Bush is flawed, Kerry is a Traitor and Alan Keys isn’t running

[redrumloa]

I stumbled accross this while surfing. It's pretty well written and I mostly agree with his views.

Bush is flawed, Kerry is a Traitor and Alan Keys isn’t running (http://www.gulf1.com/columns/pappas/0421a.htm)

[odin]

http://www.gulf1.com/_borders/crossflag_small.jpg
:nervous:

[that_punk_guy]

Bias, half-truths, assumptions... ;-)

And f**king poor web design. :-D

[Wilse]

If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be humorous, Kerry’s claim that Americans are suffering economically;

Someone has to pay for that huge deficit eventually. At this rate it'll be your kids.

that the US has no friends

Kerry said that? I'd like to see that quote.

and that danger to the US has increased.

You telling me it hasn't? :-?

His claims are made in the face of the largest ever number of employees in the US workforce

Isn't that simply because of larger population? What is it as a percentage?

the fact that nearly one third of the nations in the world are actively supporting the US in Iraq

:roflmao: Yeah, right, the mighty Ukranian army being a great example.

How about the fact that 60% of permanent UN security council members are not?
Or more than two thirds of the nations in the world are not supporting the US in Iraq.

and that nearly all are actively involved in the fight, along with the US, on terrorism

Irrelevant. Britain and Spain, for example, have been actively fighting terrorism for decades and would be doing so irrespective of what the US does.

allowing Muslim extremists to succeed, a prospect that Kerry and Company evidently supports

WTF?
Where did he say this?
I'd like to see that quote too - Jim, you sure this isn't just a bunch of lies?

When Kerry makes mention of himself as a Vietnam War Veteran, or enlists surrogates to elevate him to hero status, he neglects to mention that he was in Vietnam for only four months

That's four months longer than flightsuit boy.
You actually agree with this kind of slander?

Kerry managed to get a Silver Star, Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts but won’t allow his military record, medical or otherwise to be examined. That is because he likely submitted those awards on his own behalf or caused subordinates to do so, not exactly ethical or legal.

What is this based on? The guy won four medals and was wounded serving his country. Don't get me wrong, I think Kerry is a muppet but to attack him over this is pathetic.
As for being a traitor, have you actually read the speech he gave back in 1971?(I think) Although I think him a muppet now, he seemed to have integrity then and obviously cared very much about his countrymen. To me, that's patriotic.

From another article here:
http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/kerrycaucus.htm
On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's crew came under rocket attack in the Mekong Delta. The lieutenant ordered his men to beach the boat in the thick of the enemy position. A man with a rocket launcher sprang up 10 feet away, ready to fire at the Americans.
But the man hesitated, then turned and fled. Kerry chased him behind a hootch and killed him. For that, he won the Silver Star.

Was that brave enough for a medal? I don't know but I think it's rather tasteless to slander someone this way who has won medals serving their country.

The author then asks you to vote for Bush, who you could argue, a lot more convincingly, *is* a traitor.

But, if I was a US voter, the few words in my sig. would be ample reason never to vote for the war mongering maniac.

I mean, what if God tells him to strike Russia? ;-)

BTW, you never did address my evidence about oil playing a part in Iraq.

[Glaucus]

Grrr.... :pissed: :pissed: :pissed:

Consider yourself lucky Red, I just typed up an amazingly long reply to your post, full of facts, logic and true wisdom, and would have ONCE AND FOR ALL set you straight, back on the right path to logic and reason, but just before I sumbitted my most brilliant post I spazzed out, hitting some random keys on the keyboard, causing the #@$%@#$^ window to close!!! :pissed: :pissed: :pissed:

Maybe later I'll recompose myself and get back to you, but for now I'll go hide in the corner and sulk like a grown man.... :boohoo:

:-D

- Mike

[redrumloa]

You telling me it hasn't?

The danger to US troops is undeniably greater now, but the homeland hasn't been attacked since 9/11/01 is what I think he means.

allowing Muslim extremists to succeed, a prospect that Kerry and Company evidently supports
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTF?
Where did he say this?
I'd like to see that quote too - Jim, you sure this isn't just a bunch of lies?


Cutting one section out which was making a point and not trying to imply he said it word for word.

