PDA

View Full Version : Veterans for Kerry



Thespis
16th October 04, 05:11 PM
If Kerry gets elected, I sure hope are new allies aren't going to be all our old enemies while he alienates our current allies.

imported_Solaris Flare
16th October 04, 05:29 PM
If Kerry gets elected, I sure hope are new allies aren't going to be all our old enemies while he alienates our current allies.

A lot of bush admin was best buddies with Saddam in the 80s I dont see you crying about that.

Phrost
16th October 04, 06:51 PM
But they met with Iraq when they were our ally against a greater threat, Iran.

Kerry met with the North Vietnamese when we were at war with them, which is blatantly treasonous. They have pictures honoring him in North Korea as a war hero FOR THEIR SIDE.

Merauk
16th October 04, 07:07 PM
But they met with Iraq when they were our ally against a greater threat, Iran

Actually we supported both countries (during the entire Iran/Iraq War). We sold Iran weapons via Israel (yes that is right Israel was selling weapons to Iran).

Phrost
16th October 04, 07:07 PM
I'd like to see a reference on that.

Luko
16th October 04, 07:29 PM
Iran/ Contra?

imported_Solaris Flare
16th October 04, 07:35 PM
But they met with Iraq when they were our ally against a greater threat, Iran.

Kerry met with the North Vietnamese when we were at war with them, which is blatantly treasonous. They have pictures honoring him in North Korea as a war hero FOR THEIR SIDE.

What Merauk said and it doesnít always serve the long term interest of anyone to support certain pricks in the world just to stick it to another prick.

Merauk
16th October 04, 10:24 PM
I'd like to see a reference on that.

During the Reagan Administration they split down the middle roughly. Bud McFarlane, Howard Teicher, and Ollie North favored arming Iran. Casper Weinberger and George Shultz favored Iraq. Teicher in particular concluded in the last 70's that Saddam would prove to the bigger threat to the region long term and in particular he was a stronger threat to Israel (which the Israeli's agreed with which is why they served as the conduit for the TOW missiles and other items). Teicher was right but when Iran/Contra came out the Administration pretty much stopped all support for Iran and increased their support of Saddam.

You only need to research the details of how Iran Contra to see how the Israeli goverment was involved. They were however sending parts and other supplies to Iran much earlier then 1985 under Haig's approval.

House of Bush/House of Saud is a pretty interesting read if you can cut through some of the partisan spin in it. It gives a good picture into some of the deals we did with Iraq, Iran, Israel, and the Saudi's in the 80's and early 90's.

Thespis
16th October 04, 10:52 PM
A lot of bush admin was best buddies with Saddam in the 80s I dont see you crying about that.

You have made it blatantly obvious that you really don't understand politics or pay much attention in many threads. For one, indignation and crying are not the same thing. More than once, I've said politics nauseates me because of how much you have to sacrifice in order to "play the game". It's like a chess game, and it is a game that Reagan played very well. Decisions in politics are more often made based on gains and losses than about what's right or wrong.

Reagan was dealing with much bigger issues relating to Russia. The leadership of our nation had to pick and choose its battles based on what they felt they could accomplish and what would benefit us the most. I've said in several past threads that I think it was a mistake to leave Saddam in power during the Gulf War. Bush Sr gave into the pressure of the liberals and UN to back off, which is why we've gotta deal with it now. Again liberals want us to back off, which would again not solve the problem and only delay resolution for the future. If you want to flame somebody and at least do a decent job of it, give it a little thought first before hitting the submit button.

imported_Solaris Flare
17th October 04, 01:25 AM
You have made it blatantly obvious that you really don't understand politics or pay much attention in many threads. For one, indignation and crying are not the same thing. More than once, I've said politics nauseates me because of how much you have to sacrifice in order to "play the game". It's like a chess game, and it is a game that Reagan played very well. Decisions in politics are more often made based on gains and losses than about what's right or wrong.

Reagan was dealing with much bigger issues relating to Russia. The leadership of our nation had to pick and choose its battles based on what they felt they could accomplish and what would benefit us the most. I've said in several past threads that I think it was a mistake to leave Saddam in power during the Gulf War. Bush Sr gave into the pressure of the liberals and UN to back off, which is why we've gotta deal with it now. Again liberals want us to back off, which would again not solve the problem and only delay resolution for the future. If you want to flame somebody and at least do a decent job of it, give it a little thought first before hitting the submit button.

Seems to me Saddam played both sides(US/Russia) like a fiddle in the 80s to get what he wanted. Fucking Liberals didn't have power but they somehow played a evil role in this I am sure.

