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 (2,096 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
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
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
24thcenstfan
Apr 7 2004, 11:41 AM
Jagalom Shaarek
Apr 7 2004, 10:46 AM
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:

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. :P

Money is irrelevant to action. See deficit spending in American Government 101.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
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
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Jagalom Shaarek
Apr 7 2004, 07:53 PM
Money is irrelevant to action. See deficit spending in American Government 101.

:loling: 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
UberAdmiral
Adrian
Apr 6 2004, 10:50 PM
"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).

Quote:
 
Admiral, why is it that whenever someone disagrees with you, they're threatened with physical violence?


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
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
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 7 2004, 04:37 PM
ImpulseEngine
Apr 7 2004, 01:43 PM
Wichita
Apr 7 2004, 01:41 PM
Quote:
 
1) If there had truly been an imminent threat,...


To pick just one ...

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.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
That depends on what you mean by "the way it sounds".


Extremely insulting due to your addition of the phrase "like it or not my conservative friends".

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.

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?

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.

ImpulseEngine
 
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 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
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 7 2004, 10:48 PM
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.

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
Lieutenant
Dandandat
Apr 7 2004, 07:44 AM
nztrekkie
Apr 7 2004, 12:49 AM
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.

Yes the American army is actively look for woman and children to kill in the name of reprisals.

are they ????

I thought the killings were accidental - makes no difference really does it - they're still dead.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
ImpulseEngine
Apr 7 2004, 11:51 AM
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.

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
Member Avatar
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
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Apr 8 2004, 12:07 AM

if there was an IMMINENT threat from Iraq, there WOULD have been an international response.


... and how do you know this?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
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
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
nztrekkie
Apr 7 2004, 11:58 PM
Dandandat
Apr 7 2004, 07:44 AM
nztrekkie
Apr 7 2004, 12:49 AM
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.

Yes the American army is actively look for woman and children to kill in the name of reprisals.

are they ????

I thought the killings were accidental - makes no difference really does it - they're still dead.

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
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 7 2004, 07:38 PM
What threat is here that couldn't be better dealt with there?

Al-Qaeda, for one.

Quote:
 
As I've said, ad nauseum, would you rather fight them on the streets of Baghdad or Boston?

We don't get to choose what's convenient, just what makes sense and works. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
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 »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus