 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Speedy
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 77
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| LewWaters wrote: | | Quote: | | I CAN'T vote for bush, but will cry if Kerry wins |
Speedy, you can't have it both ways. Only the likes of Kerry can stand up and say with a straight face, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." |
I agree and imho kerry is a pos democrate....I can't stand any of them. Leiberman(sp) seemed honest as far as dems go, but they are still after our guns, rights, and taxes.
I am just so disapointed w/ bush right now. I will probably vote for him...but will ***** about it til then   |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hesiod
Former Member
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:45 am Post subject: The better question... |
|
|
...is what exactl;y would George W. Bush have to do to lose YOUR support?
I mean, he's lied, cheated, stolen, committed fraud, got us into a FUBAR war, failed in the war on terror, destrpoyed 2 million jobs, failed to protect us from terrorist attacks on 9/11, encouraged the breaking of the geneva conventins, the torture conventions, and federal law, awarded ripoff Iraq contracts to cronies, racked up huge defecits, created massive new federal spending programs, and lied repeatedly to the Amnerican people about everything from his height to the basis for sending our young men and women to war.
I'm pretty much convinced that George W. Bush could go on an axe-murdering spree in an orphanage...and you'd still support him for President because at least he didn't repeat stories of war crimes told to him in 1971 by people he believed were Vietnam veterans and were being honest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Speedy
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 77
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:54 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
| Hesiod wrote: | ...I mean, he's .... failed to protect us from terrorist attacks on 9/11, encouraged the breaking of the geneva conventins, the torture conventions....
. |
I am going to disagree w/ this.
I won't bash kerry's service, and I won't bash bush unjustly.
I think it is wrong to state that he could have stopped the 9/11 attack....they may have known something was possibly comming, but knowing where/when? would be a needle in the haystack.
As far as the torture, I think if our countries safety is at stake, we shopuld torture POWs who may have knowledge.
But toruring/tormenting for the entertainment of the gaurds should NOT be allowed and they should be punished for taking it upon themselves to torture/torment. We would be screaming bloody murder if they had treated our boys in the same manner.
| Hesiod wrote: | | I'm pretty much convinced that George W. Bush could go on an axe-murdering spree in an orphanage...and you'd still support him for President because at least he didn't repeat stories of war crimes told to him in 1971 by people he believed were Vietnam veterans and were being honest. |
Kinda looks that way |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morto
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 29 May 2004
Posts: 46
Location: Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:57 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
| Quote: | "Hesiod
I'm pretty much convinced that George W. Bush could go on an axe-murdering spree in an orphanage...and you'd still support him for President because at least he didn't repeat stories of war crimes told to him in 1971 by people he believed were Vietnam veterans and were being honest. |
I'll tell you what! If Kerry was really that stupid then and as stupid as he is now by touting himself as a war hero after being a traitor in '71, he's worthy of being President of Vietnam, not the USA. Maybe North Korea! His politics are to closer to Kim's than they are to mine!
_________________
"History tells us that appeasement does not lead to peace. It invites an aggressor to test the will of a nation unprepared to meet that test." --Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:11 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
| Hesiod wrote: | ...is what exactl;y would George W. Bush have to do to lose YOUR support?
I mean, he's lied, cheated, stolen, committed fraud, got us into a FUBAR war, failed in the war on terror, destrpoyed 2 million jobs, failed to protect us from terrorist attacks on 9/11, encouraged the breaking of the geneva conventins, the torture conventions, and federal law, awarded ripoff Iraq contracts to cronies, racked up huge defecits, created massive new federal spending programs, and lied repeatedly to the Amnerican people about everything from his height to the basis for sending our young men and women to war.
I'm pretty much convinced that George W. Bush could go on an axe-murdering spree in an orphanage...and you'd still support him for President because at least he didn't repeat stories of war crimes told to him in 1971 by people he believed were Vietnam veterans and were being honest. |
Wow, there is so much inaccurate in such a small paragraph... that's quite impressive.
| Quote: | | "I mean, he's lied, cheated, stolen, committed fraud," |
This based on what?
| Quote: | | got us into a FUBAR war, |
What exactly is FUBAR about the war? And what makes you think he got us into it. Actually, this is formally a continuation of the "first war" with Iraq because that was only an enforced cease fire arrangement.. but technically everyone considers this a new war.. but in either case, when you compare this to previous wars that included ground battles, or even compare it to the expectations of the casualties described by liberals prior to the war, this war is an incredible success. Where is your evidence to the contrary to support your statement.
| Quote: | | failed in the war on terror, |
 You're kidding, right?
| Quote: | | destrpoyed 2 million jobs, |
Sigh... there are many reasons for job loss, President Bush isn't one of them... tired of explaining this.. so go read it if you like, but I doubt you will bother:
http://thinkinboutstuff.netfirms.com/unemployment.htm
| Quote: | | failed to protect us from terrorist attacks on 9/11, |
 OK.. here's your chance.. what would Kerry hazve done different. Oh, and while you are at it, explain this:
http://thinkinboutstuff.netfirms.com/archive.htm
you'll need to scroll down the page to March 16. I'd give you the link to the original source, but the link expired.
| Quote: | | encouraged the breaking of the geneva conventins, |
Geneva Convention, as I understand it, are for uniformed combatants. I'm sure someone here can correct me if I'm wrong. Terrorists have no protection under it.
| Quote: | | the torture conventions, |
Prove it.
What federal law are you referring to?
| Quote: | | awarded ripoff Iraq contracts to cronies, |
Prove it.
| Quote: | | racked up huge defecits, |
I hought you knew there was a war... Anyway, deficit spending is a legitimate method of stimulating the economy, especially when interest rates are low. Once the economy cranks up, as it is doing now, the deficit will be reduced.
| Quote: | | created massive new federal spending programs, |
Wow... he did all this without Congress? guess we can't blame Kerry for any of this since he never has time to vote.
http://thinkinboutstuff.netfirms.com/senate_record.htm
| Quote: | | and lied repeatedly to the Amnerican people about everything from his height to the basis for sending our young men and women to war. |
Wrong ... unless everyone else, including Kerry, was in on the lie.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hesiod
Former Member
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:22 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
| Morto wrote: | | Quote: | "Hesiod
I'm pretty much convinced that George W. Bush could go on an axe-murdering spree in an orphanage...and you'd still support him for President because at least he didn't repeat stories of war crimes told to him in 1971 by people he believed were Vietnam veterans and were being honest. |
I'll tell you what! If Kerry was really that stupid then and as stupid as he is now by touting himself as a war hero after being a traitor in '71, he's worthy of being President of Vietnam, not the USA. Maybe North Korea! His politics are to closer to Kim's than they are to mine! |
Why do you believe he's stupid? It's a long story, but VVAW vetted those who testified at Winter S9oldiers by checking their DD-214's, and getting double and sometimes triple corroboration from others in their units before accepting the stories as valid. They also vetted the stories through a committee of combat veterans who would know the deployments, terminology etc. to weed out fakers.
They were very conscious of trying to make sure these stories were truthful.
It later turned out that some not ALL of the stories were made uyp or exagerrated.
But, at the time, Jhn Kerry had no way of knowing that. He testified only three months after Winter Soldiers in Detroit. The fabrications weren't discoivered until years afterwards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:26 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
| Hesiod wrote: | | It's a long story, but VVAW vetted those who testified at Winter S9oldiers by checking their DD-214's, and getting double and sometimes triple corroboration from others in their units before accepting the stories as valid. |
Where did you read this?
I'm not saying that it's absolutely false, but I've never read anything anywhere that the WSI vetted its witnesses to this degree.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hesiod
Former Member
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:32 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
| Keith wrote: | | Hesiod wrote: | ...is what exactl;y would George W. Bush have to do to lose YOUR support?
I mean, he's lied, cheated, stolen, committed fraud, got us into a FUBAR war, failed in the war on terror, destrpoyed 2 million jobs, failed to protect us from terrorist attacks on 9/11, encouraged the breaking of the geneva conventins, the torture conventions, and federal law, awarded ripoff Iraq contracts to cronies, racked up huge defecits, created massive new federal spending programs, and lied repeatedly to the Amnerican people about everything from his height to the basis for sending our young men and women to war.
I'm pretty much convinced that George W. Bush could go on an axe-murdering spree in an orphanage...and you'd still support him for President because at least he didn't repeat stories of war crimes told to him in 1971 by people he believed were Vietnam veterans and were being honest. |
Wow, there is so much inaccurate in such a small paragraph... that's quite impressive.
| Quote: | | "I mean, he's lied, cheated, stolen, committed fraud," |
This based on what?
| Quote: | | got us into a FUBAR war, |
What exactly is FUBAR about the war? And what makes you think he got us into it. Actually, this is formally a continuation of the "first war" with Iraq because that was only an enforced cease fire arrangement.. but technically everyone considers this a new war.. but in either case, when you compare this to previous wars that included ground battles, or even compare it to the expectations of the casualties described by liberals prior to the war, this war is an incredible success. Where is your evidence to the contrary to support your statement.
| Quote: | | failed in the war on terror, |
You're kidding, right?
| Quote: | | destrpoyed 2 million jobs, |
Sigh... there are many reasons for job loss, President Bush isn't one of them... tired of explaining this.. so go read it if you like, but I doubt you will bother:
http://thinkinboutstuff.netfirms.com/unemployment.htm
| Quote: | | failed to protect us from terrorist attacks on 9/11, |
OK.. here's your chance.. what would Kerry hazve done different. Oh, and while you are at it, explain this:
http://thinkinboutstuff.netfirms.com/archive.htm
you'll need to scroll down the page to March 16. I'd give you the link to the original source, but the link expired.
| Quote: | | encouraged the breaking of the geneva conventins, |
Geneva Convention, as I understand it, are for uniformed combatants. I'm sure someone here can correct me if I'm wrong. Terrorists have no protection under it.
| Quote: | | the torture conventions, |
Prove it.
What federal law are you referring to?
| Quote: | | awarded ripoff Iraq contracts to cronies, |
Prove it.
| Quote: | | racked up huge defecits, |
I hought you knew there was a war... Anyway, deficit spending is a legitimate method of stimulating the economy, especially when interest rates are low. Once the economy cranks up, as it is doing now, the deficit will be reduced.
| Quote: | | created massive new federal spending programs, |
Wow... he did all this without Congress? guess we can't blame Kerry for any of this since he never has time to vote.
http://thinkinboutstuff.netfirms.com/senate_record.htm
| Quote: | | and lied repeatedly to the Amnerican people about everything from his height to the basis for sending our young men and women to war. |
Wrong ... unless everyone else, including Kerry, was in on the lie.
Keith |
I don't have to time to respond to each of your requests here, but regarding your March 16 item, that was debunked almost immediately.
http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2004/03/gop-sleaze-patrol-oh-my-god.html
Also, you might want to look up the Anti-torture convention that the United States signed and ratified, along with the anti-torture federal statute that Bush violated by signing a Presidential directive authorizing the use of torture against suspected Al Qaeda detainees.
And, quite frankly, your "defense" of Bush lost all credibility when you claimed that Bush didn't get us into the war in Iraq.
And I find it amusing that you defend Bush's profligate spending by saying taht the CONGRESS didn't stop him. The GOP-controlled Cogress, yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:38 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
[quote="Keith"] | Hesiod wrote: | snip
Geneva Convention, as I understand it, are for uniformed combatants. I'm sure someone here can correct me if I'm wrong. Terrorists have no protection under it.
|
Lotta stuff so I will just pick one.
The conventions cover civilians - non combatants - well enough.
I have read and heard claim that 70% to 90% of the arrested Iraqi's were arrested in error - that is like innocent.
Maybe someone would argue that it is less than that? Maybe only fifty percent?
Some have made false accusation on someone they don't like. I would expect that there be quite a number who gave whatever names they could think of.
I would suppose that about anyone could be tortured into confessing to be a terrorist and then there would be some who would be satisfied that the torture was worthwhile.
Have you read any of the interviews of folks who claim to have been abused and claim they had done nothing and had been released without being charged with anything?
Should we assume that they were liars about being innocent or about being among the abused who were forced to do such things as renounce his religion and give thanks to Jesus?
There was some officer (NCO?) intimidated some information out of an Iraqi. I guess he lost his career over that. I thought it a shame that he got into trouble over that. I do have some different view of expediency of the moment on the battlefield.
I gather that the Iraqi gave up information that averted an ambush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:29 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
Interesting BLOG you linked to.. unfortunately, the source he attacks is Fox News and the source I quote is the NY Post.
You'll also note that the March 16 item I pointed you to is prefaced by
| Quote: | | This assertion might be somewhat unfair since it's easy to look back and point to things that could have been done better, but that hasn't stop the Democrat smear campaign from blaming George Bush (remember Clark and Co asserting the President knew about the attacks and did nothing to prevent them?) |
I no more believe it was Kerry's fault than I believe it was Bush's fault.. 'tis you that seems to want to blame 9/11 on someone. I suppose it's easier and more comforting than dealing with the reality that there are some things that will happen in this world no matter how well we prepare.
I also was not defending Bush by pointing out that Congress plays a major role in the budget process... too simple to blame one man, but I suppose if you hate someone, you are willing to lay everything on that person.
Regarding my credibility, I would counter that your understanding of complex situations is questionable if you believe that we are in a war with Iraq simply because of George Bush.
Sorry you don't have the time to respond to everything.. perhaps you should limit your hyperbole to things you have time to discuss 
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:42 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
| Craig wrote: |
Lotta stuff so I will just pick one.
The conventions cover civilians - non combatants - well enough.
I have read and heard claim that 70% to 90% of the arrested Iraqi's were arrested in error - that is like innocent.
Maybe someone would argue that it is less than that? Maybe only fifty percent?
Some have made false accusation on someone they don't like. I would expect that there be quite a number who gave whatever names they could think of.
I would suppose that about anyone could be tortured into confessing to be a terrorist and then there would be some who would be satisfied that the torture was worthwhile.
Have you read any of the interviews of folks who claim to have been abused and claim they had done nothing and had been released without being charged with anything?
Should we assume that they were liars about being innocent or about being among the abused who were forced to do such things as renounce his religion and give thanks to Jesus?
There was some officer (NCO?) intimidated some information out of an Iraqi. I guess he lost his career over that. I thought it a shame that he got into trouble over that. I do have some different view of expediency of the moment on the battlefield.
I gather that the Iraqi gave up information that averted an ambush. |
Good points, and please don't misunderstand me, I didn't intend to condone the actions of a few. Although, tough to say how I would react if I thought I was interrogating someone who either killed a buddy or had information that could save a buddy. The original post stated that George Bush encouraged breaking the Geneva Conventions... I might be wrong, but I assumed he was referring to Guantonimo (sp?), an assumption I made for expediency since the poster tends to not provide deatails or facts to support his assertions.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:20 am Post subject: Re: The better question... |
|
|
[quote="Keith"] | Craig wrote: |
snip
Good points, and please don't misunderstand me, I didn't intend to condone the actions of a few. Although, tough to say how I would react if I thought I was interrogating someone who either killed a buddy or had information that could save a buddy. The original post stated that George Bush encouraged breaking the Geneva Conventions... I might be wrong, but I assumed he was referring to Guantonimo (sp?), an assumption I made for expediency since the poster tends to not provide deatails or facts to support his assertions.
Keith |
A couple things I thought weak or a bit off in that list. I assumed that some would pick the weakest on a list to direct focus to discredit the whole list. I am quite familiar with that tactic to my dismay.
Now one might question - or accuse - that I chose a point to direct focus to distract from what was weak in the accusation list.
I do not know how I would have reacted either, when I was that age.
LOL - If we ever made friends I might explain what I mean that I think the sort of woman attracted to me probably needs some slapping around - but I never was into it.
Had I been in combat and got the upper hand on an enemy I probably would have gone by the book and turned him over to those who I would have had faith better trained how to get useful information.
One can only speculate how one might act in some circumstance. Bunch folks have thought I was some sort of hero for crap I did that I thought what I did was unwise even. given it to do again I don't know if I'd acted completely different.
Don't even know how I would act now if someone under was under my power who I was sure had some information that might save some lives.
Would I be willing to face the consequence to know that I might lose a career or go to jail even for sake of using an illegal means? Some folks seem to limit courage to facing some rather commonly recognized dangers. Maybe I think that guy who lost his military career abusing and scaring with threats of death to get information that likely saved lives of some of his comrades. - Don't know much of the story. There was a captive and the Officer abused him and shot gun hear his head. - Story claimed that got information about an ambush and that the Officer got DD'd over the affair.
Maybe a lot of "true" heroes ended as objects of scorn. - I dunno.
In view of those abuse and torture and murder photo's and video's I would think a Commander in Chief with any courage or integrity at all would be tossing some to the wolves for sake of national image even. There would be folks right up the chain in custody by now and along with some of the private contractors. - "Contractors" - The folks who got burned up keep being described as some private contractors as if they were just some innocents attacked by evil terrorists who do not wear uniforms.
Who was b****ing about uniforms and Geneva conventions? - Were not them contractors some armed mercenaries?
Well sh*t - better go see how my home brew is doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newsance
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:17 pm Post subject: vote |
|
|
I am a Vietnam War veteran who will vote for Bush. Kerry is too much of an opportunist. He blows in the wind. I would never vote for someone because of their service in war or peace.
I disagree with his policies! His party is also the party that abandoned the South Vietnamese in the field of battle and failed to hold the North Vietnamese accountable for their violation of the treaty they themselves signed.
_________________
Vietnam Vet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will vote for President George W. Bush to be re-elected, and yes, I am a veteran. I served from July 70 to Apr 74 in the USAF as a Security Police Military Dog Handler (K9), with service at Korat RTAFB from Dec 71 to Dec 72. Also in the USN from May 79 to Sept 95 when I retired with 20+ years of military service. I also was in Desert Shield/Storm (Persian Gulf War I) from Aug 90 to Apr 91 on USS Elmer Montgomery (FF-1082) as a member of the ships UN Merchant Interdiction Boarding Party.
What amazes me is the huge amount of hate from both veterans and non-veterans that support John F. Kerry towards the veterans that support President George W. Bush and/or do not support John F. Kerry! I've seen this hate not only on this site, but many others that I visit.
As veterans, can't we all just pull together and stop the hate towards each other? Can't we be civil and debate/discuss these issues without calling each other names, threatening each other, insulting each other?
I hope so! But, I imagine that just as in the real world, here on this site, nothing will change, and:
Those that understand, understand!
Those that do not understand, will never understand!
Woof!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
95 bxl
Seaman
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikest wrote: | | Quote: | | Now, we already know that most veterans, by a huge number, support Bush. But that aside... what would it take for you Kerry supporters to change your positions? |
Wrong
| Quote: | Base
Bush has seen some erosion among parts of his base. His job approval rating is down by eight points among men since last month, down by seven points among Republicans and down by 11 points among conservatives. (Women, Democrats, independents, liberals and moderates are virtually unchanged.) It's also down by seven points among those who say Iraq is the most important issue in their vote, and in veteran households.
Some of this has translated to the horse race. Men were +13 for Bush last month; now they divide almost evenly. Conservatives were +53 for Bush; now they're +36. Veteran households were +10 for Bush; now they divide about evenly |
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Polls/bush_iraq_poll_040524.html |
Figures don't lie, but liars figure, eh?
"Kerry loses to Bush among veterans, 54% to 41%"
http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_148195856.html
Now then, back to reality.
With the vast majority of the veteran and military vote going to Bush, I repeat: What would it take for you Kerry supporters to end your support? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
