<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There was no damn confirmation they EXISTED in the first place. Your Troops were there several month and searched for such devices after the and during the war, and you could not find anything!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They did exist...you already admitted that. They used chemical weapons in battle, had stockpiles of anthrax, and were hiding something from inspectors during all of those years. What were they hiding? What was so important that U.N. Inspectors had to give 3 days notice before they went to a site? Could it have been...*gasp* WMD's?
Here's an interesting <a href='http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html' target='_blank'>link</a> I found. Yes, it is from 1998, but keep in mind that this was before Iraq threw out U.N. Inspectors and Clinton almost allowed military action to be taken against Iraqi targets.
And yes Reasa, I am going to start charging for ownage as well. We should make a partnership. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*Update* Here is a fantastic resource for serious updates on Iraq, as well as a serious history of the debates, intelligence, and reports that were the major players from 1990-now.
I give you... <a href='http://www.iraqwatch.org' target='_blank'>http://www.iraqwatch.org</a>
Quick view from a non US person.... If you vote bush he will keep fighting illegal wars against muslim nations, and muslim terrortists will keep carrying out terror attacks. This is a painfull simple argument, but ive long since ceased trying to reason with bush supporters........
*EDIT* also does anyone in the US appreciate the true horror of war as the lowest act of mankind? im sorry, ill go away now, i cant bear to read the go BUSH responses......
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 5 2004, 01:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 5 2004, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Quick view from a non US person.... If you vote bush he will keep fighting illegal wars against muslim nations, and muslim terrortists will keep carrying out terror attacks. This is a painfull simple argument, but ive long since ceased trying to reason with bush supporters........
*EDIT* also does anyone in the US appreciate the true horror of war as the lowest act of mankind? im sorry, ill go away now, i cant bear to read the go BUSH responses...... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea I think its best that you leave considering we're having a good debate here and yet all you see is "bush fanboyism" that doesn’t exist in this topic.
Muslims terrorists will carry out terror attacks no matter what we do, it's too late to say "oh we're sorry" and leave. We have to stay on the offence, if you can't see the logic in that then theirs no point in arguing.
Some people feel that terrorists will not strike the world if they have their way. I do not think so. I believe they will not stop until their radical ideals of a muslim-only world is met.
I like to hear people say how when Bill Clinton was in office, how we hardly had any terrorists attacks. On the contrary, we had many. Then when Bush came to power, 9/11 happened, and the world forever associates terrorism with Bush, and so they think if Bush is re-elected, terrorism will continue.
I'm not saying I'm a pro-bush fan, but terrorism is going to happen regardless of who is in office. I wouldn't vote for Bush or Kerry for or against this fact. Most european friends I know are convinced that terrorism would continue if Bush is re-elected, and terrorism would stop if he isn't. Am I the only one that thinks it isn't so clear-cut as that?
I see terrorists as bullies. If they beat you up for your milk money and you give them your milk money, it is true that they stop for a while, but the problem does not go away. So you can either choose to pay them money everyday for the rest of your life, or you can fight back. Both actions have a consequence. Bush decided to fight back. Which would you do?
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Sep 4 2004, 12:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 4 2004, 12:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because money is power and the resident naysayers will flame me about it but its true. The right side of the spectrum wants you to think that the US is under constant assault, which its not, but if it was it would be deserving, and the left wants to forge an impossible utopia. Im not voting, simple as that, mostly because why should I vote when nobody deserves my vote. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agree'd, but Americans remember this. Britain has avoided many a terror attack easily, America hasn't. Why? Bush is in charge of America and Blair isn't. Vote anyone but Bush in, Kerry seems to be good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Although I still think Clinton she go back in <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Thursday-+Sep 5 2004, 04:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thursday- @ Sep 5 2004, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Agree'd, but Americans remember this. Britain has avoided many a terror attack easily, America hasn't. Why? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because Britain isnt the leader of the free world and isnt as threatening to repressive regimes that groups like al-qeada and islamic jihad take refuge in.
Britain has avoided terror attacks for a few important reasons:
1.) They are not Israel's best friend
2.) They are not the most powerful nation on earth.
3.) Their culture is not seen as a force of evil by Islamic militants, at least not as strongly as the U.S.A.'s.
Clinton didn't <b>do</b> anything in office. Seriously. Most of the major "accomplishements" of his terms in office were the product of:
a) Reagen's huge tax cuts
b) A very strong Republican majority in Congress (starting in '94)
[QUOTE]Quick view from a non US person.... If you vote bush he will keep fighting illegal wars against muslim nations, and muslim terrortists will keep carrying out terror attacks. This is a painfull simple argument, but ive long since ceased trying to reason with bush supporters........ [/qoute]
A quick view of reality:
Isn't it nice when you can forget that we were attacked? The United States made no attack against these Islamic terrorists. In fact, back in 1993, the WTC was attacked by a car bomb. We were attacked and we did almost <b>nothing</b>. In 2001, after years of not doing anything, those same buildings were blown apart by hijacked civilian jets.
Now we've got a Prez who's packing something between his legs and will actually say "you and your friends are going down." So, everyone cries about "illegal wars" when we remove a dangerous regime from power. Frankly, the only reason that the French are all up in arms is because their government had been buddy-buddy with Saddam for years.
The real issue is that no one in Europe (nor the leftists here in America) want to see a strong American president who is not willing to back down on issues like these.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Sep 6 2004, 02:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Sep 6 2004, 02:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, thats why your free democracy tortures iraqi POWs and keeps taliban prisoners in arrest without formal charges or trials. Very civilised indeed. I see my errors and shall argue no more. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well after this I shall argue no more, we disagree on a critical point. To paraphrase Andrew Bolt: Let me get this straight, the abuses in Abu Grahib were carried out by Americans. <b>They were then exposed by Americans, they were then investigated by Americans, they were then prosecuted by Americans, they shocked and dismayed the American public, the Western media, and were decryed by the American President.</b> To claim we no longer have any moral high groud now is like claiming 1 murder proves everyone in the world is a murderer.
Western society gives freedom to its people, and these people are pretty much the only ones in the world who actually care about things like civilian deathcounts in other countries. You can't see the difference between the US one off abuses and Saddam oppressing and murdering his citizens, clearly your anti-Americanism has got the best of your moral compass, and nothing I can say will persuade you further.
