OT - US Presidential Candiates Arrested!

[Starhawk]

Problem is he is currently pro-anti-war if you listen to him he tap dances to much to tell whether he wants to stay in Iraq till it's over or whether he wants to lead the US into yet aother humiliating withdrawal ala Bosnia.

[TerranC]

Krsqk said:I guess my question is: What happened on the flight between Vietnam and the US to change his desire to appear to be a courageous war hero who saved the day several times?

Coming to a theatre near you: The Siamese Candidate featuring John Kerry as John Kerry...

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll go away now.

[AMF]

Oh my god, he CHANGED HIS MIND!

No, but seriously, there is no contradiction between being proud of what you are doing at the time and not in favor of the larger policies. When I was in Iraq, I took photos. Can you read my mind as well as yuo can read Kerry's and tell me why? I didn't think so.

EDIT: let me add some words that I think better explain what I mean: There is a world of difference between doing one's duty and trying to right wrongs. When he (or anyone) volounteered to go to Vietnam, to fight and perhaps die for his country, that's a powerful oath you take. You have a duty. It's not just pride in one's work, it's a calling. But, frankly (speaking from personal experience), almost getting killed tends to focus one's mind really well on what is important in life and what is not. And, I would guess that when his duty was over, he felt that he could then move on to dealing with issues or what he heard. A soldier or a marine or a sailor, is not going to disobey, be derelict, or otherwise bring shame upon their oath or their service. But when that is done, then they can reflect on what it was they were asked to do. Again, it takes a courageous man to do such reflection and come to the conclusion that the way the war was waged was wrong. END EDIT

And, perhaps he had an epiphany of sorts. When you're in-country for months and you see just one side, and then you get out and you talk to others and they tell you that they committed atrocities, that certainly could change someone's mind. And, hopefully, it *would* - again, I have a lot more respect for someone who can change their mind, especially on something of vast importance, than for someone who is going to stubbornly cling to some erroneous beleif.

That's why I can't have respect for anyone who says, at *any* point in their life, "Mistakes? I can't recall any I've made..."

That is not the type of person I'd like to be having a beer with.

Krsqk said:
If one thing bothers me about this, it's the instant change in his story. Not during this campaign, but back when he returned from Vietnam. While he was there, he was filming war videos where he was the hero, so apparently he wasn't too upset about the war. In fact, that would seem to indicate he thought war was a good opportunity to display his heroism (whether in RL or just on the silver screen). However, once he got home, he all of a sudden was against the war; he had seen dozens of atrocities committed by our troops; and he even said he had committed some himself. That doesn't sound like a good way to build up his image as a war hero!

I guess my question is: What happened on the flight between Vietnam and the US to change his desire to appear to be a courageous war hero who saved the day several times?

Of course, one could also ask what happened in the past year to change his mind again, but that might be seen as a snide political attack. Maybe that whole anti-war thing was just a phase brought on by shellshock?

[eddieballgame]

[quote]
Starhawk said:
"No....though for some of them I'll say sorry.....I'm tired so I'm a litle testy...sorry......cept for my remarks toward Ed those stand.

Meaning? --- I will always take great offense to anyone who speaks ill of this imperfect yet GREAT & GIVING country of mine. I am moved by your passion.

[Starhawk]

[quote]
eddieballgame said:

Starhawk said:
"No....though for some of them I'll say sorry.....I'm tired so I'm a litle testy...sorry......cept for my remarks toward Ed those stand.

Meaning? --- I will always take great offense to anyone who speaks ill of this imperfect yet GREAT & GIVING country of mine. I am moved by your passion.

Will again read the whole thing before you post because you sound like you didn't read jack after that line considering the reason I said I dislike Ed is because he is one of those violent we need a revolution nuts not even someone who wants to change things FOR THE BETTER please do learn to pay close attention to every post following that one again......especially because that was waaaaaay back and apparently that's your stop point as far as reading went.

Oh and I'm sorry I'm a little testy because I'm tired means I was tired so I was stressed so I was sorry there is no "reading between the lines" possible anywhere in there.


