| 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: |
| Ted Kennedy's Speech: Treason or disagreement? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 11:18 AM (2,098 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 6 2004, 02:14 PM Post #31 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Ted Kennedy is a lying piece of filth. That last remark would have merited him a major league a$$-kicking if he was even in the same city as me! Moving on: 24, here are the five reasons we invaded Iraq (in no particular order): 1. Weapons of Mass Destruction: Not only has evidence been found, it is now being reported that Saddam had the ability to unleash biological terror on his neighbors. He did have the facilities for creating these bioweapons, in many dual use factories, and had plans to build more. 2. Ties to terror. His government sheltered terrorists, met with terrorists, and TRAINED terrorists at Salman Pak. 3. Gives the UN some credibility. After all, how many UN resolutions will be passed where the UN does nothing? 4. Humanitarianism. Let's see... mass graves of over a third of a million people, torture prisons, rape rooms, a culture of fear... I could go on. 5. Changing the face of the Middle East. I consider this one the most important, and let's see what has happened so far. Libya has opened its borders to inspection, and halted WMD production. Iran is no longer building nuclear materials and has stopped building centrifugres. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria have cracked down and caught terrorists... some executed, others jailed. Do you still think President Bush has credibility issues? Kennedy is off by his usual Chivas-fogged mile (and off the bridge). If this isn't treason, what is (by your definition)??? As I said, there are limits to "freedom of speech". Lastly:
Enough of this sovereign nation bullcrap. When has a war started where a "sovereign nation" NOT been invaded. Enough friggin' Democrat talking points! You're smarter than this! If you want to hold to "invading a sovereign nation", would you PREFER SADDAM WAS STILL THERE? ![]() (I'm just f*****g furious!!) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 6 2004, 02:49 PM Post #32 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Adm. Bill, we're of the same mind on this and I totally agree with your five points. As for 24thcenstfan's statement, "Kennedy could be referring to the fact that we invaded a sovereign nation, and now we are going to be there militarily for a long time rooting out terrorists/stabilizing the nation (with little end in sight in spite of sovereignty being handed over to the Iraqi gov’t on June 30)." How in the hell can Kennedy compare Iraq and Vietnam on that basis? America did not invade Vietnam, what America did was come into a civil war on the side that wasn't Communist, while at the same time trying to prop up a corrupt government we're supposed to be supporting. If there is ANY similarities between Iraq and Vietnam it is this, both were largely creations of European imperialism. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 6 2004, 05:57 PM Post #33 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Now…now…now…present tense. We didn’t know anything on a grand scale before the war. Some of what we knew… -We (Bush/Gov't) knew a bit about Salman Pak from a few insiders. That it was a biological research facility. LINK -To some degree we already knew that there was a potential danger to his neighbors (after all he did gas the Kurds). -We knew that terrorist training was happening on a small scale at Salman Pak. At the most we should have bombed the Salman Pak facility (not full scale invasion). -We knew that there was no imminent threat to the US. In spite of this, Bush gave the impression that there was. This is my opinion only. We have beaten this horse on many occasions, so I am not going to change my mind or go thirty rounds (like in previous threads) showing how I came to this conclusion from Bush’s speeches. Not to sound too callous, but imminent threat or humanitarian reasons should ALWAYS be number 1 on the list when deciding to send our troops into harm’s way (on a massive scale). I’ll have to go back and read his speeches leading up to the war, but I can’t recall Bush ever mentioning mass graves before the war. Wasn’t this something we discovered after the invasion? (I am not making light of this issue…just trying to determine when we knew about the mass graves).
Since when has, or should I say, how long has it been since the US has given a flying flip about the UN and its credibility? How many years did we go without paying our UN dues? We didn’t start with the credibility mumbo jumbo until we wanted something from them (unanimous Security Council approval to invade Iraq).
How is that our right, or our responsibility?
Some guy was on FOX News being interviewed today about how Iran was still building nuclear materials (still had a program going and is two years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon…or something along those lines). I’ll keep looking for some info on that. So don’t quote me.
Yes I do.
Isn’t that what it all boils down to…your hatred for Kennedy because he didn’t receive the punishment you felt he deserved for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? Kennedy’s remarks were not treasonous. You are just assigning more to his words because of your hatred for the man.
Treason---“To betray one’s country, especially by aiding an enemy.” Kennedy has not betrayed his country or aided the enemy. He was just running his big mouth and disagreeing with the current Administration.
I agree there are limits to “freedom of speech.” If Kennedy had been somewhere overseas (perhaps somewhere sympathetic to the terrorists) then his opinions might take on another connotation.
You are focusing WAY too much on my use of the words, “invading a sovereign nation.” The use of this phrase in conjunction with my other example was an attempt to illustrate that there are other potential comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq (really only Kennedy truly knows what comparisons he was referring to).
Not Democrat talking points, my thoughts on the situation.
Of course I don’t. I would hope you had gotten to know my views on the subject a little better by now, to not ask such a crazy question. However, the end does not always justify the means (or motivation) no matter how much you (I) support the end.
Good. Now you know how I feel sometimes when I read your comments.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 6 2004, 07:23 PM Post #34 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
My utter loathing for Ted Kennedy comes only IN PART from his murder of Mary Jo Kopechne. His absolute disdain for our system of government while enriching his personal power is simply disgusting. If he were from Texas we would have run him out of State on a rail covered in ten pounds of chicken feathers. He has LIED on a consistant basis, stabbed President Bush in the back on several issues including education and Medicare, and shown disdain for anything that doesn't benefit him personally. Yes, he has made treasonous statements, for the reasons I outlined earlier. This is an absolute betrayal of America. I have friends over there, and the demoralizing bloviations of that windbag could damage troops. I'll bet he is rubbing his hands with glee as body counts come in. He is the absolute lowest form of life, a loathsome, despicable, piece of human offal that deserves nothing more than the back of my hand and the spittle from my mouth. This utter contemptuous, crooked, verminous scum not only soils the Kennedy name (further), but he makes humanity look bad. Out the friggin airlock! If he were drowning, I'd probably laugh at him. Moving on: How is changing the face of the Middle East our right or responsibility? Think about it, 24. If we didn't do it, who would? Yes, the Middle East needs a cultural and religious enema, much like Japan got after WWII. Islamic fundamentalists killed 3,000 Americans, and want to bring more death to our shores. As I have said numerous times, I'd rather fight them in Baghdad than in Boston. We are talking about an attempted destruction of Western Civilization, all in the name of radical Islam. We've seen what they do to their own countries (look at the utter oppression of the Taliban theocracy). They want to do it to us, or destroy us instead. This goes for Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians, or anyone who wishes to destroy us. This is a critical period in the civilization of this planet. It is either us or them. We've tried to be friends, we've tried to be accepting, but they will have none of it. Sorry, they lose in the end, unless we ALLOW them to win. Maybe I look at things through too much of a military eye, but look what is happening right now in Fallujah... the radicals wanted to draw us into a trap, and it looks like we are going to steamroller that city.
But we did. Based on intelligence of the previous decade, and speechified by two presidents and leaders from both parties, Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. He even claimed to have them. In the report to the UN in December 2002, here is what Saddam claimed to possess: VX gas - 3.9 tonnes Sarin gas - 812 tonnes Mustard gas - 3080 tonnes Anthrax bioagent - 2200 gallons (8300 litres) Botulinum bioagent - 5300 gallons (20000 liters) Aflatoxin bioagent - 520 gallons (1970 liters) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 6 2004, 08:13 PM Post #35 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
AB, I understand the implication of taking on such a task. However, that still doesn’t mean it is our responsibility. Our government’s responsibility is to the citizens of this nation first. Overextending ourselves internationally is not necessarily going to increase our security here at home. If we want to play a part in changing the dynamics in the Middle East, then we need to go about it in another way (nonviolent means whenever possible). That means working with the UN and other nations, developing relations, trade agreements, treaties, etc. Otherwise, if we do everything through forced violent means, I fear it will backfire on us in a terrible way someday. I know you don’t want to hear this nicey nicey, can’t we all get along kind of crap. I realize that there are times when this method isn’t feasible. However, we (the gov’t) also have to realize that the other way (force) isn’t always feasible either, or the method we should choose just because it is the "easy way out.”
I wouldn’t consider this to be on a grand scale. Yes, the UN, and everyone else knew about these WMD (or should I say what Saddam claimed he had). Unfortunately, the UN inspectors were unsuccessful at locating any of the abovementioned WMD before the war started. To have sent our troops into Iraq without more substantial proof of those WMD and then some, was premature at best (IMO). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 6 2004, 10:43 PM Post #36 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Oh, so you're saying that Kennedy talks about himself in the third person? "Kennedy could be referring to the fact that we invaded a sovereign nation, and now we are going to be there militarily for a long time rooting out terrorists/stabilizing the nation (with little end in sight in spite of sovereignty being handed over to the Iraqi gov’t on June 30)." No ... I went back and checked ... those are your words, but I guess you're now wanting to delete that reply. So my reply to you still stands ... America did not invade Vietnam.
Admiralbill_gomec, you're absolutely correct in suggesting that the weapons declaration spoke to chemicals and precursors Iraq had in its possession - the table of contents for the weapons declaration bears this out. But what I wonder is, where did you get that inventory? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 6 2004, 10:49 PM Post #37 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Chill out, there was no grand conspiracy to deceive you. I just realized that I replied incorrectly to the quote you mentioned in your reply (which was indeed mine and not Kennedy’s). Apparently, I was in the process of deleting the post when you replied (which I had no idea you were doing). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Adrian | Apr 6 2004, 10:50 PM Post #38 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
"That last remark would have merited him a major league a$$-kicking if he was even in the same city as me!" Admiral, why is it that whenever someone disagrees with you, they're threatened with physical violence? This Kennedy speach didn't tell anybody to do pysical violence against anybody or anything, didn't tell any soldiers to break any laws, and didn't tell anybody to overthrow the government. America's pretty tough and smart, Admiral, it'll survive a dissenting opinion. 1) Sorry, no real evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Coalition forces have inspected every weapons site known, and gave up searching a few months ago. 2) Sorry, no links to fundementalist terrorists. Secular socialist dictators and fundementalist islamic whacos don't mix. 3) Let me get this straight...we're giving the UN some credibility by leaving the UN umbrella and go it whith a coalition of the bought? Wouldn't getting a UN security okay for armed force do this a little better? Or did the UN and security council not have enough interest in Sadaam for that? 4) Sadaam had been murdering, tortureing, raping, et al for years. Some of those years (the ones when he was fighting Iran), we supported him! Yes, he was a bad, evil, man. But its disengenuous to insist that we went to war for the Iraqi people decades after they've been in hell. If that were real outrage, when Sadaam gased the Kurds (how many years ago?) we would've done something then. 5) Changing the face of the Middle East? Invading has actually changed it for the worse (creating more fundementalist terrorists than stemming them). Don't get me wrong, even I didn't know that the Iraqis would hate us this much. You know who did? George Bush the first. That's why he didn't take over Iraq in Gulf War I. As for Bush being a liar, don't get me started (actually the previous did get me started). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 6 2004, 11:07 PM Post #39 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
I never said there was a conspiracy. Jeeze -- don't over react. Still, my comment concerning your words about Vietnam stands. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 6 2004, 11:14 PM Post #40 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
No true
Not true
We're giving the UN credibility by giving the resolutions credibility. And after France declared that in no way would it support the ousting of Saddam, they were the one that took credibility from the UN. Not to mention, considering the fact the both Russia and France were profiting from Saddam spells out a pretty harsh case for why neither country would support a use of force resolution.
Not true
Not true. All opinion polls of Iraqis show the majority want us there.
Prove the lie. You can't. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Apr 6 2004, 11:49 PM Post #41 |
|
Lieutenant
|
exactly !! I was thinking today after reading of the days developements that Iraq is shaping up more like Israel and the Palestinians, rather than Vietnam. Reports of cities being cordoned off by an overwhelmingly more powerful occupying power in response to rag tag resistance to their occupation comes straight out of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Reports of women and children being killed in reprisals by the occupying power to curb the violence.....no doubt leading to more violence : West Bank / Gaza. Key figures in the insurgence being arrested........... Violence and resistance to the occupation slowly spreading from the extremists to the more mainstream sectors. I hope for everyone's sake the similarities don't continue to grow. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 7 2004, 07:44 AM Post #42 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Yes the American army is actively look for woman and children to kill in the name of reprisals. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 7 2004, 08:09 AM Post #43 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Don't forget puppies. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Apr 7 2004, 08:18 AM Post #44 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Oh but it will. It absolutely will increase our security here. Think of how may terrorist have been rooted out in this and other countries and dispatched to their eternal dirt nap. (hope they meet the 72 Virginians!) There are those who cry what did Bush know and when did he know it and why did he not act to prevent 9-11. Then in the same breath when action is taken they say it was premature. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 7 2004, 09:02 AM Post #45 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I agree, to an extent it will. However we still have to take into consideration... 1. While we are off fighting terrorists elsewhere, we take away resources ($$ and/or manpower) that could be used to root out terrorists here in the US (sleeper cells). Which I consider much more dangerous (to the US) than the terrorist over causing havoc in the Middle East (simply because of their geographic advantage). 2. The long-term effects of using brute force, bullying our way across the Middle East with little regard for the sovereignty of other nations. <---Many dislike my use of that phrase, but if our sovereignty is to be respected, then the sentiment must be a high priority for us a well. Anyway, unless we are prepared to root out every terrorist, replace every institution that teaches children hate in the Middle East, be prepared to occupy parts of the Middle East on a long-term basis, then we can't choose force as our method of changing the dynamics in the Middle East (every time). I say every time, because I do realize that sometimes there is no other way of dealing with a situation. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:13 PM Jul 11