Kerry - Treason?

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darkling:

Your whole "Conspiracy to attack Iraq" deal? That may be debated but it's not a fact, just because someone writes some words in a book that have not been coroborated by any witnesses, doesn't mean that it's a fact.

---

Fuel to the fire...

[Guest $iLk]

Too bad Clinton didn't listen...

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

You guys will do and say ANYTHING to support a man who is unworthy of your well meaning but misguided loyalty. To attempt to paint a decorated war hero who put his life on the line for your and my sorry asses as a traitor while Bush played army men is beneath contempt.

---

The rumbling about Kerry's "decorations" are out there, but both sides of the partisan media seem to have agreed to not make an issue of it.

The issue is that of medal inflation. Kerry received a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Kerry left Viet Nam due to the three Purple Hearts, which are awarded for receiving injuries in battle. Apparently, three Purple Hearts allows one to have been sent home. The question is how Kerry, on a "Swift Boat" on the rivers of Viet Nam, acquired three Purple Hearts in his short four months "in country," routinely patrolling up and down the rivers. Also of interest is the fact that Kerry, while being awarded three Purple Hearts, also recorded no lost time from duty.

Alas, I can't provide cited sources because the media of both sides are giving this one a pass. All I can point to are anecdotal stories of others from the same era who performed under similar circumstances and question the propriety of the stories being presented today given the situation of the time.

This may be one reason why Kerry won't release his medical history.

[ 03-28-2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Wolferz]

Kerry only served 4 months in country and got a free pass home with 3 purple hearts?

Let me tell you about a real American hero....

Michael J. Stephenson ( my sister-in law's brother)

joined the United States Navy in the mid 60's and volunteered for the new gun boat divisions being inserted into the war in Viet Nam.

He served there for one year and volunteered for a second.

He had three boats shot out from under him, Two of which he was the only survivor simply because he was driving( boat pilot station had armor around it). He lost his hearing for three months after the first one exploded.

Michael recieved the same number and type of medals as Senator Kerry with one difference.

He didn't take the free ride home after the third Purple Heart. He stayed in Viet Nam until they forced him to go home. He wanted to help the people of that country by defeating their enemy and he unselfishly gave everything he had but his life. He still carries shrapnel to this day.

I attended a party at his home one evening and some smart ass draft dodger was viewing his display case full of medals, which he always displayed proudly, and this guy asked him where he had bought them.

I quickly stepped aside just in time to avoid the moron's rapid flight to the floor.

The simple truth about Senator Kerry is that he is a son of a Conecticut WASP family and a Bonesman. He is just another cog in a greater conspiracy of a few wealthy pirates who wish to dominate this planet. He is without honor and no more deserves my vote than Pat Paulsen.

It's only too evident that the media is going to ignore everything bad about these candidates, because the media is owned and controlled by the very pirates who produced both.

No matter what is said about Bush or Kerry, it will be quickly swept under the rug and we will have a Bonesman sitting in the Oval office for another term, regardless of who any of us vote for.

Parties and Partisanship have been rendered a moot point and a royal waste of our time and money.

Keep on stumpin

[Guest $iLk]

Very interesting...

Kerry's FBI files reported stolen.

[Kalshion]

Now thats a war hero Wolferz and more deserving of running for office

Draft Dodger? Didn't know we had them, I thought everyone would gladly support there country

[Guest Fox__Trot]

[Wolferz]

ROTFLMAO Kal,

There were many new Canadian citizens who migrated there during the Viet Nam war.

The draft also created an interesting study in a new form of segregation in the Military.

In all the Boot Camps there were two different chow lines in the mess halls.

1. For enlistees only, who got the best food and plenty of it.

A 2nd for the Draftees who got second rate food and considered themselves lucky if they were able to finish eating it.

Draftees were treated like egg sucking dogs by the cadre constantly.

The war in Viet Nam was not prosecuted to the fullest extent that our country and it's military was capable of at the time, nor was it for providing South Viet Nam with freedom from communism. If it had been, we would have bulldozed the NVA off the face of the map and united both countries under a flag of democracy. Chinese government be damned in the process.

Is there any wonder why so many American kids who were of military service age heading north?

Johnson and Nixon prosecuted that war for reasons of their own. I will leave it to you intelligent folk to discover those reasons on your own. WASP family Bonesmen are dipped in military batter to make them more crispy for a future campaign for public office. Senator Kerry is extra crispy.

And now Silkie tells us that The FBI records of Kerry's treason have suddenly been whisked away.

