2004 General Election : Show you care, and vote!
- Thread starter ilikethesun2009
- Start date
Dirty Sanchez said:
There you go changing the subject again. The point is BACK THEN it wasnt the issue of the campaign.
All of that is bullshit.
First of all, YOU CAN'T ASK FOR YOUR MEDALS. This has gotta be the stupidist thing you could ever say. If you could ask for your medals dont you think there would be a lot more people with medals out there.
Second, Voting to give the president the authority to use force isnt necessarily giving your support for the war. He voted for the authority to use force so the president could use that as leverage to get the inspectors back in there, then the president blew it.
Brino said:
bullshit
read this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5662329/
KERRY SHOULD REMOVE SILVER STAR CITATION FROM HIS INTERNET SITE PENDING REVIEW BY U.S. NAVY
Combat “V” Never Awarded with Silver Star
Former Navy Secretary Lehman Never Approved Citation
Additional Questions Remain Over Service Medal and Purple Hearts
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, today called on Senator John Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy.
On August 18, 2004, Judicial Watch filed a complaint and request for investigation and final disposition of awards granted to Kerry with the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy, as well as the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy’s Board of Decorations and Medals. See the complaint by clicking here.
Senator Kerry’s DD Form 214 (a Defense Department form detailing a veteran’s service upon separation from the military) lists his “Silver Star with Combat ‘V’” and is posted on the Internet at JohnKerry.com. The Combat “V” device is never awarded with the nation’s third highest award for heroism.
Journalist Thomas Lipscomb, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times quoted a Navy spokesperson stating: “The Navy has never issued a ‘Combat V’ to anyone for a Silver Star.” Additionally, former Navy Secretary John Lehman was quoted with respect to the Silver Star citation as saying: “It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me.”
Furthermore, Senator Kerry’s records also reflect the award of a Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze stars. Military experts consulted by Judicial Watch believe Kerry’s brief tour of duty in Vietnam would have merited no more than 2 bronze stars on a Vietnam Service Medal. Many Swift Boat Veterans have questioned the circumstances of Kerry’s Purple Heart awards.
“There is something amiss in Senator Kerry’s service records. John Kerry should stop touting an award that has never been awarded to anyone in the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy needs to get on the ball and thoroughly scrub John Kerry’s service record by conducting a complete investigation of Kerry’s service,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And, of course, John Kerry may answer many of these questions by authorizing the release of all his service and medical records,” Fitton added.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/3806.shtml
Dirty Sanchez
Banned
Brino said:
There you go Brino, bury your head in the sand.
You said National Security wasn't an issue back then, and Clinton was good at it anyways. But, the WTC was bombed on Clinton's watch, he passed up the chance to take out one of American's biggest threats, was positive saddam had WMD, sat back and didn't do anything when the USS Cole was attacked, among other things.
As it turns out, National Security was a big issue, just one the American public (and apparently, the American President) didn't take seriously until Sept. 11. You seem confident enough to put all the problems in the World today on George W. Bush, yet ignore the fact that these things were brewing under the nose of Bill Clinton
The stupidist thing was taking about how much of a War hero John Kerry was. They made their bed, now deal with the consequences. Your "war hero" is a sham.
Actually, no. All the people that I know who served their Country, do it for the pride they get from defending their Nation. If in doing so, they are rewarded, then they are thrilled. But no self respecting human being in the Military would ask to be honored. Oh wait, John Kerry did. Then threw out those honors. And then went against POW's.
Let's dumb this down for you kiddo. You have a daughter. She asks to go to the big party on Friday night. You tell her she can, but hope that she won't, because you don't think she should be there. What kind of parenting is that?
This further proves the lack of leadership John Kerry has. Either stand up and say no to the War, or shut the fuck up. It proves that when a difficult decision needs to be made, Kerry can't do it, nor can he stick to his actions. The inspectors were not getting back in to see what they needed to see (why can't you figure that out?). Asking saddam politely had long since failed. Actions needed to be taken, and I'm damn proud the US has a President that wasn't afraid to take that action. Now, I'm scared to death the lower end of the IQ scale will vote for Senator that has never shown leadership or backbone or a desire to be great. And is more concerned with making the French like him then protecting the World.
Dirty Sanchez said:
Hmmmmmm, it seems to me all those things (or at least something similar) happened under Bush too, and yet your still supporting him. Dirty Sanchez, master of hypocrisy!
Just keep side steping the issue Sanchez, you seem to be good at it.
No let's dumb this down for you. Your daughter goes out on a date and you tell the chaperone that he has full authority to kick her dates ass if he lays a hand on your daughter. Then the chaperone kicks the dates ass even though the date didn't touch your daughter. That's what happened.
Ummmm, it's my understanding that the U.N. weapons inspectors were already in Iraq before Bush invaded and then were forced to leave because Bush was invading.
Brino said:
I could expect that from you Brino, Clinton was a saint. And it was during he was a president that the first attck of the wtc and the bombing of the uss cole happened.He did nothing. It is also when he was president that Osama and his Friends planned the attacks, the Sudanese gave Clinton useful informations concerning Osama but your beloved Clinton didn't give a fuck about it.
What all this prouves?The big part of responsability that Clinton has in the 9/11 attacks, wether you want it or not.
You are an hypocrite because you always cover your beloved democraps from all the faults they have made and you pass them for saints.
Again for you the swift boat veterans are not lying? On which earth are you Brino?How can someone spending only three months in Vietnam have so many unmerritted medals? Kerry asked for his medals and he had self inflicted wounds.
Hans Blix was an unable and an unefficient UN inspector. The UN is an unefficient and unable organization.That has been proven in Libanon in 1982 and in Sarajevo.
Only in America can we be quibbling over HOW MANY medals a guy deserves.
"Military experts consulted by Judicial Watch believe Kerry’s brief tour of duty in Vietnam would have merited no more than 2 bronze stars on a Vietnam Service Medal."
OK, let's all agree then that he ONLY merited 2 bronze stars.
And yes, I'm sure if George had only faced action he no doubt would have earned more. Such a shame he didn't volunteer for combat in the first place like that damn lying coward Kerry.
Re: The Clinton issue. Let's get a grip. Seven guys involved in the first WTC bombing are now serving life sentences in American prisons. They will be intelligence sources for the rest of their lives.
Post 911, thousands of folks of Arab descent have been detained indefinitely in American jails, and Ashcroft's prosecutions have resulted in exactly 1 conviction... which was overturned. But there sure are a lot of dead Arabs in the middle east, by god!
Clinton chose not to destablize the entire region and arguably make the US less safe by invading a sovereign country and getting his country into an unwinable, insanely costly war.
Clinton thought that Bin Laden wasn't worth that risk. If you disagree with that approach, fine, but how about we keep in mind that first BUSH INVADED 2 COUNTRIES AND STILL HASN'T GOTTEN BIN LADEN, and now he tells us Bin Laden just isn't that great a concern to him. I guess if you're hammering Clinton for not going after Bin Laden, you must think Clinton would have been more successful than George has been.
And as long as we're focussing on ancient history, for those folks who are still convinced Saddam had to go, lay that at the doorstep of Bush 1 and Cheney, the latter of whom defended the policy of not going into Bagdad and removing Saddam in the Gulf War on several occasions in public.
Bush 1 and Cheney's Gulf War is arguably more vital in the development of Bin Laden than anything that went on in the Clinton administration. It was our placing military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia that spawned Osama Bin Laden. It was the final straw for him, spawned his first truely radically anti-American speeches and activities, which led to Saudi Arabia tossing him out of the country. (The response from George's business partners, the Saudi Royal Family.)
The biggest mistake Clinton made during his administration vis a vis our current terrorism problems was not removing the military bases in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden's strongest rallying point would have been eliminated, and the people of Saudi Arabia possibly could have stood up and demanded democracy in one of the most oppressive societies in the middle east.
But as I say, this is all ancient history. How about we focus on how we move forward? More of the same from Bush, or a chance of change with Kerry?
"Military experts consulted by Judicial Watch believe Kerry’s brief tour of duty in Vietnam would have merited no more than 2 bronze stars on a Vietnam Service Medal."
OK, let's all agree then that he ONLY merited 2 bronze stars.
And yes, I'm sure if George had only faced action he no doubt would have earned more. Such a shame he didn't volunteer for combat in the first place like that damn lying coward Kerry.
Re: The Clinton issue. Let's get a grip. Seven guys involved in the first WTC bombing are now serving life sentences in American prisons. They will be intelligence sources for the rest of their lives.
Post 911, thousands of folks of Arab descent have been detained indefinitely in American jails, and Ashcroft's prosecutions have resulted in exactly 1 conviction... which was overturned. But there sure are a lot of dead Arabs in the middle east, by god!
Clinton chose not to destablize the entire region and arguably make the US less safe by invading a sovereign country and getting his country into an unwinable, insanely costly war.
Clinton thought that Bin Laden wasn't worth that risk. If you disagree with that approach, fine, but how about we keep in mind that first BUSH INVADED 2 COUNTRIES AND STILL HASN'T GOTTEN BIN LADEN, and now he tells us Bin Laden just isn't that great a concern to him. I guess if you're hammering Clinton for not going after Bin Laden, you must think Clinton would have been more successful than George has been.
