The Grand Deception: 'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth

[kat]

The Grand Deception: 'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778019405&path=%21editorials%21commentary&s=1045855934999)

Just a few "Snippets", you should read the whole thing before commenting on it.

The widely repeated myth of "John Kerry, the Vietnam Navy Hero" is one of the most dishonorable and dangerous deceptions ever perpetrated upon the American public. John Kerry is not a hero. He built this facade with unabashed personal promotion, aided and abetted by a supportive liberal media ready and willing to repeat in print his gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, and outright lies about his abbreviated four-month, 12-day tour of duty in Vietnam. Until the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth spoke up in press conferences, television ads, and with the now best-selling book, Unfit for Command, no one - not even the conservative media - seriously or effectively challenged the veracity of John Kerry's self-aggrandizement. Only now is his war-hero facade beginning to peel away.

Stooped to Achieve Goal
In hindsight, his obvious objective was to emulate his idol, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, serve as short a time as possible, and escape Vietnam unscathed but with sufficient credentials and decorations to portray himself in heroic terms. To achieve his goal, Kerry stooped to scamming an after-combat reporting system that was based on trust, promoting himself for a handful of medals regardless of their dubious merits, so he could "bug out" of the war zone early.


Kerry's First Purple Heart
Another troubling sequence involves Kerry's first Purple Heart. Exactly two weeks after arrival in Vietnam, Kerry was involved in a scenario in which he was "wounded" by a small fragment, about the size of a rose thorn - a self-inflicted wound resulting from the careless use of his own M-79 grenade launcher. According to the testimony of the attending physician, Dr. Louis Letson, the fragment barely penetrated the skin of his right arm and was easily removed with tweezers and dressed with a Band-Aid. Despite the minor nature of the injury, Kerry still requested a Purple Heart from Division Commander Grant Hibbard. Commander Hibbard denied, noting that there was no hostile fire involved in the incident, no casualty report, and no after-action report - all requisites for a Purple Heart medal.


Claims of Making Rescue
Based on the after-action report filed by Lt. (jg.) Kerry, he was awarded a Purple Heart for wounds resulting from a mine explosion and a Bronze Star with a "V" for rescuing Lt. Rassmann, U.S. Army, who fell overboard when Kerry's PCF-94 abruptly fled the scene of action.

Contrary to the false after-action report citing automatic weapons and rifle fire from both banks for 3.1 miles, there were six on-scene witnesses who have stated that there was no enemy fire from either bank. Kerry did return to the scene and pick up Rassmann after it was evident that there was no hostile fire. There was nothing heroic about rescuing Rassmann, who was about to be picked up by another PCF. Had the truth been known, Kerry would have been disqualified from being awarded the Bronze Star.

Meeting With Madame Binh
Kerry's meeting with Madame Binh representing the Viet Cong and with other members of the Vietnamese Communist delegations to the Paris Peace Conference in 1970, while he was yet a Naval Reserve officer, constitute meeting with the enemy during time of war. His subsequent press conference in July, 1971, urging President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's proposal for the return of our POWs , was a major propaganda victory for the Communist regime. His illegal and traitorous activities with the VVAW and the ilk of Jane Fonda unquestionably had a seriously demoralizing impact on our POWs and probably extended their imprisonment by at least two years

[graphic7]

I read yesterday that a Navy board ruled that Kerry legitimately received his medals.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/kerry.medals.ap/index.html

For some reason, this seems more credible. Maybe it's the CNN in it that strikes me.

This might not prove Kerry is a war hero, and I agree. But the whole "Kerry's family knew JFK - that's how he got his medals," is a bunch of crap now.

[kat]

I read yesterday that a Navy board ruled that Kerry legitimately received his medals.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/kerry.medals.ap/index.html

For some reason, this seems more credible. Maybe it's the CNN in it that strikes me.

This might not prove Kerry is a war hero, and I agree. But the whole "Kerry's family knew JFK - that's how he got his medals," is a bunch of crap now.


Well yes, this is how mistruths get spread..by equating a statement in the article of "approval process was properly followed," to equalling "legitimately recieved"
Other then that you're gonna have to dig out the quote from the article that says "Kerry's family knew JFK - that's how he got his medals,"
So, thanks for your non-response which basicly only amounts to more mis-direction (lies?). :grumpy:

[graphic7]

I find it amusing how the republicans were overly anal when the Bush war record documents surfaced, even to the fact of discrediting CBS (now you're saying CNN and the naval official aren't credible). What's more amusing is the republicans are pulling the exact same act on Kerry.

As far as I know, an approval process observes serveral things. One of those (I would hope) would be making sure that Kerry deserved the medals.

[wasteofo2]

God, people are still on this nonsense?

As far as I know, not even these Swiftboat Liars have raised questions about Kerry's 2 other Purple Hearts and Silver Star, but that's not important, there are 2 undisputed Purple Hearts and a Sliver Star, and the guy's suddenly a pussy who didn't do crap in Vietnam.

Thurlow, the guy who said Kerry wasn't under fire when he rescued Rassman, got a freakin' Bronze star rewarded for brave actions which "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." during the SAME INCIDENT!

The after-action report from that incident also showed 3 bullet holes in one of the boats Kerry was with, where did those come from? Did Kerry just shoot the holes himself to make it look like he really was being heroic?

Just go to www.factcheck.org, it was all debunked a good month or so ago.

[kat]

I find it amusing how the republicans were overly anal when the Bush war record documents surfaced, even to the fact of discrediting CBS I don't find discrediting forged documents to be "anal". I do however, find calling it anal to be just a bit.... disingenious.

(now you're saying CNN and the naval official aren't credible). What's more amusing is the republicans are pulling the exact same act on Kerry.
Lol, I have no problem saying that CNN lacks credibility. What amazes me is that you have a problem with questioning it's credibility! :surprised Of course you're going to have to quote me where I've said that the Naval Official is not credible. Perhaps you can do that while actually replying to my last post instead of avoiding it!

As far as I know, an approval process observes serveral things. One of those (I would hope) would be making sure that Kerry deserved the medals.
Well, good...why don't you back that up with facts...links...official statements.

:rolleyes:

[plover]

I fail to understand why kat, who rejects on principle references to the New York Times as unacceptably biased, expects anyone to take an opinion column which backs itself up with a book from Regnery Publishing (www.regnery.com) as evidence of anything.

[Smurf]

CNN may be biased bull****. But it doesn't lie.

[kat]

God, people are still on this nonsense?

As far as I know, not even these Swiftboat Liars have raised questions about Kerry's 2 other Purple Hearts and Silver Star, but that's not important, there are 2 undisputed Purple Hearts and a Sliver Star, and the guy's suddenly a pussy who didn't do crap in Vietnam. Well, actually there are problems with the other medals but lets hash out the first one before we go off into a tangent on his other medals.

Thurlow, the guy who said Kerry wasn't under fire when he rescued Rassman, got a freakin' Bronze star rewarded for brave actions which "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." during the SAME INCIDENT! None of the claims of the SBVFT have been proven false. Here's the statement from Swift Boat Member For Truth Larry Thurlow I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates -- there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.

I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.

It was not until I had left the Navy -- approximately three months after I left the service -- that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day. On Kerry's side there have been conflicting accounts of this story, including a direct contradiction to Kerry's "no man left behind speach" at the convention and Rassmans account in the Oregonian newspaper.



The after-action report from that incident also showed 3 bullet holes in one of the boats Kerry was with, where did those come from? Did Kerry just shoot the holes himself to make it look like he really was being heroic? I think you're confusing (as some of the media did) two different incidents. I think the relevent information can be found in the COMNAVFORV files but why don't you link the after action report or at least quote it so that we can see what you're talking about for certain.

Just go to www.factcheck.org, it was all debunked a good month or so ago. It was never "debunked" and what factcheck basicly used to refute them are quotes from Kerry's supporters and his biographer. I'll be glad to argue anything you offer on a point by point bases...as in one item at a time so as not to end up with a jumbled and confusing mess.

[kat]

I fail to understand why kat, who rejects on principle references to the New York Times as unacceptably biased, expects anyone to take an opinion column which backs itself up with a book from Regnery Publishing (www.regnery.com) as evidence of anything.
Don't ...Do not..derail my thread. I did not offer the Opinion Column of Rear Admiral, the "overall commander of U.S. Swift Boats during the period of Kerry's Vietnam coastal service" as evidence of anything. I offered his opinion as a starting point for a thread open for discussion on the subject matter in his column.
If you have something pertinant to HIS column, please feel free to comment. Otherwise start YOUR OWN thread!!! :mad:

[wasteofo2]

God, this had all been so thuroughly debunked so long ago, I thought no one would even think of bringing it up again and deleted all this stuff from my mind. If I have time I'll try to dig up the reality of the events, but do you really want to keep going over crap that happened such a long time ago? Couldn't you at least attack something about Kerry that will actually matter, like his proposed economic policies or something? I'd much rather argue about the present and the future than the past.

[Integral]

I am speaking as a Vietnam era veteran.

There were 2 kinds of Heroes it that era. Hero Type 1 was the men who enlisted or were drafted into the military. These men unflinchingly did the job they were asked to do. It was not their fault the war was lost. Kerry is a type 1 hero. According to the current theme you need not distinguish yourself in battle to be a hero, it is only necessary to serve. Kerry did that, why do we even need to mention medals?

Type 2 Hero was the long hairs and college students that took to the streets and protested until this ill conceived war was stopped. In some ways Type 2 Heroes were the true American Patriots engaging in the American tradition of civil disobedience and suffering the consequences.

Kerry also qualifies as a Type 2 hero.

Therefore Kerry is a Vietnam era Hero2

Where was our ignoramus president during this era? Skipping out on his minimal stateside duties and rallying around a bottle to hide from the issues of the day. Ain't he grand!

[wasteofo2]

Type 2 Hero was the long hairs and college students that took to the streets and protested until this ill conceived war was stopped. In some ways Type 2 Heroes were the true American Patriots engaging in the American tradition of civil disobedience and suffering the consequences.

Kerry also qualifies as a Type 2 hero.

Therefore Kerry is a Vietnam era Hero2


B...b...but... How could they be heros? They had long hair, and listened to The Greatful Dead, and they said that the govt. was doing something bad and they fought against the war and.. and... hippies...jane fonda... hairy freaks... oh god, you're making my brain hurt.

Why do you hate America?

[kat]

God, this had all been so thuroughly debunked so long ago, I thought no one would even think of bringing it up again and deleted all this stuff from my mind. If I have time I'll try to dig up the reality of the events, but do you really want to keep going over crap that happened such a long time ago? Couldn't you at least attack something about Kerry that will actually matter, like his proposed economic policies or something? I'd much rather argue about the present and the future than the past.

Oh no, it's never been "thuroughly debunked". It's been pushed aside with comments that never address the facts, just as you're doing here. SO, yeah I very much would like to discuss this subject. I have a bit of a passion for it, particularly since my father served in the same place during the same period of time...right up the river at danang....

[wasteofo2]

Oh no, it's never been "thuroughly debunked". It's been pushed aside with comments that never address the facts, just as you're doing here. SO, yeah I very much would like to discuss this subject. I have a bit of a passion for it, particularly since my father served in the same place during the same period of time...right up the river at danang....
Whateva tickles yo' fancy hon. I'll get on that if I've got some free time.

[kat]

Type 2 Hero was the long hairs and college students that took to the streets and protested until this ill conceived war was stopped. In some ways Type 2 Heroes were the true American Patriots engaging in the American tradition of civil disobedience and suffering the consequences.

Kerry also qualifies as a Type 2 hero.

Therefore Kerry is a Vietnam era Hero2

Quite frankly, where Kerry is concerned I think this is a load of crap. I think he used your "type 2 hero's" as well as manipulated the system and denigrated your type 1 hero's in doing so. BUT please dont' derail my thread. I'd be glad to talk about Kerry's actions upon arriving stateside on a different thread. This thread isn't about BUSH, so don't go there in this thread. THANK YOU.

[selfAdjoint]

The Navy just responded to the FOI request for Kerry's medal documents. Did he deserve them? The papers reveal that he DID! And all that swift boat stuff, with the vets carefully coached in what to say, and all of them with a personal interest in bringing down the Democrat's candidate, has turned out to be flushable stuff.

[kat]

The Navy just responded to the FOI request for Kerry's medal documents. Did he deserve them? The papers reveal that he DID! And all that swift boat stuff, with the vets carefully coached in what to say, and all of them with a personal interest in bringing down the Democrat's candidate, has turned out to be flushable stuff.
Mmmm, why don't you give some supporting evidence..links...quotes..jest a li'l sumthin sumthing to support yourself and allow some debate. :rolleyes:

[graphic7]

I fail to see why we have to support ourselves with quotes and further documenation. The Navy had a hearing, and they ruled that Kerry went through the correct approval process. That's all there is to it.

[ray b]

B...b...but... How could they be heros? They had long hair, and listened to The Greatful Dead, and they said that the govt. was doing something bad and they fought against the war and.. and... hippies...jane fonda... hairy freaks... oh god, you're making my brain hurt.

Why do you hate America?

only those who realy love america
are willing to fight for the values that the founding fathers loved
freedom is not blindly following the "LEADER"
justice is not whatever the "LEADER" says it is
the one who do blindly follow leaders are the ones who
hate the real freedoms america stands for
it is not my country right or wrong
it is not love it or leave it
it is the heros who fight the powers that lead us astray

btw the Greatful Dead and the deadheads are closer to being true americans
in the spirit of the founding fathers
then the NEO-CONed ditto-heads ever will be
rush and the ditto heads hate the freedoms that america stands for


kat tipical neo-con try at censorship as it is all about BuSh2 vs Kerry
and what they did during and after the war
bush2 hid and then went AWOL
Kerry did go and cameback and fought againts an evil war

[kat]

I fail to see why we have to support ourselves with quotes and further documenation. The Navy had a hearing, and they ruled that Kerry went through the correct approval process. That's all there is to it.
1. Do you or do you not understand the difference between process and content?
2. The Navy concluded that the NAVY (not Kerry) followed proper procedure.
3. The Navy is NOT discussing the circumstances surrounding the events involving Kerry that allowed him to attain the awards.
4. They are in particular not discussing the silver star with the non-existantCombat V.
5. They are in particular not discussing the the authenticity of the signature of former Navy Secretary John Lehman as it appears on Kerry's Silver Star citation. Lehman says he never signed the document and also questioned its language.

Need I continue?

[graphic7]

How does Kerry have to follow proper procedures to receive medals? He was nominated, the board follows procedures, he sits back and waits to hear from them. As far as I recall, the Navy doesn't have to investiage Kerry, himself - whoever decided whether he was to get a medal or not did that. They investigated the board, of whom followed procedures that were investigated in this recent investigation.

What you're doing is finding each detail of this nonsense that makes Kerry look bad.
If Kerry didn't wipe his *** this morning, you'd start a thread about that and criticize. This whole argument is so trivial.

So what if they're not investigating each of the medals he was awarded? If he won a single medal (legitimately), would it be just as suspicious if he won 20 more? You're also finding gaps in terminology from me and CNN's article, which is even more annoying.

Get over it.

[kat]

kat tipical neo-con try at censorship as it is all about BuSh2 vs Kerry
and what they did during and after the war
bush2 hid and then went AWOL
Kerry did go and cameback and fought againts an evil war
Yeah right Ray, talk about Bush on your own thread then. I know how it works with your type :wink: ..you use Bush to avoid discussing Kerry. I think it's fair to discuss Kerry on his own merits. Period.
Do you have anything on topic to say about Kerry?

[Smurf]

Yeah, he's the lesser of two evils.

[kat]

How does Kerry have to follow proper procedures to receive medals? erm...you're the one who said this, not me...I was correcting you. .

What you're doing is find each detail of this nonsense that makes Kerry look bad. So what if they're not investigating each of the medals he was awarded? If he won a single medal (legitimately), would it be just as suspicious if he won 20 more? You're also finding gaps in terminology from me and CNN's article, which is even more annoying.

Get over it. yeah right. Can you show me one instance of a legitimate Silver Star with a combat V?
Put up or shut-up.

[kat]

Evasion Evasion Evasion....why oh why am I not surprised.

[graphic7]

You clearly said: "The Navy concluded that the NAVY (not Kerry) followed proper procedure." Tell me what that one means? You're implying that they should've investigated whether or not the procedures that Kerry followed were proper to recieve his medals (which no such procedures exist that I'm aware of).

You're avoiding my other argument. If Kerry legitimately recieves one medal (which he was) that says a lot about the credibility of the others.

[kat]

You clearly said: "The Navy concluded that the NAVY (not Kerry) followed proper procedure." Tell me what that one means? You're implying that they should've investigated whether or not the procedures that Kerry followed were proper to recieve his medals (which no such procedures exist that I'm aware of). I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be confusing. I was responding to your statement "Kerry went through the correct approval process. in that there was no investigation into Kerry's actions only the Navy's procedure and process. However, the statement that "awards were properly approved" is interesting as it seems to imply that the documentation for the awards was also correct. The reason this would be important (in regards to the first Purple Heart award) is the missing after action report. Does this suggest that an after action report exists that justifies the award? If so...Kerry should release it, it would answer a lot of questions .


You're avoiding my other argument. If Kerry legitimately recieves one medal (which he was) that says a lot about the credibility of the others. If Kerry recieves one medal fraudulently...that says a lot about the credibility of the others. Now about that Silver Star with the Combat V.....

[Mercator]

Amusing. I guess Kerry was also deliberately missing the VC targets when he shot, to save his communist brothers. Brave Bush on the other hand was continuously encouraging the marines to kill the bl**** bas*****. This discussion is a typical example of "If you can't defend the major issue, then find a detail, however small and try to mak it the main issue". I am not a supporter of Kerry, but that is not because of a detail of his distant past in Vietnam. I'm not a supporter of Bush either, but not because he was a coward to avoid the draft. The lesser evil rule certainly applies. For leftists the choice is clear: Bush; because he refused to kill the communist brothers with his own hands, while Kerry did kill them and later tried to hide that fact by teaming up with Jane Fonda. Luckily I am not a leftist.

