Kerry demands equal time on Sinclair broadcast

[Agamemnon]

Soooo.... Kerry admitted to following orders, and being an all around good soldier then? There are many current members of the House and Senate who are war veterans.

By that same logic, John Mcain has also committed atrocities, as I'm sure he bombed places contradictory to the rules of the Geneva convention.

Also, the United States currently interns individuals, including American citizens, against their rights as POW's at Guantanamo Bay (with the administrations approval, if not direct initiation). This means that the Bush administration is violating the Geneva Convention, or, in Kerry's words (I guess), commiting atrocities. Right now. Kerry's were 30 years ago.

Also, Kerry had the balls to say he did it. The current US admin hasn't admitted to any kind of 'atrocities'.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 17 2004, 04:31 AM
Soooo.... Kerry admitted to following orders, and being an all around good soldier then? There are many current members of the House and Senate who are war veterans.

By that same logic, John Mcain has also committed atrocities, as I'm sure he bombed places contradictory to the rules of the Geneva convention.

Also, the United States currently interns individuals, including American citizens, against their rights as POW's at Guantanamo Bay (with the administrations approval, if not direct initiation). This means that the Bush administration is violating the Geneva Convention, or, in Kerry's words (I guess), commiting atrocities. Right now. Kerry's were 30 years ago.

Also, Kerry had the balls to say he did it. The current US admin hasn't admitted to any kind of 'atrocities'.

again, nothing to do with what I brought into this thread.

Some were accusing a poster of lying.

He wasn't.

Nothing more, nothing less where I am concerned.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 17 2004, 04:33 AM
again, nothing to do with what I brought into this thread.

Some were accusing a poster of lying.#

He wasn't.

Nothing more, nothing less where I am concerned.

Well, technically, none of this has to do with this thread.

People were bandying about the fact that Kerry had personally committed 'atrocities'. I don't think it's fair to let that go unchallenged, as I think that if you're going to believe that he did that, it should be clearly defined exactly what he did, and compared for relevancy and context against the current administration, for the purposes of the Presidential election.

Unless the Kerry facts are completely unrelated to the current political race (which I think is impossible, regardless of intention).

Also, I don't recall anyone being accused of lying. Statements were made that needed to be backed up. Upon further inspection, they're shakier than originally worded.

As you are doing, I'm just trying to clear things up and place them in the right order.

I'm glad we're on the same page

By your lack of addressing the issue, can I assume that you agree that to the same extent that Kerry is a committor of 'atrocities', the Bush administration is in the same boat, albeit through different means? I doubt it... you were probably just too lazy to write a long post :P

[Displaced Flames fan]

A few points...

The only reason I used the word attrocities is because John Kerry used the word himself.

Challenging was fine. Flames Addictions trotted out the Bob Kerrey mixup theory and that's when I jumped in. That had to be corrected as he was the one that was mixed up.

Next, what Kerry did 30 years ago as a 25 year old junior officer in the Navy has NOTHING to do with what the Bush administration has done today. It alsoe has NOTHING to do with what John Kerry would do with the Presidency.

I should also point out again, that I don't think anything John Kerry described himself as doing....or that he's been accused of by the Swifties is so horrible that it would disqualify him from my consideration for President. I've said it on numerous occasions, yet it is still assumed that I've taken another position.

I would ask you to judge the events independently as I try to judge all events independently. It seems the people on the left like to answer arguments with "Well Bush has done this......" instead of judging Kerry's actions on their own. I only ask this because this is what I do, and it's the only way that I will take anyones opinion on the matters serioulsy. If one can't separate Kerry's actions 30+ years ago from Bush's actions 2 years ago they have a serious objectivity problem.

Long enough for ya?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 17 2004, 04:52 AM
A few points...

The only reason I used the word attrocities is because John Kerry used the word himself.

Challenging was fine. Flames Addictions trotted out the Bob Kerrey mixup theory and that's when I jumped in. That had to be corrected as he was the one that was mixed up.

Next, what Kerry did 30 years ago as a 25 year old junior officer in the Navy has NOTHING to do with what the Bush administration has done today. It alsoe has NOTHING to do with what John Kerry would do with the Presidency.

I should also point out again, that I don't think anything John Kerry described himself as doing....or that he's been accused of by the Swifties is so horrible that it would disqualify him from my consideration for President. I've said it on numerous occasions, yet it is still assumed that I've taken another position.

I would ask you to judge the events independently as I try to judge all events independently. It seems the people on the left like to answer arguments with "Well Bush has done this......" instead of judging Kerry's actions on their own. I only ask this because this is what I do, and it's the only way that I will take anyones opinion on the matters serioulsy. If one can't separate Kerry's actions 30+ years ago from Bush's actions 2 years ago they have a serious objectivity problem.

Long enough for ya?

You're certainly correct. Bush's actions today have nothing to do with Kerry's actions 30 years ago.

Do you believe that Kerry committed atrocities (basically yes or no)? Do you believe that a man who has committed atrocities should be elected President (again, pretty much a yes or no)?

Those two questions involve both the current Presidential campaign, as well as events that happened 30 years ago. The two seem pretty darn connected to me.

The only reason I bring Bush in is that if 'we' believe and confirm (apparently with Kerry's support) that Kerry 'committed atrocities', that has a DIRECT impact on the current campaign, regardless of when said atrocities were committed. Thus, it is important to balance that point of view with any other candidate and their 'evil' acts. I'd hate to see Kerry's 'atrocities' pointed out without equal representation of Bush 'atrocities'. That wouldn't be democratic

If Ralf Nader had been blazing bodies in Vietnam I'd point that out too... but I haven't heard anything like that

[Displaced Flames fan]

I thought I made it perfectly clear.

Nothing I have heard Kerry admit to....or that I have heard him accused of.....is an 'attrocity' by my defninition.

[Flame On]

So DIS and SJ, you'd rather a guy that; after finding out later that technically they'd committed war crimes, under orders, and came back and brought it to light in an effort to stop it, you'd like your president to have kept quiet?? Me I'd prefer a leader who stands up for whats right, even if it had consequences for themselves and one that has the courage to do that. But then I guess you do like the dumb puppet cheerleader pres, so what can I say!

Attrocities are different than war crimes, so yeah in a sense he was lying DIS

I read some of y our comments after I posted that were not there when I started DIS. And I read your thing about realising attrocities and war crimes are different. And my comment about a president you "prefer" isn't really valid, cause you say you haven't chosen. Sorry if I pigeon holed you there.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 17 2004, 02:17 PM
I thought I made it perfectly clear.

Nothing I have heard Kerry admit to....or that I have heard him accused of.....is an 'attrocity' by my defninition.

My question is what did Kerry do?

The word atrocity used in this case is a sweeping generalization. It makes me think of Darfur.

By saying he committed attrocities by his own definition, what is it - as you asked? Were they atrocities to him because he doesn't want to take a stranger's life? Or did he and his swiftboat crew go Mai Lai on someone?

Labels in this instance don't help get dialog anywhere closer to the truth. 'Attrocities' is one of those words that needs to be defined in concrete terms. That was my point.

We could easily just dismiss GW as a crackhead in the same manner.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 17 2004, 05:17 AM
I thought I made it perfectly clear.

Nothing I have heard Kerry admit to....or that I have heard him accused of.....is an 'attrocity' by my defninition.

Cool, I must have misunderstood you. Glad to hear it!

[sjwalter]

Yes Kerry did come back and admit what happened in Vietnam. And as far as i know he admitted himself to commiting those atrocities yet when he confessed before Congress he diverted the guilt upon those still in Vietnam.

Thats probably why everyone serving in Vietnam is so mad at him because they know he did the same things but of course he was never accused of them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 11:27 AM
Yes Kerry did come back and admit what happened in Vietnam. And as far as i know he admitted himself to commiting those atrocities yet when he confessed before Congress he diverted the guilt upon those still in Vietnam.

Thats probably why everyone serving in Vietnam is so mad at him because they know he did the same things but of course he was never accused of them.

I don't know if you are just wrong or you are intentionally lying. Did you watch the convention? There were a bunch of veterans up on the stage with him and they didn't look like they were mad at him at all (with the clapping and the hugging and such).

Your contention seems to be "John Kerry went to Viet Nam, committed all sorts of atrocities and then came home and badmouthed every American soldier in Viet Nam".

Is that about it?

Oh yeah, and he didn't "confess" before Congress. He wasn't on trial. It was his idea to be there.

[sjwalter]

And how many Vets were with him? I believe the majority stand against him and i'm not talking about Swift either.

And you're right, he did stand before Congress at his own will but IMO he did it to divert the guilt because had he not given the statement about what happened and someone else would have he would have been as guilty as the next guy who did the same thing.

And he did come home and badmouth every solider in Vietnam, remember those were his comrades that he left behind the ones he fought and bled with, and the first rule of armed combat is never leave behind a fallen comrade, he did just that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 12:13 PM
And how many Vets were with him? I believe the majority stand against him and i'm not talking about Swift either.

And you're right, he did stand before Congress at his own will but IMO he did it to divert the guilt because had he not given the statement about what happened and someone else would have he would have been as guilty as the next guy who did the same thing.

And he did come home and badmouth every solider in Vietnam, remember those were his comrades that he left behind the ones he fought and bled with, and the first rule of armed combat is never leave behind a fallen comrade, he did just that.

You know what would be really effective? If you would actually link to something, anything, that proves your "beliefs". You believe that the majority of vets are against him, eh? Why? Where did you hear this? I "believe" you are wrong, so if you want anyone to buy your opinion, you might try to back it up.

Your lofty "he left them behind" is almost too much to stomach, it's so bloody stupid. I'm having a hard time believing you actually buy it. Do you think he should have stuck around until the end of the war, which was 7 years later?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 06:13 PM
And how many Vets were with him? I believe the majority stand against him and i'm not talking about Swift either.

I don't know about the majority, but quite a few of vets do support Kerry.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=34048

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

http://alexvets.blogspot.com/

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

Obviously some veterans are also going to be Bush supporters based on their personal politics, so they will say bad things about Kerry, and vice versa. I hope the only information you get isn't just from that website you posted. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the majority of vets do support Bush though, considering that militant people tend to be right wingers. Personally, I would put more weight on who the middle class and working people support.

And just for giggles, Kerry also has been endorsed by 10 Nobel Prize winning economists, just in case improving the economy is your motivation for voting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/

[sjwalter]

I never said he should have stayed around, but he never had to go home and accuse them of being baby killers, while they were still fighting the war.

It might have been the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, but Kerry never had a right to accuse them of what they did if he did the same things.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 06:53 PM
I never said he should have stayed around, but he never had to go home and accuse them of being baby killers, while they were still fighting the war.

It might have been the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, but Kerry never had a right to accuse them of what they did if he did the same things.

The sheer idiocy of you logic is astounding... WHY THE HELL Shouldn't Kerry go and tell what he saw happening in Nam? Why?

If people are killing babies, raping people, the public has a right to know that. If you want to have the wool pulled over your eyes you can be alone in your ignorance.

[sjwalter]

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/

http://www.greenberet.net/kerry/

http://www.vetsagainstkerry.org/

And i will also include Swift.

I would rather believe these then Kerry himself, even if they are bias.

IMO Kerry's record has to many problems that he hasn't corrected or explained to be CIC of the US.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+Oct 17 2004, 12:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ Oct 17 2004, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 06:53 PM
I never said he should have stayed around, but he never had to go home and accuse them of being baby killers, while they were still fighting the war.

It might have been the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, but Kerry never had a right to accuse them of what they did if he did the same things.

The sheer idiocy of you logic is astounding... WHY THE HELL Shouldn't Kerry go and tell what he saw happening in Nam? Why?

If people are killing babies, raping people, the public has a right to know that. If you want to have the wool pulled over your eyes you can be alone in your ignorance. [/b][/quote]
Because Kerry himself did the same thing.

I wouldn't want someone who has in their past shown that they've been anti-war, accusing those that he served with of crimes whether he and they did them or not to be my CIC.

Especially at a time like this when the US is full fledged involved in the War on Terror.

And here is the history of Kerry, may be bias but most can be backed up.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004...rise_of_th.html

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 17 2004, 07:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 17 2004, 07:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The sheer idiocy of you logic is astounding... WHY THE HELL Shouldn't Kerry go and tell what he saw happening in Nam? Why?

If people are killing babies, raping people, the public has a right to know that. If you want to have the wool pulled over your eyes you can be alone in your ignorance.

Because Kerry himself did the same thing.

I wouldn't want someone who has in their past shown that they've been anti-war, accusing those that he served with of crimes whether he and they did them or not to be my CIC.

Especially at a time like this when the US is full fledged involved in the War on Terror.

And here is the history of Kerry, may be bias but most can be backed up.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004...rise_of_th.html [/b][/quote]
Kerry raped people? Kerry Killed Babies?

Wow you are really reaching here.

Not to mention you are citing stuff from an online blog?

[RougeUnderoos]

Okay now I get it.

John Kerry was not on trial when he went before the Senate. He was not up there accusing anyone in particular. He wasn't testifying against anyone. You are intimating that he was some sort of witness in a criminal trial. He wasn't He was a spokesman for a rather large group of gentleman collectively called "Viet Nam Veterans Against the War".

He was in Viet Nam. He was telling America what was happening in the Viet Nam war. Why? Maybe because he was there and he wanted it to end.

As far as I can tell, he's got two other options when he returns.

1. He can ignore it all, go to law school and pretend nothing was happening and Americans were killing and being killed for no reason.

2. Lie.

Which option is better? Which one makes him more "Presidential"?