Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ted Kennedy's Speech: Treason or disagreement?
Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 11:18 AM (2,091 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Quote:
 
I recognize you, Admiral. You were one of those "America, love it or leave it" hardhats whipping up on the peace marchers in NY in 1969.


No, I was nine years old.

Yet, I also applied to a military academy eight years later when it wasn't considered "cool" to be a member of any branch.

I am of the "America, love it or leave it" crowd. I love my country. I swore an oath to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you don't love your country, WHY LIVE HERE? Is it because you may loathe it but can't live as well as you do somewhere else? Doesn't that border on hypocrisy?

If you'll excuse me, we're off to a brunch.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Surok
Member Avatar
Ensign
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 11 2004, 12:35 PM
Quote:
 
I recognize you, Admiral. You were one of those "America, love it or leave it" hardhats whipping up on the peace marchers in NY in 1969.


No, I was nine years old.

Yet, I also applied to a military academy eight years later when it wasn't considered "cool" to be a member of any branch.

I am of the "America, love it or leave it" crowd. I love my country. I swore an oath to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you don't love your country, WHY LIVE HERE? Is it because you may loathe it but can't live as well as you do somewhere else? Doesn't that border on hypocrisy?

If you'll excuse me, we're off to a brunch.

I never said I loathe this country. Quite the contrary, in fact. I find it amusingly Archie Bunker-esque that you think anyone who criticizes the policies of their country must be unpatriotic or even treasonous.

No, my problem with the "Love it or leave it" crew is that they cannot perceive the concept that loving your country and speaking out against its' actions are not mutually exclusive. It is too often used as a simplistic and wholly inappropriate response against anyone who dares exercise their right to criticise their government.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I am very thankful that I live in a country where I can honor those whom have died defending her, as well as exercise my right to free speech when I wish--so long as the latter is tempered with sound judgement, and takes into consideration those who are listening. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
Dwayne, one of the things we learned in Vietnam is that you cannot make the local population buy in to a war and a puppet government they do not support.  Kennedy recognized this early on.  You need buy-in to support your actions.  I anxiously await the "buy-in" of the Iraqi people into this new democracy we are forcing on them.  We also learned that people fighting for their homes and villages, whether right or wrong in principle, are very determined adversaries.

I didn't ask you what you learned, I asked you to list the problems.

Based on your above paragraph, I can reduce that all down to this, one of the problems you saw was no indigenous support.

But I really don't see how all that relates to Iraq considering the evidence shows there is more support for America in Iraq amongst average Iraqi's than there is for the Sunni rebels or Sadr's Shia sect. The Kurds and most of Iraqs' educated are solidly on America's side.

Quote:
 
If anyone thinks this resistance will go away once our democratic government has been established. they are sorely mistaken.

Outside of some unthought out extemporanious interview responses, has anyone ever claimed the Islamic fundamentalists would just sit for an Islamic representative-democracy? No, not at all.

Quote:
 
Is this Vietnam? No.  Does it show the potential to be like Vietnam in that we may be bogged down there for years? Absolutely.

By that criteria, Japan, Germany and South Korea are all like Vietnam, so when taken all together, that's 3 wins, 1 loss and Iraq is still in play.

Quote:
 
No, I do not long for the days of Sadaam Hussein.  I just don't think it is our job to decide who governs who and how, unless there is an imminent or realized threat to our own way of life. That was not the case here.

You think we don't have the right or it's not our job to decide who governs unless a threat is imminent or realized ... there was a realized threat in the form of 9-11 and every shot fired at flights over the No Fly Zones were realized threat. Every embassy blown up was an realized threat and the USS Cole was a realized threat.

Every single instance of Middle Eastern terrorism against the United States over the past decade, including 9-11, was directly or indirectly tied to American and UN policies, in the form of UNSC resolutions, regarding Iraq.

Quote:
 
I also detest the fact that we define murderous dictators or tyrants in terms of their opposition to our own interest.  If they play ball with us, we love them and send them money and weapons.

We don't. We define them by who they are against, not who they are with. In fact, the mujahidin in Afghanistan is a perfect example of this; we didn't help them because they were allied with the West - in fact they were not - we helped them because of who they fought.

Quote:
 
I am looking for what's good for America first.  We disagree on what that is, but then that's America.

Claiming there was a 9-11 conspiracy - claiming Bush stole the White House - claiming Bush is Hitler - claiming Americans in Iraq are mere invaders and occupiers - claiming Iraq is another Vietnam - these claims foisted upon the public by the Bush Bashers are not about "what's good for America", but about election year political power.

So many like to compare Hitler to Bush, but if there is any comparison to Hitler and Germany that can be logically made, it is the democrats who are using the tactics and methods of Hitler in an attempt to gain office again.

In reading Hitler's fiery rhetoric about betrayer's, you'd be hard pressed to find any equivalent coming out of the Bush White House.
Adolf Hitler
September 19, 1939
We are fighting for our rights; we have no desire for war, having been attacked. Rather will those nations be ruined which only gradually discover what their betrayers had in store for them and what little reason they had to wage war—merely the desire for profit and the political interests of a small clique.


But in examining the rhetoric from the left, the comparisons to Hitler's rhetorical style are everywhere.
Al Gore
Feb. 8th 2004
He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.


Al Gore's speech to the Tennessee Democrats isn't the only example - Howard Dean uttered the same type of rhetoric on a regular basis. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are uttering the same manner of rhetoric also.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Surok
Apr 11 2004, 03:30 PM
Dwayne, one of the things we learned in Vietnam is that you cannot make the local population buy in to a war and a puppet government they do not support. Kennedy recognized this early on. You need buy-in to support your actions.


If you take out the sentence, "Kennedy recognized this early on.", I think I understand your point. With the sentence in, I don't.

So what did Kennedy "recognize"? And what was the result of his "recognition"?

(Note: I am not agreeing or disagreeing. I am seeking to understand.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Apr 9 2004, 02:43 AM
Quote:
 
Dwayne
Apr 8 2004, 09:35 PM
Did you actually read what I said?

Let me simplify this for you, President Bush didn't say, "terrorists can't stand freedom".

I'm not saying that he hasn't said things along those lines, but that exact thing? No. And since he didn't say that, don't put quotes around it as though it is something that Pres. Bush said.

Yes, and I replied to that specific point. Did you read it? :rolleyes: Here it is again:
Quote:
 
Actually he did, word for word. Unfortunately, I can't put my hands on the reference to that exact quote right now. But here are a bunch of quotes that say the same thing in different words. I never meant that he used exactly the same words every time.

I added the bold so you get it this time. If I can put my hands on where I saw that quote, I'll be sure and point it out to you.

Yeah...sure you will. Just like you're going to show us where Pres. Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.

Dwayne,
So far, I have been unable to find the exact quote that I am looking for, but this one is very close and should be enough to establish Bush has used these words.

It's from this speech.

Here's the quote from Bush (bold is mine):

Patsy, the American people should know that my administration is determined to find, to get them running and to hunt them down, those who did this to America. Now, I want to remind the American people that the prime suspect's organization is in a lot of countries - it's a widespread organization based upon one thing: terrorizing. They can't stand freedom; they hate what America stands for. So this will be a long campaign, a determined campaign - a campaign that will use the resources of the United States to win.

I also came across another similar one, but with no specific reference to a source that I can cite (again, bold is mine):

On September 13, [Bush] said of the yet-unidentified enemy, "These people can't stand freedom. They hate our values. They hate what America stands for."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ImpulseEngine
Apr 11 2004, 02:53 PM
Dwayne
Apr 9 2004, 02:43 AM
Quote:
 
Dwayne
Apr 8 2004, 09:35 PM
Did you actually read what I said?

Let me simplify this for you, President Bush didn't say, "terrorists can't stand freedom".

I'm not saying that he hasn't said things along those lines, but that exact thing? No. And since he didn't say that, don't put quotes around it as though it is something that Pres. Bush said.

Yes, and I replied to that specific point. Did you read it? :rolleyes: Here it is again:
Quote:
 
Actually he did, word for word. Unfortunately, I can't put my hands on the reference to that exact quote right now. But here are a bunch of quotes that say the same thing in different words. I never meant that he used exactly the same words every time.

I added the bold so you get it this time. If I can put my hands on where I saw that quote, I'll be sure and point it out to you.

Yeah...sure you will. Just like you're going to show us where Pres. Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.

Dwayne,
So far, I have been unable to find the exact quote that I am looking for, but this one is very close and should be enough to establish Bush has used these words.

It's from this speech.

Here's the quote from Bush (bold is mine):

Patsy, the American people should know that my administration is determined to find, to get them running and to hunt them down, those who did this to America. Now, I want to remind the American people that the prime suspect's organization is in a lot of countries - it's a widespread organization based upon one thing: terrorizing. They can't stand freedom; they hate what America stands for. So this will be a long campaign, a determined campaign - a campaign that will use the resources of the United States to win.

I also came across another similar one, but with no specific reference to a source that I can cite (again, bold is mine):

On September 13, [Bush] said of the yet-unidentified enemy, "These people can't stand freedom. They hate our values. They hate what America stands for."

I'm surprised you spent so much time trying to prove this side point of whether or not Pres. Bush said exactly what you claimed he said.

The fact is, you have not found Mr. Bush saying exactly what you claimed. Ironically, I did find that exact phrase uttered by the President, but it was said a little less than a week ago.

If you were really going to argue against me on this, you'd spend less time trying to prove that Mr. Bush said exactly what you claimed he said, because I in fact agree that Mr. Bush has stated that he thinks the terrorists don't like our freedoms.

I would argue that the reason that phrase or version of that phrase sticks in your mind, isn't because the President repeats it ad nauseum, but because the media and the Left have spent a great deal of time reciting those words - often making the implication that the words are disingenuous or so simplistic as to not be true. It's part of the "jingoism" complaints made by many.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Now that I think of it, if critisizing the use military of military force is the threshold for the charge of treason, wouldn't Dwayne and Admiral Bills's critisism of Clinton's use of troops in Kosovo qualify? Those traitorous commie pinkos!

Dwayne, the point of the CIA paper was that there were no fundementalist Moslem terrorist links to Sadaam.
Which does bring up the problem of who are we fighting against in the "War on Terror"? Is it just against anyone who uses violence to acheive political goals? Does it have no defined goals like the "War on Crime" and the "War on Drugs"?
If so, it'll never truly end (like the two examples) and isn't really "win-able".

PS The previous comment "traitorous commie pinkos" was intended as satire and should be taken as such. I would never call someone names as it is childish, emotional, and unproductive.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Apr 11 2004, 04:32 PM
ImpulseEngine
Apr 11 2004, 02:53 PM
Dwayne
Apr 9 2004, 02:43 AM
Quote:
 
Dwayne
Apr 8 2004, 09:35 PM
Did you actually read what I said?

Let me simplify this for you, President Bush didn't say, "terrorists can't stand freedom".

I'm not saying that he hasn't said things along those lines, but that exact thing? No. And since he didn't say that, don't put quotes around it as though it is something that Pres. Bush said.

Yes, and I replied to that specific point. Did you read it? :rolleyes: Here it is again:
Quote:
 
Actually he did, word for word. Unfortunately, I can't put my hands on the reference to that exact quote right now. But here are a bunch of quotes that say the same thing in different words. I never meant that he used exactly the same words every time.

I added the bold so you get it this time. If I can put my hands on where I saw that quote, I'll be sure and point it out to you.

Yeah...sure you will. Just like you're going to show us where Pres. Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.

Dwayne,
So far, I have been unable to find the exact quote that I am looking for, but this one is very close and should be enough to establish Bush has used these words.

It's from this speech.

Here's the quote from Bush (bold is mine):

Patsy, the American people should know that my administration is determined to find, to get them running and to hunt them down, those who did this to America. Now, I want to remind the American people that the prime suspect's organization is in a lot of countries - it's a widespread organization based upon one thing: terrorizing. They can't stand freedom; they hate what America stands for. So this will be a long campaign, a determined campaign - a campaign that will use the resources of the United States to win.

I also came across another similar one, but with no specific reference to a source that I can cite (again, bold is mine):

On September 13, [Bush] said of the yet-unidentified enemy, "These people can't stand freedom. They hate our values. They hate what America stands for."

I'm surprised you spent so much time trying to prove this side point of whether or not Pres. Bush said exactly what you claimed he said.

The fact is, you have not found Mr. Bush saying exactly what you claimed. Ironically, I did find that exact phrase uttered by the President, but it was said a little less than a week ago.

If you were really going to argue against me on this, you'd spend less time trying to prove that Mr. Bush said exactly what you claimed he said, because I in fact agree that Mr. Bush has stated that he thinks the terrorists don't like our freedoms.

I would argue that the reason that phrase or version of that phrase sticks in your mind, isn't because the President repeats it ad nauseum, but because the media and the Left have spent a great deal of time reciting those words - often making the implication that the words are disingenuous or so simplistic as to not be true. It's part of the "jingoism" complaints made by many.

Who said I spent much time at all? Believe me, I didn't because I don't have the time to spend. If I did have the time and desire, I WOULD have found the exact quote...

You can be really funny sometimes Dwayne! :rotfl:

If you haven't noticed, I've been uninvolved with this thread for awhile. I've been very short on time since about Thursday. That's why I'm not arguing the bigger points right now.

Oh, and I already provided evidence for the many times Bush has made statements with this same meaning. That's why I remember it. How could anyone paying serious attention possibly forget it? :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Surok
Member Avatar
Ensign
Wichita
Apr 11 2004, 02:27 PM
Surok
Apr 11 2004, 03:30 PM
Dwayne, one of the things we learned in Vietnam is that you cannot make the local population buy in to a war and a puppet government they do not support.  Kennedy recognized this early on.  You need buy-in to support your actions. 


If you take out the sentence, "Kennedy recognized this early on.", I think I understand your point. With the sentence in, I don't.

So what did Kennedy "recognize"? And what was the result of his "recognition"?

(Note: I am not agreeing or disagreeing. I am seeking to understand.)

It has been reported that Kennedy was provided with intelligence regarding the situation in Vietnam, and deduced that it was a war we could not win for the reasons stated.

Many believe he intended to end our involvement based on this but never got the chance, but I don't know if that is accurate.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
Now that I think of it, if critisizing the use military of military force is the threshold for the charge of treason, wouldn't Dwayne and Admiral Bills's critisism of Clinton's use of troops in Kosovo qualify? Those traitorous commie pinkos!

You're opinion is flawed, because you have no idea what my opinion over Kosovo was and is. The fact is, I supported going into Kosovo AND Rawanda, but Clinton was afraid of Africa and we never went into Rawanda. In fact, I think the US ought to find more hotspots that need squelching, and getting to it.

Quote:
 
Dwayne, the point of the CIA paper was that there were no fundementalist Moslem terrorist links to Sadaam.
Which does bring up the problem of who are we fighting against in the "War on Terror"? Is it just against anyone who uses violence to acheive political goals? Does it have no defined goals like the "War on Crime" and the "War on Drugs"?
If so, it'll never truly end (like the two examples) and isn't really "win-able".

Actually, Saddam was paying Hamas suicide bombers, and Hamas is a fundamentalist organization. There were links.

As for the War on Terror - I guess a war against all terrorist organizations with a global reach and the nation-states that sponsor them isn't defined enough for you.

Quote:
 
PS The previous comment "traitorous commie pinkos" was intended as satire and should be taken as such. I would never call someone names as it is childish, emotional, and unproductive.

ok
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Surok
Apr 11 2004, 11:46 PM
Wichita
Apr 11 2004, 02:27 PM
Surok
Apr 11 2004, 03:30 PM
Dwayne, one of the things we learned in Vietnam is that you cannot make the local population buy in to a war and a puppet government they do not support.  Kennedy recognized this early on.  You need buy-in to support your actions. 


If you take out the sentence, "Kennedy recognized this early on.", I think I understand your point. With the sentence in, I don't.

So what did Kennedy "recognize"? And what was the result of his "recognition"?

(Note: I am not agreeing or disagreeing. I am seeking to understand.)

It has been reported that Kennedy was provided with intelligence regarding the situation in Vietnam, and deduced that it was a war we could not win for the reasons stated.

Many believe he intended to end our involvement based on this but never got the chance, but I don't know if that is accurate.

I thought that might be what you meant. Clearly the SV government was ineffectual so either Kennedy recognized it, but died too early to do something about it or he didn't care and had another plan.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Dwayne, sorry about the Kosovo comment; I thought it was you. I was mistaken (and lazy, I didn't want to fish through all of those threads searching for who said what).

But it's an interesting point,no?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Surok
Apr 11 2004, 12:18 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 11 2004, 12:35 PM
Quote:
 
I recognize you, Admiral. You were one of those "America, love it or leave it" hardhats whipping up on the peace marchers in NY in 1969.


No, I was nine years old.

Yet, I also applied to a military academy eight years later when it wasn't considered "cool" to be a member of any branch.

I am of the "America, love it or leave it" crowd. I love my country. I swore an oath to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you don't love your country, WHY LIVE HERE? Is it because you may loathe it but can't live as well as you do somewhere else? Doesn't that border on hypocrisy?

If you'll excuse me, we're off to a brunch.

I never said I loathe this country. Quite the contrary, in fact. I find it amusingly Archie Bunker-esque that you think anyone who criticizes the policies of their country must be unpatriotic or even treasonous.

No, my problem with the "Love it or leave it" crew is that they cannot perceive the concept that loving your country and speaking out against its' actions are not mutually exclusive. It is too often used as a simplistic and wholly inappropriate response against anyone who dares exercise their right to criticise their government.

There is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with the policy of the administration and some of the claims that have been made. So, calling George Bush a Nazi is just free speech, eh? Calling for "regime change" is just free speech, eh? Puh-leeze.

Considering some of the rhetoric out there as treasonous is NOT simplistic, it is based on a code of right and wrong. Conservatives don't believe in the moral relativism that liberals do. There ARE rights and wrongs. Everything ISN'T a shade of gray. Living within the confines of the law, instead of trying to stretch it to its limits is, is not inappropriate.

The left has lost its moral compass. Is it fear, or is it just madness?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
This is getting like a broken record, and I'm getting fed up with it.

I'm not refering to this specific thread.

Now I think that there ARE rights and wrong. I think sometimes things can be "black and white". I also think there are times when that is an over simplification - hence "shades of grey".

Additionally, by US standards at least, my politics are to the left. That doesnt mean I'm morally deficient or like to stretch the limits of the law.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus