Bush -Kerry 2nd debate (spin).

[bishop]

What I can say is that Kerry is out of touch with the savagery and evil that confronts us.

yet, he voted to authorize the use of force if it was necessary. how was that being out of touch???

Further, Kerry still can't understand that if our major WWII allies were willing to accept bribes from Saddam Hussein to violate United Nations sanctions, we are pretty much alone in defending our interests globally.

our ww2 allies are interested in one thing - oil. it's in there interest to seeing oil flow in iraq, and they'd probably like their contracts back as well. dangling that in front of their eyes like the old carrot and stick game could very well win allied support in iraq. bush seems intent on keeping the rewards to himself.

[Sonart]

Originally posted by macnpat Only to those who don't know the facts. Kerry said once that our troops were all committing war crimes when they were not.

No, macnpat, that's not exactly true.

Here's what Kerry testified to in Congress:

--"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia."--

There's more. You can read it yourself. Here's what Kerry said when interviewed:

--"There are all kinds of atrocities , and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."--

To refresh your young memory, a Free Fire Zone was, "area where everyone was deemed hostile and a legitimate target by U.S. forces"

Certainly 100s of thousands of American troops participated in free fire zones. Alot of these things we watched nightly on the news, including burning of villages, 50 cal. machinegun fire, etc. Action among U.S. soldiers in free fire zones in Vietnam was so common that they even have a game name after it.

[Starboy]

What shocks me is just how trained the Bush attack dogs have become. Bush must resort to attacking Kerry because the accomplishments of Bush cannot stand on their own two feet. Bush was lacking in courage when his country called, and now he is lacking in courage again when all he can do is attack Kerry's courage because Bush cannot defent his own record in office. I cannot see how American patriots would ever want anything to do with Bush.

Starboy

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Sonart,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sonart,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-macnpat Only to those who don't know the facts. Kerry said once that our troops were all committing war crimes when they were not.

No, macnpat, that's not exactly true.

Here's what Kerry testified to in Congress:

--"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia."-- [/b][/quote]

You missed this:

Statement of Mr. John Kerry ...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....

Kerry went on to talk about the atrocities he committed in Nam. But not as John Kerry, he spoke for a group of 1,000 who represented a much larger group.

Who gave him the authority to represent those Nam vets who now stand against Kerry?

http://www.urich.edu/~ebolt/history398/Joh...yTestimony.html

[Starboy]

Macnpat, you make our case. Kerry was speaking for those that wished to expose the unpatriotic and brutal practices of US forces in Vietnam. What amazes me is why you would criticize anyone for doing what is obviously a duty of a citizen soldier in the US military. How can we expect the world to see America as the shinning light of democracy when our soldiers are engaged in such brutal acts?

Starboy

[bishop]

wake me up when we begin to talk about bush's record, rather than kerry's vietnam record.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Starboy, Macnpat, you make our case. Kerry was speaking for those that wished to expose the unpatriotic and brutal practices of US forces in Vietnam.

Except for the incident at Mai Lai which was brought to justice, our troops did not practice "unpatriotic and brutal practices" as U.S. policy. Incidents like Mai Lai did occur and Kerry was guilty. How does this qualify him as President? blech

What amazes me is why you would criticize anyone for doing what is obviously a duty of a citizen soldier in the US military. How can we expect the world to see America as the shinning light of democracy when our soldiers are engaged in such brutal acts? Starboy

Our soldiers were not engaged in brutal acts as a policy. There were incidents of which some soldiers were courtmarshalled. But, Kerry admitted to the crimes, paid no price and is now running for the position of Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. blech

[Starboy]

Originally posted by bishop, wake me up when we begin to talk about bush's record, rather than kerry's vietnam record.

Damn good point Bishop. The only way Bush can defend his record is to make everyone look worse than he does.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Originally posted by macnpat, Our soldiers were not engaged in brutal acts as a policy. There were incidents of which some soldiers were courtmarshalled. But, Kerry admitted to the crimes, paid no price and is now running for the position of Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. blech

Let me see, person does wrong, has the backbone to stand up and say they did wrong and you see something wrong with that? Country calls and person hides in the guard and doesn't even serve honerably and does not have the balls to admit that they have ever done anything wrong and you think this person derserves your loyalty? This country is fucked up.