And as long as we're focussing on ancient history, for those folks who are still convinced Saddam had to go, lay that at the doorstep of Bush 1 and Cheney, the latter of whom defended the policy of not going into Bagdad and removing Saddam in the Gulf War on several occasions in public.
Bush 1 and Cheney's Gulf War is arguably more vital in the development of Bin Laden than anything that went on in the Clinton administration. It was our placing military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia that spawned Osama Bin Laden. It was the final straw for him, spawned his first truely radically anti-American speeches and activities, which led to Saudi Arabia tossing him out of the country. (The response from George's business partners, the Saudi Royal Family.)
The biggest mistake Clinton made during his administration vis a vis our current terrorism problems was not removing the military bases in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden's strongest rallying point would have been eliminated, and the people of Saudi Arabia possibly could have stood up and demanded democracy in one of the most oppressive societies in the middle east.
But as I say, this is all ancient history. How about we focus on how we move forward? More of the same from Bush, or a chance of change with Kerry?
foxfilm said:
1)If I had volunteered in Vietnam, be sure that I would have killed the maximum of Viets as possible even if i needed to die. I wouldn't give a fuck of medals, I would just be proud to serve my country as best as I can. Fact is that I am not born between 1945-1950 so your first comment doesn't concern me.
2)Clinton did nothing to prevent terrorism especially after the bombing of uss cole and the first wtc bombing.
Clinton received informations from Sudanese Intelligence Services concerning Ben Laden but he didn't give a fuck about it. He didn't catch Ben Laden when he has the opportunity, so he has a part of responsibility in what happened, wether you want or it not.
Probably thousand of Arab folks were detained because they were probably all suspsicious, thing that I can understand. Even in Europe some Arab terrorists networks of Al Quaeda were caught by the police of various european countries.
George W cleaned these two countries from dictatorships and everyday fear of terrorism. People are now free in these countries.
Removing bases from Saudi Arabia is somewhat nonsensical look at the geostrategic position of Saudi Arabia.It gives to the us army air forces and good control of the area.
I don't want a leftist at power who is also a flip flopper.
member5726
Banned
georges said:
Clinton said in his book that he waited to be absolutely certain, but he got the information too late so Bush could have done something with this information, but he did nothing, so he has to take the blame just as much as you blame Clinton.
1)Oh yes you have by giving economic manipulated figures and statitistics in order present him as a better president than the other presidents of the us
2)No it isn't, you are too ignorant about the past.In1982 the UN soldiers have to move from Beyrouth, they couldn't keep peace.And they were shot by Hezbollah terrorists every day.In Sarajevo,the UN soldiers were sniped by Serbs and Croats.It is thanks the air force and us army and under the commandment of General Wesley Clark that the situation has been solved.Without the US, the UN soldiers would have been massacred.
About Kerry in Vietnam: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1
1)If I had volunteered in Vietnam,
I wasn't referencing you. I was referencing George Bush.
2)Clinton did nothing to prevent terrorism especially after the bombing of uss cole and the first wtc bombing.
Clinton received informations from Sudanese Intelligence Services concerning Ben Laden but he didn't give a fuck about it. He didn't catch Ben Laden when he has the opportunity
Did George 1 have the opportunity in the Gulf War? Read posts before you rant, Georges.
"Probably thousand of Arab folks were detained because they were probably all suspsicious"
And what say we in America think all Frenchies are terrorists. What's your response when you're brought in?
"George W cleaned these two countries from dictatorships and everyday fear of terrorism. People are now free in these countries."
Define "free". And as far as "everyday fear of terrorism" goes, there have been more daily deaths since we invaded Iraq than there were under Saddam's regime. Regardless of whether Saddam was a "dictactor" -- and keep in mind he was an elected official, elected by his people -- we'll end up killing more than he did if we commit for 10 years like we did in Viet Nam.
"Removing bases from Saudi Arabia is somewhat nonsensical look at the geostrategic position of Saudi Arabia.It gives to the us army air forces and good control of the area."
And this is the point. Why should the US have "control" of that area? Should they have "control" of your home town? Take it from a guy who is under "control" of the US gov in the US... it's nothing to write home about.
"I don't want a leftist at power who is also a flip flopper."
So you want a fascist like Hiltler who's a flip flopper? The flip flop thing is arguably the most inane condemnation of Kerry out there. You just aren't reading the right sources, period.
I wasn't referencing you. I was referencing George Bush.
2)Clinton did nothing to prevent terrorism especially after the bombing of uss cole and the first wtc bombing.
Clinton received informations from Sudanese Intelligence Services concerning Ben Laden but he didn't give a fuck about it. He didn't catch Ben Laden when he has the opportunity
Did George 1 have the opportunity in the Gulf War? Read posts before you rant, Georges.
"Probably thousand of Arab folks were detained because they were probably all suspsicious"
And what say we in America think all Frenchies are terrorists. What's your response when you're brought in?
"George W cleaned these two countries from dictatorships and everyday fear of terrorism. People are now free in these countries."
Define "free". And as far as "everyday fear of terrorism" goes, there have been more daily deaths since we invaded Iraq than there were under Saddam's regime. Regardless of whether Saddam was a "dictactor" -- and keep in mind he was an elected official, elected by his people -- we'll end up killing more than he did if we commit for 10 years like we did in Viet Nam.
"Removing bases from Saudi Arabia is somewhat nonsensical look at the geostrategic position of Saudi Arabia.It gives to the us army air forces and good control of the area."
And this is the point. Why should the US have "control" of that area? Should they have "control" of your home town? Take it from a guy who is under "control" of the US gov in the US... it's nothing to write home about.
"I don't want a leftist at power who is also a flip flopper."
So you want a fascist like Hiltler who's a flip flopper? The flip flop thing is arguably the most inane condemnation of Kerry out there. You just aren't reading the right sources, period.
foxfilm said:
1) OK
2) Clinton was elected, right? The fact is that he did nothing to prevent these attacks.
What concern the French? You can' tsay that the French are terrorists.However one of the 9/11 hi jackers was french maroccan. A terrorist is someone who finance, support terrorists organization and participate to terrorism.
read this weblog
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_messopotamian_archive.html#1
it will help you to undertsand how Irak is safer.
About Bush's comments on not winning the war on terror, you TOTALLY took it out of contexts, as is typical. He said that you can't win a war on terror like you "win" a conventional war. You don't sit down at a table and someone signs surrender papers. You create a situation where the terrorists can't wage their war and then you will have "won."
Consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:
Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...
Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.
According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001).
Although Saddam never threatened the territorial integrity of America, he repeatedly threatened Americans. For example, on November 15, 1997, the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein's son Uday) ordered: "American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces." (Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 94.) On November 25, 2000, Saddam declared in a televised speech, "The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests."
On the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a weekly newspaper owned by Uday Hussein said that Arabs should "use all means-and they are numerous-against the aggressors...and considering everything American as a military target, including embassies, installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr [fidaiyoon] squads to attack American military and naval bases inside and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement of war ships..."
Moreover, the Saddam regime did not need to make verbal threats in order to "threaten" the United States. The regime threatened the United States by giving refuge to terrorists who had murdered Americans, and by funding terrorists who were killing Americans in Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked the United States by bombing the World Trade Center. In addition:
In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more…
.Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam….On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
Hitchens, Slate. The cited article is David E. Sanger & Thom Shanker, "A Region Inflamed: Weapons. For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour; Files Tell of Talks With North Korea, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2003.
As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November 12, 2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons." (Hayes, p. 21.) De Villepin's point is indisputable: Saddam was the kind of person who was capable of using chemical weapons, since he had actually used them against Iraqis who resisted his tyrannical regime. As de Villepin spoke, Saddam was sheltering terrorists who had murdered Americans, and was subsidizing the murder of Americans (and many other nationalities) in Israel.
Oh, BTW, we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first, before turning to Iraq. We destroyed the primary Al Qaeda network, liberated a nation, and reduced the ability of the terrorists to do major damage, before turning to iraq to both reduce international terrorisme more AND deal with a nation that had already invaded a neigboring country and violated 14 UN resolutions.
ND had repeatedly shot at (and therfore attempted to kill) American and british pilots enforcing the "no fly zone" over portions of Iraq, which were set in place after Saddam invaded Kuwait.
http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smar...ves/002017.html
this was the answer to why the us should control of that area
Lats part, I never said that I wanted a facist like Hitler so don't put words into my mouth.If you compare Bush to Hitler then you are somewhat dumb.
Many people condamn Kerry for changing his positions too often.They are right sources?Haha. Don't tell me that all your sources are the absolute truth.
http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smar...ves/002017.html
this was the answer to why the us should control of that area
Lats part, I never said that I wanted a facist like Hitler so don't put words into my mouth.If you compare Bush to Hitler then you are somewhat dumb.
Many people condamn Kerry for changing his positions too often.They are right sources?Haha. Don't tell me that all your sources are the absolute truth.
Similar threads
