| 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 (2,097 Views) | |
| Minuet | Apr 7 2004, 09:03 AM Post #46 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Overwhelmingly more powerful occupying power???? Have you ever looked at a map of the mideast? Israel is a tiny sliver of land in the middle of overwhelmingly Arab controlled area of the world. As to the rag tag resistance - First, it is not rag tag. It is well organized and financed. Second, have these people ever heard of the word "negotiation". It's what Israel has tried to do for years. Or maybe you agree that the Jews should be driven into the sea?
Well, if the insurgents would just stop hiding behind the women and children like the cowards they are this would not happen. Also, do you blame Israel when the Mullahs tell the women and children to strap on explosives and blow themselves up??? They are killing themselves.
So now you have a problem with murderers being arrested??????
Actually, in the occupied territories the opposite is just now beginning to happen as the people realize how fruitless thier methods of resistance are. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 7 2004, 09:11 AM Post #47 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Where do you come up with this garbage? Our soldiers do everything humanly possible to prevent civilian casualties. As minuet stated, sometimes those casualties can’t be avoided when the terrorists or "insurgents" (in a cowardly manner) hide behind women and children. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Apr 7 2004, 09:46 AM Post #48 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Ahh you are reasonable. To your points quite simply I disagree, here is why. 1. There are more $$$ and resources being spent worldwide and here at home than you can possibly imagine. Agent 'x' is happiest when he has bad guys everywhere to keep under surveilance. I really do believe when camel jockies drop harware on the Pentagon, that is an intentional swipe at the hornet's nest. It is quite personal for our military. The war on terror as described by Bush stated any countries who harbour terrorists are our enemies as well. By definition I believe that ties Iraq and Al-quaeda close enough for me. 2. Force is what they understand over there. The only thing they understand. Well, besides wasting ammo by firing weapons in the air. Look at how they feel they can send a message, murdering civilians and dismembering their corpses and displaying them after they have had their fun. I am beginning to think most arabs are more alike than ever before. The long term effects as you put it will actually be in our advantage. They asked for it and they are going to get it. The more of them that take some the better ESPECIALLY in the long term. :angry: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 7 2004, 11:41 AM Post #49 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I disagree. It is impossible to maintain an increasing international military presence without Congress appropriating more funds to the DOD. Which means diverting funds away from other programs (homeland security), raising taxes or borrowing the funds (increasing the national debt). First off, I don’t see the latter two as acceptable long-term options. 1.) Taxes are already high enough. In addition, I don’t think Bush would raise taxes…especially considering he has been *cutting taxes. 2). While many will argue that running a deficit isn’t that big a deal when you compare it to several economic indicators (e.g. GDP), I argue that no matter what…we should always be able to balance the budget (except in national emergencies). Second, if options 2 and 3 are unacceptable long-term options, then that leaves the first option (diverting funds away form other programs). Which I don't find acceptable either, especially when it could mean taking away resources from homeland security (which should be our military’s primary goal). So, what does that leave us with? It leaves us with having to operate within the allotted budget. This also may mean that we can't engage in increasing military actions internationally UNLESS we can afford to and/or it is the last resort. *Cutting is a subjective word depending on who you talk to.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Apr 7 2004, 11:51 AM Post #50 |
|
Admiral
|
Matters like Iraq are international issues. As such, they are and it is international responsibility, not just ours in the U.S. As long as we keep running in there because "well, someone has to do it", why should any other country care to get involved? As it is we're lucky a few other countries did join us. Maybe if we stayed out a little more often, more countries would get involved. Two related points: 1) If there had truly been an imminent threat, that could change matters because it would then become a stronger domestic issue than an international one. That certainly hasn't been established so, as far as we know now, we easily could have sat back and let others get more involved. Without the imminence, it was a stronger international issue than a domestic one. 2) Requiring other countries to be involved also necessitates that they participate in decision-making which, like it or not my conservative friends, means that things won't always go exactly the way we in the U.S. want. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 7 2004, 12:10 PM Post #51 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Since it looks like we have arrived there anyway, I will say what I didn't say earlier. This thread started out with one side of the political spectrum calling Kennedy a liar while the other claimed that he wasn't. Now THAT side of the political spectrum is insinuating that Bush lied while the original group is insinuationg (if not outright stating) that he didn't.
Did you really mean to say this the way it sounds?????? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Apr 7 2004, 12:32 PM Post #52 |
|
Admiral
|
Where do you see the insinuation of Bush lying?
That depends on what you mean by "the way it sounds". |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 7 2004, 12:41 PM Post #53 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
To pick just one ...
Extremely insulting due to your addition of the phrase "like it or not my conservative friends". I am asking. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Apr 7 2004, 12:50 PM Post #54 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
^^^In all fairness Wichita, he has to put up with similar comments about the left all the time. You can't expect him to rein it in if the others won't. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 7 2004, 01:10 PM Post #55 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
^^ If you are assuming that I am asking anything in relationship to the comment about Bush, then you are wrong. I was merely pointing out that "lying" is in the eye of the beholder. No one has provided any "legal standard". If you are asking about the second, I was asking for a clarification of the statement. If you feel that's inappropriate fine - IE can feel free to ignore my question. Let me just state that my opinion on the issue of decision-making has absolutely 0% to do with my political orientation. Now I am out of it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Apr 7 2004, 01:43 PM Post #56 |
|
Admiral
|
I'm not accusing Bush of lying here. I'm saying that an imminent threat is necessary in my mind before I would agree that it was up to us to consider the Iraq situation mainly our responsibility. I chose the word "truly" because we were led to believe that the threat was imminent. However, as I have said in the past, there are several possible explanations for us being told that and it's not coming to fruition. Lying is only one possibility and I'm making no accusation here.
I'm sorry if that sounds insulting, it wasn't intended that way. I was merely recognizing, based upon the same subject in the past, who is going to disagree with me on that point. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Apr 7 2004, 01:46 PM Post #57 |
|
Admiral
|
Thanks Minuet. The funny thing is I do hold back quite a bit despite what I get from a couple of people here. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ANOVA | Apr 7 2004, 04:23 PM Post #58 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
Both Kerry and Kennedy have come close to accusing Bush of impeachable offenses. Is misrepresenting facts about 9/11 and Iraq legally different from lying to congress? Why not accuse both of making comments that give psychological aid and comfort to our existensial enemies? Put them on the defensive for a while. When Kerry brings up his 'Nam service. Accuse him of supporting Hamas and Hazbollah. Only minor distortions of the facts here. ANOVA |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 7 2004, 04:37 PM Post #59 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
How about 9/11 for an imminent threat? We know that terrorists were trained in Iraq, we know that Iraq sheltered terrorists, we know that terrorists after we liberated Afghanistan didn't have many places to run. Couple the events of 9/11 with the probable location of terrorists in late 2002, and you have an imminent threat. Here's something that bothers me... a few months ago, you were claiming that Bush had claimed that there was an imminent threat before the Iraq War, and you took him to task for it because in your opinion Iraq didn't represent an imminent threat. Now you've done a 180. Why? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Apr 7 2004, 05:22 PM Post #60 |
|
Admiral
|
AB, I haven't done a 180. What I said is that it wasn't the point I was making here, and Bush's saying so and lying are not the same thing. We've had this discussion elsewhere as you pointed out and so you will recall that, for example, bad intelligence is another explanation. As for 9/11, that wasn't Iraq. As for Salman Pak, I've already expressed my discomfort with that point because you are the only one I know making a big deal about this (and maybe a couple of others on this board by now). If it was the big story you claim, I would expect to hear more from the Bush camp. Since I don't, it throws a serious question into its validity and importance to me. With all the heat Bush has been taking it should be an obvious point of defense. It's not. Why...? This still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction. The imminent threat was right here in the U.S. and probably still is... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:13 PM Jul 11