Who'd a thunk it??? Central Interference Agency perhaps???? Can't have a Bonesman in the Oval office with Agent Orange on his suit, now can we?

That would kill someone's money tree.

[Kalshion]

The vietnam was basicly a political war according to my father. The military wasn't able to go to the fullest cause the UN and the politic's in washington

I gotta agree with him. Its the same reason why they couldn't kill Saddam back in the Wolf War, there where 3 to 4 different chances to kill him, and politics intervened and said "No no, you mustn't kill him he posses no thread", if thats so then why was the Golf War ever started?

History is repeating itself. If they had killed Saddam back in 1991/92 there's a chance 9/11 would've never happened *a chance, I'm not saying it wouldn't I'm just saying a chance*

[Guest $iLk]

More interesting facts about Kerry and the VVAW

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...ml?id=110004881

[Wolferz]

Kal,

The Gulf war was a response to the pleas of a small country that had been invaded by Saddam's army for the purpose of annexation, and the Saudi royal family. Saddam needed a better seaport than the one at the mouth of the Euphrates river, to continue shipping in what he wanted for WMD construction, not to mention the oil reserve that Kuwait sits on.

Near as I can tell, Saudi Arabia was next on his list. Saddam's primary goal may have been to control all of the middle east oil resources and expand the boundries of Iraq.

The coalition ended that wild dream poste haste.

The navy pilots who were tasked with destroying Saddam's retreating forces, voiced reluctance to flying anymore sorties. In their words it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

The Iraqi forces surrendered when they figured out that they were hopelessly outgunned.

Unfortunately, President Bush bowed to political pressure and fear of alienating the other Arab countries and ended the conflict there. It would have served us all better if he had ordered our forces to go ahead and take Baghdad and Saddam then, while we had the forces there to do it.

I'm sure 'ol Bush Sr, being the WASP warrior he is, was highly frustrated by this. Iraq sits on a highly prized resource that the WASPS want to control by any means neccessary. And that task has been handed down to another WASP warrior.

George Herbert Walker Bush

As much as you wish to argue the point, Jaguar, the simple truth about the Gulf war and Operation Iraqi freedom is..... it's all about the oil.

Now with Saddam defeated, the WASPS are trying to install a puppet government under the guise of Iraqi freedom and sovereignty.

Iraq is a seething mass of long oppressed people, Islamic extremists, And outside terrorists with their own agenda and I don't think their agenda matches that of the WASPS.

The religious war(WWIII) has begun and it's going to be long and bloody.

If every person in these United States converted to Islam tomorrow, I would bet my eye teeth that the Islamic extremists would still want to kill us all. It doesn't matter which candidate wins this next election because we will still have a WASP warrior and his cronies prosecuting the drive for domination of resources, no matter who they have to kill to do it

Jag is right, our democracy is in grave danger because on the one side, we have those who wish to control the planet(WASPS) and on the other side we have those who wish to control the people(Democratic Socialists)

Benjamin Franklin once said "The only way to maintain a healthy democracy is to have a civil war every 100 years"

It's way too late to fix it now.

[Guest $iLk]

Rush picks up on Kerry's FBI files being stolen...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...ck_d.guest.html

It sure as hell looks suspicious to me...

[Steve Schacher]

The stolen documents are copies that a reporter obtained with the Freedom of Information act. I'm sure the originals are safe in their government hiding place...

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I'm sure the originals are safe in their government hiding place...

---

Naturally... controlled access. I wonder if it's possible to gain more copies through the Freedom of Information act...???

[street228]

quote:

---

Your whole "Conspiracy to attack Iraq" deal? That may be debated but it's not a fact, just because someone writes some words in a book that have not been coroborated by any witnesses, doesn't mean that it's a fact.

---

I will ask you then: " DID HE OR DID HE NOT ATTACK IRAQ ON ASSUMPTION RATHER THAN FACT, AND DID HE OR DID HE NOT PRESENT THE ASSUMPTION AS FACT?"

no need to debate what the consequences of the lies; or to the reality as to the existance of such.

Anytime one adopts the policy: """there is someone who does not like me and he MAY, in the future, do something to me, and he MAY have a weapon; therefore, I am going to kill him, before he ever MAY choose to act upon MY assumptions.""", The man is mentally Ill and has no business running a country

Additionally: just because, he has the ability to influence others and incite hysteria, with a lynch mob mentality, does not make him INNOCENT of his actions. EVERY man of GUILT will shift the blame to someone else.