[Integral]

Quite frankly, where Kerry is concerned I think this is a load of crap. I think he used your "type 2 hero's" as well as manipulated the system and denigrated your type 1 hero's in doing so. BUT please dont' derail my thread. I'd be glad to talk about Kerry's actions upon arriving stateside on a different thread. This thread isn't about BUSH, so don't go there in this thread. THANK YOU.
What kind of double standard are you pushing? All that is required is to serve. Isn't that the standard that is applied to the current men in the service? Why is it different for the Vietnam vet?

Kerry is a Vietnam era vet therefore he is a hero. The fact that he has medals is frosting. You can cast aspersions all you want, but the basic facts cannot be changed.

[kat]

What kind of double standard are you pushing? All that is required is to serve. Isn't that the standard that is applied to the current men in the service? Why is it different for the Vietnam vet? All that is required is to serve? I don't think that is accurate but it is irrelevent. The fact is that the term "lying swift boat vets" has been tossed around quite a bit on this forum. Yet, here we are heading into a third page and nobody has supported the "lying swift boat vets" statements. They either need to support their "swift boat vets are liars" accusations or they need to stop making the claim.

[russ_watters]

What kind of double standard are you pushing? All that is required is to serve. Isn't that the standard that is applied to the current men in the service? Why is it different for the Vietnam vet?

Kerry is a Vietnam era vet therefore he is a hero. The fact that he has medals is frosting. You can cast aspersions all you want, but the basic facts cannot be changed. My own personal opinion is:

His service: good.
His medals: mixed, but I don't care all that much.
His conduct after the war: dishonorable.

Its not the protesting against the war that I don't like, its the way he did it.

[ray b]

My own personal opinion is:

His service: good.
His medals: mixed, but I don't care all that much.
His conduct after the war: dishonorable.

Its not the protesting against the war that I don't like, its the way he did it.

kerry reported to THE United States Congress
{when asked by them}
what HIS'S group [the winter solders] said to HIM
AND ONLY WHAT HIS GROUP SAID
he didnot report on the actions of others EXCEPT the LEADERSHIP
read the report and DONOT FALL FOR THE BIG LIES that
the NEO-CONs use to twist the truth
Kerry never said anything about vets not in his group
or the actions of non group members
WHAT IS DISHONORABLE about reporting to OUR CONGRESS
exactly what you were told to say by other vets

hero's speakout about injustice
cowards fear to speak

[Integral]

All that is required is to serve? I don't think that is accurate but it is irrelevent.

What happened to the "support our troops" idea? Isn't that what this is all about? Why is it that that same support can not be offered to Vietnam vets.

When I returned from a 10month deployment in 1972, there was no TV on the pier, there was no national coverage, no one cared. It is clear, by your attitude, that you consider Vietnam vets as 2nd class citizens who can do nothing right.

Why not turn you microscope on someone else? Afraid of what you might see? Supporter of Bush need to avoid any discussion of this era. Even if Kerry made mistakes at least he was involved, where was Georgie boy?

[kat]

What happened to the "support our troops" idea? Isn't that what this is all about? Why is it that that same support can not be offered to Vietnam vets.

When I returned from a 10month deployment in 1972, there was no TV on the pier, there was no national coverage, no one cared. It is clear, by your attitude, that you consider Vietnam vets as 2nd class citizens who can do nothing right.

Why not turn you microscope on someone else? Afraid of what you might see? Supporter of Bush need to avoid any discussion of this era. Even if Kerry made mistakes at least he was involved, where was Georgie boy?

I'm going to assume by your post that you also realize that you are not able to support the claim that the Swift Boats Vets are liars. If you have some notable information that can shed light on Kerry's conflicting reports/stories/medals feel free to contribute.

[Mercator]

Excuse me for asking, but, in the US, do you ever consider discussing the political agendas when comparing various candidates , or do you just concentrate on personal details?

[Integral]

I'm going to assume by your post that you also realize that you are not able to support the claim that the Swift Boats Vets are liars. If you have some notable information that can shed light on Kerry's conflicting reports/stories/medals feel free to contribute.
Where, and when, have I ever mentioned the swift boat vets?

My claim is that Kerry is a Vietnam era vet. End of story.

What else do we or should we need? He served his country in a time of need, recognized the war for what is was and came home.

I have never been influenced by, nor will I give any credence to, paid political commercials for either side. Notice that my point is not about what was presented in some commercial, but is about the content of public record. Do you dispute the fact that he is a Vietnam era vet? I do not understand the hullabaloo about one of his medals. He did not award them to himself, they were awarded by the Navy and the existing system. If you have issues with that perhaps you need to address the system that awards medals.

[plover]

Excuse me for asking, but, in the US, do you ever consider discussing the political agendas when comparing various candidates , or do you just concentrate on personal details?
We tried discussing political agendas, but unfortunately that sometimes led to competent people getting elected, so we decided it was best to stop...

[Mercator]

My claim is that Kerry is a Vietnam era vet. End of story.