That's four months longer than flightsuit boy.
You actually agree with this kind of slander?
-snip rest of vietnam stuff-

I said I mostly agreed with the article. Not worshiping every word. On one hand I personally do not like the vicousness the Bush team has gone after Kerry's war record. On the other hand I think it is fishy.

Your missing the point though Robert. Unfortunately with this so called 2 party system you have to vote for the greater of 2 evils. I've mentioned this before, I voted for Perot in 92, Forbes in 96 and Keyes in 00. No Republican is opposing Bush, and I sure aint voting Democrat in this lifetime.

[redrumloa]

Consider yourself luky Red, I just typed up an amazingly long reply to your post, full of facts, logic and true wisdom, and would have ONCE AND FOR ALL set you straight, back on the right path to logic and reason, but just before I sumbitted my most brilliant post I spazed out, hitting some random keys on the keyboard, causing the #@$%@#$^ window to close!!! :pissed: :pissed: :pissed:


:angel: Devine Intervention :angel:

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:
Grrr.... :pissed: :pissed: :pissed:

Consider yourself luky Red, I just typed up an amazingly long reply to your post, full of facts, logic and true wisdom, and would have ONCE AND FOR ALL set you straight, back on the right path to logic and reason, but just before I sumbitted my most brilliant post I spazed out, hitting some random keys on the keyboard, causing the #@$%@#$^ window to close!!!

:lol:

[Glaucus]

The danger to US troops is undeniably greater now, but the homeland hasn't been attacked since 9/11/01 is what I think he means.One of the things I merely touched upon in my mind-blowing post that is now in the Great Big Forum in The Sky was that although no attacks have occurred in the US since 9/11 (assuming the Anthrax mailings were domestic in origin), there have been plenty of attacks out side of the US, and many of those targeted Americans. Yes, Americans have died at the hands of Al Qaeda outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. You consider this a great victory???

Let's also not forget that 9/11 was not the first time Al Qaeda attacked the US. The WTC was attacked once before in '93. There have also been subsequent attempts in the US, but those seemed to be far less organized and thus failed. My point here is, 9/11 was by no means a one time thing, but just one event in a long term campaign of terror and that terrorists do not seem to be deterred by past failed attempts. Time is on their side, and they tend to attack when you least expect it. It's quite possible they want you to believe your security tactics are working so they can surprise you once again maybe tomorrow or maybe next decade. Eventually you will lower your guard and then they will attack. Even if you intend on building Fortress America and to keep it that way for the next 50 years or more, eventually they will find a weakness in your armor and exploit it. This is not the right strategy.

The other thing I talked about was economics and how this war on terror is mislabeled. First, the latter: The "War On Terror", which is bound to be as successful as the "War On Drugs", is poorly named as far as just causes go. War is not a very positive word for one. I would choose the word "Fight" instead. Also, fighting terror is kinda vague, especially when most intellectuals and leaders have a hard time defining exactly what terrorism is. A better phrase would have been something like "The Fight For Freedom". Sure, it doesn't have that zing to it, but over all I think it's best to keep focused on your end goals and not to obsess over your enemies. "The Fight For Freedom" reminds us of our values and morals we're most proud of - which is exactly what we're defending. "War on Terror" says nothing about our liberties or any of our greatest social or technological achievements. Nah, it's a dumb phrase invented by a dumb man. I say we distance ourselves from it.

Now, as for economics and terrorism. Al Qaeda brought the US to it's knees on a shoe string budget. America and it's allies spent billions on the most modern military the world has ever seen and has so far done little more then force Osama Bin Laden and his close friends to change their mailing address. As I've said before, Al Qaeda is alive and well - your own government admits this. You would be playing into Al Qaeda's hands by expending huge amounts of wealth in your attempts to track them down and stop them. Unfortunately, that's exactly what you did in Iraq. The best case scenario for Al Qaeda would be for more US excursions into the Middle East, and if the neo-cons have their way, that too will happen. Now imagine the effects of a single dirty bomb detonated anywhere in the US. What would that do to your economy? Would that raise confidence in the US economy? Not likely. And to this add the uncertainty in the Middle East which is driving up oil prices, and thus, the price of everything else. One must really wonder if this so called "War On Terror" is sustainable. Perhaps a better question to ask is, can we keep funding this "War On Terror" longer then the terrorists can fund their terror attacks? Hmmm... Perhaps a name change isn't enough. I think we need to change direction entirely, and the US should do so now while it still has easy options on the table.

- Mike

[redrumloa]

Let's also not forget that 9/11 was not the first time Al Qaeda attacked the US. The WTC was attacked once before in '93.

Yes and the funny thing is, your buddy Clinton was in office. Can't blame GW bush for this one.

About the rest of your post, I really don't understand your thinking Mike. I probably never will. It sounds like you really believe the terrorists have just cause. Or failing that we should simply give into their demands and just kill ourselves now to save them the aggrevation. The USA was not "brought to it's knees" in any way. As a nation we got a sucker punch right to the back of the head from evil cowards who took advantage of our freedoms. That little rat Osama will get caught eventually, but there will other little rats scurrying arround for a long time to come. If you get mice in your house, you don't commit suicide. You track down and kill the mice.

hrmph.. Gonna stop typing now, i feel a long winded response coming on... no..must resist..

-Edit-
I mean really Mike. If someone killed members of your family, would you try to extend love to them? Would you just let it be and let life go on? No, chances are you would be looking for swift and brutal justice.

[macto]

If someone killed members of your family, would you try to extend love to them? Would you just let it be and let life go on? No, chances are you would be looking for swift and brutal justice.

Extend love? Probably not. Kill the murders family? Certainly not. About 3000 people died on September 11th. About three to four times as many people were killed in the conflict in Iraq. Even though the link between Iraq and the September 11th attacks was tenuous, the terrorists are being used to excuse the American mass murder of Arabs. This isn't a war for justice. It is a war for vengence. If the blood shed in Northern Ireland and Israel cannot convince you that these ethnically divided wars do nothing but perpetuate hostilities, maybe you should look literature. American literature is filled with tales of family feuds. Feuds which seek nothing but vengence and end with nothing but death. Americans are throwing away warnings from their own ancestors.

Look outside the US. The US had the sympathy of the world after the attacks. The American government did little but offend nations which came to their aid in those early hours, stir up animosity because the US government was bent on vengence, then created resentment and fear as the American government launched 'diplomatic' attacks on nations which didn't support them.

No, I don't support the terrorist for what they did. On the other hand, I don't blame them. They are terrorists because they don't command a massive military. They are forced to attack anything in their reach. American attacks upon terrorists are justified because Americans command a massive military. They can attack what every they please, including civilian targets.

[Glaucus]

Yes and the funny thing is, your buddy Clinton was in office. Can't blame GW bush for this one.Yup, I'd blame Clinton as well. I'd also blame George Bush Sr. The tension between America and the Middle Eastern Mulsims goes back a long time, so we could blame several more presidents if you like. The fact is the current American policy regarding the Middle East is flawed and has been this way for decades. American foreign policy caters only to Israel and to the leaders of the oil producing nations. That leaves roughly 1.3 billion Muslims in the area who range from mildly disgruntled to fanatically opposed to your governments policies. That's a problem!

And btw, Clinton isn't my buddy. I felt he should have eliminated the sanctions on Iraq as they were punishing only the poor people of Iraq while Saddam lived the good life in the palaces. I also did not agree with his bombing of Serbia. The only thing I liked about Clinton is that he's a party animal! He's the only politician I'd invite to a party, but I'd still {bleep} slap him for some of the things he's done in office.

About the rest of your post, I really don't understand your thinking Mike. I probably never will. It sounds like you really believe the terrorists have just cause. Or failing that we should simply give into their demands and just kill ourselves now to save them the aggravation.:roll: Trust me when I tell you that not even Osama Bin Ladden expects the US to just keel over and die. But more importantly, it's not that important what you or I think, it's what 1.3 billion Muslims think. Do they think Osama's cause is just? Some certainly do. How can we keep that number from growing? Certainly not by invading Muslim countries and damaging their holiest of mosques and shrines, killing their babies, torturing their sons and raping their daughters (and yes, one such case has been mentioned as occurring in Abu Graib, but we're still awaiting the photos). See below for my answer to this question.

The USA was not "brought to it's knees" in any way.Really? I remember 9/11 quite well. It was not business as usual on 9/12. The nation was in shock, as was the world. Not only were planes grounded, but everyone was frightened. For the first time since Pearl Harbor America felt vulnerable. America became paranoid. Sure you got over it, but you never fully recovered either. The airline markets are still not what they used to be, and your economy is still fighting to recover it's losses. Americans today have less freedoms and the government has more power. I would say the wounds are deep.

As a nation we got a sucker punch right to the back of the head from evil cowards who took advantage of our freedoms.Your freedoms had nothing to do with it. Al Qaeda has made a business of conducting such attacks in the most strict Islamic countries where there are no America style freedoms. Your freedoms are not any of Osama's concern.

If you get mice in your house, you don't commit suicide. You track down and kill the mice.Yup. Unfortunately, Osama is not a mouse, he's a human being, and he has the support of many other human beings. Dehumanizing him isn't gonna make it easier for you to catch him.

I mean really Mike. If someone killed members of your family, would you try to extend love to them?I really don't understand why you think I love Osama, or would want the US to love Osama. Osama needs to be caught, yes, but I don't think that's the real solution here. Even you said that even if Osama is caught others will take his place. So what's the point of fighting individuals when we really need to fight against a movement?


An end to Anti-Americanism:

Here's what I advocate as a solution to anti-Americanism and the terrorism that follows. It's simple actually and it's what should have been done long before 9/11: Completely withdraw from the Middle East. That means, sever ties with Israel and the leaders of the oil producing nations. That means stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel and all other Middle Eastern nations. That means close all military bases in the Middle East (including air force and naval bases). That means not mediating between Israel and Palestine. That means allowing the Arabs and Israelis to find their own solution - or die trying. That means the Arab people can decide what to do about their oppressive leaders on their own (and if that leads to a bloody revolution, then so be it). That means the Arab people can not blame foreign powers for their miserable situation. I'm sure you're okay with most of that, but here's the catch: It also means that the US (and the rest of the world) will be subject to irregular and uncontrollable oil prices. Can you accept that? That's what the end of terrorism will cost you. You want a safer world? Well, you'll have to pay for it. The only question is, is it worth the money or shall we just tolerate more bloody wars and terror attacks?

- Mike

[Wilse]

@Mike:

Completely agree with your 'end to anti-Americanism' comments.

Interestingly, I think Red would agree with you too.
(apologies if I've misrepresented you Jim)

[Glaucus]

Wilse wrote:

Interestingly, I think Red would agree with you too.
(apologies if I've misrepresented you Jim)Hmmmm.. I'll take his silence on the matter as an agreament. ;-)

- Mike

[adolescent]

Do I dare say I partially agree with Glaucus? Although, I don't think a full pull out would settle matters either. I think it would turn from "look what America's doing to us" to "look what America did to us". Unfortunately, there is no easy 12 step fix for this. Bush has done enough damage to our country's reputation and economy that it's going to take the next few presidents to sort out if ever. I just hope the body count slows down in the mean time.

[Glaucus]

Hey Red,

Not sure you even follow this thread anymore, but just to back up some of the things I've said... The war on terror hasn't reduced terrorist activity, it has hightened it, and what your government said about terror attacks in 2003 was either completely wrong or a flat out lie (I'll let you decide).

From the Washington Post:
State Dept. Acknowledges Terrorism Report Facts 'Wrong' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33186-2004Jun10.htm)

The State Department acknowledged yesterday that it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding that was used to boost one of President Bush's top foreign policy claims: success in countering terror.

Instead, the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said. Statements by senior administration officials claiming success were based "on the facts as we had them at the time; the facts that we had were wrong," department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said.

Yeah, or perhaps they have their heads stuck so far up their ass they had no idea what the hell is going on anymore. Can you say, out of touch? At least we didn't have to correct them this time.

- Mike

[matt3k]

I'm with you on Alan Keyes. I supported his campaign in 00, I actually had the honor to meet him a couple of months back.

Looking at the positive, just having Alan debate educated many American's on our founding principles and how we should govern ourselves with discipline and sacrifice. Although, wish the major networks would've covered those debates.

Matt