My apologies for my poorly constructed and ill reasoned previous post of liberal nonsense. It was more to convey my every decreasing will to argue against thoses leading our world futher into conflict.
I live under no illusions that terrorisim will simply go away, and I have experienced it first hand. I live in manchester england. I was shopping with friends one saturday, when the area became flooded with police asking us to evacuate the area. We hung around outside the evcauated area waiting to return to the main shopping center (arndale center) beliving we were totally safe. What followed was the Largest IRA bomb to be detonated in england. It rained glass. I cant explain to you in words the sight of so many people cover in so much blood. I myself was lucky to be inside a shop at the time, and was uninjured. YOu can read more in detail about it <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_2527000/2527009.stm' target='_blank'>here</a>
The IRA no longer carries out acts of terrorism in the uk now, and is largely dispanded. This was not because of the troops sent to northern ireland, who fought there for 25 years. IT was due to hard working politicians who belived a path to peace was possible. they fought hard for it, with many problems along the way.
George bush is a cowboy. I apologise for this comment, but it is in a way true. He has described himself as a 'war president'. The war in afganistan achived nothing. Al kieda (cant spell it) is still strong and carrying out acts of terrorisim. The moral justification for the war in iraq, begs the questions of why 1,000,000 people were allowed to be massacred in rwanda, or why aggresssive action isnt being taken against the ethnic cleansing in sudan.
Do we reallys want to pass on the message to our children that we solve our problems with conflict? the truely great victories in history have been won with out war. Black civil rights, suffragets, ghandi......
America has never been attacked on its own soil in such a manner since perl harbour, and given americans honourable patriotic nature, i dont blame people who support the war on iraq. Revenge is a gut reaction, one which we all experience. But as Shakespear said ' The greater act is in virtue, than in vegance'
No one, not even GWB, wants war over peace. He desires the world to be a peaceful place, but many people aren't willing to play that game. Instead, they want (in this case) a world ruled by the iron fist of Islam, and they are working on it in the Middle East, since that is their battleground for the moment.
This is a perverted form of Islamic faith, something fake that an increasingly larger group of youth are using to fill a lack of identity with the world. It's sad, until they they fly planes into buildings. My dad was at the WTC 2 weeks before it went down with his wife; on 9/10 he flew out of Boston on his way to San Fransisco on United Airlines. To me, that's a threat from these people. They declared war. If we could work things out peacefully, we would, but it simply is not possible. This is a war of ideals that cannot co-exist.
This form of Islam does not condone political freedom. It condones death to infidels. It condones homicide through suicide. It is desperation, anger, self loathing, and lack of identity that has created this terrible movement. They will not back down. They've proven over and over again that they only respond to strength. They will not see the light of peace, and we thus must go to war.
Also, Al Qaeda has been severely weakened. We've captured most of their highest ranking people, as well as many mid and low level organizers.
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 5 2004, 07:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 5 2004, 07:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My apologies for my poorly constructed and ill reasoned previous post of liberal nonsense. It was more to convey my every decreasing will to argue against thoses leading our world futher into conflict.
I live under no illusions that terrorisim will simply go away, and I have experienced it first hand. I live in manchester england. I was shopping with friends one saturday, when the area became flooded with police asking us to evacuate the area. We hung around outside the evcauated area waiting to return to the main shopping center (arndale center) beliving we were totally safe. What followed was the Largest IRA bomb to be detonated in england. It rained glass. I cant explain to you in words the sight of so many people cover in so much blood. I myself was lucky to be inside a shop at the time, and was uninjured. YOu can read more in detail about it <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_2527000/2527009.stm' target='_blank'>here</a>
The IRA no longer carries out acts of terrorism in the uk now, and is largely dispanded. This was not because of the troops sent to northern ireland, who fought there for 25 years. IT was due to hard working politicians who belived a path to peace was possible. they fought hard for it, with many problems along the way.
George bush is a cowboy. I apologise for this comment, but it is in a way true. He has described himself as a 'war president'. The war in afganistan achived nothing. Al kieda (cant spell it) is still strong and carrying out acts of terrorisim. The moral justification for the war in iraq, begs the questions of why 1,000,000 people were allowed to be massacred in rwanda, or why aggresssive action isnt being taken against the ethnic cleansing in sudan.
Do we reallys want to pass on the message to our children that we solve our problems with conflict? the truely great victories in history have been won with out war. Black civil rights, suffragets, ghandi......
America has never been attacked on its own soil in such a manner since perl harbour, and given americans honourable patriotic nature, i dont blame people who support the war on iraq. Revenge is a gut reaction, one which we all experience. But as Shakespear said ' The greater act is in virtue, than in vegance'
(sorry for poor spelling / grammer, its 2am) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
Very well written post. You see that people? Learn by example. Don't flame, because that will not get your point through at all.
But I have to butt in and give my opinion here. Perhaps the best victories in history have been made without conflict, but both parties have to be reasonable enough to keep things at a non-violent level.
If USA throws away it's national defense (army, navy, marines, air force, cost guard), and discards any and all nuclear and otherwise, would be seen as stopping point for terrorists, or would it be seen as an opportunity?
So what do you do when a bully pushes you for milk money. Can you reason with him? Can you tell him that you don't want to punch him in the face so that he'd stop taking milk money from you? I don't think he'd listen. On the contrary, bullies are known to take what they want forcefully until they are physically stopped.
Some things cannot be resolved without violence, unfortunately. While I am no supporter of violent acts, if I feel there is no avoidance, I will carry through. This isn't to say there was no getting around fighting terrorism, but you can't say the answer is so obvious either.
Terrorists are simply violent blackmailers. "Do this or we'll kill people." When you have power to stop these blackmailers, do you pay or do you stop them?
