Kerry insults every man and woman in uniform

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by Grape Ape

Feel safe knowing that US troops will be saving your ass if anything ever happens in Canada. A troop of Girl Scouts with sharp sticks could take over your country.
Maybe we only should have fought Japan in World War II in retaliation for attcking us. Wonder what the world would be like today.
Saddam is a modern day Hitler that had to go...period. Do some research.
I dont want to see any of our troops get killed and hope they get home safe soon.
I am proud of our troops and the sacrifice they are making to help make the world a safer place.

I am not mocking what your great leaders of past have done to maintain the free world, but you digging up the past noble causes of WWII and comparing them with blunders like Iraq are just stupid.

Understandable if you guys were making a safer world by beating the shyt out of North Korea(Which is a pathetic diplomatic posture). That is a noble cause. This maneuver has made the USA look weak(Pick on the weaker and totally avoid the guy that has the muscle.) by side stepping North Korea.

Soldiers dying in a third world country proven incapable of hurting the USA??? We all know it's all for the oil now. The excuses have run out. If you call that a noble cause, Well I guess we better add sheep to it's definition.

And yes. The majority of your military are burger flippers and getto kids using another avenue towards personal advancement.

Without the draft, the illiterate is the next best scource.

How can you sit there and use the word "PATRIOTISM" when there is a clear division in your country?

[DRTYFN]

Canadians shouldn't be trolling about anything until they cut the umbilical cord with England.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

(Pick on the weaker and totally avoid the guy that has the muscle.) by side stepping North Korea.

Who is the head of state who repeatedly invaded other nations and lost out of his insane sense of invulnerability? Jim Jong? No. Kim Jong went into hiding for 59 days beginning in March 2003. Unlike Saddam, Jong does, though his bubble is a little off center, obey the laws of deterence, just like most of our potential enemies have, e.g. the USSR, over the years. Another important question? Who are the only two world leaders who have used WMD (and by that, I mean nuclear, chemicial, or biological weapons) since 1918? There are only two. Who? Kim Jong? No. Only Harry and Saddam (some on his own people no less). Saddam's the really crazy one. Make sense now?

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

... And yes. The majority of your military are burger flippers and getto kids using another avenue towards personal advancement.

You truly don't know what you are talking about. Again, how many of U.S. enlisted servicemen have you personally met? Or do you not need first-hand information to reach such a brilliant conclusion? You're too smart to need actual information before you condemn a giant group comprising more than a million people. Aren't you?

[deserth3]

DennisAJC, North Korea has China helping the world keep an eye on their sorry butt. The ONLY reason why North Korea still excists is because of China and China lost a lot of people making it that way. But China no longer wants a war. Because if the U.S. stopped buying goods from there, Chinas economy would take a dive.

There's a couple of facts that you seem to have forgotten about Iraq...
1. The U.N inspectors said Sadam had Weapons of mass destruction. They said they would go into a site and all they saw were tire tracks. That is until after tha war started.
2. Sadams Generals said he had weapons of mass destruction.
3. All Sadam had to do was let inspectors into these sites without delaying them or kicking them out of the country and he'd still be in power.

Now I don't know if these weapons excisted. For me it's a mute point. That's a big desert. And it would be easy to hide that stuff. There are also several surounding nations that would have happily taken the stuff.

ONe more thing and I'll go back to the side lines... Our president did have an exit stratagy. Go in, get Sadam out of power, let the Iraq people make a new government, get out... That is a strategy... What failed is not the U.S. President, not the U.S. goverment, not the U.S. military.
What failed was the Iraqi people. That's where the failure lies. But that could lead to another aurgument.

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by deserth3

DennisAJC, North Korea has China helping the world keep an eye on their sorry butt. The ONLY reason why North Korea still excists is because of China and China lost a lot of people making it that way. But China no longer wants a war. Because if the U.S. stopped buying goods from there, Chinas economy would take a dive. I agree with you there.

There's a couple of facts that you seem to have forgotten about Iraq...
1. The U.N inspectors said Sadam had Weapons of mass destruction. They said they would go into a site and all they saw were tire tracks. That is until after tha war started. You can't suggest all this was based on an assesment of tire tracks?
2. Sadams Generals said he had weapons of mass destruction. Believing what the enemy tells you means you've been PUNK'D by propaganda.
3. All Sadam had to do was let inspectors into these sites without delaying them or kicking them out of the country and he'd still be in power. But now he's out. Job done. Then what?

Now I don't know if these weapons excisted. For me it's a mute point. That's a big desert. And it would be easy to hide that stuff. There are also several surounding nations that would have happily taken the stuff. Ya, like Syria. Why waste time looking for milk in the bathroom when it's in the kitchen?

ONe more thing and I'll go back to the side lines... Our president did have an exit stratagy. Go in, get Sadam out of power DONE (Job well done), let the Iraq people make a new government Close enough, get out... That is a strategy... What failed is not the U.S. President Can't agree with you on that., not the U.S. goverment, not the U.S. military.
What failed was the Iraqi people. That's where the failure lies. But that could lead to another aurgument.That could be a new but interesting argument there. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. It's like someone forcing you to pray to Allah instead of God. It'll never happen. Like a parent, you pray you've done your best. But the rest is up to them.

.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

You can't teach an old dog new tricks. It's like someone forcing you to pray to Allah instead of God. It'll never happen. Like a parent, you pray you've done your best. But the rest is up to them.

That's just not true.

If it were, it would be useless to attempt to help other countries better themselves. To help other people better themselves.

Hell, at one time, people thought Zeus threw lightning bolts at them and they were pretty old.

[PARAGON]

Watch this video and then argue in favor of Kerry's words

Some of the "dumb" Armed Forces members

[KenP]

Nope, not gonna watch it. I can see it all day on the news.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by KenP

Nope, not gonna watch it. I can see it all day on the news.

It's not what you think it is..... at all.

There is nothing about John Kerry in it. Just American Heroes.

[h2co-pilot]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Watch this video and then argue in favor of Kerry's words

Some of the "dumb" Armed Forces members

Even Kerry is saying that he did not mean it in that way, tho some here defend in how it was interpretted at first.

Time to apologize Mr. Heinz.

[DennisAJC]

Kerry has served his country.

He has experienced war and seen death at ground level (Not at 30,000 feet).

Therefore he has a right to his views.

He does not need to apologize IMO.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

This is a good debate. I see good points all around and some I disagree with, and that's cool. I love that we can disagree with the politicians and not get arrested, kidnapped or put on a death list.

That's the best thing about America ... we're free to think what we want and speak our mind. We can consider all sides of an issue and make our own decisions with information from a variety of sources. It's our right and responsibility to listen to different points of view and agree or disagree as we see fit.

But to oppress or ban opposing viewpoints is the road to totalitarianism. Dictatorships are full of blind, obedient patriotic citizens who don't think for themselves, use only one source of information and follow a single-minded ideology. That path leads to the antithesis of democracy and freedom - fascism, jihad, and crusade.

There's a difference between "majority rules" and "might makes right". Even within a democracy, when people blindly follow their leaders, their party or their own ideology, they disrespect what democracy exists for. Ultimately, although the US was founded with a political structure of checks, balances and democracy, it's only as democratic as the people who think for themselves, stay informed, consider opposing viewpoints, make up their own mind and vote their own conscience. Anything else is the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

... But to oppress or ban opposing viewpoints is the road to totalitarianism. Dictatorships are full of blind, obedient patriotic citizens who don't think for themselves, use only one source of information and follow a single-minded ideology. That path leads to the antithesis of democracy and freedom - fascism, jihad, and crusade.

There's a difference between "majority rules" and "might makes right". Even within a democracy, when people blindly follow their leaders, their party or their own ideology, they disrespect what democracy exists for. Ultimately, although the US was founded with a political structure of checks, balances and democracy, it's only as democratic as the people who think for themselves, stay informed, consider opposing viewpoints, make up their own mind and vote their own conscience. Anything else is the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

This is such crap. Just because we disagree with the lefties who ARE NOT in the White House, and instead agree on many issues with our President, doesn't mean that we are "blind, obedient patriotic citizens who don't think for themselves." I, and I assume most who agree with Bush's foreign policy, have thought their opinions through very carefully and intelligently. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we are "people blindly follow their leaders, their party or their own ideology."

By the way: That arrogant (yet oddly stupid) theory is mostly unique to the liberal/Democrat crowd. When Clinton was in office, many conservatives dramatically disagreed with his policies and his followers. Nevertheless, I can't recall any significant number of conservatives moronically claiming that the liberals were heading us to Dictatorship because they were “blindly following” the man. We just disagreed with them and said so. It’s a poor substitute for a real argument to simply accuse people who don’t accept your views as “oppressors.”

By the way #2: The slippery slope argument is one of the most overused, overextended metaphors. Success in life is basically all about moderation and focus. The former concept defies the slippery slope concept altogether. It can be applied to anything, and usually is in a paranoid result-oriented manner:

- If we ban porn in the elementary schools, pretty soon, they’ll be coming after our political speech.

- If someone criticizes my venomous attacks on President Bush, they will soon be sending me to a concentration camp.

Slippery slopes are not that slippery.

For example, most people, including me, condemn the Japanese internments. But you cannot make a case that it paved the way for other such transgressions. If it set any precedent at all it set trends in the opposite direction. In 1988, the United States Congress formally apologized for the internment and appropriated money to compensate the 60,000 survivors. The same thing holds true for pretty much every such civil-liberties "outrage" in American history. Habeas corpus was reinstated after the Civil War and, over the next 150 year, became an even stricter legal standard. After all of the revelations of the 1960s and 1970s about wiretaps and secret files, Congress made it more, not less, difficult to abuse the civil rights of citizens.

This exposes the main flaw with slippery-slope arguments. Much like conspiracy theories, they reflect more imagination and less hard thinking than usually required. When we go "too far" one way, we are more likely to swing back the other way than to keep sliding in the wrong direction. It's called the law of unintended consequences. FDR may have been right or wrong when he used military tribunal for icing a few Nazi spies, but that's a stand-alone argument; it didn't launch any long-term authoritarian trend.

So, if you're going to get mad when people reject your attacks on our President or even your “mindless following” of Ted Kennedy,” that's perfectly legitimate. But please bring something more to the table than a slippery-slope argument — because we've been sliding uphill for more than two centuries.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Much like conspiracy theories, they reflect more imagination and less hard thinking than usually required.

Could this be why so many artistic types are liberal....... hmmm.





MH, instead of the Marine Corps, you should have gone to law school and sought the attorney's path and not the loser military path. As a Marine, you make a very convincing counselor.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Could this be why so many artistic types are liberal....... hmmm.
MH, instead of the Marine Corps, you should have gone to law school and sought the attorney's path and not the loser military path. As a Marine, you make a very convincing counselor.

You know, I thought about it, but as a Lance Corporal in the Corps in 1990, I quickly grew to realize that my mild retardation would never permit me even to get a GED, much less a law degree. Now, I'm stuck in Iraq with all those other mentally and morally inferior types.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

This is such crap. Just because we disagree with the lefties who ARE NOT in the White House, and instead agree on many issues with our President, doesn't mean that we are "blind, obedient patriotic citizens who don't think for themselves." I, and I assume most who agree with Bush's foreign policy, have thought their opinions through very carefully and intelligently. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we are "people blindly follow their leaders, their party or their own ideology."

I see your point MarineHawk. I didn't say that everyone who agrees with the current administration is blind or hasn't thought it through, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I meant that too many political activists (on both the right and left) are uninformed followers who don't think for themselves but are all too willing to shut down any other point of view.

I also didn't say (or mean) that the GOP is leading us down the road to totalitarianism. It's not one party or the other that flushes democracy down the toilet ... it's disrespect for differing points of view and refusal to seek common ground. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with someone, I love a well-spoken rational argument because there's always something new to learn or consider. Whether I change my mind or not, I'm better off because I've thought about an issue in a new way.

True, the "slippery slope" is an overused metaphor. In this context, I am saying that anyone who thinks they are infallibly right and refuses to hear other points of view (because "all liberals are commies" or "all conservatives are nazis") is on dangerous ground. When this happens in politics (right or left) and the opposition is silenced, it can lead to totalitarianism.

The best way to preserve democracy and find workable compromise is to examine opposing points of view. It allows us to see all sides of an issue and reminds us that we don't know everything. If we unilaterally shut down everyone who disagrees with us regardless of their reasoning or politics, we are opposing the nature of democracy.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

btw, I haven't attacked the President and I'm not angry about anything. and I already posted that Kerry was wrong for saying that about the troops.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

I see your point MarineHawk. I didn't say that everyone who agrees with the current administration is blind or hasn't thought it through, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I meant that too many political activists (on both the right and left) are uninformed followers who don't think for themselves but are all too willing to shut down any other point of view.

I also didn't say (or mean) that the GOP is leading us down the road to totalitarianism. It's not one party or the other that flushes democracy down the toilet ... it's disrespect for differing points of view and refusal to seek common ground. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with someone, I love a well-spoken rational argument because there's always something new to learn or consider. Whether I change my mind or not, I'm better off because I've thought about an issue in a new way.

True, the "slippery slope" is an overused metaphor. In this context, I am saying that anyone who thinks they are infallibly right and refuses to hear other points of view (because "all liberals are commies" or "all conservatives are nazis") is on dangerous ground. When this happens in politics (right or left) and the opposition is silenced, it can lead to totalitarianism.

The best way to preserve democracy and find workable compromise is to examine opposing points of view. It allows us to see all sides of an issue and reminds us that we don't know everything. If we unilaterally shut down everyone who disagrees with us regardless of their reasoning or politics, we are opposing the nature of democracy.

