John Kerry... bwhahahahah

Captn · Sep 2, 2004, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarecrow1f9

Wether Kerry shot himself, was shot in the ass, or otherwise, it all really doesnt matter.

The validity of Kerry's "I was in Cambodia....wait, no I wasn't" claims and comments really only further field the bitterness of vets towards Kerry.

One particularly biased poster with the heading of "unbiased" post something to the effect that he respected Kerry because of his service. His defamation of service is the very basis for the hatred towards him from actual vietnam vets.

I assume most of you have at least read the monologue of the 1971 Kerry - O'neill debate. If you haven't and you're supporting Kerry, you need do so. Kerry is hated for his behavior AFTER he left, not during.

John Kerry headed the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, described as “revolutionary Communists" by the Boston Herald Traveler, which reported an "abundance of Vietcong flags, clenched fists raised in the air, and placards in support of China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea and the Hanoi government. (John F. McManus, “Kerry Postures as a War Hero,” May 5, 2003, The New American.)

The claim of this Vietnam Veterans Against War was simple; That all of the American soldiers still serving in vietnam were guilty of horrid war crimes. I repeat, that all of our soldiers were guilty of war crimes... because Kerry says so.

Kerry headed a group of short-lived vietnam vets... 30 at first, that made these claims. Kerry, while acting under a neo-Jesus complex declared that since he was running for office, he would be the guy thats good enough to step forward and admitt that all of our troops were murderers and rapists guilty of genocide at the very least.

Of these original 30, 17 ran for office at some point. I repeat, 17.

Kerry's group continued to protest wildly and up until the time he decided he wanted to run for office, up until then he landed himself in great pictures dipicting him holding the flag upside down with communist patches on, as well as marching around the city in mock-military uniforms with cong and Chinesse flags.

“Under Kerry's leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.” (Chuck Noe, “What You Don’t Know About John Kerry,” January 20, 2004, Newsmax.)

Kerry’s book, The New Soldier, displayed VVAW members mocking the marines at Iwo Jima and holding an American Flag upside down. "These people spit on the flag, they burn the flag, they carry the flag upside down, [and] they all but wipe their noses with it in their efforts to show their contempt for everything it still stands for." (John F. McManus, “Kerry Postures as a War Hero,” May 5, 2003, The New American.)

By the time the 1971 O'neill debate rolled around Kerry had tried to make his political group of misfits into something more presentable. At this time they claimed to have 200 members, all vets, who made the same claims. In April of '71 Kerry's incescant bellowing finally fell onto the ear of someone that cared. His group, all 200 illeged names, were asked to testify to this - as so it could be investigated.

None excepted. Out of 200, not 1 claimed to have actually SEEN warcrimes.

Kerry himself stated that he himself had never seen any of the war crimes he accused every active soldier of being guilty of, but he said that he did participate in a free-fire zone. He later said in an 82' interview with te boston Globe that he never took place in this either, but saw others participating.

Kerry then became very happy when stating he did know 1 guy that would sign and testify... someone who of course he didnt give a name.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

Kerry openly accused two and a half million American soldiers of war crimes to make an image of a "compassionate soldier" to help win an election. With Speeches written by Adam Walinsky, Robert Kennedy's speech writter, and the bold claim that he was the lone sacrifical lamb come to purge the sins of all of our murdering American soldiers, he ran for office.

Kerry's big soundbites include messages like "It's your RIGHT to free healthcare". When did that stop being socialism???

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/585/1/27/
The communists party top 10 list of why they want Bush out of office. The EXACT same list found on Kerry's site.

And to Prodigal Jenuis who posted:

I don't care what the soldiers think.....I wanna knwo0 what the people we are 'liberating' think

How DARE you? It's unfortunate that most internet-based debates are versus the typical peirced queer teens of cyberspace.

scare

Very good post. I think everyone should read "Unfit for Command" and see for yourselfs of the documented FACTS of Kerrys so called truths including the FBI investigations into VVAWs plan to assassinate US Senators. Kerry is either a liar or a traitor after all Kerry DID admit to commiting atrocities in Vietnam, Anyone that has the slightest knowledge what so ever will look at Kerrys 20 yr senate record and see he has nothing to run on.

Rasta Monsta · Sep 2, 2004, 11:30 PM

For god's sake, AT LEAST HE WENT!

OldBuzzard · Sep 3, 2004, 03:37 AM

Rasta:

Yes, he DID go, and he even volonteered to go. I have no problem with that, and it took some balls to do that.

The problem I have with Kerry is what he did AFTER Nam. We can't just look at one short period of a persons life. Shucks, if we did that I'm sure that we could make the case that Ted Bundy was just a sweet little teddy bear that had compassion for all life.

Dom · Sep 3, 2004, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captn

Allan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes is far from conservative.

And Joe Scarborough from Scarborough Country is far from Liberal. He was recently at a Bush speach in support of him.

Mrgrimrpr · Sep 4, 2004, 11:37 AM

Just because he volunteered means he is fit to be president... ok, good reasoning there.

Go watch Bill. He will set the record straight...

Dom- You do not have a basis of arguement. Find one, for all of our sakes. Its fun making you look like you do not know what you are talking about!

Dom · Sep 4, 2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrgrimrpr

Just because he volunteered means he is fit to be president... ok, good reasoning there.

Go watch Bill. He will set the record straight...

Dom- You do not have a basis of arguement. Find one, for all of our sakes. Its fun making you look like you do not know what you are talking about!

Exactly what have you done to make me look like I have no basis of arguement? You have made absolutely no points in this thread whatsoever. You have posted nothing but opinion and rhetoric. Post some facts with sources like others have done. Until then you've done nothing but start a thread. Congratulations.

Judas · Sep 4, 2004, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarecrow1f9

I don't care what the soldiers think.....I wanna knwo0 what the people we are 'liberating' think

How DARE you? It's unfortunate that most internet-based debates are versus the typical peirced queer teens of cyberspace.

scare

How dare him what? What right does any soldier of another nation have to speak for another nations? How DARE you to even think that way, it's outright wrong. What would you say if well over half of the population figured they were better off before? Who was it that destroyed majority of there buildings, there land, the privacy when the bombs started flying?

pr0digal jenius · Sep 4, 2004, 11:42 PM

oh damn...how dare i not choke down the bullshit being fed to me in order to placate me and keep me quiet...lol

why is the view of some guy who goes over to the desert to keep peace via his 50 calibur better then the people who live there. I suppose your one of those creeps who thinks we shouldn't turn control of iraq over to the iraqis also?

ToshiroOC · Sep 5, 2004, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

I suppose your one of those creeps who thinks we shouldn't turn control of iraq over to the iraqis also?

Debate the issues with him, don't insult him, even indirectly. No need for that; if you're right, you can prove it without namecalling.

scarecrow1f9 · Sep 5, 2004, 02:48 PM

Judas:

You seem to be under the preface that the Iraqi ppl wanted Saddam in power, lol. Please, for the love of God, read a book or something. I could reffer you to dozens of polls, but polls are admittedly flawed. I can direct you to hundreds of news stories, but the media is certainly flawed. I could direct you to the mass opinions of our returning vets.... but in your opinion, they are flawed as well.

Our troops are not nameless menaces with .50 cals waiting to strike the poor Iraqi ppl. These are our neighbors. Brothers. Sisters. Fathers. These are American ppl like you and me with minds of their own.

And what exactly are you accussing the American soldiers of with a comment like that Prodigal Jenius? Americans are dying over there to liberate the Iraqi ppl. The recruitment numbers have increased nearly 30% since we started sending troops over, and thats because our ppl want to help, they want to be there and make a difference because they believe in the cause.

As far as destroyed property... the ppl over there didnt own anything. It hasnt exactly been capitalism over there. do you think those were their military compounds destroyed, lol. And privacy????

Do you have any idea what living under a tyrant consists of???

How's this for starters. In Saddams government, governing officials can decide they want to pork your wife.... and legally you have to let them or it's considered treason and you die. But not a normal death, you are beheaded, then dumped in a mass grave with thousands of others.

Oh, but that doesnt sound that bad does it?? screw the Liberating and having to deal with American troops disturbing my privacy, GIVE ME WIFE PORKERS AND MASS GRAVES!!1!1!!

I think its absolutely sick that anyone could be so anti-American. Unless of course you are from Canada like Judas, that's just to be expected.

Prodigal, I definatly think power should be, and already has been, turned over to the Iraqi ppl. That was the point, remember? And it's not "back" to the Iraqi ppl, because they never had control to begin with. That's what liberating is.

And the creep thing hurt. Ouch, I'm hurt.

scare

pr0digal jenius · Sep 5, 2004, 02:49 PM

Toshiro-sry...didn't mean to refer to him directly as a creep.....was just expressing my distaste for such thought processes

Scare-
all I'm saying is that we have no mroe business over there and yet we are still sending troops over. It's retarded. We won, now we should leave. And this whole war is surrounded with much controversy and we didn't exactly wait for international approval to start it, thus any shred of diplomacy we had is gone...and I think it's a shame to use brute force before attempting diplomacy.

digerati · Sep 5, 2004, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

and I think it's a shame to use brute force before attempting diplomacy.

Didn't we try diplomatic solutions like 3 times?

scarecrow1f9 · Sep 5, 2004, 03:10 PM

We won what?

The point wasnt to win a war, lol, we knew that wasn't going to be a problem, the point was to liberate the Iraqi ppl. And sadly, that means staying there till they are stable or they say go... because they do have that power.

