be sedition.
Or so goes the argument...
Don't presume to speak for me, especially when the lines you try to put in my mouth are unadulterated drivel.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Quote>If I tell you I commited a crime, raped, and murdered without any regards
> the TH's over here, in blatant disregard to the laws, ROE's, UCMJ's and
> TRAINING, the least I would expect is you pointing a finger at me and
> screaming "murderer, Criminal". Yet since Kerry is your guy, you simply
> don't.
Suppose you had in detention a guy who (you believed) had information that could save the lives of your fellow soldiers. Might you use force to try to get that information?
Is this what you're saying Kerry was doing at the times he admits he committed war crimes and atrocities? Is it not the same thing you now decry our troops were doing in Iraq?
Don't worry, I really don't expect you to issue a clear, unambiguous, and non-obfuscatory answer. I was pretty much being rhetorical.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
wmw999 2,587
Quotebut could you agree that sometimes the conservaitives get call liars, stupid, dupes
Absolutely. No question about it. And people are tuned to things they hear about themselves, too -- it's quite human nature.
For instance, I happen to think that on this forum, there are more conservatives who are into anti-liberal one-liners and gross generalizations than there are liberals who go the other way.
For some reason
I don't think that's what everyone thinks 
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
mr2mk1g 10
I'm not trying to speak for you. That is a genuine argument I've seen made by some Americans as reported in the UK press. I've also seen it made here in varying degrees.
You are quite able to make your own arguments independant of other people who have made that one. You do not have to agree with it. I have in no way intimated that you do.
I have not made a single comment about any of the arguments you have made - I understand and agree with a lot of what the Bush camp says about Kerry. I simply pulled out the argument in question because no one else seemed to be concerned by it - that surprised me.
I in no way intimated it was your argument.
Drivel - yes absolute drivel, that's my very point. But it's not an argument I have made, but one made by Bush supporters. You are allowed to say that one argument made by the people who support the same candidate as you is nonsensical if you feel it is.
You are quite able to make your own arguments independant of other people who have made that one. You do not have to agree with it. I have in no way intimated that you do.
I have not made a single comment about any of the arguments you have made - I understand and agree with a lot of what the Bush camp says about Kerry. I simply pulled out the argument in question because no one else seemed to be concerned by it - that surprised me.
I in no way intimated it was your argument.
Drivel - yes absolute drivel, that's my very point. But it's not an argument I have made, but one made by Bush supporters. You are allowed to say that one argument made by the people who support the same candidate as you is nonsensical if you feel it is.
turtlespeed 226
QuoteYes, I was replying to your post.
Kallend was not saying that Kerry did not testify before Congress.
He was saying that there's not proof, in a legal sense, of Kerry being a war criminal.
Kerry's opinion is that some of the things he did in wartime would, in retrospect, be considered war crimes. However, without a court martial, that does not constitute proof. And it's only his opinion that they were war crimes.
I'm sure there are soldiers doing what they think is the best they can do in Iraq now, who, in retrospect, will not look back on what they did as having been as good as it looked at the time. Some will probably say that they were wrong.
If you look at some of the posts showing videos, you can see discussion about whether something is appropriate or not. Not every question and a black-and-white right/wrong answer, and when you're dealing with realtime situations, you have to take into account the person doing the action. That doesn't make them necessarily wrong or right, but it does mean that the person who disagrees with that action, or who took a different action in a similar situation, is also not necessarily wrong or right.
To me, it's all a matter of perspective.
And yes, I'm a liberal. When people call all liberals liars, stupid, dupes, or anything else, they're talking about me.
Wendy W.
I'm looking at it in a logical, real life, reality type of point of view -
It would seem logical to me that if he did these things, knowing that they were wrong, he would fit the description of a war criminal. No it hasn't been brought up before a court martial - I don't think he can - he has been released from service.
But I ask you this - If a person off the street breaks into your house and cuts off your ear, rapes you, shoots your kids, burs down your neiborhhod and your house, is he not a criminal in your mind? Or is it because he hasn't been proven so in court that you consider him not to be? I'm talking about common sense. Skirting issues and refusing to admit something because you favor someone, rather despise someone else, is a poor ecxcuse for rationality, and shows a child like mentality.
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
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
wmw999 2,587
In a wartime situation things change. It's unacceptable to break into someone's house and shoot them in the US right now (well, unless you're the police or something). But if you're a soldier, and someone told you that the house is a haven for the enemy, and that YOU have to do something NOW or your buddies will die, I'll bet that the definition of unacceptable changes.
And I'll bet that you don't go checking the ROE to see just how far you have to put yourself into danger to determine whether they are enemy or neutral.
I'll bet that a whole lot of other people did the same things; they just never really considered it to be wrong.
I don't think it's a highlight of his career; on the other hand, his willingness to examine his past actions critically shows an openmindedness that I admire. Setting your course and not deviating come hell or high water is only good if it's really the right course, and sometimes getting additional information means that you change your course.
Wendy W.
And I'll bet that you don't go checking the ROE to see just how far you have to put yourself into danger to determine whether they are enemy or neutral.
I'll bet that a whole lot of other people did the same things; they just never really considered it to be wrong.
I don't think it's a highlight of his career; on the other hand, his willingness to examine his past actions critically shows an openmindedness that I admire. Setting your course and not deviating come hell or high water is only good if it's really the right course, and sometimes getting additional information means that you change your course.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
turtlespeed 226
QuoteIn a wartime situation things change.
In any time - things change. Rules take longer to change. They did - but not the ones that were relevant to his situation, ebven in combat.
QuoteIt's unacceptable to break into someone's house and shoot them in the US right now (well, unless you're the police or something).
I would hope that to be the law in ANY country.
QuoteBut if you're a soldier, and someone told you that the house is a haven for the enemy, and that YOU have to do something NOW or your buddies will die, I'll bet that the definition of unacceptable changes.
Quote
QuoteI'll bet that a whole lot of other people did the same things; they just never really considered it to be wrong.
Bin Ladin doesn't think what he did, or, is doing, is wrong either. Sad, but true.QuoteI don't think it's a highlight of his career; on the other hand, his willingness to examine his past actions critically shows an openmindedness that I admire.
I wouldn't go so far as to say admire - it is a basic reaction to guilt.QuoteSetting your course and not deviating come hell or high water is only good if it's really the right course, and sometimes getting additional information means that you change your course.
Yes. But who determines "right?"QuoteWendy W.
I know who you are.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
billvon 3,111
I think it's funny that you refuse to answer a question I posed and then say:
>Don't worry, I really don't expect you to issue a clear, unambiguous,
>and non-obfuscatory answer.
>Don't worry, I really don't expect you to issue a clear, unambiguous,
>and non-obfuscatory answer.
Of course not. Just like how the media spins certain text out of control. Remember the recent Bush-Bashing over him supposedly contradicting himself becasuse he said in one interview/speech that we could win the war on terrorism and in another interview/speech that we couldn't?
I chuckled at how the liberals on here...on cue...ranted and raved about it. What they didn't see (obviously) was how Bush said, "I don't think we can really win it." The word, "it" referring to terrorism. When he said the word, "it" he put his hands up and did the quotation mark sign with it.
Was that stated clearly when the media ran with it? Of course not. All you heard was the audio from it.
It's kind of like talking about winning a war. Can you win a war? Yes. Is the winner of a war really a winner? Not really.
Leave it to the media and liberal sheep to make a mountain out of a mole hill by taking things out of context.
Forty-two
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites