McCain speaks out against attack ads - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-05-2004, 11:50 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 07:40 PM
I mean no disrespect to the National Guard, nor those that serve and have served in it. God Bless them and the duty they perform.


Bush unfortunately, is not included in this. He got his daddy to get him out of serving in Vietnam by being in the National Guard, while thousands of others his age did not have that luxury.


Sting2, I have always admired your well thought out and well spoken thoughts here, but I can't believe you still support this president. To each his own...no disrespect.
__________________

__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 12:36 AM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,410
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Bush did serve in the National Guard and I do not think you should be ripping apart his service or the service of anyone else that served in the National Guard.
Nobody's saying that National Guardsmen are not servicemen.

Quote:
Bush was elected the President of the United States.
More than half the US would tend to disagree with you.

Quote:
He is the Commander in Chief and in consultation with his advisors to include people like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Condelezza Rice, made the important decision to remove Saddam because of his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.
So if they weren't disarmed then where are they?

Quote:
The President had overwhelming approval from the US congress for his actions as well as the support of John Kerry!
Yes, but with the direct stipulation (as stated in the Senate by Kerry himself) that the support was only under the condition that all diplomatic avenues were exhausted, which they clearly were not.

Quote:
The only thing false about the war in Iraq was Saddam's position that he was in compliance with UN resolutions.
Oh, and those little things called WMD's.

Quote:
While everyone should salute John Kerry service of 4 MONTHS in Vietnam, eveyone should be mindful of the fact that John Kerry has spent most of his Career in the Senate trying to take money away from the Military.
There are other things that need to have money spent on them besides the military, Sting. Oh, and why is "4 MONTHS" emphasized? Are you saying that it wasn't enough time spent in Vietnam? Oh, wait...how long was Bush over there...?

Quote:
When Kerry first Campaigned for the Senate in 1984, he campaigned against Weapon Systems that are currently vital to the work are military is doing in Iraq and other places in the world. Kerry was against Weapon systems like the M1 Tank, M2 Bradley, Apache Attack Helicopter, as well as the Patriot Missile.
As I stated above there were better things to spend money on at the time. Communism was already on its way to death and the country was recovering from a particularly bad economic decade. I think perhaps the National Debt, or maybe little things like education were more important than a brand new missile.

Quote:
Mr. Kerry has not been a Senator that has had a record of fighting hard to get money for the US military or important weapon systems. He has in fact done much of the opposite.
God, you just won't stop with the military will you? I notice that military spending wasn't much of an issue before September 11th, when Georgie Porgie was already "President" and had a majority in Congress.

Quote:
Mr. Kerry was against the removal of Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991 through the only way possible, the use of military force. If Mr. Kerry had been president back then, not only would Saddam still be in power, he would still be in control of Kuwait and its energy reserves that are so vital to the global economy.
Maybe Kerry felt that military force wasn't necessary. Maybe he felt that US casualties over Texaco's profit margin where not in this country's best interest. And who's to say Saddam would still be in power? If the 1st Gulf War hadn't happened who's to say that he wouldn't have attacked Saudi Arabia, or that Israel wouldn't have attacked?

Quote:
When it comes to John Kerry's post-Vietnam activities in the 1970s, I'd take George Bush and his controversial Alabama National Guard record any day over John Kerry and his Jane Fonda activities.
That made me laugh. Comparing a war veteran (decorated with the Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts, no less) to Jane Fonda is ludicrous. Kerry was against the war because he had been there. He fought on his swift-boat in some of the worst fighting of the entire War. He saw death and bloodshed firsthand. I think he had every right to be against it, as opposed to "President" Bush, who sat on his arse in Alabama and did jack shit, getting stoned out of his tree, cause his dad was important.

Quote:
Whats really important is what the two men have done in elected office. Bush has supported the military and has had an excellant foreign policy.
A foreign policy that alienates the vast majority of allies and pisses half the country off is "excellent"? I think you'd better look up "excellent" in the dictionary, Sting.

Quote:
Kerry has done his best to rob the military of some of its best weapons and capabilities as well as having made poor decisions on foreign policy, such as his unwillingness to remove Saddam from Kuwait in 1991.
Nice rhetoric. Kerry has not supported the massive military spending (not "robbing" them, as you so eloquently put it), because maybe he felt that it should not be necessary because the US should not be going to War unless it is necessary. Therefore you really wouldn't need missiles that can go 20,000 miles and it would be an extra expenditure that could be used to actually improve the country for something like Education or Jobs, rather than a big explosive that can kill someone by pressing a button.

Your arguments are full of rhetoric. Please stop with the straw-men.
__________________

__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 01:23 AM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Bush did serve in the National Guard and I do not think you should be ripping apart his service ...

Sting do you do a disservice to the memories of the 58000 names on the wall by wanting a Commander in Chief that said.

something along the lines of: “I wasn’t about to blow out my eardrum with a shotgun, and I didn’t have the option of movig to Canada, so I decided to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes”.... He’s the one who originally made the connection of using the national guard to avoid service in Vietnam.

You choose a coward over a hero?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 02:41 AM   #34
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC
Nice rhetoric. Kerry has not supported the massive military spending (not "robbing" them, as you so eloquently put it), because maybe he felt that it should not be necessary because the US should not be going to War unless it is necessary. Therefore you really wouldn't need missiles that can go 20,000 miles and it would be an extra expenditure that could be used to actually improve the country for something like Education or Jobs, rather than a big explosive that can kill someone by pressing a button.

Your arguments are full of rhetoric. Please stop with the straw-men.
Excellent points.

I would also like to point out that Dick Cheney has supported numerous military cuts as well.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 06:00 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Mods, I have a question. At one time when someone posted the word "creed" it would end up as "c***d," allegedly because of someone's dislike of the band of the same name. So my question is...can we add "verifiably disarm" to the list of censored words, because I'm sure all FYMers could live without ever hearing those two words again.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 06:07 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:40 AM
No way, no matter how much you mock Sting's argument on the basis of a statement "verifiably disarmed" it doesnt make it any less solid, the fact that too often it comes down to such a superfial dismissal says more about those that continue to oppose the invasion than the proponents, it is a clear and concice argument that is backed up by the facts about the regime and the facts that have come to light since about Saddam Husseins posession and ongoing desire to procure Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons. Thank you Sting for maintaining a consistent argument for millitary intervention that made sense to justify the invasion and subsequently remains a proper Casus Beli.

Quote:
You choose a coward over a hero?
Millitary service does not make a great president. FDR for instance did not serve in the millitary but he was a truly great wartime leader. The Democrats made a point of sidelining millitary service for Bill Clinton its amusing to see them flip flop their opinions on the matter, especially considering George H.W. Bush is a War Hero too so the situation is somewhat the reverse of 1993. If a candidate chooses to make their service central to their campaign then it must be open to scrutiny, this type of politics is dirty and cruel and I hope that it reflects negatively on Bush, I hate the Rove methods used against McCain and really dirty methods should be punished at the ballot box.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 11:14 AM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
You choose a coward over a hero?
Wasn't that issue decided with Clinton v. Dole??
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 11:46 AM   #38
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 11:40 AM
Were military issues as much in the spotlight now as they were in 1996? Now we have someone in office who procalims himself a "war president," started a preemptive war, and struts around an aircraft carrier in a flightsuit. If Clinton had done that in his first term then yes, it would have been an issue in '96.

In related news, one of the Swift Boat Vets For Truth admits he was less than truthful.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...cism_of_kerry/
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 12:26 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:40 AM
And just after the Gulf War: Clinton v. GHWB


when did the dems become hawks?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 12:35 PM   #40
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 11:40 AM
'92 Clinton vs. GHWB: "It's the economy, stupid." War wasn't the issue

And no one's saying that the Deomcrats have become hawks. Picking someone who has a more honorable service record in times of war does not make one hawkish.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 01:01 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:40 PM
John Kerry's service should not be an issue, except by soldiers who have served with him, over him, and under him. However, I have a problem when we begin looking at legnth of time in country, ect as some kind of standard.

I applaud Senator McCain, who I believe was completely decimated by the Rove political machine. Senator McCain could have best served his country by joining the Kerry Ticket.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 01:27 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Of course McCain supports Bush. He's a Republican. Surprise, surprise. It also doesn't surprise me that he's speaking out about aspects of his campaign that he doesn't like. I respect the guy's honesty even if I can't share his political views.
Exactly. I hold respect for McCain, too-I don't have to agree wholeheartedly with everything somebody says in order to respect them, I've said that numerous times here, as have some other people.

Also, DaveC...whoa, nice post .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 05:45 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,410
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No way, no matter how much you mock Sting's argument on the basis of a statement "verifiably disarmed" it doesnt make it any less solid, the fact that too often it comes down to such a superfial dismissal says more about those that continue to oppose the invasion than the proponents, it is a clear and concice argument that is backed up by the facts about the regime and the facts that have come to light since about Saddam Husseins posession and ongoing desire to procure Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons. Thank you Sting for maintaining a consistent argument for millitary intervention that made sense to justify the invasion and subsequently remains a proper Casus Beli.
It's a clear and obvious fact that Saddam at one point did want the WMD's. However, no matter what, the US was going into Iraq regardless. The scenarios:

1) Saddam says he has disarmed but keeps the WMD's. Weapons inspectors find them and the US goes in.

2) Saddam says he still has the WMD's and does in fact have them. Iraq is now a threat and the US goes in.

3) Saddam says he has disarmed, has in fact disarmed and keeps the components to prove to the world that he has in fact disarmed. The GWB administration says that "the components mean he's building them" and the US goes in.

4) Saddam says he has disarmed, has in fact disarmed, and gets rid of anything to be used to manufacture the WMD's. The GWB administration says "they're hidden and we have to find them" and the US goes in.

Saddam was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. How could war possibly have been avoided with the mindset of the GWB administration having already decided that the war was going to occur, just waiting for an opportunity to strike?
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 06:51 PM   #44
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 02:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy

In related news, one of the Swift Boat Vets For Truth admits he was less than truthful.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...cism_of_kerry/

Was waiting for this to happen...
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 08-06-2004, 06:58 PM   #45
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 11:40 AM
Some information about Jerome R. Corsi, the co-author of Swift Boat Vet for Truth John E. O'Neill's book Unfit For Command.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com