has kerry done anythig to help u.s. military
Tilter1974
record of voting against U.S. weapons programs.
I'm also picking up an association with Jane Fonda.
Definietly seems that this guy would take the U.S. in a different
direction.
Anyone care to give examples of what Kerry has done to help support and
strengthen the U.S. military?
Thanks
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Martini
--
---
No matter how well you play the hand,
there is always some punk or more at the table that will get you with
their crap hands.
"Tilter1974" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4046303a$0$217$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
W.C. "Bill" Starr, Jr.
war protester and the most liberal senator in many years. Now that he is
the nominee his record will be exposed for all to see. His Bush bashing
days are about to get him the full force and fury of the GOP i.e. George W.
Bush.
--
W.C."Bill"Starr,Jr
"The secret of success is knowing whom to blame for your failure"
"Tilter1974" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4046303a$0$217$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Rich
> Definietly seems that this guy would take the U.S. in a different
> direction.
That's exactly what many of us are hoping.
Rich
tanda
direction.
Voted for Patriot Act, now opposes Patriot Act.
Voted for No Child Left Behind, now opposes it.
Voted for Gulf War II, now opposes it.
Voted against Gulf War I, now supports it.
Was a free trader, now a protectionist.
Spoke to Arab American Institute and opposed Israeli security wall, spoke
to New York voters with high amounts of Jewish voters and supports Israeli
security wall.
Wrote constituent and stated opposition to Gulf War I, eight days later
wrote another constituent expressing total support for Bush's handling of
the war.
Called U.S. soldiers in Vietnams corrupt criminals who were raping and
pillaging on a daily basis with full knowledge of all levels of command.
Compared those soldiers to Genghis Kahn. Now refers to those men as his
"band of brothers".
What direction will he take us on the above policy matters?
Also, maybe it is a coincidence, but his policy shifts seem to occur with
shifts in popular support for a position.
He is the ultra-nominee ... a man with a position for everybody. How can
you not love him?
Irish Mike
down the US Military and said he "was told" that American soldiers committed
atrocities. When I hear some twit like Kerry talking about the atrocities
Americans committed in Vietnam it makes me sad. There were atrocities
committed in Vietnam - more horrible than most people can imagine. However,
as shocking and unbelievable as it is to Kerry, Fonda and other members of
the liberal left they weren't committed by Americans. Murder, torture and
mutilation were common tactic used by the VC and NVA to intimidate and
control the local population. They also used those tactics on Americans -
especially those captured in the South.
Irish Mike
"I stood on the Dublin docks and my future was uncertain, in a place where
fortunes are won and lost on the dealing of a hand"
"Rich" <anon...@paranoid.org> wrote in message
news:40463cf9$0$722$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
the pickle
news:3Cr1c.8283$t16.5...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Sure. Based on his four months serving with the Navy in Vietnam, he ran
> down the US Military and said he "was told" that American soldiers
committed
> atrocities. When I hear some twit like Kerry talking about the atrocities
> Americans committed in Vietnam it makes me sad. There were atrocities
> committed in Vietnam - more horrible than most people can imagine.
However,
> as shocking and unbelievable as it is to Kerry, Fonda and other members of
> the liberal left they weren't committed by Americans. Murder, torture and
> mutilation were common tactic used by the VC and NVA to intimidate and
> control the local population. They also used those tactics on Americans -
> especially those captured in the South.
>
> Irish Mike
There was "bad" behavior by American servicemen during that war. It was not
commonplace, nor was it "tolerated" by those in command. Sometimes troops
would come upon such monstrous atrocity (finding a pregnant woman tied to a
tree with her baby cut from her womb while her "alleged informer" husband
cried from his tree). Sometimes what was done to a comrade was too much for
the friends that found him. Yes, there is always some gratuitous atrocity
in war, but American servicemen are seldom the usual offenders. It is
simply not the "American" way. I have met many Germans who were in the US
as prisoners of war during and following WWII and they almost always have
nothing but the kindest words for their treatment. So as a Vietnam War era
veteran myself ... who cannot avoid the tears when I visit the Wall ... and
with the knowledge of how the words of some Americans caused further
torture of the American POW's in North Vietnam ... I have little use for the
likes of Senator Kerry.
Robert W. Rooney
against certain weapons systems. For example, he voted against the
Patriot missile, which has been very anti-patriotic in that it gets
confused and shoots down our own airplanes. He also voted against the
Bradley fighting vehicle which turned out to be a huge fiasco in that it
didn't have enough armour to protect it's occupants and somehow we didn't
figure out that it would not work well in combat until we had flushed
billions down the toilet.
Anyway, maybe he thought the systems were unworkable or overpriced or not
needed for the type of fighting environment we will be facing in the
future. Personally, I think that most conventional weapons systems are
pretty damn useless in fighting our current "War on Terror." If you want
to get the terrorists, we need to put all that money into improving and
expanding special ops and covert mission capabilities. Also, a lot of
money needs to be rerouted towards security and intelligence forces and
our emergency preparedness here at home.
Just my opinion. Take it or leave it.
On Mar 3 2004 11:22AM, Tilter1974 wrote:
Commander Suckout
funding of the war. Put this guy is a crowd and he'll say or do whatever
he thinks the crowd will agree with.
AJohn808
>Put this guy is a crowd and he'll say or do whatever
>he thinks the crowd will agree with
we wouldn't want that happening in a democracy.
Rich
> Yes, there is always some gratuitous atrocity
> in war, but American servicemen are seldom the usual offenders. It is
> simply not the "American" way.
Bullshit. You're believing too much American propaganda. What about
killing peasants in free fire zones and reporting them as enemy casualties?
What about the bombing of Dresden?
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
All of these terrorist attacks on civilians came from the top down, they
weren't rogue soldiers acting against orders.
Have you read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1557507430/
My Lai wasn't even the worst of it in Vetnam.
DaVoice
"Tilter1974" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Is it true what I've been repeatedly hearing. Mr. Kerry has a consistent
> record of voting against U.S. weapons programs.
Yes, it is true.
> I'm also picking up an association with Jane Fonda.
Even being a Bush supporter, I find this to be a strawman. Kerry and Fonda
do not have any association, both have said so, and I believe them. I think
this is a "smear" attack on John Kerry, and dont' support it. Neither do the
facts.
> Definietly seems that this guy would take the U.S. in a different
> direction.
I agree, and THAT is what should be in the debates! The differences in
policy issues, not the Vietnam War era.
--
"The undisputed king of the losers has to be this guy who goes by "davoice".
"
Paul Phillips-2/29/04
Rick "DaVoice" Charles
http://www.voiceofpoker.com
da pickle
> On Mar 3 2004 1:20PM, the pickle wrote:
>
> > Yes, there is always some gratuitous atrocity
> > in war, but American servicemen are seldom the usual offenders. It is
> > simply not the "American" way.
>
> Bullshit. You're believing too much American propaganda. What about
> killing peasants in free fire zones and reporting them as enemy
casualties?
>
> What about the bombing of Dresden?
>
> What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
>
> All of these terrorist attacks on civilians came from the top down, they
> weren't rogue soldiers acting against orders.
>
> Have you read this book?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1557507430/
>
> My Lai wasn't even the worst of it in Vetnam.
Rick ... I guess you were there and saw different things. MyLai was not our
finest hour. Even wonder why there were not more? Haven't read your book.
As for Dresden, why do you mention it? The bombing of the dikes further
north are a more likely comment. I will trade the bombing of two Japanese
cities for the American lives saved any day of the week. It was Truman's
call ... a fine Democrat and a fine American. I wonder what you would have
done in his place. Just forget it ... send in the Marines. I think you do
not know much about what you speak.
hiroshima facts
> On Mar 3 2004 1:20PM, the pickle wrote:
>
> > Yes, there is always some gratuitous atrocity
> > in war, but American servicemen are seldom the usual offenders. It is
> > simply not the "American" way.
>
> Bullshit. You're believing too much American propaganda. What about
> killing peasants in free fire zones and reporting them as enemy casualties?
>
> What about the bombing of Dresden?
American bombers focused on the Dresden railyards.
The city was burned by British bombers.
> What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Civilians targets, yes. But also significant military targets.
The Hiroshima bomb exploded nearly directly above a large base (the
headquarters of the Japanese Third Army and the headquarters in charge
of the defense of Kyushu), and nearly all of the 20,000 soldiers on
the base were killed instantly.
The Nagasaki bomb was intended for the Kokura Arsenal, but was
diverted by the weather to the outskirts of Nagasaki, where it
exploded between the "Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works" and the
"Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works/Torpedo Works", damaging both
beyond repair.
R. Ray
"W.C. "Bill" Starr, Jr." <bus...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:RFq1c.36046$PR3.679784@attbi_s03...
> He was a brave hero in the Vietnam war but after that nothing. He became
a
> war protester and the most liberal senator in many years.
Yeah, its tough coming down hard on what was once a brave and forthright
soldier -- but clearly the guy cracked after Nam and should have been put on
mental disability. His post war relationship, such as it was, with Jane
'Hanoi' Fonda -- of which he remains unrepentant even after she has
repented, speaks loads. Senator Kerry, sure why not - just one of a group of
bozos. President Kerry -- no effing way. Wouldn't be prudent. That is all.
R. Ray
> On Mar 3 2004 1:20PM, the pickle wrote:
>
Pugum
couldn't even attend his safe National Guard meetings that his Daddy got him
past a million other men on the list to avoid combat in Vietnam or anyplace
else. Bush is a pretend military leader while Kerry is a real one.
Jim Jamison, Atlanta
Irish Mike
This simply isn't true. Bush has led the US, and it's military, in the
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and dealt with the situations in the
Philippines, Haiti and North Korea. He has faced more serious terrorist
threats than any other American President. Kerry has done none of these
things. From what I can tell he is ready to subjugate the US military to
that left leaning, anti-American bureaucratic morass called the United
Nations. Kerry has flip flopped on every major issue and, like Clinton,
bases his decisions on the latest opinion poll. If Kerry is elected it will
be the best news for Al Queida since 9/11.
Irish Mike
"I stood on the Dublin docks and my future was uncertain, in a place where
fortunes are won and lost on the dealing of a hand"
"Pugum" <pu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040304011418...@mb-m03.aol.com...
Gary Carson
things during the vietnam war.
--
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com
calmar
"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> "Bush is a pretend military leader while Kerry is a real one."
>
> This simply isn't true. Bush has led the US, and it's military, in the
> conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and dealt with the situations in the
> Philippines, Haiti and North Korea.
Today I said to someone, that a good chief is often also a good
worker.
Kerry was obviously a good worker, and I would give him credit for
beeing a good leader too.
Bush was never a good worker, but one who was hiding obviously.
> He has faced more serious terrorist
> threats than any other American President. Kerry has done none of these
> things.
first of all, the american (and other) population faced serious terrorist
threats and not the american president.
Kerry has not done what? Faced serious terrorist attacks? Can this
be an disadvantage?
> From what I can tell he is ready to subjugate the US military to
> that left leaning, anti-American bureaucratic morass called the United
> Nations.
I can't comment on this.
> Kerry has flip flopped on every major issue and, like Clinton,
> bases his decisions on the latest opinion poll.
What's wrong with this? do you in general prefer
presidents/dictators who make their decisions based on a minority?
PS: I `had' voted for Bush too, and regretted it later.
> If Kerry is elected it will
> be the best news for Al Queida since 9/11.
>
It will be the best news, not just for Al Queida, but for the
whole world probably :) (including the majority of Irland!, I'm
ready to bet!)
greetings
--
calmar
(o_ GNU/Linux is GREAT
//\
V_/_ http://www.calmar.ws
lowrance
> On Mar 3 2004 1:20PM, the pickle wrote:
>
> Bullshit. You're believing too much American propaganda. What about
> killing peasants in free fire zones and reporting them as enemy
casualties?
Goddamn canadians - probably a lil' quebec french bitch.
> What about the bombing of Dresden?
Well, it was hitler, what the fuck about? Asshole.
> What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Tojo bitch. Gee, what a bout Parl Harbor? What about the six million
innocent jews? Go the fuck away you little nazi bitch.
> All of these terrorist attacks on civilians came from the top down, they
> weren't rogue soldiers acting against orders.
I thought canada had free mental health care. Remember 9-11.
FL Turbo
>On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 07:38:07 GMT
>"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>> "Bush is a pretend military leader while Kerry is a real one."
>>
>> This simply isn't true. Bush has led the US, and it's military, in the
>> conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and dealt with the situations in the
>> Philippines, Haiti and North Korea.
>
>Today I said to someone, that a good chief is often also a good
>worker.
>Kerry was obviously a good worker, and I would give him credit for
>beeing a good leader too.
Kerry spent a whole 4 months in Viet Nam.
Bush has been Commander in Chief of the US military for 3 years.
>
>Bush was never a good worker, but one who was hiding obviously.
And you know this, just how?
>
>> He has faced more serious terrorist
>> threats than any other American President. Kerry has done none of these
>> things.
>
>first of all, the american (and other) population faced serious terrorist
>threats and not the american president.
And we all still do.
>Kerry has not done what? Faced serious terrorist attacks? Can this
>be an disadvantage?
>
>> From what I can tell he is ready to subjugate the US military to
>> that left leaning, anti-American bureaucratic morass called the United
>> Nations.
>
>I can't comment on this.
The United Nations is the organization that administered the program
that sold Iraqi oil, and turned the money over Saddam (after they took
their cut off the top of course) so he could build his palaces and
dole out the rest of the money to the Baathist thugs that he used to
run the country.
>
>> Kerry has flip flopped on every major issue and, like Clinton,
>> bases his decisions on the latest opinion poll.
>
>What's wrong with this? do you in general prefer
>presidents/dictators who make their decisions based on a minority?
Personally, I prefer a president that makes decisions based on what is
best for the American people, not what France, Germany, or Russia want
him to do.
But then, I am an American, so I am biased.
>PS: I `had' voted for Bush too, and regretted it later.
>
>> If Kerry is elected it will
>> be the best news for Al Queida since 9/11.
>>
>It will be the best news, not just for Al Queida, but for the
>whole world probably :) (including the majority of Irland!, I'm
>ready to bet!)
>
>greetings
Well, North Korea seems to be pleased at the prospect of a Kerry
presidency.
R. Ray
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:m6jf40drunhkksbhv...@4ax.com...
DaPeif
> strengthen the U.S. military?
>
> Thanks
>
...like serving a delicious fresh plastic turkey for Thanksgiving?
Jay
friggin viruses@pacbell.net Paul G.
news:20040304044841...@mb-m05.wmconnect.com...
> You have to be really, really stupid to think that no americans did any
bad
> things during the vietnam war.
>
Certainly. War is war. But notice, the fleeing refugees always ran SOUTH,
not north.
You speak of bad things Americans did to the Vietnamese, Gary? The worst
thing we did was letting them be taken over by the communists. That's just
shameful.
-Paul G.
Anyone but a member of Skull & Bones in 2004.
Gary Carson
>not north.
Really? Are you sure about that?
friggin viruses@pacbell.net Paul G.
> > But notice, the fleeing refugees always ran SOUTH,
> >not north.
>
> Really? Are you sure about that?
>
Yes I am. Or I wouldn't have said it.
-Paul G.