I am a witness to his actions, as is every one of the AMERICAN people; even though their attentiion span my be limited. This is not something written in a book. I have VHS recordings of the WHOLE thing(ALMOST EVERY SPEECH) I say again, THESE were LIES, and NOT misinformation.

And who decides? CONGRESS?

I, nor anyone CREDIBLE, have truly any witness to Kerry and ACCUSATIONS of his TREASON. Mostly uncoroborated, The only TREASON committed, was against the AMERICAN POPULOUS. And the REAL CRIMINALS have yet to be CHARGED.

I am but ONE member of the JURY: "A CITIZEN of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA"

I JUDGE BUSH AS GUILTY!!

[ 03-30-2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: street ]

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

The man is mentally Ill and has no business running a country

---

Talking about Saddam right?

Points you don't take into consideration - Iraq was in material breach of quite a bit of stuff - UN resolutions, the treaty that ended the 1st Gulf War, etc. It was legally our responsibility to ensure that Iraq did not have WMD through force. The UN Resolution immediately before the war was backpedalled on by the UN itself - they don't have the balls to be telling us what to and what not to do.

Second point - No WMDs have been found yet. Although we have uncovered the capability to produce, and several items which were in breach of the resolutions which made it legal for us to go to war.

Third point - Iraq was not an imminent threat in regards to waging open war against us. However that does not take into account the fact of their terrorist connections or that this invasion was 12 years overdue. In 1995 or 1996 was it that Sadaam simply expelled our inspectors and Clinton lobbed a few missiles. Our response then was a joke, and I found it rather fitting to see that S.O.B. drug out of a hole.

I myself thought that Bush's speeches to inflame the U.S. was not the best way to go about it - but then again he was catering to the people who don't give a damn about legalities and want a face on the enemy. Bush only included what he thought to be true in his speeches, and if he didn't think the allegations were true or reasonably true - he wouldn't have made them. There were too many facts that supported his position and not enough against.

[street228]

@ silk:

Interpretation of the FACTS are not consistant with LOGIC and RATIONAL motive.

We had NO LEGAL obligation to INVADE the country; because, of the BREACHED RESOLUTIONS. If that is justification, then there are other country's who have breached resolutions throughout the years, which we should ATTACK: ISREAL, is but one example.(NOT that I feel we should do so.)

You forget, BUSH's reasoning is ISOLATED logic, aimed at a specific end, and NOT universally applied. It is the LOGIC which is FLAWED.

Second: The evidence you are referring to, concerning the ability to construct WMDs, has already PROVEN to be: nothing more than obsolete, left over projects, long discarded by IRAQ. AND, by no means, LEGALIZED our actions.(I wonder how you would feel, if the same LOGIC and TWISTED reasoning were applied to you and your life in ANY PERSONAL legal litigation)

Third point: NO TERRORIST CONNECTIONS WERE EVER SOLIDLY PROVEN: MORE empty allegations based on FANTASY, in order to pull backing for his actions, from the AMERICAN populous.

FOUTH: CLINTON did not JUST lob a few bombs. We bombed them consistantly,(weekly) throughout a 12 year period, which(along with the implimented SANCTIONS) quite EFFECTIVLY had them in SUBSERVIENT control. The economic and social conditions created by those actions, for those 12 years was NO JOKE. That country was NO THREAT to ANYONE....ANYWHERE!!, besides their control of 65% of the worlds OIL. PERIOD!!

FIFTH and FINAL: There WERE and ARE...NO FACTS!! supporting BUSH's position.

We, the PEOPLE were, IN FACT, being given, SO MUCH FALSE information concerning this ESCAPADE, IT is not even your fault, that you have adopted His(BUSH) point of view(AS TWISTED AND ILLOGICAL THAT IT IS).

The real PROBLEM here, is tha AMOUNT of MEDIA influence, and coverage, and how it is presented to us. FOR EXAMPLE: WHAT WAS SADDAM'S REASON,WHICH HE(SADDAM) PRESENTED TO THE WORLD, FOR INVADING KEWAIT?...AND WAS HIS REASON TRUE? and JUSTIFIED from HIS STAND POINT?

KEWAIT REFUSED to PAY for the MILITARY protection which it had AGREED to PURCHASE and had ,in fact,received. And YES it was TRUE. And YES, SADDAM was JUSTIFIED(MORE justified for his actions than WE were for OURS) in FORECLOSURE.