Fair enough. From my own perspective though, I believe that, when our country goes to war, for those who really care about our troops and/or about the security of our nation, it's the time when we most need to give our C-in-C the most support at least on that mission.

I assume most of the people who are attacking Bush in these circumstances don't realize what damage they are doing. I also assume that, if they did, some of them might stop.

One of the few real similarities between this war and Vietnam is that the enemy(ies) are very much encouraged by our internal divisiveness brought on by the left. This helps their morale, makes them braver and more hopeful. It also hurts our troops’ morale. Morale in combat really is one of the few most important variables in determining outcome and how many of one side’s troops live or die or get injured. This is why the idea of supporting the troops but deriding the mission does not work. No Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman wants to risk his or her life to fight and win a stupid, evil war. I experienced this first hand. In 1991, our morale, and thus our combat effectiveness, was extremely high, mostly because the nation was, with the exception of a very small minority, very united behind the mission. This really fueled our ability to deal with hardship and fear. We believed we were fighting for something important. Once enough citizens start saying (ultimately to our troops) that their mission is stupid, you kill their morale, and ultimately make their job much more difficult and deadly.

I'm not partisan on this issue. I thought that the GOP's worst hour since Watergate was in April 1999, when only a few Republicans would just come out and unequivocally support the war in Kosovo. Most of them were playing politics and stating the same old "support the troops, but not necessarily the mission" crap. McCain (who I'm not terribly fond of as a politician) was to his credit one of the exceptions. As much as I really hated Clinton, I just wanted the GOP to say, on Kosovo, we support you without qualification whether or not we would have made the same decision. The failure to do so back then was compounded by the fact that we had a weak President, who, out of fear of unpopularity, actually told our enemies that we would not use ground troops under any circumstances—thus iolating one of the most basic rules of warfare--don't tell your enemies your limitations. If Clinton, having no intention of using them, had deployed two armored divisions in Macedonia, before he began the bombing. Milosevic would have caved in five minutes. Perhaps Clinton would have done this if he had had a blank check from the GOP. It would have made us stronger and our troops safer.

The same is true now, except that the consequences are much, much more severe. If we lose in Iraq, we're screwed. If we win, al Qaeda is screwed. Reasonable minds can differ on whether or not we should have gone into Kosovo or Iraq, but neither one are evil wars whereby we are slaughtering innocent people for our own gain. There are, at least, legitimate reasons for both campaigns. Thus, there’s no reason to believe that, by supporting those either of those wars (or at least not attacking our C-in-C) that we are facilitating the path toward an evil Hitlerian state. It just means we will win the war more quickly. It really has an effect. The growing dissension on this war is simply encouraging our enemies and weakening our forces. It's bad for the country. Sure, anyone who wants to attack Bush on the war has the right to do so. I just think it’s not necessarily wise to exercise that right no venomously. Even worse, few Dems will ever concede that, of which I am convinced (partly because I agree with him), that Bush thinks he’s doing the right thing and that then simply disagree with his policies. Instead, they accuse him of all kinds of evil motives. This makes any constructive debate impossible.

I wish the Dems would just say: "Bush we disagree with every domestic decision you have ever made, but we will support you in this war [that they voted for when it was in their political interests] and will help you win it as quickly and decisively as possible." It's what the GOP should have done in 1999, and it's what the Dems should do now. As a byproduct, if they had been taking this posture, IMO, they would have won a lot more elections in the last few years.

[h2co-pilot]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

I am not mocking what your great leaders of past have done to maintain the free world Keep free in mind for a moment, but you digging up the past noble causes of WWII and comparing them with blunders like Iraq are just stupid. You're right Jihad is no concern.

Understandable if you guys were making a safer world by beating the shyt out of North Korea(Which is a pathetic diplomatic posture). That is a noble cause. This maneuver has made the USA look weak(Pick on the weaker and totally avoid the guy that has the muscle.) by side stepping North Korea. We are going through the same diplomat process as we did with Iraq. If we go in right now we would be criticized also, no? Why don't you ask your own government to do something?

Soldiers dying in a third world country proven incapable of hurting the USA??? 9/11/01, Assumed WMD-sound familiar. We all know it's all for the oil now.Give me a break. The excuses have run out. If you call that a noble cause, Well I guess we better add sheep to it's definition.

And yes. The majority of your military are burger flippers and getto kids using another avenue towards personal advancement. Nice.

Without the draft, the illiterate is the next best "scource". IRONIC AS A MOFO.

How can you sit there and use the word "PATRIOTISM" when there is a clear division in your country?

SUCK A DICK DENNIS!

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

Without the draft, the illiterate is the next best "scource". IRONIC AS A MOFO.

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

SUCK A DICK DENNIS!