I have never been influenced by, nor will I give any credence to, paid political commercials for either side. Notice that my point is not about what was presented in some commercial, but is about the content of public record. Do you dispute the fact that he is a Vietnam era vet? I do not understand the hullabaloo about one of his medals. He did not award them to himself, they were awarded by the Navy and the existing system. If you have issues with that perhaps you need to address the system that awards medals.

Amen. Wish more people would avoid the UDT (Unimportant Detail Trap)

[JohnDubYa]

Amen. Wish more people would avoid the UDT (Unimportant Detail Trap)

Absolutley. So let's talk about Kerry's political career, especially his voting record in the Senate.

Oh, wait.

[Mercator]

Absolutley. So let's talk about Kerry's political career, especially his voting record in the Senate.

Oh, wait.
Why not? I think that is relevant. But Geniere had the flip flop topic already, no? Anyway I would like to be educated on the real political issues in the US.

[JohnDubYa]

Why not? I think that is relevant

Obviously, Kerry thinks so, too, which is why he doesn't want to talk about it.

[megashawn]

I gave you a link once before Kat. And to think I have sent people to this forum, referencing things you've posted.

But this is sad. I've given you a link, in a different thread about this same, exact subject. I will now copy and paste portions of this link, since it seems your clicking finger has a rather selective ability.

from http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Note that the title of this page is "John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals were earned under "fishy" circumstances" and is deemed FALSE.

Snopes is, and has always been, about finding the truth.

And according to Douglas Brinkley's history of John Kerry and the Vietnam War:
As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors — no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin — were starting to bleed, a lot.


Purple hearts were given out for injuries. It doesn't say "serious injuries", nor does it say life threatening.

We opened fire," he went on. "The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.

The "stinging piece of heat" Kerry felt in his arm had been caused by a piece of shrapnel, a wound for which he was awarded a Purple Heart. The injury was not serious — Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm, and the Boston Globe quoted William Schachte, who oversaw the mission and went on to become a rear admiral, as recalling that "It was not a very serious wound at all."

Kerrys comments about his first injury, and more of Brinkley's comments in the second paragraph.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."

about another of his missions, which repugnicans claim he shot a innocent person in the back.
_______

About the swift vets, here is a good portion of their comments

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

also from that article.

Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him

So of all these people in the Swift Boat group, only steven gardner served with him.

Also, if you look through these opinions, the majority of them only speak about the way Kerry made them look bad in his report to Senate and his protest of the war. They do not mention his medals, and Steven, the only guy who served, and the only negative comment he really makes is about Kerry's moving of the boat.


So just what are the Swift Boat Liars saying? None of them but Steve served with Kerry. None accuse him of his medals being aquired under fishy circumstances. All they really do is offer up their opinion about why they don't like kerry because he told america how bad things were over their.

I don't need kerry, or anyone else, to tell me how atrocious war is. That is what war is, death, torture, loss of family. I know plenty of SICK individuals, whom join the army infantry, and would probably have been arrested for murder by now were it not for that.

__

But the really sad issue here, is that you make such a big stink about Kerry's war record. Look, its this simple. He served, he was injured, he was awarded justly for these injuries, and as the rule went, after 3 injuries was restationed, and then honorably discharged.

And not to make this about bush, but just what exactly did he do?

So before you respond with another of your "Do you have proof, links?" How about click on the links you've been given. This is not new information, and the fact that you have been exposed to it and still overlook it is pathetic.

How about focus on some issues, not asking an irrellevant question that is the same answer regardless if you are right (Which you are not) or wrong. He served our country, honorably, and exposed the atrocities that were taking place. Is their really a question such atrocities took place? I've sure seen them depicted in several movies, heard stories that match what Kerry reported by people I personally know who served in Veitnam. Regardless of how he got his medals, he was a hero.

My questions for you Kat.

1) If Kerry had never recieved a single medal for his service and injuries, what would you have to pick on?
2) Do you honestly believe the atrocities Kerry (along with countless others) claims took place in veitnam did not happen? This is all that the Swift boat liars are saying, that Kerry went home and started talking trash about how bad they were.
3) I for one personally consider anyone who puts themselves in, or near, the line of a fire, a hero. Atleast brave. Without question, regardless of what you believe about Kerry, he was much closer to potential death and injury then your beloved Bush. How can you be so hard on Kerry, basing all your arguements on Debunked lies about kerry, when Bush hardly broke a sweat serving our country? If that.

[Hurkyl]

1) If Kerry had never recieved a single medal for his service and injuries, what would you have to pick on?

I imagine exactly the same thing as if Kerry hadn't made his service a central part of his campaign.

[JohnDubYa]

What Hurkly said. Kerry chose to go on and on about his war record, so his war record has become a central point of the debate. He only has himself to blame.

[plover]

I imagine exactly the same thing as if Kerry hadn't made his service a central part of his campaign.
This is a bit confusing. Are you saying that unfounded attacks on Kerry's service record are only to be expected given that Kerry himself raised the issue of his service, or just that there is enough to criticize Kerry on without these attacks? The motive behind this comment is obscure – though perhaps only because I'm unsure of your overall take on Kerry.

[Hurkyl]

I am saying that questioning Kerry's record is more than fair game, since he raised it himself; I think it was rather disingenious of Megashawn to criticize Kat for doing so.

I don't have a real opinion either way, though I think those defending Kerry have put forth arguments of lesser quality. (Though not necessarily less factual value)

[plover]

I am saying that questioning Kerry's record is more than fair game, since he raised it himself; I think it was rather disingenious of Megashawn to criticize Kat for doing so.
There seem to be two distinct issues here. Most of megashawn's post is criticising kat for bringing up specific issues that seem (to him) refutable, and for which megashawn had provided evidence before. This is separate from whether it is legitimate to raise questions about Kerry's record.

To say that the angle through which Kerry's record has been attacked is discredited, and thus allowing debate to continue in that vein accepts a partisan frame for the issue, is not the same thing as denying that Kerry's service record could be a legitimate issue.

So, whether or not one accepts megashawn's evidence, I have trouble seeing him as disingenuous.

Given that kat is willing to present evidence from sources far more partisan than those she rejects in others' arguments, I would think it easier to argue that kat is being disingenuous for continuing this line of debate.

[megashawn]

Thank you plover, very well put.

I by no means intend to criticize Kat personally. As I mentioned, I've reffered people to this site in the past, purely to read something of Kat's that had stuck with me at the time. She has corrected me on plenty of issues back in the old religion forum days, and I respect her.

But to see her stoop to the level of all these other right wingers, well, its just shocking. There is mounds of evidence against the Swift Boat Liars, and hence why so many people refer to them as such. I've linked to it several times in this politics forum, mentioned it and argued, as have others.

The problem, Kat presents an opinion article. The entire group of Swift Vets only presents opinions. The vast majority of them express there dislike for Kerry due to his testimony at the senate, and other anti-war protests. Only one person served with him, and, well, I'm not repeating this.

Frankly Hurkyl, if all you read from my post was me being mean to Kat, you need to reread my post, and instead of slinging big worded insults, trying proving or disproving its content.

[Hurkyl]

I only said what I had to say; my post was not intended to address Megashawn's post in its entirety.

[megashawn]

so you have nothing to add to the discussion
nothing to refute
no point to make
and no stance on the issue

Why comment at all?

[Hurkyl]

Why comment at all?If the question was worth asking, then is it not worth answering?

[megashawn]

uhm, ok, that makes no sense.

All I'm trying to say is before you go around preaching the gospel, try to make sure you examined the whole story, not just the parts you agree with.

have a good night.

[kat]

I gave you a link once before Kat. And to think I have sent people to this forum, referencing things you've posted.

But this is sad. I've given you a link, in a different thread about this same, exact subject. I will now copy and paste portions of this link, since it seems your clicking finger has a rather selective ability. I would think that past experience in debating issues with me (on the religious forum in particular) you would have at least realized that I try to educate myself thoroughly on any subject I'm interested in. I've also, numerous times stated that I am unsure of something I've posted If I didn't feel that I've researched enough to make an educated statement about it. So, I think you can save the uppity holier then though speachisms.
On your snopes link,.... I had checked snopes in regards to this subject....BEFORE it was ever discussed on this forum and certainly before you posted your link. The first time I checked it I noticed it had not been updated since February, so I gave it the benefit of doubt. After you posted your link, I did return to Snopes again and noticed it had been updated but little content had been changed. It was still erroneous and misleading. It still had used only Kerry biased sources which are already known to have faulty/conflicting statements and information within them.
So, what's sad is that YOU have not done anywhere near the research I have on this subject (of this I am ABSOLUTELY sure unless you have spent hours pouring over records and Kerry's own ON THE RECORD statements, muddled through DU, KOS, along with right wing sites, Naval records, old newspaper articles etc. etc.).
As for the rest of your post, I will gladly go over it....line by line through the rest of the week. I cannot tonight as I'm up in less then 5 hours and have a long drive ahead of me.
So, in the meantime...maybe you should get your debate materials together.....:wink:

[JohnDubYa]

megashawn, did John Kerry spend Christmas Eve in Cambodia? I want to see if he belongs on the list of Swift Boat Liars.

