Now, I am not saying we maybe need to handle things differently, but by that I mean, I would have just preferred to turn the whole country of Afghanistan into a big marble factory PS: Nice personal attack. Labeling me as a hippie. That really drives the point home. You know in a 3rd grade way. That seems common for you guys. When you don't like the poster, just slap a label on them, and attach them to beliefs they may or may not have to make them look bad without reading anything they say.Funkmasterr wrote: Make love and not war right? If only woodstock got bombed... then we wouldn't still have all these Idealistic flower children running around. You would at least be thinned out.
Well, all these people running around calling those who dissent with the current administration make me sick too, but I'm trying to make a case, not vent. =DFunkmasterr wrote:That was not directed at you specifically, and I thoguht about that after I wrote it.. It was directed more at an attitude I see from many people, not only on these boards, but all over that makes me sick to my stomache.
Hah, quote me on that please. =D If you mean by "you guys" I am calling on the supporters of the Iraq war not necessarily Republicans, but probably a vast majority. I don't see many new arguments for the Iraq war other than "Iraq supported Terrorism" (no evidence), "Iraq had WMDs" (again no evidence) or "He was a tyrannical dictator that would take over the world." (The first part is right the second is suspect since he never wanted to take over Kuwait.)Funkmasterr wrote:Oh, by the way... you tell me thanks for labeling you, then say "that seems common for you guys".. I am not a republican by the way
Do you not realize that this is now the way the entire fucking world thinks midnyte?Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:God damn, your thinking scares the shit out of me.Forthe wrote:He is right. By re-electing Bush you (the majority) have given your consent to his actions and policies. If any of the relatives of the 100k iraqis you've killed decide to seek revenge you deserve it.Trias wrote:if that isn't some ignorant shit to say i don't know what isTeenybloke wrote:If you voted for Bush, you can go fuck yourself.
America has only itself to blame for any further attacks.
That comment alone makes sure you're truly not worth wasting time debating with. I am sure you got something better to do, like polishing the gun rack in your pickup truck.ow, I am not saying we maybe need to handle things differently, but by that I mean, I would have just preferred to turn the whole country of Afghanistan into a big marble factory
Uh right. What Kerry wanted was to work towards a more united world and not run the one-man show Bush currently runs. It makes perfect sense if you can get over your own egoistic dickwaving. And considering the US (along with others) have veto rights you are 100% wrong about UN not asking the US. Are you a complete idiot?Furthermore, John Kerry claimed that he wanted to subject America to a "World Test" whenever America was to make a major decision. I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty nervous if our president put the control of our country into the hands of the others. It's not the UN's concern how America is ran, we shouldn't bring them into the equation. They sure as hell won't ask us when they run the show.
Pretty simple: A lot of countries that Bush singlehandedly (well with some help from his Band of Idiots, namely Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rice) have alienated would be willing to consider re-creating old alliances.While I'm on the subject of the other powers, I want to bring up Kerry's plan to "Bring back the coalition consisting of those who have a military" to help fight in "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" that is a "fiscal disaster." How does he expect to bring people to our side when he obviously opposses it?
Once again proof that you are a complete idiot. NATO has nothing to do with attacking middle-east countries for little to no reason. And btw, you had NATO support during Afghanistan. Not to attack the country, but to defend the US. You know, what the NATO treatment is really all about?The only people out of the system is the French, and we shouldn't have them. The only time they've ever helped us out of all of the times we've requested their help was when we paid them. They expect us to contribute to an alliance without sacrificing anything. They aren't any ally. Hell, Poland is a greater ally. They made a promise to NATO that they'll be on our side no matter what, and they've held their end of the bargain.
Actually the main reason Bush takes crap is because he is a rambling idiot surrounded by greedy warhawks who have not only split the US, but the world. Oh yeah and made the world less safe.The only reason Bush is getting crap is because since the 2000 election people have been spoon-fed anti-Bush propaganda.
They posed a direct threat to us and like 5 of our allies. We didn't know about what happened with the Jews till the war was over.Funkmasterr wrote:Well, I am not saying this is the stated reason or anything, but if you are saying that him being a mass murdering psychotic tyrant (which he was, and yes there is proof after proof) was not reason enough for us to do what we did.. Then why did we stop Hitler from killing the jews? And pursue all of his cronies that were involved for decades afterwards ? I realize these are on a different scale, but are similar situations.
Did you even read my post? Are you saying that the contributions of Australia, Germany, Canada, Holland, what little Spain did and what the Poland's have done is insignificant? You're saying that we're going in alone when we surely aren't. Either way, John Kerry has supported both sides. He praised Bush for upholding our right to make our own decision while saying he was wrong. Don't believe me? Click Here.Kelshara wrote:Uh right. What Kerry wanted was to work towards a more united world and not run the one-man show Bush currently runs. It makes perfect sense if you can get over your own egoistic dickwaving. And considering the US (along with others) have veto rights you are 100% wrong about UN not asking the US. Are you a complete idiot?
NO. WRONG. These countries that Kerry said he will bring back have already said they will not rejoin if Kerry was elected. Why the hell should they? He's already claimed it as a Financial Disaster, why would they want to get involved in it? Which countries has he alienated? Do you even know? Or are you just forwarding the baseless propaganda you've had shoved down your throat by the democratic party?Kelshara wrote:Pretty simple: A lot of countries that Bush singlehandedly (well with some help from his Band of Idiots, namely Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rice) have alienated would be willing to consider re-creating old alliances.
And you once again have shown me your impatience and lack of understanding of my post. I was showing you that Poland, one of the countries that NO ONE cares about, is actually doing more than France has ever done. They've upheld their end of the bargain, unlike France, which is one of Kerry's key countries in his proposed "alliance." It's O.K. though, I forgive you for responding in haste and ignorance to my reference.Kelshara wrote:Once again proof that you are a complete idiot. NATO has nothing to do with attacking middle-east countries for little to no reason. And btw, you had NATO support during Afghanistan. Not to attack the country, but to defend the US. You know, what the NATO treatment is really all about?
I've heard this one a lot. A rambling idiot? Maybe. It's true the man isn't good at giving a speech, his own administration accepts it, even he accepts it. Since you're going to call him an idiot and make a claim like this, I'll respond in turn.Kelshara wrote:Actually the main reason Bush takes crap is because he is a rambling idiot surrounded by greedy warhawks who have not only split the US, but the world. Oh yeah and made the world less safe.
A pet rock would do a better job protecting our country. At least it would not drive us into useless wars that create terrorist breeding grounds.The_Original_Yildian wrote:I've never seen how people can consider the claim that America will be safer under the watchfull eye of the Kerry / Edwards "Plan." He stated many times that he wishes to disarm America as a nuclear power, claiming that it will set an example for the other nuclear powers to follow our lead. That's like saying we won't use bullets because the enemy doesn't have a gun.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have asked every single country for permission to act. I'm pretty sure by what he meant was a thought process. Something like before acting asking "Will this action make the world a safer place?" This would be a good thing if Bush asked himself that.Furthermore, John Kerry claimed that he wanted to subject America to a "World Test" whenever America was to make a major decision. I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty nervous if our president put the control of our country into the hands of the others. It's not the UN's concern how America is ran, we shouldn't bring them into the equation. They sure as hell won't ask us when they run the show.
It's called diplomacy. If people see that we are doing the right thing, and he can convince others to our side, they will come to help.While I'm on the subject of the other powers, I want to bring up Kerry's plan to "Bring back the coalition consisting of those who have a military" to help fight in "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" that is a "fiscal disaster." How does he expect to bring people to our side when he obviously opposses it?
I don't know who he wanted to sway to our side of the equation, we already have dozens of countries helping us out. Australia, Canada, England, The Dutch, Russia, and Poland (to name a few) are all in Iraq helping us out. Hell, even Germany is training Iraqi forces.
Yeah I'm sure we've been working on that alliance real well these days. Takes two you know...The only people out of the system is the French, and we shouldn't have them. The only time they've ever helped us out of all of the times we've requested their help was when we paid them. They expect us to contribute to an alliance without sacrificing anything. They aren't any ally. Hell, Poland is a greater ally. They made a promise to NATO that they'll be on our side no matter what, and they've held their end of the bargain.
I'm also assuming you hate Bush for the recession. Well, I hate to break it to you, but Bush had nothing to do with it. In fact, he's probably the reason that we aren't still in a hole. Ask yourself, if Gore had won, would he have done anything different?
Bull. If I knew about it I would say the same things. One of the things I didn't like that Clinton did was the DMCA. That has caused no end of troubles. But it wasn't on the scale of leading us into a war that has created Terrorists in the name of the "War on Terror."Even if he did what Bush did, he wouldn't take flak for it. The only reason Bush is getting crap is because since the 2000 election people have been spoon-fed anti-Bush propaganda.
I'm glad we're in Iraq. At least now we have all the fucking terrorists over there. Let them all flock over there, at least then we won't have to hunt for them. We'll be killing them over there instead of seeing them on our streets. And we won't have to remove our nuclear weaponry.Lohrno wrote:A pet rock would do a better job protecting our country. At least it would not drive us into useless wars that create terrorist breeding grounds.
He said it himself. He wanted to subject America to a "World Test." Although, I suppose I see where you are going, as he did say that the coalition wasn't going to consist of unnecessary countries with a small military power. I guess that means Japan shouldn't be on the map.Lohrno wrote:I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have asked every single country for permission to act. I'm pretty sure by what he meant was a thought process. Something like before acting asking "Will this action make the world a safer place?" This would be a good thing if Bush asked himself that.
We used diplomacy. A good 20-some odd times we used Diplomacy to ask Saddam to lay down. But I suppose if we gave Diplomacy another shot, he would've surrendered. I bet he told his council that he'll surrender on the 28th time we request it huh?Lohrno wrote:It's called diplomacy. If people see that we are doing the right thing, and he can convince others to our side, they will come to help.
And how many troops does France have in there? Oh, that's right, jack shit. Poland is a larger contributer than Kerry's "alliance" countries.Lohrno wrote:Poland has 1000 troops they are sending home.
No shit? Does anyone read around here? There are more than two countries in Iraq. There are more than two countries fighting the war on terror. Shit, even South America is in on it. Stop using the fucking ideaology that 2+3=Chair, use your Elementary Mathematical Skills and you'll see that we have more than 2 countries in Iraq.Lohrno wrote:Yeah I'm sure we've been working on that alliance real well these days. Takes two you know...
While we're on the subject, Kerry had mentioned that he wanted to increase minimum wage several times. And people say that Bush has shitty econonomical skills? Think about it. The price of EVERY SINGLE THING you buy would INCREASE. The bonus that minimum wage workers would recieve would pay for the increase in price.Lohrno wrote:That's not determinate, but every time we've had tax cuts we've hit a recession. Doesn't that ell you something?
This one baffles the mind. I have no idea where you were trying to go. As for the war against Terror, currently the terrorists are in Iraq being shot. They will run out of bullets before we do, although I'm sure they would have a surplus more if Kerry had his way in the Senate.Lohrno wrote:Bull. If I knew about it I would say the same things. One of the things I didn't like that Clinton did was the DMCA. That has caused no end of troubles. But it wasn't on the scale of leading us into a war that has created Terrorists in the name of the "War on Terror."
Have you been paying attention? Al Qaeda's ranks are swelling.The_Original_Yildian wrote: I'm glad we're in Iraq. At least now we have all the fucking terrorists over there. Let them all flock over there, at least then we won't have to hunt for them. We'll be killing them over there instead of seeing them on our streets. And we won't have to remove our nuclear weaponry.
I explained what he meant, but I guess you don't quite understand it. I'm not sure how much plainer you need it.He said it himself. He wanted to subject America to a "World Test." Although, I suppose I see where you are going, as he did say that the coalition wasn't going to consist of unnecessary countries with a small military power. I guess that means Japan shouldn't be on the map.
Yes, it took me to some flash page that was half borked.Question: Did you click the link? Kerry put A LOT of thought process into it. He put in so much, that he drew the conclusion that the president made the right decisions, while simultaneously flaming him for making the wrong decision.
...We used diplomacy. A good 20-some odd times we used Diplomacy to ask Saddam to lay down. But I suppose if we gave Diplomacy another shot, he would've surrendered. I bet he told his council that he'll surrender on the 28th time we request it huh?
Yeah I see them rejoicing in the streets. Come on Fox would show that if that were true.Have you considered the country of Iraq in ANY thought process you've experienced? 76% of Iraqi people are happy that we are there. The only people that don't want us there are those extremists that are still fighting their damn Ji-Had. The numbers seem inverted because of the media. I mean, reporting positive things don't boost ratings. Once again, who is he trying to convince? Every country he used as a crutch in his campaign crumbled. He referred to Canada to solve the flu vaccination shortage, and they refused it the next day. All of the countries that he'll "bring back" have already said they won't.
They will if they are being directly threatened by our leaders. And usually they will not do anything good at that point.Do you actually think that they'll base what they do with their country on who leads ours?
We've been getting threats from them for a while now. Have you seen Al-Qaeda recently? Nope. They don't have a country to bully anymore, and it is still being speculated as to whether or not their leader is dead. They've been severely crippled, and while they might still be around they are no where as large a threat as they were back in 01.Lohrno wrote:Have you been paying attention? Al Qaeda's ranks are swelling.
That is the interesting thing about John Kerry, you can't be certain as to what he means. I don't see how you can say that Kerry's "World Test" is only applicable to select situations, that's asinine.Lohrno wrote:I explained what he meant, but I guess you don't quite understand it. I'm not sure how much plainer you need it.
Round Two. This one will Open up into Media Player, and not play on the background of a webpage.Lohrno wrote:Yes, it took me to some flash page that was half borked.
How would you have handled the situation Lohrno? If Bush is such a FUCKING DUMBASS, then why don't you tell the world how a superior intellect would've delt with being diplomatic with a fucking desert nazi.Lohrno wrote:Telling him to surrender is not diplomacy it is an ultimatum. You use diplomacy until there is no other path. Hans Blix was there for a while, but never got to finish his job.
I hope to god you're joking with this one. The media is the most biased for of media on the planet today. They won't show something if it doesn't get them ratings. You want it? Here:Lohrno wrote:Yeah I see them rejoicing in the streets. Come on Fox would show that if that were true.
So now Bush is threatening the other world leaders? Wow, last I checked, he went to the UN with his petition, they denied, and he moved without the support of the UN, but the support of the countries. Hrmm, I don't think we've threatened anyone. Hell, we let most of the countries back out on their own accord.Lohrno wrote:They will if they are being directly threatened by our leaders. And usually they will not do anything good at that point.
His medals were stripped, he got them back after he became a senator.Markulas wrote:Just two things: Did Kerry give North Viet weapons, and does opting out of nuclear treaties make the world safer?
Bin Laden just released a tape. In it he makes references to his people here. The thing is it's an underground terrorist movement, and whether or not they actually do have said people here, or are just trying to instill terror is not really determinable. There have been numbers of 'leaders' thrown around at about 230ish. If there are that many 'leaders'...The_Original_Yildian wrote: We've been getting threats from them for a while now. Have you seen Al-Qaeda recently? Nope. They don't have a country to bully anymore, and it is still being speculated as to whether or not their leader is dead. They've been severely crippled, and while they might still be around they are no where as large a threat as they were back in 01.
Asking yourself what would be safer for us first and then the world before making any decision as president is always a good idea. It doesn't mean you have to be a doormatt, just stop and think for a sec.That is the interesting thing about John Kerry, you can't be certain as to what he means. I don't see how you can say that Kerry's "World Test" is only applicable to select situations, that's asinine.
I'll take a look at that in a sec.Round Two. This one will Open up into Media Player, and not play on the background of a webpage.
He was not beyond reason, he was willing to negotiate at the time we invaded. At any rate, the CIA told Bush before one speech not to say they had WMDs. They suspected he didn't. So there was no harm to us in biding our time. As for Iraqi people, sorry it's their problem.How would you have handled the situation Lohrno? If Bush is such a FUCKING DUMBASS, then why don't you tell the world how a superior intellect would've delt with being diplomatic with a fucking desert nazi.
Again I'll look at those in a sec before I comment.I hope to god you're joking with this one. The media is the most biased for of media on the planet today. They won't show something if it doesn't get them ratings. You want it? Here:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://www.missick.com/warblog.htm
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/ THIS GUYS GOOD!
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/
http://justzipit.blogspot.com/
I LIKE THIS ONE, IT'S CALLED SHUT UP YOU FAT WHINER, I WANNA SEE THIS GUYS FILM.
http://iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/
http://kurdistanblog.blogspot.com/
Ain't Freedom grand. NOTE, these are not all PRO-Bush
Blogs from Iraq.
Well, it was Saddam I'm talking about here. He could have taken the diplomatic route for a while yet at no harm to our country. Don't forget though that other countries look at this. That was probably a big factor in Iran's hurrying to get nuclear weapons. Iran and us are still not the greatest friends. "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." That didn't help much either.Lohrno wrote: So now Bush is threatening the other world leaders? Wow, last I checked, he went to the UN with his petition, they denied, and he moved without the support of the UN, but the support of the countries. Hrmm, I don't think we've threatened anyone. Hell, we let most of the countries back out on their own accord.
Well, yeah. Here's possibly one of the better arguments against Kerry. Shady records. It's not like Bush doesn't have a comparable ammount of that stuff either though, so that kind of nullifies it. Even recently when he refused to testify under purjury to the 9/11 commission. An ideal candidate would have nothing to hide, but having skeletons in the closet is pretty much part of the definition of an American politician.His medals were stripped, he got them back after he became a senator.Markulas wrote:Just two things: Did Kerry give North Viet weapons, and does opting out of nuclear treaties make the world safer?
The honorable discharge he refers to on his website was "acquired" during the clinton administration.
There was some serious "cleaning" of his records prepping him up for the Presidential run.
This is why he's got over 100 pages of documents that he's hiding by not signing his Form 180.
This is the same form that the Dems screamed for up and down from Bush in 2000. Kerry refuses to sign it. NOTE: The Kerry campaign has repeatedly accused Bush of not releasing his records. But Bush has put out every thing and after he did they still felt they needed more so they forged documents.
This is the Meetings with the Enemy in Paris info, this is the voting to assassinate a Senator meeting info, this is all of the things that PROVE that Kerry is a traitor to his country, committed crimes and had it covered up during the Nixon drama and then washed during the Clinton administration.
To the latter, I don't think so. If we've learned anything from History, it's that treaties are often broken, and that extremists will not play by the rules.
Firstly, I CHALLENGE YUO TO A DUEL TO THE DEALTH!Teenydick...
If I had the chance to meet you in real life I would bitch slap your momma just for giving birth to something like you...
Oh, I am for abortion for women who were raped...my only question is...why are you alive then?
Go wrap your mouth around a Guinness...or an exhaust pipe and shut the fuck up with your outside looking in, thumb up your ass view...
Dick...
Firstly, you wouldn't last five seconds in my mere presence...not even enough time to grovel or beg for death...Teenybloke wrote:lol Varia /wave
Now, let us examine the following.
Firstly, I CHALLENGE YUO TO A DUEL TO THE DEALTH!Teenydick...
If I had the chance to meet you in real life I would bitch slap your momma just for giving birth to something like you...
Oh, I am for abortion for women who were raped...my only question is...why are you alive then?
Go wrap your mouth around a Guinness...or an exhaust pipe and shut the fuck up with your outside looking in, thumb up your ass view...
Dick...
Secondly, my mum would probably kick the shit outta you mate.
Thirdly, Why did you vote for Bush if you are for abortion?
Fourthly, 'outside looking in' views are often known as an 'outside perspective' that can IN FACT be helpful. Given your blank refusal to accept any outside opinion/facts (WHY 9/11 HAPPENED GRATS REALITY COMPREHENSION!) I am forced to stand by my previous assertion that all Bush supporters are in fact retards.
And thats being kind.
wow, that has to be the cheesiest flame i have ever read. you win the Winnow of the month award. gratz.I would hazard a guess that if I were to cut you in half and count your rings I would find you are just a sapling living in a forest of mighty oaks...so make like tree and leaf...
best...flame...EVAH!Xyun wrote:wow, that has to be the cheesiest flame i have ever read. you win the Winnow of the month award. gratz.I would hazard a guess that if I were to cut you in half and count your rings I would find you are just a sapling living in a forest of mighty oaks...so make like tree and leaf...
Techincally he probably is. I looked up more info on this meeting, and finally found a somewhat unbiased source after much searching. (IE: The link didn't say "OMFG KERRY IS A TRAITOR." ) He did meet with the North Koreans during a time of war, and not as an official envoy of the US. But upon further review of the rest of events it looks like he was trying to broker peace, and end the war. IE: Later he was trying to get the US to end it, petitioning for peace, etc.Lynks wrote:Yildian, stop watching Fox news, the things you said does not make Kerry a traitor. You're really stretching it.
Actually we didn't get into the war to stop Hitler from killing Jews. Japan attacked us in December 1941 and then Germany declared war on us. So, naturally, we declared war back on them. The Final Solution, Hitler's sick and twisted genocide plan was only decided in 1941 and was mainly done in the backcountry of Poland where no one would see it. There were rumors coming out of Eastern Europe about concentration and death camps (different thing) but the war was not explicitly fought on these terms initially. I'm not saying it wasn't great that we stopped the genocide, it certainly was, but it wasn't the reason we went to Europe to "stop Hitler".Then why did we stop Hitler from killing the jews? And pursue all of his cronies that were involved for decades afterwards ?
Go practice with it. Stick it in your mouth to see if the trigger works. I hear that is how tough guys like you enjoy a Saturday night!Funkmasterr wrote:Although, I got my carry to conceal permit and will be getting a gun soon, and people like you are why I feel I need to be able to defend myself.
Pretty much yes.Are you saying that the contributions of Australia, Germany, Canada, Holland, what little Spain did and what the Poland's have done is insignificant?
Funny part is, most of us only supported Kerry because he was less of an idiot than Bush. Which doesn't say a whole lot.Most Kerry fanatics can't take critisism towards their candidate without saying I exercise "egotistic dickwaving."
You are 100% wrong. How do I know? Well I am from one of them.NO. WRONG. These countries that Kerry said he will bring back have already said they will not rejoin if Kerry was elected. Why the hell should they? He's already claimed it as a Financial Disaster, why would they want to get involved in it? Which countries has he alienated? Do you even know? Or are you just forwarding the baseless propaganda you've had shoved down your throat by the democratic party?
No you tried to use NATO as an argument for support for Iraq. NATO has nothing to do with Iraq. It doesn't have anything to do with it and it shouldn't have anything to do with it. No matter how much you try to babble it wont have anything to do with it.I was showing you that Poland, one of the countries that NO ONE cares about, is actually doing more than France has ever done. They've upheld their end of the bargain, unlike France, which is one of Kerry's key countries in his proposed "alliance."
I'd prefere a president who changes his opinion when it is proven wrong over an idiot that sounds like a 7-year old throwing a temper tantrum when proven wrong.We need a president who will be solid in what he intends, not a president with a fucking tanline.
Notice that you had world support for Afghanistan and still do even though you've managed to mess that country up as well. Oh and Usama Bin Laden is not the formal pronounciation. It can be Osama or Usama, and bin is in lower case.Are you saying that removing UBL (Usama Bin Laden is the formal pronunciation) wasn't worth fighting for?
Yes, in particular when you throw it in with bin Laden as if the two of them had anything to do with eachother.Are you saying that removing Saddam wasn't worth fighting for?
heh there are terrorists in the US preparing another attack. You are a fool if you think otherwise.I'm glad we're in Iraq. At least now we have all the fucking terrorists over there. Let them all flock over there, at least then we won't have to hunt for them. We'll be killing them over there instead of seeing them on our streets. And we won't have to remove our nuclear weaponry.
95% of Iraqis say you are wrong! Prove me wrong!76% of Iraqi people are happy that we are there.
It has already been stated publicly that politicians in European countries hoped for Kerry due to Bush' solo-run and ruining the world.Do you actually think that they'll base what they do with their country on who leads ours?
You know, not even Fox News spew the bullshit you throw out here. Are you for real or just another puke of a troll? Take a look at how long it took to plan and execute 9/11. They'll hit again, and there is jack shit you can do about it.Have you seen Al-Qaeda recently? Nope. They don't have a country to bully anymore, and it is still being speculated as to whether or not their leader is dead. They've been severely crippled, and while they might still be around they are no where as large a threat as they were back in 01.
I would contend that maybe legally/technically he could be considered to have made treasonous actions. I would doubt that he had harming his country in mind when he met the North Koreans though as later he went back to the US and tried to support peace.The_Original_Yildian wrote: To close on the Kerry not being a traitor: Define Treason for me. Be careful with your response, as you'll trap yourself if you aren't careful.
That war didn't help us either. It wasn't as bad a blunder as this one. But sure, in the interest of helping the UN I guess it's okay. Do we now choose to ignore them when it's not convenient?The_Original_Yildian wrote:Couldn't resist, couple more times!
If you want to bring up that Kerry wants a more "united world" you can bring up Gulf War 1. That was a war backed by a UN coalition, including many Arab nations, and Kerry still was against it. His comments at that time are just like what he's said about the war on Iraq.
Okay that might have been somewhat dumb. (The second statement.) What really bugs me about Kerry is that he conceded the election. To be President, you need to at least be strong enough to fight some battles. It makes me question whether or not he would have been better. But then I remember that Bush is the one actually making more people hate us, and I think we might have been better off even with a weak Kerry.He said we should use a diplomatic solution and avoid violence. Then a few months after fighting stopped, he said that he's not sure if a non-violent solution was possible and criticized Bush 1 for leaving Saddam in power.
That's not flaming, thats your opinion. Flaming would be if I insulted you directly. Flaming is usually used when you don't have a better counter argument, and feel the need to vent. If you do so however, it shows weakness. I'm sure you understand Yildian, but that was for most of the rest of these people.*He's a pussy and opportunist that would prefer we live in the dark ages.
I threw this line in to show how it degrades the validity of the rest of my post. Why do you guys keep flaming?
Sorry I'm going to immediately dismiss that as a questionable source. I think it has about as much weight as F 9/11. Why do I think so? Well, they wanted to broadcast that on all channels before the election. That, and the Title smacks of propoganda. That doesn't seem very objective to me. The owner of Sinclair wanted to broadcast this free, without commercials, and the night before the election. Seems like he was trying to convince a lot of people. It might have some verified facts, as well as might F 9/11. I didn't watch F 9/11 for that reason, and for the reason that I don't like Moore much.The_Original_Yildian wrote:Lohrno: The best source of evidence I can hand you is This. If Kerry would open his military records every question would be answered, but he won't, because it's political suicide.
.
