Kerry volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam in order to evade serving in the Alabama National Guard

[FluffyMcDeath]

Nothing more to say. Just liked the subject line!! :lol:

[cecilia]

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Nothing more to say. Just liked the subject line!! :lol:

I figured you'd like one of your "Ooopsie!!" headlines better, considering he killed a Mother, a baby, and a 12 year old boy while in Vietnam.

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Nothing more to say. Just liked the subject line!! :lol:

I figured you'd like one of your "Ooopsie!!" headlines better, considering he killed a Mother, a baby, and a 12 year old boy while in Vietnam.


That's considerably less than Dumbya killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (but of course, he didn't put himself in harms way and do his own fighting there so that's morally better).

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Why don't you American's just vote for Ralph Nader? He seems to be the only reasonable politician in the US.

[cecilia]

the people who are to blame for wars and what happens are the politians who send youngsters into this hell that forces them to do horrible things.

When my grandfather's country was invaded, he was smart enough to know who was to blame. and had No hatred or prejudice against the Germans soldiers who were just over the hill.

One of the issues that tore this country apart in the 60's and 70's and even now is that you can't blame soldiers on policy made by old men who are hiding safely in their office while children get blown up.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Nothing more to say. Just liked the subject line!! :lol:

I figured you'd like one of your "Ooopsie!!" headlines better, considering he killed a Mother, a baby, and a 12 year old boy while in Vietnam.


That's considerably less than Dumbya killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (but of course, he didn't put himself in harms way and do his own fighting there so that's morally better).

You're aware Kerry voted for the war too, right?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Otherwise he'd been lynched by the furious mob.

[Fade]

by cecilia on 2004/3/3 12:15:12

the people who are to blame for wars and what happens are the politians who send youngsters into this hell that forces them to do horrible things.
--------------------

Why dont you blame the ones that are really responsible, Cecilia?

Wouldn't that be the ones that voted these politicians into office in the first place?

[cecilia]

Fade wrote:
by cecilia on 2004/3/3 12:15:12

the people who are to blame for wars and what happens are the politians who send youngsters into this hell that forces them to do horrible things.
--------------------

Why dont you blame the ones that are really responsible, Cecilia?

Wouldn't that be the ones that voted these politicians into office in the first place?i see you are in full agreement with your pal, Osama!

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
by cecilia on 2004/3/3 12:15:12

the people who are to blame for wars and what happens are the politians who send youngsters into this hell that forces them to do horrible things.
--------------------

Why dont you blame the ones that are really responsible, Cecilia?

Wouldn't that be the ones that voted these politicians into office in the first place?good point.
But there wasn't much to vote for in ww1 Germany.

[KennyR]

Why don't you American's just vote for Ralph Nader? He seems to be the only reasonable politician in the US.

Not true (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3325411.stm).

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
by cecilia on 2004/3/3 12:15:12

the people who are to blame for wars and what happens are the politians who send youngsters into this hell that forces them to do horrible things.
--------------------

Why dont you blame the ones that are really responsible, Cecilia?

Wouldn't that be the ones that voted these politicians into office in the first place?

At a certain level, yes, the voters share some of the blame, but then again, the people that run the country (or any country for that matter) try to make sure that anything the voter has to say doesn't change things too much. Nobody in the US voted to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and run up the national debt and run a huge annual deficit. Dumbya said he was not going to be a foreign policy prez. He said he was going to spend responsibly and run balanced budgets. The voters got shafted, spending went through the roof, the government went through a huge expansion.

Sure, Dumbya blames Osama, but nothing about being attacked by terrorists means that you have to go to war with sovreign states. There is an FBI, and a CIA and these organizations can track down and hire/train/eliminate terrorists as they see fit (when not hampered, bound, gagged and handcuffed by higher ups) while spending vastly less money doing it and all without creating any new government agencies!

Someone wanted to attack Iraq, someone wanted to attack Afghanistan, someone wanted to pass the patriot act. All these things were planned before 9-11. (-11 was just a convenient trigger, a "Pearl Harbor" event just like the one PNAC said it needed to enact it's plans.

[Glaucus]

Wouldn't that be the ones that voted these politicians into office in the first place?Those who voted for Bush voted for an isolationist president that wanted to withdraw from world domination and nation building. Funnily enough, the opposite happened!

- Mike

[Wilse]

Indeed - of all the billions of people on the planet,
which individual has benefitted most from the WTC disaster?

;-)

[Glaucus]

Wilse wrote:
Indeed - of all the billions of people on the planet,
which individual has benefitted most from the WTC disaster?

;-)Financially? Oil producers. Politically? Iran's hardliners (thanks to America's subsequent invasion of Iraq).