Starboy

[Starboy]

I suppose macnpat, you would not have been satisfied with Kerry even if he marched down to a jail and demand that he be locked up.

Starboy

[n-dependant]

I don't know what channel you where watching but Bush won that debate hands down. When I have time I will can go through the transcript for each question and give reason why Bush won but I can't right now. Kerry won one or two qustions but all his other arguments lack any kind of credability based on his record. His "PLAN" for Iraq is nothing more than what we are doing now. Not a single orginial idea. Of course I should not challange Kerry's credability since Im sure it will invite attacks on Bush's credability. I represent those UNDECIDED voters because I was just going to sit this one out. Now I am pretty sure I am going to vote for Bush.

[Sonart]

"...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony...."

Again you seem to be misrepresenting things. Kerry was testifying before Congress on behalf of the organization he had helped create and was leading, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, of which at the time there were about 1,000 members. That means about 850 of them did not tell Winter Soldier about atrocities. And when you consider Kerry's explanation that there were a lot of arcane rules governing the Geneva Convention, it's hard to not to think that the vast majority of these vets had participated in war crimes.

Free fire zones? Free fire zones were essential to the American rules of engagement. It's how they fought. 50 cal. machineguns? A swift boat's pirmary weapon is it's 50 cals. Burning villages? It's denying the enemy, it was common. In the Newspeak of the day, it's "Destroying the village to save it".

And if those are war crimes, then we're in trouble. We've all admired this particularly thrilling video clip. You say John Kerry is a war criminal for shooting at VC with 50's and shooting a heavily armed fleeing enemy in the back. Well, here we have an American Apache crew cooly and deliberately target a man so desperately wounded that all he can do is roll on the ground, and open up with their chaingun firing armor-piercing depleted-uraninum 30mm cannon rounds.

From the recoreded voice comms:

"Movement right there."

"Roger, he's wounded."

"Hit'm."

"Targeting the truck."

"Get the truck and him."

"Go forward of the truck and hit'm."

"Roger"


Watch it again. And before you say, 'well, at least they didn't get a medal for it', I really don't care. You say that John Kerry is a war criminal - medal, no medal - a war criminal. So if that's so, what does that make this air crew?

It would be helpful if some folks took a little more consideration of the realities of warfare and stop selectively defining arcane clauses as 'Atrocities', for the sole purpose of partisan character assassination. Quoting someone who quoted Army Air Corp General *mumble mumble *, "All war is immoral".

[Starboy]

Also to add to Sonart’s post, Kerry was right when he pointed out that such strategies would not win the Vietnam War. There were Americans then just as there appear to Americans now that are not honest enough to admit it. We don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning a war if we are fighting it wrong and we lack the integrity to admit that we are wrong and then try to get it right.

Starboy

[Nono]

Anyway, a "war criminal" is no more or less than someone who breaches the law of war. One can't just throw the term around. If Kerry violated any of its provisions, cite them. (Knowledge test: How many Geneva Conventions are there in force? A lot of people in the US congress and media have no idea.)

[Sonart]

And that's sorta my point, Starboy. How do go about 'fighting right'? In taking back Samarra, there are reports almost daily about the numbers of civilians being killed. It's urban warfare. Certainly all of you have heard some talking head somewhere explaining that urban warfare is the bloodiest, most difficult fighting of all. All moral implications aside, it's unavoidable. Right or wrong, it's the inevitable collateral damage.

Either we do Falluja Part 2 and back off or we kill significant numbers of civilians as they roll up the insurgents across the Sunni triangle. Take your pick. And even if they do roll up Sunniville, they won't eliminate the insurgents. They'll simply melt away, leaving one shattered city after another.

[Starboy]

Sonart, good question. Can't say as I know rightly, but then again I am not running for the office of President and it is obvious to me that Bush doesn't know and would like Adolph Hitler, take the country to the edge of oblivion before you could ever get him to admit it. But someone like Colin Powel would have some good ideas and I am pretty sure that one of them was not to invade in the first place. I don't know the exact quote but someone once said that war is just diplomacy with guns. To fail to understand the broader options available to a country with our resources and not be able to find a better solution then bomb the shit out of them simply attests to the limited mindset of our current President. This is not the first time the US has crossed swords with Muslims. Look up the treaty of Tripoli to see how Adams dealt with it. I think the magic words were "this is not a Christian country."

Starboy

[Sonart]

But someone like Colin Powel would have some good ideas and I am pretty sure that one of them was not to invade in the first place.

As Powell did. "You do understand, sir, that if you break it you're going to end up owning it." Along with much of Bush's senior military. "Iraq. Bad place. Don''t go there".

And that's Kerry's dilemma. How do you put the toothpaste back in the tube?

[Starboy]

I am afraid that Kerry will be in a similar position to Nixon. He will try to win for a bit and then realize there are no winning strategies and then try to withdraw with whatever dignity can be mustered. The scene of helicopters evacuating people from the roof of the US Embassy flash in my mind. If we leave Bush in power we are just gonna get four more years of grinding war with daily casualties. If Kerry gets elected it may become known as Kerry's war, just as many associate Vietnam with Nixon even though he was the one that got us out of there. You would think that we would have learned from Russia in Afghanistan. I am sure the Russians are laughing their asses off.

Starboy

[bishop]

since we're talking about vietnam.. during that war, LOTS of soldiers disagreed with the war. bobby kennedy was set to be the new president, and he was very much against the war. i'm sure back then, there were the same dipshits alleging that they shouldn't be voicing their opinions because it was "bad for the troops"..

right now, LOTS of soldiers disagree with the war. they come back from iraq and voice their opinions - but i suppose that's irrelavent. from all that i've read, soldiers in iraq are debating the decision to invade, and many of them believe that it was the wrong war to fight. thank god for all of us, these dedicated people are willing to stick around and try their best in this seemingly unwinnable situation. just as bobby kennedy was right to voice his mind, so is john kerry. when the policies aren't working, or were wrong to begin with, it is completely patriotic to fight to correct them. on the other hand, to stand by or even support a failed policy is the exact opposite of what it means to be patriotic.

bush plunged our country into a war that we had no business fighting. if there were weapons, or terrorist connections, then that would've been a completely different story. but there weren't, and bush fucked up and stubbornly refuses to accept that. moreover, he instead chooses to morph our reason for invading into some monumental quest to make the entire middle east democratic through force. politicians all over the world are winning elections because they renounce american policy, leaving us more isolated than before the iraq war. that is not what's best for america, we can do much better.

[macnpat]

Okay, you guys, from the top.

The enemy is Al-Qaida. They are a fanatical Islamic religious group founded by Osama Bin Laden. Osama's #1 supporters have been the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban is a fanatical Islamic religious group who believes in the same thing Osama does.

What to they believe? They believe that all of the Middle East is holy land which is being polluted by the PRESENCE OF ANY CULTURE OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN FANATICAL ISLAMIC JIHADIST RULE.

What does this mean? This means that AS LONG AS ISRAEL STANDS AS A SOVERIEGN STATE, the holy land will be polluted. Therefore, the Jihadists have two enemies. One is Israel, the other is any country which does not support their goal to destroy Israel and run the Jews off their land. The second is any religion outside of Islam.

Do not think for a moment that if we simply occupy and fight the war in Afghanistan, our backs will be automatically safe to do so. We have sworn enemies throughout the Middle East and Saddam was the despot rogue who declared war on the U.S. in 1998 I believe it was, plotted an assassination of President HW Bush, invaded Kuwait, invaded Iran, lobbed a missle over to Israel and gave refuge to Zaraqawi the beheader in a Hospital in Baghdad when zaq was wounded fighting us in Afghanistan.

Saddam was the closest threat to our security after the Al-Qaida.

Bush made the right decision, he just does a piss-poor job of articulating it. I do not believe Bush has ever lied to us simply to put our troops in harms way for any less than our own national security.

A vote for kerry, the turn coat of Nam, is a vote for Al-Qaida.

Al Qaida's mantra is to kill Americans wherever they are found.