I agree with a lot of your logic hawkeye, and would be intrested to know if you support Bush? I dont have a problem with armies, weapons or things like that. I just have a problem with there misuse. And I think that the validities of Bush's wars are where most of the conflicting opinions arise.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 5 2004, 09:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 5 2004, 09:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is desperation, anger, self loathing, and lack of identity that has created this terrible movement. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> While you make some valid points there, this statment is slightly naive. Islam fundamentalisim has mainly spawned from percived oppression by western nations. Israle is a country that whos exsistance was funded by the USA and UK. It is a country that took large amounts of land from muslims, and continues to restrict the palestinians of land, rights, and freedoms which were once theres. Also the building of military bases, as in saudi arabia, and the involvment in conflicts in iran and iraq, where they victems where muslim.
Although I totaly agree that these funtamentalists are below human, and are acting in a totally wrong way, it would be naive of us in the western world to ignore the fact that our irresponsible actions have in small part led to there formation.
(3.35, I really have to sleep, work in 5 hours <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 5 2004, 09:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 5 2004, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> While you make some valid points there, this statment is slightly naive. Islam fundamentalisim has mainly spawned from percived oppression by western nations. Israle is a country that whos exsistance was funded by the USA and UK. It is a country that took large amounts of land from muslims, and continues to restrict the palestinians of land, rights, and freedoms which were once theres. Also the building of military bases, as in saudi arabia, and the involvment in conflicts in iran and iraq, where they victems where muslim.
Although I totaly agree that these funtamentalists are below human, and are acting in a totally wrong way, it would be naive of us in the western world to ignore the fact that our irresponsible actions have in small part led to there formation.
(3.35, I really have to sleep, work in 5 hours <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I really hate to make a post about this, but I have to point out that Israel has hardly taken "large" amounts of land from the Muslims. They have taken a small and relatively resource free area of the Middle East, and one in which they have just as great a history as any Arab civilization, and made it their home.
Our actions are a nice excuse for their formation, but I have a hard time believing the leaders of many of these terrorist organization even practice what they speak. Example, the Jews started to put bags of pig fat on buses so when suicide bombers went off they would be covered in the pig guts and go to hell?or whatever bad thing happens to them when they touch pigs. So of course the terrorist leaders in Palestine make up a new law of Islam that makes it ok to be covered in pig guts as long as you?re doing it for the cause. I don?t know how well this went over with the mindless minions, but they probably scoffed it down along with all the other BS they were fed.
They use their own twisted version of the religion of Islam and the "oppression" of the Muslims by the West to corrupt the minds of young children, those who have had hard lives, or any other idiot willing to listen to them. They want nothing more then to have their ideals become the ones the world follows, and that is something we can not stand for.
<!--QuoteBegin-JimBowen+Sep 5 2004, 07:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JimBowen @ Sep 5 2004, 07:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The war in afganistan achived nothing. Al kieda (cant spell it) is still strong and carrying out acts of terrorisim. The moral justification for the war in iraq, begs the questions of why 1,000,000 people were allowed to be massacred in rwanda, or why aggresssive action isnt being taken against the ethnic cleansing in sudan. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, by taking down the taliban in afghanistan, we have uprooted the main base for al-qaeda while killing or capturing over 2/3s of their members. also, we took out a government that repressed its citizens and its women harshly which contributed to the instability in the middle east.
As for iraq, we did not actually just attack because they may have possessed wmds. if you watched bushs state of the union address in2003, he stated that we would also go in because they harbored and supported local and global terrorism. <a href='http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Terror.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Terror.htm</a>
and as for the rwandan and saudanese (correct word/ sp?) atrocities, we can only do so many things at once, so naturally, we will protect our own borders before aiding others.
It's almost as if anti-Bush people thought there was some sort of conspiracy theory for going into Afganistan and Iraq. What possible motive could that be? Oil? Land? Economy? What?!
I sincerely doubt President Bush would kill thousands of people to better his appearance as president for re-election. It isn't working so well afterall, is it?
I'm on the fence still on voting Kerry or Bush. I just hate how people blindly make accusations on Bush without proof (Not speaking to those that provided links or gave other substantial evidence to their claims).
Hate to derail the thread <a href='http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm</a>
Japan did try to settle. The ONE condition in the 'unconditional' (yeah, yeah, oxymoron) surrender is that they leave the emperor alone. Apparently the west wouldn't believe that the Emperor has been a pawn of Japanese constitutional monarchy for decades, not with the army's propaganda machine justifying every of its action in the name of the emperor.
They nuked, and they left the emperor alone anyway.
A little off the topic, but in response to anyone who has ever told me Bush's military record was realesed in full here's a link that's new as of today. <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/06/bush.records.ap/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/06/...s.ap/index.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (camO.o @ Sep 4 2004, 03:22 PM) and we've just found tons of those in iraq, have we not?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, just to keep this tread <a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html' target='_blank'>up to date</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Matthew L. Barre+Sep 6 2004, 02:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Matthew L. Barre @ Sep 6 2004, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A little off the topic, but in response to anyone who has ever told me Bush's military record was realesed in full here's a link that's new as of today. <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/06/bush.records.ap/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/06/...s.ap/index.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"One of the downfalls back then in the National Guard was that not everyone wanted to be chief of staff of the Air Force. They just wanted to fly or maintain airplanes. So the record keeping could have been better," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., a former head of the Air National Guard. He said the documents may not have been kept in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the records do show is that Bush had an excellent service record for four years. The physical he missed was one that is required to fly, yet he was transitioning into a non-flying position. Why bother with a physical that doesn't matter?
So to sum up an arguement.
4 years of service with no problems + 1 missed physical = terrible person?
Maybe you can help me with that as my politcal math is a bit fuzzy.
You are leaving out the parts about why he joined the service. It certainly looks like his daddy got him a cushy position that kept him in the country and out of the actual fighting. I really doubt that he went and joined the national guard at that time as an act of patriotism, when he could have been serving the war effort.
The whole thing is just a stupid media distraction from any real issues (it doesn't tell a thing about whether Bush is fit to be president, nor does Kerry's record for his fitness), but you can't just tell one side of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are leaving out the parts about why he joined the service. It certainly looks like his daddy got him a cushy position that kept him in the country and out of the actual fighting. I really doubt that he went and joined the national guard at that time as an act of patriotism, when he could have been serving the war effort.
The whole thing is just a stupid media distraction from any real issues (it doesn't tell a thing about whether Bush is fit to be president, nor does Kerry's record for his fitness), but you can't just tell one side of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least he wasn't a deserter like Clinton. The only reason that Bush is pushing on Kerry's Vietnam record is because Kerry holds it up like a banner. It's practically one of his major campaign points. "I was in Vietnam, Bush wasn't, elect me!!!!!!"
Now, take this seriously. Are you going to let your enemy wander around and leave this claim unchecked? Of course not. There are so many holes in Kerry's service record to leave it unscrutinized. For starters, he only served for 4 months. He got several purple hearts, more than one of which was for a scratch he received from some shrapnel.
If you want to criticize anyone about getting "daddy" involved, one does wonder why Kerry's commanding officer laughed when Kerry requested that he be given a purple heart, and got mad after he heard Kerry received such award after going around him on the chain of command.
Kerry is playing on his war record, so why wouldn't Bush rip it apart?
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Oct 8 2004, 04:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Oct 8 2004, 04:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> At least he wasn't a deserter like Clinton. The only reason that Bush is pushing on Kerry's Vietnam record is because Kerry holds it up like a banner. It's practically one of his major campaign points. "I was in Vietnam, Bush wasn't, elect me!!!!!!"
Now, take this seriously. Are you going to let your enemy wander around and leave this claim unchecked? Of course not. There are so many holes in Kerry's service record to leave it unscrutinized. For starters, he only served for 4 months. He got several purple hearts, more than one of which was for a scratch he received from some shrapnel.
If you want to criticize anyone about getting "daddy" involved, one does wonder why Kerry's commanding officer laughed when Kerry requested that he be given a purple heart, and got mad after he heard Kerry received such award after going around him on the chain of command.
Kerry is playing on his war record, so why wouldn't Bush rip it apart? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Clinton didn't have the connections that Bush did. Do you really think that Bush would have fought in Viet Nam? Bush doesn't: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada," Bush explained to The Dallas Morning News back in 1990. "So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like he was considering some pretty extreme options, there. But don't forget, he's a <a href='http://images.google.com/images?q=bush+carrier+landing&hl=en' target='_blank'>brave warrior chief</a>!
Now, about the Purple Hearts-- we've been over this time and time again, but the Right likes to make a lot of noise, which makes it sound like John Kerry was the only person <i>ever</i> to receive a Purple Heart for a flesh wound.
Here's what Bob Dole said about <i>his</i> Purple Heart: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire”—this was, of course, in the mountains of Italy- “and I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn‘t a very good pitch. (Remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them.) In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, <b>sending a sliver of metal into my leg, the sort of injury the Army patched up with mercurochrome and a Purple Heart.</b>”<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Context, context, context. Mr. Dole seems to suggest that it is a fairly common practice to award Purple Hearts for minor injuries.
In fact, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth <a href='http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/' target='_blank'>agrees</a>: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->During the Vietnam War, Purple Hearts were often granted for minor wounds. "There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts--from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, who served as a commanding officer to Kerry during another point in his five-month combat tour in Vietnam. (Kerry earlier served a noncombat tour.) "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But do me a favor-- if you see someone coming home from Iraq, who risked their life in combat and was awarded a medal or ribbon for a minor flesh wound, tell them they don't really deserve it. Not going to do it? Didn't think so.
Ah, the unreasonable conservative conundrum—
<i>Must ostentatiously and enthusiastically support all our troops . . . but . . . must also denigrate any Democrat's service record . . . can’t juxtapose that criticism with current events because. . . . must ostentatiously and enthusiastically support all our troops . . . but must criticize Democrats . . . <b>warning!</b> . . . <b>Logical inconsistency! Hannitization failing! Head melting! AAAAAARGH!</b></i>
Actually, let's put this one to the test-- I hunted around for information about soldiers in Iraq who have been awarded the Purple Heart. <a href='http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/53676acddc3215a785256eb000355a0b?OpenDocument' target='_blank'>Here</a> is a story about a large number of Marines who received Purple Hearts following an assault. One of them won it for-- wait for it -- insignificant shrapnel wounds.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The senior hospital corpsman for the company, 20-year-old Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Jason R. Duty, recounted what happened the day he was wounded.
Marines were in need of medical aid at 2nd Platoon's position. When Duty arrived, he found four wounded Marines at the scene.
Hesitant to tell his story, Duty lowered his voice as he spoke of the events that unfolded.
The team made several trips to pick up the wounded.
"On the third, maybe the fourth trip, about 15 yards away in a second-story window, there was some insurgents shooting down," Duty recalled. "I caught some shrapnel in my arms, just little pieces were up and down my arms.
"When I finally got down to the casualty point, I noticed that I was bleeding in a couple of places. So, I got them bandaged up real quick, got checked out by the surgeon and he cleared me to go back for duty."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So . . . . does James R. Duty deserve his Purple Heart?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to criticize anyone about getting "daddy" involved, one does wonder why Kerry's commanding officer laughed when Kerry requested that he be given a purple heart, and got mad after he heard Kerry received such award after going around him on the chain of command. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, let me get this straight-- you're <i>seriously</i> trying to say that pushing for an award (can I see some references for the 'laughter' and anger bit?) after receiving an injury in <i>actual</i> combat is a worse example of cowardly favoritism than having your father use his political connections to install you in a cushy National Guard spot, sending a more qualified but less connected individual off to fight in your place?
Oh, that's <i>rich</i>.
Edit: Been reading up about this one-- the commanding officer, Grant Hibbard is a registered Republican and a member of the ironically titled Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He commanded Kerry for a grand total of two weeks, but gave him high marks at the time. Like his SBVFT comrades, his version of the story has changed depending on the interview, is inconsistent with the medical report, has no correspondence to support it, and, of course, suddenly materialized for the first time during this election cycle.
So, grain of salt, and all that.
A more thorough examination of his inconsistencies is located <a href='http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050504.shtml' target='_blank'>here</a>.
All of that was covered by throwing out the entire arguement as irrelevant for the election. The media just doesn't have anything better to talk about, so they hype something stupid. It doesn't show a character boon, and no flaws either except for being a <i>politician</i>.
Clinton's a good example: a "deserter" did a pretty fine job of foreign policy.
Even if Kerry's war record were spotless, he'd be wasting his time talking about it. It shouldn't even be mentioned. It's exceedingly poor use of advertising and debate time.