I bet you ALL forgot about THAT one(another argument all together however.It is THE LOGIC which is flawed, and the MEDIA CONTROLLED public opinions, which are WARPED, because of it.

My point is this: IF it is OK for YOUR BANK to SEIZE YOUR assets. HOW can you say it is NOT ok for HIS COUNTRY TO SEIZE assets on DEFAULT (or literal REFUSAL to pay)??

I do NOT CONDONE Saddam's HORRIBLE DICTATORSHIP, BUT THERE ARE MUCH WORSE, the OTHERS, just didnt control the OIL.....(REALITY!!!!)

[ 03-30-2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: street ]

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

We had NO LEGAL obligation to INVADE the country; because, of the BREACHED RESOLUTIONS. If that is justification, then there are other country's who have breached resolutions throughout the years, which we should ATTACK: ISREAL, is but one example.(NOT that I feel we should do so.)

---

Sadaamn was in material breach of the treaty that ended the first Gulf War, so technically the first Gulf War was in effect again.

quote:

---

(I wonder how you would feel, if the same LOGIC and TWISTED reasoning were applied to you and your life in ANY PERSONAL legal litigation)

---

Drats I've been caught... all they have to do is look in my kitchen and discover my oven... I have the capability to produce WMD through my cooking

quote:

---

NO TERRORIST CONNECTIONS WERE EVER SOLIDLY PROVEN: MORE empty allegations based on FANTASY, in order to pull backing for his actions, from the AMERICAN populous.

---

That's what I don't understand... there are quite a few foreign combatants engaged against our military currently... if Sadaam had no terrorist connections... where did these foreign fighters come from and why? (Terrorist doesn't limit itself to Al Quaida)

quote:

---

CLINTON did not JUST lob a few bombs. We bombed them consistantly,(weekly) throughout a 12 year period, which(along with the implimented SANCTIONS) quite EFFECTIVLY had them in SUBSERVIENT control. The economic and social conditions created by those actions, for those 12 years was NO JOKE. That country was NO THREAT to ANYONE....ANYWHERE!!, besides their control of 65% of the worlds OIL. PERIOD!!

---

Hasn't Sadaam even stated that he was just buying time until he could get sanctions lifted? And in effect he was using the U.N. to profit? And I don't see how the conditions are as bad as you say... considering Sadaam garnered 100% of the popular vote in Iraq's last election.

quote:

---

There WERE and ARE...NO FACTS!! supporting BUSH's position.

---

There are plenty - you just aren't willing to accept anything short of an ICBM sitting on the launch pad in the middle of Baghdad.

quote:

---

KEWAIT REFUSED to PAY for the MILITARY protection which it had AGREED to PURCHASE and had ,in fact,received. And YES it was TRUE. And YES, SADDAM was JUSTIFIED(MORE justified for his actions than WE were for OURS) in FORECLOSURE.

---

So the Mafia is justified in collecting it's debts from extortion? You've just blown any bit of credibility with me.

quote:

---

My point is this: IF it is OK for YOUR BANK to SEIZE YOUR assets. HOW can you say it is NOT ok for HIS COUNTRY TO SEIZE assets on DEFAULT (or literal REFUSAL to pay)??

---

So since we saved France in WW2 and they are refusing to pay back the debt they owe us, it is our RIGHT as a nation to invade France, install a puppet government and take what is ours anyway.

This is too much!

quote:

---

I do NOT CONDONE Saddam's HORRIBLE DICTATORSHIP, BUT THERE ARE MUCH WORSE, the OTHERS, just didnt control the OIL.....(REALITY!!!!)

---

Thanks for the disclaimer... but you should have located it above all your Baathist propaganda up above.

[street228]

well, I was going to answer your points point by point, until I read the last one. LOL, I will let it go now. I can see, you have already catagorized me as a TERROrIST(Baathist?). TYPICAL of the LOGIC of this administration. ta ta.(smile)

[Kalshion]

A liberal will beleave only themselves, and can't stand hearing the truth Congraduations Street, you've been classified as a Liberal

Come on you two, this is fun! oh drats, ran out of popcorn. Anyone have a spare bag?

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

well, I was going to answer your points point by point, until I read the last one. LOL, I will let it go now. I can see, you have already catagorized me as a TERROrIST(Baathist?). TYPICAL of the LOGIC of this administration. ta ta.(smile)

---

Is this the part where I get all defensive and drop my conservative(common-sense) stance and say "But I'm a bi-partisan moderate" and hold hands and sing Kum-bay-ya with everyone?