"For all, but specifically Starhawk:

If you haven't already, pick up a copy of "The Ugly American" by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick at your local library. It focuses on the arrogance that was prevalent in the 1950's and 1960's era policies in southeast Asia, and how it helped the Soviets gain an even larger foothold in the area because of the unbelievable ignorance and arrogance of American foreign policy. In its time, it turned around American policy, and probably helped the US win the Cold War. Today, you can make very good parallels with the American foreign policy worldwide under the Bush Administration, and see how Islamic terrorist Jihad organizations are utilizing the same mistakes to take advantage of our position, and possibly bring us down through guerilla warfare (not to mention through pissing off the rest of the world).

If you have read the book, I suggest reading through it again to see the parallels. In my personal opinion, the countries of the Middle East were screwed up by the territory borders drawn up after the World Wars by Britain, France, the US, and the Allies, and are not yet ready for a democratic style of government (for the nitpickers, republican style of government, there is no true democracy on Earth at the moment AFAIK). But if we are going to install such a style of government, we do it through the work of aid workers, who facilitate the creation of businesses in the area and instill the social values of elections, fair judicial systems, and human rights, etc. The way is not through a military invasion followed by the creation of what is essentially a puppet government and an election process that will inevitably degenerate into complete failure. A democratic system will not work unless the citizens of the area want to make it work, and we're not making that happen right now. "



Again you obviously havn't read jack squat else of what I posted so I won't even bother to reply to that beyond this line.

[Ed Kolis]

To Starhawk:
I believe fully in the principles in which the USA was founded. However, the USA today is based on the OPPOSITE of those principles - we have BECOME the Tories, and IMHO it's time for another rebellion! I'm just not the one to lead such a thing...

[Starhawk]

Ever hear of a positive change instead of jumping right into the flag burning government bashing militant?

Sorry but you'll still not get me to agree with you on anything you say as long as you don't even attempt to seek any positive ways of changing things....right now you just sound like a hicksville (I'm from the south so I REALLY don't like the hick stereotype so don't try to sound like it ) militia nut who wants to lead a revolution that would get creamed in an hour because there are too many people who are happy with the government and don't want people like you or with your viewpoint ruling this or any other country.

To Gandalf yeah we do have territories like I said though it seems they cost us money and give us little in return when I say province I mean taxed (as in we get more mone from them then we spend on them) territory that has the choice of either paying or getting creamed by an invasion force ala British Empire .

There is a difference between a territory and a province as far as I'm aware though I could be caught up in semantics there....

[Will]

Where to begin... there's so much.

First off, Starhawk... we're serious when we say please tone down your Posts. The SEIV Forums will not tolerate extended ad hominem attacks, flames, etc.

especially SINCE WE ARE NOT proffiting from the damned war in Iraq....in fact it's COSTING US MONEY....oy

The argument about war profiteering isn't about the US gaining or losing money. It's about the military/industrial complex corporations profitting on an enormous scale because of the war, to the detriment of the rest of the economy. The profits are going to Halliburton, BAE, Saab Missiles, United Defense, Carlyle Group, Glock, Bofors Defense, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, etc, etc... These also happen to be the corporate Groups that own the most politicians...

As for all the comments on the "US bashers", "US haters", "flag burners", and so on. The strength of the United States comes from the fact that its citizens CAN dissent. If there is ever a time when there is no dissent, then I will be very, very afraid... because that will mean that the US is truly no longer a free country. All of your comments, which you seem to indicate are directed at Ed Kolis, are completely false over-reactions, the typical frenzied oversimplifications that drive the radical nutjobs on both ends of the political spectrum. People who are generally high on rhetoric and righteousness, and low on critical thinking skills. Examples:

• the Republican mailings in, IIRC, West Virginia, which say that "the liberals" want to ban the Bible and legalize gay marriage... only half of which is sometimes true
• the "think of the children!" Groups, which seem to use that one argument to justify anything under the sun
• Groups such as PETA, who semi-regularly break into labs, dump fake blood on people, all in the name of treating animals fairly
• Bill O'Reily, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter (on that Last one, I can't believe anyone sane would really believe that Sen. McCarthy and the communist witchhunts were really a Good Thing)
• the environmental group that firebomed a few hundred SUVs a while ago (six months?)
• Timothy McVeigh, John Mohammed/John Lee Malvo, Osama bin Laden

All those Groups are guilty of mischaracterizing people they don't agree with, some to a much higher degree than others. Don't make their mistake, please.

As for the whole "liberation of Iraq" thing, I have to wonder if the countries we have "liberated" really are better off now. Afghanistan (which we ignored soon after invading and focus went to an Iraq which was all bark/no bite) went from the centralized, organizing... and oppressive... rule of the Taliban, to a short period of rule by an occupying US force, then degenerated into various territories held by warlords, and is in many ways just as bad or worse than before we invaded. The "provisional government" in Afghanistan is a joke, the only power they have is that of the few US troops we left there. In Iraq, we went in because of a supposed threat of Saddam either giving weapons to terrorists, or not having good enough security to prevent terrorists from taking weapons. We find in hindsight that there were no weapons, that analysts were pressured to conclude that Iraq probably had weapons, based only on Iraqi bravado which was meant to keep Saddam's enemies throughout the Middle East at bay. We removed a dictatorship again, and replaced it with chaos again, as we didn't put in enough resources to keep the area stable. We also removed the biggest asset the US had in the Arab world to hold the power of fundamentalist Islamic Groups in check. While Saddam was not our ally, he was a major reason why militant Groups were not forming in the Middle East as quickly or efficiently as they could have, since they were a threat to his secular state. So, based on very bad decisions that no one is living up to, we have two occupied countries that we screwed up, billions of dollars of the economy going to war instead of back into strenghening the economy, 1000+ soldiers dead, 6000+ soldiers wounded, and the biggest recruitment fair terrorist organizations could have hoped for. Wonderful

Now, all this terrible stuff has happened because of the hawkish policies of the current administration, and the "shoot first, ask questions later" type of personality the President seems to prefer. And you're calling into question the motives of those who are criticizing this government? The simple thing is, this government needs to change, and as I believe was already said by Atrocities on these Boards before, it needs to change through one of four boxes, in the following order: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. This is the soap box. The ballot box for me is in the mail right now (absentee ballot). I can't really sit on a jury with enough power to change much in the government (SCotUS is pretty much the only one with that power). And, if it comes to it, I may go to the ammo box. But unlike this administration, I have some patience before I will put my finger on the trigger, and even more patience before I actually pull it.

Oh, and on Kerry's "flip-flopping": How can Kerry be changing positions all the time, yet be more liberal than Ted Kennedy, as the Bush campaign claims? And why does changing opinions based on new data constitute a character flaw (I thought bull-headed stubornness was supposed to be the vice)? And what about Bush's flip-flopping? Steel tarrifs, not taking money from Medicare/Social Security, the Department of Homeland Security... hypocrites.

[Gandalf Parker]

Starhawk said:
Ever hear of a positive change instead of jumping right into the flag burning government bashing militant?

You might want to be aware of who you are talking about if you are including me. Although there should NOT be such a thing as a list of qualifications which give the right to comment, if there WERE such a list then many of us would qualify quite heavily. Hmmmm lets see... US citizen, vietnam vet, military retired, tax payer, functional family man, home owner. Thats quite a list of things I can put me on the "politicians listen to me" list. About the only thing I could add to it that I dont have at the moment is that Im no longer a "small business owner" or "CEO of a large corporation". Thats just me. I thought Id clarify it abit.

To Gandalf yeah we do have territories like I said though it seems they cost us money and give us little in return when I say province I mean taxed (as in we get more mone from them then we spend on them) territory that has the choice of either paying or getting creamed by an invasion force ala British Empire .

Again its not the facts, its the way they are worded and looked at by others than the person who keeps saying them louder and louder. And civil disorders in those territories has caused us to send in troops (same as the british empire).

The scarey part is that most of those were taken in war. They were taken to move out the government ruling them, we stayed in control in order to "lead them to a proper government", (sound familiar?) and now decades later they still arent free nations or states. Im sure its all in their best interest but then most such actions by countries usually are as far as the nation doing it says.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Oh, please. This has nothing to do with Iraq or crossing police lines. It's about the US government only letting two parties into the official debates. That is a fault. If you do not like it, feel free to stick your head back in the ground.