The Iraqi government over there now controls our troops... we're certainly not fighting against them. And saddams turncoat army has been.... inconsitant to say the elast. With major victories on some fronts, but also running like coawrds and leaving the American troops stranded on a couple of others. My brother is in Iraq... And the harsh reality is he has a better chance of being injured or killed by some coward planting a bomb, than fighting in battle. And that's because it's such a small minority that's against us being there.

As far as diplomacy, we gace that a shot for 6 months, and Saddam wouldnt even agree to that. We got the proverbial two fingers way up from saddam. Now we just need to ride this out till Iraq is ready, and then leave. As much as I support the war, even I have to say, it would be nice to have our troops back home.

scare

Judas · Sep 5, 2004, 03:32 PM

i don't think they should leave either..... but this is just me thinking... no .. don't think saddam was a good leader... yet again... that's me thinking...

I'm disapointed in only a few key things.... first being that There were plenty of homes destroyed, there were plenty of civilians killed... yet the US has smart bombs and whatnot that could strike a complex within a 1 meter zone or less.... It's dispointing to see an army come flying in with a reason in which case ends up not being the reason.... it's playing the "reasoning" game, which is damn dangerious when you playing center field were anything could easily go wrong in which case, you annoy a few dozen other countries, and in turn.... are on the brink of a world war that could have been easily prevented.

I Personally don't think it was under the conditions that were presented... right for any US soldier to step onto Iraq soil, BTW, who is the prime minister/President of iraq now?

If the soldiers got up and left ASAP, there would be even more troubles.. it would be like walking into a place... get into a fight, and then just take off without either paying for the damages that you had done... or somewhat helping to clean up and rebuild what was destroyed.... that leaves a extremely bad reputation behind.. .and the US already has that strike against them from a previous war.....

the problem ATM now is that the US is now stuck in something it may have one hell of a time getting out off, or... may never get out of...

OldBuzzard · Sep 5, 2004, 04:57 PM

Judas

Yes there has been property destroyed, and civilians killed. But let's do a bit of math.

It's been estimated that Sadam killed anywhere from 1.5 to 3 MILLION of his own people. Now using the low estimate and 1,500,000/25/365.25 we get 164 (with a bit leftover) that he killed EVERY DAY FOR 25 YEARS. If we used the higher estimate it would have been 328 a day. Do you think the the civilian casualties that have happened since we've been in Iraq come anywhere CLOSE to those numbers? Freedom comes at a price, and part of that price is lives. Yes, in a perfect world we would only kill combatants, but if it WAS a perfect world we wouldn't be faced with these problems to begin with.

We have done everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, but perfection just isn't possible. At least we aren't doing what we did in WWII. Do a little research and see just how many people were killed in Dresden Germany, or Toyko when we bombed those two cities.

A1A9C1 · Sep 5, 2004, 05:56 PM

Remember that the folks over there have said for years that they will kill us unless we turn from our worldly ways, submit to some grand poobah, put rags on our heads and worship allah. They said for years they would knock down the twin towers. Tried the first time with no success and no retaliation so they tried again. The WTC on a normal day had something like 75,000 people in it? They got away the first time without punishment and that enabled them to continue their plans. (parallel that with the illegals situation) I don't think Bush meant to give a timetable for the war on terror. He did say "You are either with us, or you are against us." Iraq was going against their own, m-friendly UN rules (backed up by the US of course) shooting our planes down on a weekly basis. They weren't with us. Maybe there is no return plan for our forces because there are generations of m's over there fed several times a day with "kill the Jews", "kill the friends of the Jews". Arafat has been brainwashing people there with this hatred since the early `60s. Look into it here: link-removed-due-to-content there used to be a sickening video interview with a little girl talking about how she longed for when she could honor her family and blow up someone with her suicide belt. The war is not against any country or anyone in a particular uniform, it's against a fundamental part of the largest religion on the planet. They want us dead, the democrats would have us wait until another attack or longer before we get to the root of the problem. This war will not end for generations because if we let up, they will come over here--excuse me some are already here, just waiting for their signal thanks to the inept INS. They are changing our laws with the help of their ally the aclu and a few judges. Stomping God out of our history and our daily public life isn't a trivial thing. Of course the patriot act is bad and has to go too. Bad only if you are a criminal. These changes are needed to imbed their religion here, along with marrying into our soceity. Anyone stupid enough to marry one of those guys will likely wholeheartedly submit, even to strapping on a bomb. The liberal USA hating colleges like UNC-Chapel Hill filling kids minds not with pride and respect for our country but disdain helps also. Understand that to m's following the old doctrines peace is not like the Webster's definition of peace. To them peace means dominating their enemy. Not only dominating but domination by the sword. When the enemy is dead or doesn't fight back anymore and can be treated like livestock like the masses are over there, that is peace to them. Sorry for the rant, watching turner/fonda news tick me off sometimes. And the fact that some people believe it. Oh and who gives a f&^# about 35 years ago? What has each candidate done with their time on Capitol Hill?

Zell is my new hero. Try http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ they're even further to the right than I am.