| 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 (2,096 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 7 2004, 06:38 PM Post #61 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
So, would you do what?? What threat is here that couldn't be better dealt with there? As I've said, ad nauseum, would you rather fight them on the streets of Baghdad or Boston? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Apr 7 2004, 06:53 PM Post #62 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Money is irrelevant to action. See deficit spending in American Government 101. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Apr 7 2004, 06:56 PM Post #63 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
Quote IE "Matters like Iraq are international issues." What? Our interests precede and proclude international agendas when it is in our best interest. You must love commitees. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 7 2004, 07:12 PM Post #64 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
That is so sweet, and I dare say a bit on the naive side. Money makes the world go around, and is relevant to practically every action.However, if you will note, I did say that running a deficit is acceptable in times of national emergencies. In other words, it is acceptable under certain conditions. Along those lines, if we had to send the troops over seas in an emergency, then running a deficit would be acceptable as well (if this were the only viable option). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 7 2004, 10:44 PM Post #65 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
First of all, that is a lie. A baldfaced lie. Apologize for it. I may have said that "someone DESERVES an a$$kicking or a beating" but I have (until yesterday and my RAGE toward Ted Kennedy) not threatened ANYONE with one. Are you that pathetic that you need to make things up about people? Your list is just plain wrong. ADMIT IT. There is plenty of evidence of WMDs and their programs and delivery systems. There are many, MANY documented links to terrorists (but you may not be able to read them while holding your hands over your eyes). My "giving the UN credibility" reason is because they have next to none, and since OTHER NATIONS depend on them it may not be wise to dismantle them... yet. Case in point, Rwanda. Go look it up. As for Saddam, so, you'd rather still see him there now? We did not know much of this, and certainly not the extent, before the first Gulf War. I guess you leftists have never heard the phrase "ally of convenience" before. Something HAS been done about him now, and in all the time your idol, Bill Clinton COULD have done something, HE DIDN'T. Thank God we have a president with guts, rather than one with roving hands who knows many uses for a cigar. Changing the face of the Middle East IS A GOOD THING. George H.W. Bush did NOT drive to Baghdad in 1991 because other Arab members of the coalition threatened to pull out of it. I'll bet you didn't know that. So how does it feel to be so wrong about so much. You know, you really should start looking for news in places aside from the DU and the New York Times. You might learn some things. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 7 2004, 10:48 PM Post #66 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
For all to see and hear. THIS IS WHY Ted Kennedy has committed TREASON: He is bent on destroying America's will to fight. His speeches have been proof. That's it. When you hear rantings like his, or the oh-so condescending tones of Tom Daschle, or the lunacy of Howard Dean, Al Gore, or that idiot Dennis Kucinich, they are all bent on destroying America's will to fight. THAT MY FRIENDS IS TREASON. Just so our buddy Adrian doesn't think I'm advocating violence toward them, I won't suggest the punishment for treason during wartime. I'll settle for maximum security prison. Say, twenty years to life. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 7 2004, 10:48 PM Post #67 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Amen brother. As I've said before, those fighting for al Qaeda in Afghanistan were Arabs. There is evidence to suggest that since going into Iraq, al Qaeda has started to use Chechens and some other fighters from the other "stans". I think al Qaeda in Afghanistan has needed to suppliment the Arab fighters they've lost to the US, so they're bringing in Chechens. It's funny how SOME like to talk about a world without borders, but then don't realize that, practically speaking, we already live in a world without borders. When you consider that the Russians were putting pressure on the Chechen al Qaeda fighters in Chechyna, and American forces carrying out regular operations in Afghanistan also placed a great deal of pressure on al Qaeda, but some how Chechen fighters were able to make the trek from Chechnya, through Iran, then Afghanistan to the Afghani-Pakistan border. They are either getting help all along the way getting through borders or the borders are lightly defended and easy to circumvent. Another point is, as soon as the US set foot in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and his cohorts were looking for an alternate location. The best evidence says they were moving into Pakistan, but America didn't need to go running into Pakistan further complicating things for Musharraf. America need to look months and years down the line to where al Qaeda might go from Pakistan. As well, America needed to show that when Mr. Bush said, "you're either with us or you're with the terrorist", he wasn't joking. We had to show the world we were serious. Iraq was a likely base of operations for al Qaeda and there were enough resolutions covering a wide range of offenses that there was a ready made excuse for dealing with them. No other nation in the Middle East, or the world for that matter, had the number of resolutions and severity of resolutions Iraq had against it.
The fact is, the White House has talked about Salman Pak, but if the media doesn't report it...then what can they do? I have never in my life been so aware of so much blatant media bias. There may have been more bias in the past, but as I said, I wasn't aware of it. CNN, the BBC and New York Times all had issues with truthfulness and balance. For those that need a refresher, CNN's Eason Jordon admitted in an editorial in the New York Times, shortly after Saddam fell, that CNN has squelched stories that revealed the true extent of Saddam's evil, because CNN wanted to retain access to the country. If CNN had reported what they saw, then Saddam would have kicked them out. Then there's the BBC saying that an undisclosed source was saying that Tony Blair has "sexed up" the allegations against Saddam. Once everything was examined and investigated, it was discovered it was the BBC sexing things up. Oh and don't forget the BBC field corrospondant that wrote an editorial that complained about the bias in the BBC - particularly about how the BBC was reporting the war. The BBC reporter was basing this on the BBC wilfully reporting Saddam's propaganda as fact and always casting doubt on America. At one point, it was so bad that FoxNews put up a split screen that showed what the BBC was reporting in realtime and what embedded journalist were seeing on the other half. The BBC was saying that US forces were not in Baghdad, but the video from the embedded journalists showed Marines riding around Baghdad in tanks. Then the New York Times has Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd. In the Blair case, he was discovered to have plagerized numerous stories. And Dowd, she likes to distort quotes, so much in fact that she just my rearrange the letters in a word to make a whole new word. In all seriousness, Maureen Down misquoted the president in a blatant and disingenous manner, and then had the audacity to not care. Yeah, before anyone even responds, I don't want to hear excuses. There have been too many in the media that have admitted that there is a blatant bias. Anyone on the Left that wants to deny it, will just have to come to terms with the truth in their own way. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 7 2004, 11:17 PM Post #68 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
I think a formal censure is in order. Call or write your senator. They have no facts; they are making accusations based on the shakeist of evidence, and instead of the President getting a presumption of innocence. These pompous bloviaters and brickbats can say whatever they want, but the majority in Congress ought to take control of the situation. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Apr 7 2004, 11:58 PM Post #69 |
|
Lieutenant
|
are they ???? I thought the killings were accidental - makes no difference really does it - they're still dead. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Apr 8 2004, 12:07 AM Post #70 |
|
Lieutenant
|
Bravo ! have you thought about running for President ? it's the classic "cake and eat it too" syndrome isn't it ? when will they learn ? if there was an IMMINENT threat from Iraq, there WOULD have been an international response. As it has turned out, there was NO imminent threat, which was known before hand, therefore the international response was to ridicule and deride the "coalition" invasion.........and once more, the innocents in Iraq get caught up it the firestrom that follows. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 8 2004, 12:11 AM Post #71 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Unfortunately, when the otherwise expected to be reliable intel turns out to be flawed and the imminence disappearss after the fact... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 8 2004, 06:42 AM Post #72 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
... and how do you know this? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 8 2004, 06:45 AM Post #73 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
This from the Boston Herald: On Monday Sen. Ted Kennedy, designated pit bull for the Kerry campaign, said, ``Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam, and this country needs a new president.'' By Wednesday the theme had been picked up by none other than radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who issued a statement saying, ``I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis. Otherwise, Iraq will be another Vietnam for America and the occupiers.'' This sure sounds like providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Senator Kennedy and Imam al-Sadr... separated at birth! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 8 2004, 07:45 AM Post #74 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Do you actually read the posts on these threads, or do you just scan them to find something to bash Americans with? The explanation for any deaths has already been given and you have yet to provide any evidence to explain otherwise. Put up or shut up. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Apr 8 2004, 09:44 AM Post #75 |
|
Admiral
|
Al-Qaeda, for one.
We don't get to choose what's convenient, just what makes sense and works.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


That is so sweet, and I dare say a bit on the naive side. Money makes the world go around, and is relevant to practically every action.

2:13 PM Jul 11