- Mike

[Fade]

@ Wilse
"Indeed - of all the billions of people on the planet,
which individual has benefitted most from the WTC disaster?"
------------------

My guess would be all the individuals living in Afghanistan that no longer have to live under the rule of the Taliban.

Indirectly, I should probably also say Iraqi individuals who no longer have to live under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

And maybe even the individuals who won't be subjected to the whims of a nuclear armed Libya.

[JaXanim]

Well, it's now a Kerry vs Dubya contest for the Presidency.

At some point, I understand the candidates will face each other in a live, televised debate. Now that will really be worth watching!

It will prove even more telling than the 'Sir, you are no J F Kennedy!' event of several years ago. Kerry really will wipe the floor with Dubya, I believe.

Cheers,

JaX

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Otherwise he'd been lynched by the furious mob.

Funny, none of his other actions seem to be influenced by what other people think, why just this one?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Otherwise he'd been lynched by the furious mob.

Funny, none of his other actions seem to be influenced by what other people think, why just this one?Enlighten me :-)

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

T_Bone wrote:


Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Otherwise he'd been lynched by the furious mob.

Funny, none of his other actions seem to be influenced by what other people think, why just this one?Enlighten me :-)

Ok, as soon as you've enlightened us to Kerry's other positions that are held due to fear of the furious mob. :-) If it's not just this ONE position that's changed due to fear of this furious mob, there are others then?

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ Wilse

Indirectly, I should probably also say Iraqi individuals who no longer have to live under the rule of Saddam Hussein.


This would probably be true if they also had the electricity, jobs, clean water and lack of civil war that they tended to have under Saddam.

[cecilia]

well, I do hope things get better for those poor people (and better for us, too), but at least saddan's scum sons aren't roaming the streets looking for people to rape, torture and kill.

[Fade]

Terrorist from neighboring countries does not equal civil war.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

@T-Bone
It was merely a guess, an assumption, about that mob thing I should have stated 'probably'
It's YOUR government, not mine.
So YOU have to be aware of his political positions.

Or is it an American tradition to vote the ones your grandparents' grandparents voted for?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Terrorist from neighboring countries does not equal civil war.Indeed. Civil wars are far far more vicious.

[whabang]

JaXanim wrote:
Well, it's now a Kerry vs Dubya contest for the Presidency.

At some point, I understand the candidates will face each other in a live, televised debate. Now that will really be worth watching!

It will prove even more telling than the 'Sir, you are no J F Kennedy!' event of several years ago. Kerry really will wipe the floor with Dubya, I believe.

Cheers,

JaX
I'd like to see that! It's allways fun to see big politicians argue! :-)

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@T-Bone
It was merely a guess, an assumption, about that mob thing I should have stated 'probably'
It's YOUR government, not mine.
So YOU have to be aware of his political positions.

Or is it an American tradition to vote the ones your grandparents' grandparents voted for?

What are you talking about? Someone tried to make a point that Bush was for the war. I pointed out that Kerry was too.

You tried to disqualify Kerry from this position saying he "probably" wasn't, even though he said he was, and voted accordingly.

So I asked you, if he succombed to pressure to alter any OTHER stances on issues, that would show a precident for him claiming to be supportive of a position, but not really meaning it, like you accused him of doing. Kerry supports MANY controversial stances that public opinion disagrees with, so why would he cave on this specific one?

[Fade]

I should point out that, most of the clean water was used to wash out the mouths of those whos tongues were being cut off.
But the good jobs of running the human shredder machines that used most of the electricity, are gone forever.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

@T-Bone
I don't know anything about this Kerry guy.

I only know that you've little choice for your government.
3 if I'm correct:
Bush
Kerry
Nader

Correct me if I'm wrong.

And to my opinion, Bush has made a mess. And they suggest that Kerry's the only opponent to Bush.

And can you give me a source to verify that it is actually the public opinion what you state?

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@T-Bone
I don't know anything about this Kerry guy.

I only know that you've little choice for your government.
3 if I'm correct:
Bush
Kerry
Nader

Correct me if I'm wrong.


You're wrong. :-) these are the choices after the "runoffs" and are the result of previous choices, they arn't the choices themselves. That's like saying "everyone voted for #1 and #2, therefore these were the only choices"

Anyways, there are MANY people still running for President under other parties. you could still vote for the nominee for any party, not just the 2/3 that are in the news.


And to my opinion, Bush has made a mess. And they suggest that Kerry's the only opponent to Bush.


I agree he made a mess, but for different reasons. I don't like his Federalist stances or his fiscal policy.


And can you give me a source to verify that it is actually the public opinion what you state?


I didn't say he caved into public opinion, you did. I simply stated his position, as he stated he believes it. You said he only did it because of public opinion, so why are you asking me for evidence to support your statement?

[Fade]

@ Speelgoedmannetje

I only know that you've little choice for your government.
3 if I'm correct:
--------------------

There are two main political parties in the US, the Democratic and the Republican parties.

Over the years there have been large numbers of smaller third and fourth parties.

These smaller parties are usually a splinter group from one of the two larger parties that have an agenda aside from the main parties' platform.

Both the Democrats and Republicans hate these third parties because they usually only serve to split a majority vote that would have won, and allow the 2nd place party to win.

A very good example: Ross Peroit split the Republican party by getting 18 million votes, and allowed Bill Clinton to be elected without a majority.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I didn't say he caved into public opinion, you did. I simply stated his position, as he stated he believes it. You said he only did it because of public opinion, so why are you asking me for evidence to support your statement?

ehm, I was referring to this:

Kerry supports MANY controversial stances that public opinion disagrees with

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
I should point out that, most of the clean water was used to wash out the mouths of those whos tongues were being cut off.
But the good jobs of running the human shredder machines that used most of the electricity, are gone forever.

You should only point those things out if you want people to think that you are foolish enough to believe those things.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I didn't say he caved into public opinion, you did. I simply stated his position, as he stated he believes it. You said he only did it because of public opinion, so why are you asking me for evidence to support your statement?

ehm, I was referring to this:

Kerry supports MANY controversial stances that public opinion disagrees with

That was a direct sequiter response to the above. You are asking me to support a disagreeing position to a position you haven't supported yet.

How am I supposed to do that? You have to make your case before I can refute it. How can I offer a rebutal in advance of the case it's in response to?


[edit- you're saying "I have nothing to support it, but X is probably true, prove me wrong"]

[Speelgoedmannetje]

@Fade
The Netherlands have dealt with this problem with building up our democracy.
You can read here (http://www.digits6k.com/comenius/web/politnd.htm) how.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I made my case based upon the fact that they've changed the name of 'French fries' into 'Freedom fries' :roflmao:

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I made my case based upon the fact that they've changed the name of 'French fries' into 'Freedom fries' :roflmao:

Therefore Kerry didn't really agree with the war he voted for? Why do you think Kerry was really against the war, and Bush was really for it, even though both voted for it?

[Fade]

@ FluffyMcDeath
"You should only point those things out if you want people to think that you are foolish enough to believe those things."
--------------

Do you believe this? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

@T-Bone
Because Bush said literally, either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists.
That's why. And that's why our government voted for the war either.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@T-Bone
Because Bush said literally, either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists.
That's why. And that's why our government voted for the war either.

I don't think you know who you're talking about. To say that Kerry, a decendant of Forbes, a friend of John. F Kennedy, a man who's been arrested for being involved in numerous protests and radical political movements, who appeared at political speeches with Jane Fonda, who denounced the POW/MIA issues in the wake of the Vietnam War (when it wasn't the IN thing to do anymore, the Rambo era), who has never backed down from any controversy, even when it's with members of his own party, (or even his personal friends!)... To say he "caved to public opinion" is rediculous and completely out of character.... *especially* when more poll-motivated people DID oppose the war.

I can't find any precidence that Kerry would succomb to public opinion... he certainly never has before, even if he had to be the sole dissenter which he has been on other issues, he hasn't caved, yet you think he caved here, when he would have been in the company of others voting with him? it makes no sense.

The only thing I can find is that you said "He probably did"., but he's never shown the "probability" from what I can see.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

TBH I don't know ANYTHING about this Kerry guy, I only pointed out what I suspect the political situation is in the US and why an opponent of Bush would agree with Bush on this particular case.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"You should only point those things out if you want people to think that you are foolish enough to believe those things."
--------------

Do you believe this? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm)

Saddam was ruthless, and he had people tortured and killed. That much is known. However, it does nothing to subsrtantiate your statement that:


I should point out that, most of the clean water was used to wash out the mouths of those whos tongues were being cut off.
But the good jobs of running the human shredder machines that used most of the electricity, are gone forever.


Most of the clean water was not so used, neither most of the electricity.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"You should only point those things out if you want people to think that you are foolish enough to believe those things."
--------------

Do you believe this? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm)

Saddam was ruthless, and he had people tortured and killed. That much is known. However, it does nothing to subsrtantiate your statement that:


I should point out that, most of the clean water was used to wash out the mouths of those whos tongues were being cut off.
But the good jobs of running the human shredder machines that used most of the electricity, are gone forever.


Most of the clean water was not so used, neither most of the electricity.

Ok, but are you opposed to us sticking around to ensure it gets rebuilt? It sounds like you either were OK with the shredder machines, or us leaving right now without rebuilding... but not us sticking around to rebuild now that the shredders are gone :-?

-sdp

[Fade]

Well Fluffy, when you make statements like,

"This would probably be true if they also had the electricity, jobs, clean water and lack of civil war that they tended to have under Saddam.",

then you shouldn't complain when someone points out the absurdity of those statements, that some here might believe, by making absurd statements that are so obvious, that no one can believe them.

Remember there are some young impressionable people here, and we wouldn't want them to be exposed to Socialist propaganda, without at least getting a look at the other side of things.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
Well Fluffy, when you make statements like,

"This would probably be true if they also had the electricity, jobs, clean water and lack of civil war that they tended to have under Saddam.",

then you shouldn't complain when someone points out the absurdity of those statements, that some here might believe, by making absurd statements that are so obvious, that no one can believe them.



Since it is a matter of historical fact (and very recent history at that) that the Iraqis had more reliable power and clean water before the US invaded, then it is patently absurd (or perhaps merely perverse) to hold the contrary opinion. Iraq was even better served before the sanctions and the 1991 war. Even though the infrastructure was horribly degraded by the sanctions it was still in better shape before the US came in than it is now.

[Fade]

Better check those stats again Fluffy. You don't want to be proven wrong again.

[Glaucus]

Fade wrote:
Terrorist from neighboring countries does not equal civil war.Correct. Neither do murderous actions by foreign armies from across the globe. But that's besides the point, as it stands now Iraq doesn't need help from either to slip into a civil war - it's pretty much a sure thing once the US hands over power to the shi'ite majority. If you haven't noticed there's a massive transfer of power going on in Iraq right now. Power from the Sunni minory will be transfered to the shi'ite majority - with the Kurds left on the side lines once again. Since power means money, the rich Sunnis aren't about to just give up their power and wealth without a fight. What is one man's "neighboring terrorist" is another man's mercenary (or Hired Gun, see my avatar ;-) ). As you can tell from the headlines, the "insurgents" have shifted gears and are now focusing on their fellow Iraqis. This is by far the worst case scenario for the US. Oh well. Have fun cleaning up this can of worms!

- Mike

[FluffyMcDeath]

[Wilse]

@T_Bone:

> You're aware Kerry voted for the war too, right?

I thought he just voted to give monkey boy the authority to go to war without a vote.

Although I concede that's almost as bad, given how completely and utterly hoodwinked the US public (including your good self IIRC) were by the 'iminent threat', 'wmd', 'al qaeda links', 'mushroom clouds', '9/11 links', it's almost understandible.

[Fade]

@ Fluffy guessed;
"This would probably be true if they also had the electricity, jobs, clean water and lack of civil war that they tended to have under Saddam."
-------------
Fade tried to tell him by saying;
"Better check those stats again Fluffy. You don't want to be proven wrong again."
-------------
but Fluffy bluffed;
"The least you could do is try to prove me wrong once rather than pretend you've already done it before.
------------

and then Fade bashed the poor rabbits brains out by stating;

CIVIL WAR
The civil war is only your hope, not a fact.

UNEMPLOYMENT
Iraqi unemployment rate down drastically (http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1535162-6078-0,00.html) (slow connect; let it run and hit stop, should pop up)

ELECTRIC
"In addition, almost every Iraqi who had access to power before the war now has access to power again."
Source (http://www.csis.org/hill/ts030820_presentationelectricinIraq.pdf) page two

WATER
Iraq basically has no potable water at all and hasn't since the 70's. They have polluted both of their major rivers to the point that it can hardly even be used for crops much less drinking. Only 3% of the withdrawal is used for drinking. Saddam cut off the water supply to the flood plane marshland that would clean this water, in an effort to starve out hundreds of thousands of marsh Arabs who have lived there for about 5,000 years.
This leaves only Gulf and ground water to be used for drinking.
There is one clean water source at the base of some mountains, but this is a local source, and was never in the urban system to begin with. In the country side, the population still use the wells they have always used, with the resulting problems that untreated water causes.
This leaves only the large cities that use either sea water or ground water, both with high salt content. Most of this water is filtered at a neighborhood level and most was brought back on line with the return of electricity, though some are diesel powered.
There are a some large water treatment plants around the largest cities. "A Recent UNICEF and CARE water and sanitation monitoring program in 14 governorates in Central and Southern Iraq found that out of 177 water treatment plants, 19% were classified as good, 55% acceptable, and 26% poor."

Source (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html) Source (http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/countries/iraq/index.stm) Source (http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/s/AA5AF14A8F10D73F85256D4300483059)

Fluffy, in my book that means your bulls**t doesn't hold water!

[FluffyMcDeath]

@Fade,

You've made me very happy. This is much better and it's good to see that you've put some effort into this.

I'm still not in agreement with you, but perhaps after I digest your information I shall modify my opinion.