We don't know why Bush Sr backed off in Gulf War 1 because we don't know if Saddam would of gassed Israel. This would of forced Israel to do something to stupid like nuked or attack Iraq. Either way Bush Sr is a big boy and I don't think some lefties pressured him into pulling out. But I don't think anyone knows the full story so it's about impossible to debate the issue fully.

Kiko
17th October 04, 06:44 AM
We don't know why Bush Sr backed off in Gulf War 1 ...

If I recall correctly, and I think I was paying attention then, he/we backed off because the objective (protect/stabilize Kuwait) was achieved and the US public outcry against bombing the hell out of those poor unprotected Iraqui people was so great because OMG it's too traumatic to watch on CNN every night, so the mission was successful and we brough the troops home.

NOW, with 20/20 hindsight everyone criticizes Bush41 for not finishing the job then. GG.

Cybsled
17th October 04, 07:44 AM
I find great irony in the line "Kerry will turn our new allies into enemies". Wtf...WHAT NEW ALLIES? All we've done is piss away past allies and muddled our current ones.

Energiser
17th October 04, 08:41 AM
I am going to be so godamn happy when the stupid american election is over.

Twyl
17th October 04, 09:45 AM
I am going to be so godamn happy when the stupid american election is over.

I agree.

Well I won't be happy, just not as annoyed all the time.

Phrost
17th October 04, 11:31 AM
During the Reagan Administration they split down the middle roughly. Bud McFarlane, Howard Teicher, and Ollie North favored arming Iran. Casper Weinberger and George Shultz favored Iraq. Teicher in particular concluded in the last 70's that Saddam would prove to the bigger threat to the region long term and in particular he was a stronger threat to Israel (which the Israeli's agreed with which is why they served as the conduit for the TOW missiles and other items). Teicher was right but when Iran/Contra came out the Administration pretty much stopped all support for Iran and increased their support of Saddam.

You only need to research the details of how Iran Contra to see how the Israeli goverment was involved. They were however sending parts and other supplies to Iran much earlier then 1985 under Haig's approval.

House of Bush/House of Saud is a pretty interesting read if you can cut through some of the partisan spin in it. It gives a good picture into some of the deals we did with Iraq, Iran, Israel, and the Saudi's in the 80's and early 90's.

More than likely I'll take your word on it, but you still don't have a reference.

Thespis
17th October 04, 12:07 PM
Seems to me Saddam played both sides(US/Russia) like a fiddle in the 80s to get what he wanted. Fucking Liberals didn't have power but they somehow played a evil role in this I am sure.

We don't know why Bush Sr backed off in Gulf War 1 because we don't know if Saddam would of gassed Israel. This would of forced Israel to do something to stupid like nuked or attack Iraq. Either way Bush Sr is a big boy and I don't think some lefties pressured him into pulling out. But I don't think anyone knows the full story so it's about impossible to debate the issue fully.

Yes, Saddam did play both sides quite well, which further proves my point about politics being like a chess game. You can't predict the future, but you try your damnedest to do so. You have to make choices at the time based on the "intelligence" you have available.

We know exactly why Bush Sr backed off in the Gulf War. He was playing the political game and trying to preserve his approval rating, aka being pressured to get some closure. Saddam not only shot SCUDS at Israel, there were a few small gas attacks. I know this first hand because my ex-wife and her parents were there when it happened and had to put on gas masks that almost every Israeli had been issued at the time. Of course nobody knows the full story, but there's enough of the story there to paint a fairly accurate picture. Difficult in some spots maybe, but far from impossible.

Merauk
17th October 04, 12:16 PM
More than likely I'll take your word on it, but you still don't have a reference.

I gave you a book for a reference and stated it had an obvious partisan slant (House of Saud/House of Bush). The writer clearly footnotes all his sources though and does list sources which he could not verify or felt were questionable. If you want more though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Sithray
17th October 04, 12:20 PM
Actually the reason Bush Sr backed out according to his new book was he saw no exit strategy from Iraq. He felt that toppling the regime would make Iraq a hotbed of terrorist activity and that the US did not have the resources to build a government for them in a timely manner without putting the country in massive debt and increasing taxes more than he already had.

imported_Blazer
17th October 04, 12:45 PM
You have made it blatantly obvious that you really don't understand politics or pay much attention in many threads.people who don't have all the facts or believe all the facts according to Thespis can still have an opinion/belief. AND god forgive them if they use a different news sorce or read something different then you.