Well, except that junk like that is what's on people's mind when they go vote. It shouldn't be, but the ability of the common man to discern the makings of a president is another issue.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At least he wasn't a deserter like Clinton. The only reason that Bush is pushing on Kerry's Vietnam record is because Kerry holds it up like a banner. It's practically one of his major campaign points. "I was in Vietnam, Bush wasn't, elect me!!!!!!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Oct 8 2004, 11:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Oct 8 2004, 11:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At least he wasn't a deserter like Clinton. The only reason that Bush is pushing on Kerry's Vietnam record is because Kerry holds it up like a banner. It's practically one of his major campaign points. "I was in Vietnam, Bush wasn't, elect me!!!!!!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rather a deserter than a liar I would say. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> excuse me, but that's incredibly naive. politics is always about stretching the truth and lying. Serving your country is *not* about deserting.
I really see no ads about Kerry's service record, and the only remark about it in the debate was, "When I was in Vietnam...".
I'm a bit more concerned about Bush's tax cut, which will probably commit some simpletons to supporting Bush, solely based on him giving them money. Which he could have done sooner - except now he gets to tout the "Hey, if you elect him, he'll raise your taxes - taking the money I just gave you."
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Oct 7 2004, 02:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Oct 7 2004, 02:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You are leaving out the parts about why he joined the service. It certainly looks like his daddy got him a cushy position that kept him in the country and out of the actual fighting. I really doubt that he went and joined the national guard at that time as an act of patriotism, when he could have been serving the war effort.
The whole thing is just a stupid media distraction from any real issues (it doesn't tell a thing about whether Bush is fit to be president, nor does Kerry's record for his fitness), but you can't just tell one side of it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I was in the military. I work for a military contractor.
Bush did a lot more by serving in the guard than by dodging the draft. Or giving your ROTC commander the runaround.
However, do I look down upon those who dodged the draft by not showing up? Not in any way. How can you support a free nation and then force people into servitude in the military? If we cannot get enough volunteers to join the military to defend our nation then our nation really doesn't have a right to exist.
I am a staunch advocate of the all volunteer military and anyone who does not wish to serve in the military should not be forced to. Bush did a lot more by serving in the Guard than by completely avoiding service.
I challenge anyone here that if they were in a similar position. If your child was going to be sent to Vietnam, tell me that you wouldn't do everything in your power to see that they were safe. If not, then you probably shouldn't be a parent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush did a lot more by serving in the Guard than by completely avoiding service. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed he did-- he wasted one million dollars worth of taxpayer funded training. Honestly, couldn't they have installed him in a unit that didn't fly? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I challenge anyone here that if they were in a similar position. If your child was going to be sent to Vietnam, tell me that you wouldn't do everything in your power to see that they were safe. If not, then you probably shouldn't be a parent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed-- however, we can't lose site of the fact that because he was given preferential treatment, someone else?s child was sent to fight in his stead.
Comments
They did exist...you already admitted that. They used chemical weapons in battle, had stockpiles of anthrax, and were hiding something from inspectors during all of those years. What were they hiding? What was so important that U.N. Inspectors had to give 3 days notice before they went to a site? Could it have been...*gasp* WMD's?
Here's an interesting <a href='http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html' target='_blank'>link</a> I found. Yes, it is from 1998, but keep in mind that this was before Iraq threw out U.N. Inspectors and Clinton almost allowed military action to be taken against Iraqi targets.
And yes Reasa, I am going to start charging for ownage as well. We should make a partnership. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*Update* Here is a fantastic resource for serious updates on Iraq, as well as a serious history of the debates, intelligence, and reports that were the major players from 1990-now.
I give you... <a href='http://www.iraqwatch.org' target='_blank'>http://www.iraqwatch.org</a>
*EDIT* also does anyone in the US appreciate the true horror of war as the lowest act of mankind? im sorry, ill go away now, i cant bear to read the go BUSH responses......
*EDIT* also does anyone in the US appreciate the true horror of war as the lowest act of mankind? im sorry, ill go away now, i cant bear to read the go BUSH responses...... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea I think its best that you leave considering we're having a good debate here and yet all you see is "bush fanboyism" that doesn’t exist in this topic.
Muslims terrorists will carry out terror attacks no matter what we do, it's too late to say "oh we're sorry" and leave. We have to stay on the offence, if you can't see the logic in that then theirs no point in arguing.
I like to hear people say how when Bill Clinton was in office, how we hardly had any terrorists attacks. On the contrary, we had many. Then when Bush came to power, 9/11 happened, and the world forever associates terrorism with Bush, and so they think if Bush is re-elected, terrorism will continue.
I'm not saying I'm a pro-bush fan, but terrorism is going to happen regardless of who is in office. I wouldn't vote for Bush or Kerry for or against this fact. Most european friends I know are convinced that terrorism would continue if Bush is re-elected, and terrorism would stop if he isn't. Am I the only one that thinks it isn't so clear-cut as that?
I see terrorists as bullies. If they beat you up for your milk money and you give them your milk money, it is true that they stop for a while, but the problem does not go away. So you can either choose to pay them money everyday for the rest of your life, or you can fight back. Both actions have a consequence. Bush decided to fight back. Which would you do?
Agree'd, but Americans remember this. Britain has avoided many a terror attack easily, America hasn't. Why? Bush is in charge of America and Blair isn't. Vote anyone but Bush in, Kerry seems to be good <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Although I still think Clinton she go back in <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Because Britain isnt the leader of the free world and isnt as threatening to repressive regimes that groups like al-qeada and islamic jihad take refuge in.
1.) They are not Israel's best friend
2.) They are not the most powerful nation on earth.
3.) Their culture is not seen as a force of evil by Islamic militants, at least not as strongly as the U.S.A.'s.
Clinton didn't <b>do</b> anything in office. Seriously. Most of the major "accomplishements" of his terms in office were the product of:
a) Reagen's huge tax cuts
b) A very strong Republican majority in Congress (starting in '94)
[QUOTE]Quick view from a non US person.... If you vote bush he will keep fighting illegal wars against muslim nations, and muslim terrortists will keep carrying out terror attacks. This is a painfull simple argument, but ive long since ceased trying to reason with bush supporters........
[/qoute]
A quick view of reality:
Isn't it nice when you can forget that we were attacked? The United States made no attack against these Islamic terrorists. In fact, back in 1993, the WTC was attacked by a car bomb. We were attacked and we did almost <b>nothing</b>. In 2001, after years of not doing anything, those same buildings were blown apart by hijacked civilian jets.
Now we've got a Prez who's packing something between his legs and will actually say "you and your friends are going down." So, everyone cries about "illegal wars" when we remove a dangerous regime from power. Frankly, the only reason that the French are all up in arms is because their government had been buddy-buddy with Saddam for years.
The real issue is that no one in Europe (nor the leftists here in America) want to see a strong American president who is not willing to back down on issues like these.
Well after this I shall argue no more, we disagree on a critical point. To paraphrase Andrew Bolt: Let me get this straight, the abuses in Abu Grahib were carried out by Americans. <b>They were then exposed by Americans, they were then investigated by Americans, they were then prosecuted by Americans, they shocked and dismayed the American public, the Western media, and were decryed by the American President.</b> To claim we no longer have any moral high groud now is like claiming 1 murder proves everyone in the world is a murderer.
Western society gives freedom to its people, and these people are pretty much the only ones in the world who actually care about things like civilian deathcounts in other countries. You can't see the difference between the US one off abuses and Saddam oppressing and murdering his citizens, clearly your anti-Americanism has got the best of your moral compass, and nothing I can say will persuade you further.
I live under no illusions that terrorisim will simply go away, and I have experienced it first hand. I live in manchester england. I was shopping with friends one saturday, when the area became flooded with police asking us to evacuate the area. We hung around outside the evcauated area waiting to return to the main shopping center (arndale center) beliving we were totally safe. What followed was the Largest IRA bomb to be detonated in england. It rained glass. I cant explain to you in words the sight of so many people cover in so much blood. I myself was lucky to be inside a shop at the time, and was uninjured. YOu can read more in detail about it <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_2527000/2527009.stm' target='_blank'>here</a>
The IRA no longer carries out acts of terrorism in the uk now, and is largely dispanded. This was not because of the troops sent to northern ireland, who fought there for 25 years. IT was due to hard working politicians who belived a path to peace was possible. they fought hard for it, with many problems along the way.
George bush is a cowboy. I apologise for this comment, but it is in a way true. He has described himself as a 'war president'. The war in afganistan achived nothing. Al kieda (cant spell it) is still strong and carrying out acts of terrorisim. The moral justification for the war in iraq, begs the questions of why 1,000,000 people were allowed to be massacred in rwanda, or why aggresssive action isnt being taken against the ethnic cleansing in sudan.
Do we reallys want to pass on the message to our children that we solve our problems with conflict? the truely great victories in history have been won with out war. Black civil rights, suffragets, ghandi......
America has never been attacked on its own soil in such a manner since perl harbour, and given americans honourable patriotic nature, i dont blame people who support the war on iraq. Revenge is a gut reaction, one which we all experience. But as Shakespear said ' The greater act is in virtue, than in vegance'
(sorry for poor spelling / grammer, its 2am)
This is a perverted form of Islamic faith, something fake that an increasingly larger group of youth are using to fill a lack of identity with the world. It's sad, until they they fly planes into buildings. My dad was at the WTC 2 weeks before it went down with his wife; on 9/10 he flew out of Boston on his way to San Fransisco on United Airlines. To me, that's a threat from these people. They declared war. If we could work things out peacefully, we would, but it simply is not possible. This is a war of ideals that cannot co-exist.
This form of Islam does not condone political freedom. It condones death to infidels. It condones homicide through suicide. It is desperation, anger, self loathing, and lack of identity that has created this terrible movement. They will not back down. They've proven over and over again that they only respond to strength. They will not see the light of peace, and we thus must go to war.
Also, Al Qaeda has been severely weakened. We've captured most of their highest ranking people, as well as many mid and low level organizers.
I live under no illusions that terrorisim will simply go away, and I have experienced it first hand. I live in manchester england. I was shopping with friends one saturday, when the area became flooded with police asking us to evacuate the area. We hung around outside the evcauated area waiting to return to the main shopping center (arndale center) beliving we were totally safe. What followed was the Largest IRA bomb to be detonated in england. It rained glass. I cant explain to you in words the sight of so many people cover in so much blood. I myself was lucky to be inside a shop at the time, and was uninjured. YOu can read more in detail about it <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_2527000/2527009.stm' target='_blank'>here</a>
The IRA no longer carries out acts of terrorism in the uk now, and is largely dispanded. This was not because of the troops sent to northern ireland, who fought there for 25 years. IT was due to hard working politicians who belived a path to peace was possible. they fought hard for it, with many problems along the way.
George bush is a cowboy. I apologise for this comment, but it is in a way true. He has described himself as a 'war president'. The war in afganistan achived nothing. Al kieda (cant spell it) is still strong and carrying out acts of terrorisim. The moral justification for the war in iraq, begs the questions of why 1,000,000 people were allowed to be massacred in rwanda, or why aggresssive action isnt being taken against the ethnic cleansing in sudan.
Do we reallys want to pass on the message to our children that we solve our problems with conflict? the truely great victories in history have been won with out war. Black civil rights, suffragets, ghandi......
America has never been attacked on its own soil in such a manner since perl harbour, and given americans honourable patriotic nature, i dont blame people who support the war on iraq. Revenge is a gut reaction, one which we all experience. But as Shakespear said ' The greater act is in virtue, than in vegance'
(sorry for poor spelling / grammer, its 2am) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
Very well written post. You see that people? Learn by example. Don't flame, because that will not get your point through at all.
But I have to butt in and give my opinion here. Perhaps the best victories in history have been made without conflict, but both parties have to be reasonable enough to keep things at a non-violent level.
If USA throws away it's national defense (army, navy, marines, air force, cost guard), and discards any and all nuclear and otherwise, would be seen as stopping point for terrorists, or would it be seen as an opportunity?
So what do you do when a bully pushes you for milk money. Can you reason with him? Can you tell him that you don't want to punch him in the face so that he'd stop taking milk money from you? I don't think he'd listen. On the contrary, bullies are known to take what they want forcefully until they are physically stopped.
Some things cannot be resolved without violence, unfortunately. While I am no supporter of violent acts, if I feel there is no avoidance, I will carry through. This isn't to say there was no getting around fighting terrorism, but you can't say the answer is so obvious either.
Terrorists are simply violent blackmailers. "Do this or we'll kill people." When you have power to stop these blackmailers, do you pay or do you stop them?
While you make some valid points there, this statment is slightly naive. Islam fundamentalisim has mainly spawned from percived oppression by western nations. Israle is a country that whos exsistance was funded by the USA and UK. It is a country that took large amounts of land from muslims, and continues to restrict the palestinians of land, rights, and freedoms which were once theres. Also the building of military bases, as in saudi arabia, and the involvment in conflicts in iran and iraq, where they victems where muslim.
Although I totaly agree that these funtamentalists are below human, and are acting in a totally wrong way, it would be naive of us in the western world to ignore the fact that our irresponsible actions have in small part led to there formation.
(3.35, I really have to sleep, work in 5 hours <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
Although I totaly agree that these funtamentalists are below human, and are acting in a totally wrong way, it would be naive of us in the western world to ignore the fact that our irresponsible actions have in small part led to there formation.
(3.35, I really have to sleep, work in 5 hours <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really hate to make a post about this, but I have to point out that Israel has hardly taken "large" amounts of land from the Muslims. They have taken a small and relatively resource free area of the Middle East, and one in which they have just as great a history as any Arab civilization, and made it their home.
Our actions are a nice excuse for their formation, but I have a hard time believing the leaders of many of these terrorist organization even practice what they speak. Example, the Jews started to put bags of pig fat on buses so when suicide bombers went off they would be covered in the pig guts and go to hell?or whatever bad thing happens to them when they touch pigs. So of course the terrorist leaders in Palestine make up a new law of Islam that makes it ok to be covered in pig guts as long as you?re doing it for the cause. I don?t know how well this went over with the mindless minions, but they probably scoffed it down along with all the other BS they were fed.
They use their own twisted version of the religion of Islam and the "oppression" of the Muslims by the West to corrupt the minds of young children, those who have had hard lives, or any other idiot willing to listen to them. They want nothing more then to have their ideals become the ones the world follows, and that is something we can not stand for.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, by taking down the taliban in afghanistan, we have uprooted the main base for al-qaeda while killing or capturing over 2/3s of their members. also, we took out a government that repressed its citizens and its women harshly which contributed to the instability in the middle east.
As for iraq, we did not actually just attack because they may have possessed wmds. if you watched bushs state of the union address in2003, he stated that we would also go in because they harbored and supported local and global terrorism.
<a href='http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Terror.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Terror.htm</a>
and as for the rwandan and saudanese (correct word/ sp?) atrocities, we can only do so many things at once, so naturally, we will protect our own borders before aiding others.
I sincerely doubt President Bush would kill thousands of people to better his appearance as president for re-election. It isn't working so well afterall, is it?
I'm on the fence still on voting Kerry or Bush. I just hate how people blindly make accusations on Bush without proof (Not speaking to those that provided links or gave other substantial evidence to their claims).
<a href='http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm</a>
Japan did try to settle. The ONE condition in the 'unconditional' (yeah, yeah, oxymoron) surrender is that they leave the emperor alone. Apparently the west wouldn't believe that the Emperor has been a pawn of Japanese constitutional monarchy for decades, not with the army's propaganda machine justifying every of its action in the name of the emperor.
They nuked, and they left the emperor alone anyway.
Now, back to regular broadcasting.
and we've just found tons of those in iraq, have we not?
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/</a>
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, just to keep this tread <a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html' target='_blank'>up to date</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"One of the downfalls back then in the National Guard was that not everyone wanted to be chief of staff of the Air Force. They just wanted to fly or maintain airplanes. So the record keeping could have been better," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., a former head of the Air National Guard. He said the documents may not have been kept in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the records do show is that Bush had an excellent service record for four years. The physical he missed was one that is required to fly, yet he was transitioning into a non-flying position. Why bother with a physical that doesn't matter?
So to sum up an arguement.
4 years of service with no problems + 1 missed physical = terrible person?
Maybe you can help me with that as my politcal math is a bit fuzzy.
The whole thing is just a stupid media distraction from any real issues (it doesn't tell a thing about whether Bush is fit to be president, nor does Kerry's record for his fitness), but you can't just tell one side of it.
The whole thing is just a stupid media distraction from any real issues (it doesn't tell a thing about whether Bush is fit to be president, nor does Kerry's record for his fitness), but you can't just tell one side of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least he wasn't a deserter like Clinton. The only reason that Bush is pushing on Kerry's Vietnam record is because Kerry holds it up like a banner. It's practically one of his major campaign points. "I was in Vietnam, Bush wasn't, elect me!!!!!!"
Now, take this seriously. Are you going to let your enemy wander around and leave this claim unchecked? Of course not. There are so many holes in Kerry's service record to leave it unscrutinized. For starters, he only served for 4 months. He got several purple hearts, more than one of which was for a scratch he received from some shrapnel.
If you want to criticize anyone about getting "daddy" involved, one does wonder why Kerry's commanding officer laughed when Kerry requested that he be given a purple heart, and got mad after he heard Kerry received such award after going around him on the chain of command.
Kerry is playing on his war record, so why wouldn't Bush rip it apart?
Now, take this seriously. Are you going to let your enemy wander around and leave this claim unchecked? Of course not. There are so many holes in Kerry's service record to leave it unscrutinized. For starters, he only served for 4 months. He got several purple hearts, more than one of which was for a scratch he received from some shrapnel.
If you want to criticize anyone about getting "daddy" involved, one does wonder why Kerry's commanding officer laughed when Kerry requested that he be given a purple heart, and got mad after he heard Kerry received such award after going around him on the chain of command.
Kerry is playing on his war record, so why wouldn't Bush rip it apart? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clinton didn't have the connections that Bush did. Do you really think that Bush would have fought in Viet Nam? Bush doesn't:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada," Bush explained to The Dallas Morning News back in 1990. "So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like he was considering some pretty extreme options, there. But don't forget, he's a <a href='http://images.google.com/images?q=bush+carrier+landing&hl=en' target='_blank'>brave warrior chief</a>!
Now, about the Purple Hearts-- we've been over this time and time again, but the Right likes to make a lot of noise, which makes it sound like John Kerry was the only person <i>ever</i> to receive a Purple Heart for a flesh wound.
Here's what Bob Dole said about <i>his</i> Purple Heart:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire”—this was, of course, in the mountains of Italy- “and I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn‘t a very good pitch. (Remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them.) In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, <b>sending a sliver of metal into my leg, the sort of injury the Army patched up with mercurochrome and a Purple Heart.</b>”<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Context, context, context. Mr. Dole seems to suggest that it is a fairly common practice to award Purple Hearts for minor injuries.
In fact, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth <a href='http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/' target='_blank'>agrees</a>:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->During the Vietnam War, Purple Hearts were often granted for minor wounds. "There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts--from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, who served as a commanding officer to Kerry during another point in his five-month combat tour in Vietnam. (Kerry earlier served a noncombat tour.) "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But do me a favor-- if you see someone coming home from Iraq, who risked their life in combat and was awarded a medal or ribbon for a minor flesh wound, tell them they don't really deserve it. Not going to do it? Didn't think so.
Ah, the unreasonable conservative conundrum—
<i>Must ostentatiously and enthusiastically support all our troops . . . but . . . must also denigrate any Democrat's service record . . . can’t juxtapose that criticism with current events because. . . . must ostentatiously and enthusiastically support all our troops . . . but must criticize Democrats . . . <b>warning!</b> . . . <b>Logical inconsistency! Hannitization failing! Head melting! AAAAAARGH!</b></i>
Actually, let's put this one to the test-- I hunted around for information about soldiers in Iraq who have been awarded the Purple Heart. <a href='http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/53676acddc3215a785256eb000355a0b?OpenDocument' target='_blank'>Here</a> is a story about a large number of Marines who received Purple Hearts following an assault. One of them won it for-- wait for it -- insignificant shrapnel wounds.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The senior hospital corpsman for the company, 20-year-old Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Jason R. Duty, recounted what happened the day he was wounded.
Marines were in need of medical aid at 2nd Platoon's position. When Duty arrived, he found four wounded Marines at the scene.
Hesitant to tell his story, Duty lowered his voice as he spoke of the events that unfolded.
The team made several trips to pick up the wounded.
"On the third, maybe the fourth trip, about 15 yards away in a second-story window, there was some insurgents shooting down," Duty recalled. "I caught some shrapnel in my arms, just little pieces were up and down my arms.
"When I finally got down to the casualty point, I noticed that I was bleeding in a couple of places. So, I got them bandaged up real quick, got checked out by the surgeon and he cleared me to go back for duty."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So . . . . does James R. Duty deserve his Purple Heart?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to criticize anyone about getting "daddy" involved, one does wonder why Kerry's commanding officer laughed when Kerry requested that he be given a purple heart, and got mad after he heard Kerry received such award after going around him on the chain of command.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, let me get this straight-- you're <i>seriously</i> trying to say that pushing for an award (can I see some references for the 'laughter' and anger bit?) after receiving an injury in <i>actual</i> combat is a worse example of cowardly favoritism than having your father use his political connections to install you in a cushy National Guard spot, sending a more qualified but less connected individual off to fight in your place?
Oh, that's <i>rich</i>.
Edit: Been reading up about this one-- the commanding officer, Grant Hibbard is a registered Republican and a member of the ironically titled Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He commanded Kerry for a grand total of two weeks, but gave him high marks at the time. Like his SBVFT comrades, his version of the story has changed depending on the interview, is inconsistent with the medical report, has no correspondence to support it, and, of course, suddenly materialized for the first time during this election cycle.
So, grain of salt, and all that.
A more thorough examination of his inconsistencies is located <a href='http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050504.shtml' target='_blank'>here</a>.
Clinton's a good example: a "deserter" did a pretty fine job of foreign policy.
Even if Kerry's war record were spotless, he'd be wasting his time talking about it. It shouldn't even be mentioned. It's exceedingly poor use of advertising and debate time.
Well, except that junk like that is what's on people's mind when they go vote. It shouldn't be, but the ability of the common man to discern the makings of a president is another issue.
Rather a deserter than a liar I would say.
Rather a deserter than a liar I would say. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
excuse me, but that's incredibly naive. politics is always about stretching the truth and lying. Serving your country is *not* about deserting.
</cynicism>
I'm a bit more concerned about Bush's tax cut, which will probably commit some simpletons to supporting Bush, solely based on him giving them money. Which he could have done sooner - except now he gets to tout the "Hey, if you elect him, he'll raise your taxes - taking the money I just gave you."
bah.
The whole thing is just a stupid media distraction from any real issues (it doesn't tell a thing about whether Bush is fit to be president, nor does Kerry's record for his fitness), but you can't just tell one side of it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was in the military. I work for a military contractor.
Bush did a lot more by serving in the guard than by dodging the draft. Or giving your ROTC commander the runaround.
However, do I look down upon those who dodged the draft by not showing up? Not in any way. How can you support a free nation and then force people into servitude in the military? If we cannot get enough volunteers to join the military to defend our nation then our nation really doesn't have a right to exist.
I am a staunch advocate of the all volunteer military and anyone who does not wish to serve in the military should not be forced to. Bush did a lot more by serving in the Guard than by completely avoiding service.
I challenge anyone here that if they were in a similar position. If your child was going to be sent to Vietnam, tell me that you wouldn't do everything in your power to see that they were safe. If not, then you probably shouldn't be a parent.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed he did-- he wasted one million dollars worth of taxpayer funded training. Honestly, couldn't they have installed him in a unit that didn't fly? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I challenge anyone here that if they were in a similar position. If your child was going to be sent to Vietnam, tell me that you wouldn't do everything in your power to see that they were safe. If not, then you probably shouldn't be a parent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed-- however, we can't lose site of the fact that because he was given preferential treatment, someone else?s child was sent to fight in his stead.
Besides, isn?t affirmative action <i>always</i> bad?