Hardly. Honestly I don't think you can debate me point for point and last... (*sigh*I miss Menchise... ).

F.Y.I. A Baathist would be a member of the Baath Party - i.e. Sadaam Hussein's political party. I must have mistaken you for Baghdad Bob for a minute... *starts imagining*

Baghdad Street: I am nowhere near defeated in my argument... there is no such thing as common sense... $iLk is falling under the walls of liberalism! *explosion heard nearby*

[street228]

LOL..i still say logic is the key to intelligent action. And, far be it from me, to even attempt to say your arguement is either standing, or fallen.

I can only Judge, by that which I see. I see twisted conclusions based on half truths, and a series of responses toward statements taken out of context and applied to your own ideologies.

Example: "So the Mafia is justified in collecting it's debts from extortion? You've just blown any bit of..." Has no revelence to the conversation, and ;therfore, deserves no response.

I am sorry, but these are the type of answers, which do NOT allow LOGICAL debate, which is my goal,in order to establish LOGICAL conclusions based on TRUTH.

To reach the TRUTH of any matter, one must build upon TRUE precepts.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

LOL..i still say logic is the key to intelligent action. And, far be it from me, to even attempt to say your arguement is either standing, or fallen.

---

I must digress on our obviously differing definitions of logic... for you - logic seems to mean anything and everything that fits the result you wish to convey regardless of any evidence to the contrary. For me - logic means taking in the whole picture - and picking apart both sides - Bush and the Democrats. I pick on Democrats more because they really have gone way overboard on the normal train of thought... they need to replace their common sense manager because he's drunk at the wheel. Thanks for taking my post with a laugh - because that's how it's intended. Good to draw you back in though for the dissection of your post

quote:

---

I can only Judge, by that which I see. I see twisted conclusions based on half truths, and a series of responses toward statements taken out of context and applied to your own ideologies.

---

If by ideologies you meant "common sense" we are on the same page. If not then... he's still drunk at the wheel.

quote:

---

Example: "So the Mafia is justified in collecting it's debts from extortion? You've just blown any bit of..." Has no revelence to the conversation, and ;therfore, deserves no response.

---

It has perfect relevance considering you brought up the absurd notion that the country of Iraq has the right to invade a neighboring nation that doesn't make good on it's debts. Which I likewise replied that according to your logic - we have the right and MANDATE to invade Great Britain and France for the debt from WW2 that they haven't paid back for their protection. The Mafia thing was an analogy based on your apparent belief in legitimate extortion. What would your liberal friends say about what you are advocating?

quote:

---

I am sorry, but these are the type of answers, which do NOT allow LOGICAL debate, which is my goal,in order to establish LOGICAL conclusions based on TRUTH.

---

No these are the type of ludicrous answers that DEMAND logical debate and do not allow liberal debate. There's a difference.

quote:

---

To reach the TRUTH of any matter, one must build upon TRUE precepts.

---

You have to be THAT intellectual to be so devoid of common sense. Thanks for playing... but at least save *some* face by recognizing that your point about Iraq having the right to invade Kuwait was foolhardy at best and DAMN HILARIOUS in context.

[street228]

quote:

---

You have to be THAT intellectual to be so devoid of common sense. Thanks for playing... but at least save *some* face by recognizing that your point about Iraq having the right to invade Kuwait was foolhardy at best and DAMN HILARIOUS in context.

---

If you will read MY post and NOT YOUR post, with my statement(again taken out of context) ANYONE can see, I NEVER said that. I said:

We, the PEOPLE were, IN FACT, being given, SO MUCH FALSE information concerning this ESCAPADE, IT is not even your fault, that you have adopted His(BUSH) point of view(AS TWISTED AND ILLOGICAL THAT IT IS).

The real PROBLEM here, is tha AMOUNT of MEDIA influence, and coverage, and how it is presented to us. FOR EXAMPLE: WHAT WAS SADDAM'S REASON,WHICH HE(SADDAM) PRESENTED TO THE WORLD, FOR INVADING KEWAIT?...AND WAS HIS REASON TRUE? and JUSTIFIED from HIS STAND POINT?

KEWAIT REFUSED to PAY for the MILITARY protection which it had AGREED to PURCHASE and had ,in fact,received. And YES it was TRUE. And YES, SADDAM was JUSTIFIED(MORE justified for his actions than WE were for OURS) in FORECLOSURE.

thank YOU!!

[street228]

lol I am hoping that little club will help you understand...lol