Xesor
17th October 04, 03:12 PM
people who don't have all the facts or believe all the facts according to Thespis can still have an opinion/belief. AND god forgive them if they use a different news sorce or read something different then you.


You can read all the news sources you want, but if you don't understand them, you're still ignorant. So, much like you, Solaris is an idiot.

imported_Solaris Flare
17th October 04, 03:41 PM
You can read all the news sources you want, but if you don't understand them, you're still ignorant. So, much like you, Solaris is an idiot.

Ya well you can comment of this stuff when you become informed on the facts.

Xesor
17th October 04, 04:37 PM
Perhaps you should follow your own advice, as you continually prove your ignorance of said facts.

The only 'fact' I made a comment on, is one just about anyone with half a mind can see. You and Blazer are idiots.

Morley
17th October 04, 05:21 PM
Actually the reason Bush Sr backed out

The real reason we didn't take out Sadam is that as a condition of the U.S. being allowed to be over there and use arab soil for war ops was that we just get Iraq out of Kuwait and insure he was no longer a threat to his neighbors. We wern't allowed, by the terms of the agreement with King Fahd, to remove Sadam or topple his government.

imported_Solaris Flare
17th October 04, 05:30 PM
Perhaps you should follow your own advice, as you continually prove your ignorance of said facts.

The only 'fact' I made a comment on, is one just about anyone with half a mind can see. You and Blazer are idiots.

I watch/read the news daily. Those are the 'facts'. No need to call me names just because you don't agree with what I am saying. Only reason I am doing this is because Thespis went on the war path with stuff that irkes me.

imported_Solaris Flare
17th October 04, 05:33 PM
I still honestly believe that we don't know why Bush Sr pulled out. There are to many what ifs and assumptions in place. Although as this post has shown there was many different reasons to do so.

Halfrican
17th October 04, 07:42 PM
Bush is getting another four years, deal with it.

Thespis
17th October 04, 08:19 PM
people who don't have all the facts or believe all the facts according to Thespis can still have an opinion/belief. AND god forgive them if they use a different news sorce or read something different then you.
LoL Blazer, there you go reading more into things as well. I never said somebody couldn't disagree with me, or that I'm never wrong. It is a fairly obvious statement even on my part to say that politics is like a big chess game and is often distasteful to many people because of what many politicians will resort to. Why do you think there are so many jokes about politicians? Why do you think people are so cynical and distrusting toward politicians? Do you dispute that? I'm sure some might, but it tends to be a fairly widely held conception.



I still honestly believe that we don't know why Bush Sr pulled out. There are to many what ifs and assumptions in place. Although as this post has shown there was many different reasons to do so.
That is entirely possible, but even with the many different reasons proposed, most of them boil down to political pressure regardless if it was from liberals, Saudis, or both, etc. Bush Sr doesn't want to admit that he caved to that, which is hardly surprising. Even Bush Jr has made comments along that line that his dad didn't finish the job. They still support and love each other, but it did make Bush Sr bristle when Bush Jr made that suggestion. Perhaps you know something I don't with all this. Perception often tends to be the basis of most peoples' reality. Should it ever prove true that I'm wrong, I'll happily own up to it.

The biggest reason I'm so opposed to Kerry is because of how he handled himself with North Vietnam after he got out of the service. He still handles himself poorly in my eyes. If he gets elected, I hope he proves me wrong. Hell if he even just admitted that he was wrong in the past, I'd give him a lot more credit. However, he either doesn't think he was wrong, or he's worried that if he admits it, people will blow it up and make a big deal about it (which is entirely possible).



I find great irony in the line "Kerry will turn our new allies into enemies". Wtf...WHAT NEW ALLIES? All we've done is piss away past allies and muddled our current ones.
I forgot to respond to this amusement earlier, heh. I should have been more clear. The word "new" can be used in relatively broad fashion depending what you're comparing to. As I didn't define the comparison, it's my fault for lack of understanding. I merely meant the comments made by Kerry insulting some of those countries who've not typically had the chance to demonstrate much support for us in the past. They may have always been on good terms with us, but perhaps never had the chance to be "allied" with us in a military situation. The history major in me tends to think of allies in terms of a military coalition. I realize that an alliance has greater ramifications beyond military application, but it tends to often be the biggest and most visual foundation. My skepticism in regard to Kerry along this line is the lack of any clear indication of where he intends to take us in foreign affairs should he get the chance. Anyway, sorry for not being more clear about what I meant. /bow /grovel /scrape :D

Chantress
17th October 04, 09:14 PM
But they met with Iraq when they were our ally against a greater threat, Iran.

Kerry met with the North Vietnamese when we were at war with them, which is blatantly treasonous. They have pictures honoring him in North Korea as a war hero FOR THEIR SIDE.


Im prety certain those pictures are in Vietnam. I doubt Korea cares too much about Kerry since their conflict happened before his time didnt it?

imported_Blazer
17th October 04, 09:44 PM
LoL Blazer, there you go reading more into things as well. I never said somebody couldn't disagree with me, or that I'm never wrong.:D
well your not doing a very good job of never saying.

Thespis
18th October 04, 06:24 PM
well your not doing a very good job of never saying.

There's a difference between having an attitude that people can't disagree and simply arguing in favor of a position. At least there's a difference if you've had much higher education. The dynamics of discussion and debate are a bit more in depth than an Alabama porch monkey saying, "Oh yea?!? mah pappy can beat yo pappy!"

Kiko
18th October 04, 06:34 PM
"porch monkey..." :jawdrop:

Thespis
18th October 04, 07:12 PM
"porch monkey..." :jawdrop:

LoL, some friends of my family from my dad's Air Force days live in Alabama. We went to visit them some years back. While traveling through the state, I remember being struck by how many people seemed to like congregating out on their front porch discussing a seemingly wide variety of things. One such discussion degenerated into an argument comparing who's father was a better chef or something like that. It was a long time ago, and I forget the specifics. It was fairly amusing though.

Xesor
19th October 04, 09:02 PM
I watch/read the news daily.


Those are the 'facts'.

The news is never biased or slanted obviously.

And, of course, they are never wrong (http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/sept391.html).

imported_Solaris Flare
20th October 04, 12:26 AM
The news is never biased or slanted obviously.

And, of course, they are never wrong (http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/sept391.html).

Most network CEOs are voting for bush so dont give me this liberal media bull shit.

imported_Solaris Flare
20th October 04, 12:37 AM
Been reading the stuff on that page you gave me. Isnt that a little bias too? = p

Chantress
20th October 04, 12:39 AM
Most network CEOs are voting for bush so dont give me this liberal media bull shit.

Yeah, glad you went around and took a straw poll of all the network CEOs. Let me guess, the moon is made of green cheese as well?

Thespis
20th October 04, 12:44 AM
Let me guess, the moon is made of green cheese as well?
I thought everyone knew that??? :p





Most network CEOs are voting for bush so dont give me this liberal media bull shit.
Suggesting that the majority of the news media is not liberal is almost on par with a suggestion that the majority of the earth is not covered by water.

imported_Solaris Flare
20th October 04, 01:49 AM
Suggesting that the majority of the news media is not liberal is almost on par with a suggestion that the majority of the earth is not covered by water.

Really now? So you are telling me 2 out of the 3 news networks don't lean to the right? And you are telling me talk radio isn't dominated by the right? Come on, it's a feel good/victim myth that the media is full of liberals. Just because the media doesn't preach Jesus all the time doesn't mean it's full of liberals.

imported_Solaris Flare
20th October 04, 01:59 AM
Yeah, glad you went around and took a straw poll of all the network CEOs. Let me guess, the moon is made of green cheese as well?

They are such good liberals that most of them don't even vote democrat to keep their tracks hidden! http://www.fair.org/extra/9807/from-the-top.html =~(???

Traetick
20th October 04, 02:47 AM
dance puppets, dance.

Xesor
20th October 04, 03:48 PM
Been reading the stuff on that page you gave me. Isnt that a little bias too? = p

You're quick.

Thespis
20th October 04, 06:05 PM
Really now? So you are telling me 2 out of the 3 news networks don't lean to the right? And you are telling me talk radio isn't dominated by the right? Come on, it's a feel good/victim myth that the media is full of liberals. Just because the media doesn't preach Jesus all the time doesn't mean it's full of liberals.

I can't speak for your Canadian networks, but yes I'm telling you 2 out of the 3 news networks in the US do not lean to the right. At least not the ones that have any significant following. Fox is the only major network brand that significantly leans to the right. Some may be harder to discern. It is a generally accepted belief (even held by the media) that the majority of the media is liberal. Some of the individuals on that network might not be liberal, but individuals are not what's being referred to. If you're gonna make such an audacious claim that flies in the face of popular belief, at least back it up with some reliable statistics. "Your" logic is not enough.

imported_Solaris Flare
20th October 04, 08:00 PM
I can't speak for your Canadian networks, but yes I'm telling you 2 out of the 3 news networks in the US do not lean to the right. At least not the ones that have any significant following. Fox is the only major network brand that significantly leans to the right. Some may be harder to discern. It is a generally accepted belief (even held by the media) that the majority of the media is liberal. Some of the individuals on that network might not be liberal, but individuals are not what's being referred to. If you're gonna make such an audacious claim that flies in the face of popular belief, at least back it up with some reliable statistics. "Your" logic is not enough.

I already did back it with reliable statistics. Looks like to me you just want the last word on it. If you are not willing accept the fact this is a myth then shame on you but for sure it's not shame on me just because TV isn't stacked with conservatives. Are there liberals on TV? Yes. Are there conservatives on tv? Well I am sorry to tell you this but yes.

Xesor
20th October 04, 11:04 PM
Thankfully you are here to keep us informed of the 'facts'.

Sabore Wallace
20th October 04, 11:49 PM
So do you really think they landed on the moon, or was that just a hoax?

BTW, I think Park City UT is the kingdom of silicone. It's like a city of baywatch, but twisted.

You see buttloads of women from ages 15-85 with the biggest perkiest breasts you can imagine. It's sick and wrong to see an old lady with the blue vein legs and droopy wrinkled skin drooping from her arms, but round firm Pamela Anderson tits on her. Pretty fucked up, kinda like that new commercial that has Carmen Electras head on a big fat guys body. It just doesn't work.

Thespis
21st October 04, 02:31 AM
I already did back it with reliable statistics. Looks like to me you just want the last word on it. If you are not willing accept the fact this is a myth then shame on you but for sure it's not shame on me just because TV isn't stacked with conservatives. Are there liberals on TV? Yes. Are there conservatives on tv? Well I am sorry to tell you this but yes.

Claiming something is true does not make it so. Your imagination does not count as a reliable source of statistics. I'm well aware there are conservatives on TV. The point is, there are a LOT more liberals in the media than there are conservatives. Even most liberals admit this to be the case. What's the big deal? I don't see any other liberally minded CTC folks making such a far-fetched claim or even supporting the one you've made. Again you read more into things said than what's there. We didn't say there weren't conservatives on TV. Stop trying to spin things said into something that wasn't said. If you can point to a reliable source that suggests there's balance in the media, please do so.

imported_Solaris Flare
21st October 04, 03:50 AM
Spinning things? You are telling me the media is bias for liberals. I couldnít agree with you more. When Jack Welch, Michael Jordan, Michael Eisner and Rupert Murdoch come together for their secret liberal media meeting Iíll make sure Iíll mention how you are angry at them. Itís only a matter of time before those black helicopters come. Seriously though, if you want to whine about something maybe whine about the fact that a hand full of people controlling the media. That canít be healthy.

I gave you facts and you choose to ignore them. There are two right leaning TV news networks in the US: Fox and MSNBC (unless they switched sides again?). If you are looking for a fundamentalist christen news network then good luck on that. But donít whine about it here please; because, itís like whining about not having a communist news network.

The fact is most of these news companies CEO are not just republicans but active republicans. I think this is my 3rd post staying this and I have yet to see any proof from you saying otherwise - other than whining I need more proof. So you are telling me liberals control the media? Come on. There are many problems with the media but liberalsí somehow mystically controlling the entire media isnít one of them. I also think it is pretty self serving to focus on TV when their other media out there.

Generally the person who makes insane claims are the person who to back it up with proof. I wasnít the one who claimed the media was full of X people.

Thespis
21st October 04, 04:11 AM
Solaris, you're not even making sense with half of your statements. You're drawing conclusions from statements made that are nowhere near valid. You didn't give any facts. You gave your opinion. You did not present any statistics supporting your opinion. Even "if" all these CEO were Republican, that doesn't mean a lot of their employees aren't liberal. I never said anything about liberals controlling the media.

Again that was your imaginative twisting. All I said is that the majority of the media is liberal. That's it. I didn't suggest any conspiracy theories or boogeymen liberals out to take over the world and control all media. Get a grip. You DID make the claim that the media is full of conservatives versus the generally held view that the media is generally very liberal. I never made even a remote suggestion that I was looking for a Christian news network. Your conclusions seem to be held together with fairy dust or something of that nature. Somebody pinch Solaris and wake him up from his dreamland. I didn't whine about squat, lol. All I did was contradict your claim. I realize you may be used to so many here being sarcastic and implying some hidden deeper meaning, but that was not the case here.