[plover]

1) If Kerry had never recieved a single medal for his service and injuries, what would you have to pick on?
I imagine exactly the same thing as if Kerry hadn't made his service a central part of his campaign.
I am saying that questioning Kerry's record is more than fair game, since he raised it himself; I think it was rather disingenious of Megashawn to criticize Kat for doing so.

I don't have a real opinion either way, though I think those defending Kerry have put forth arguments of lesser quality. (Though not necessarily less factual value)
I only said what I had to say; my post was not intended to address Megashawn's post in its entirety.
I'm still puzzled. By "not intended to address Megashawn's post in its entirety", are you saying that the original comment was only applicable to megashawn's question 1?

But you also maintain that the comment was intended to imply that megashawn was disingenuous, at least as regards his question 1. However, the question, as I read it, is intended to mean: Suppose Kerry had never received any medals, and therefore everything that the Swift Boat people are saying about them would not exist, how then would you attack Kerry's record? In other words, it would remain true that Kerry had volunteered for duty in Vietnam. How is this disingenuous in the sense you say?

My impression is that your comments are usually sensible, and that you usually take pains to remain more or less neutral. I asked about the original comment you made because I couldn't come up with a reading that seemed 'in character'. Your further comments have appeared inconsistent and confusing to me. My guess is the most likely reason for this is that we're talking past each other somehow. Or is there something else I'm missing here?

[Hurkyl]

Over the years, I seem to have acquired a knack for saying a lot less than people think. :frown:


I read Megashawn as asserting Kerry's war record isn't really a valid subject of debate, and one of his reasons for that assertion is that it is an "irrelevant question".

One of my bigger pet peeves is when one side raises a topic, the other side addresses the topic, and then the first side both holds their ground and suggests that the topic isn't worth addressing... that is what prompted me to respond rather than continue to lurk as I have been doing.

My rationale, of course, is that if the topic wasn't worth addressing, then the first side shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, and shouldn't continue arguing on the topic.


As for the quoted question, I had read it as an implication that Kat doesn't have anything "relevant" to say, because she's chasing this irrelevant topic. I had hoped my answer would both suggest why (I think) it's a valid topic, and that Kat's pursuit is not an indicator that there's nothing else for her to attack. (Of course, I don't mean to suggest there is something else for her to attack either)

[russ_watters]

That's my opinion as well, Hurkyl. I don't feel that strongy either way about Kerry's war record (what he did after is another story), but Kerry's the one who made it the centerpiece of his campaign. He gambled that it would help and he lost.

[selfAdjoint]

Right wingers keep saying that Kerry made his Viet Nam service the centerpiece of his campaign, but I honestly never saw him do it. He responded to the Swift Boats smear, but I never saw that he discussed his service before that. Of course various left wing bloggers were happy to contrast his service with whatever you want to call what Bush did in the same time frame. But none of that AFAICR came from the Kerry campaign.

[JohnDubYa]

Did you listen to his convention speech?

If it isn't about his war record, then what issue is he actually campaigning on? He won't even mention his Senate voting record. He can't make up his mind about the war in Iraq.

And what was "Operation Fortunate Son" all about?

[selfAdjoint]

He is perfectly clear on Iraq. He supported the war, and still supports the ouster of Saddam. He says the Bush admministration has made a hash of the occupation and is in dreamland when they say they have brought or are about to bring democracy to Iraq. What's not to understand? What for that matter is not to like?

[JohnDubYa]

Who said "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."?

Say what you want, but that does not sound like someone who supports the war. And it isn't the type of rhetoric that produces confident troops.

[russ_watters]

Right wingers keep saying that Kerry made his Viet Nam service the centerpiece of his campaign, but I honestly never saw him do it. Have you ever heard him speak? He's still using it as the centerpiece of his campaign. He talks about it in almost every speech. He mentioned it just today when he compared the war in Iraq with the war in Vietnam when responding to the Iraqi PM's speech in Congress. His first words on the podium at the DNC were "reporting for duty." His bio on his website still has an intro paragraph followed by one paragraph about his birth/parents (with an opening sentence that paraphrases the "reporting for duty" thing), then two paragraphs about vietnam, followed by one paragraph about everything since, followed by the conclusion. Is Vietnam twice as important as everything he's done since? He is perfectly clear on Iraq. He supported the war, and still supports the ouster of Saddam. He says the Bush admministration has made a hash of the occupation and is in dreamland when they say they have brought or are about to bring democracy to Iraq. What's not to understand? What for that matter is not to like? I can't remember - was he the one who spoke against it, then voted for it or spoke for it then voted against it?

[plover]

It's fair to say that the Democratic Convention used Kerry's war record as an important theme, but equating the convention with Kerry's entire campaign is hardly a meaningful framework.

[JohnDubYa]

Kerry has two themes:

1. I'm a hero.

2. I disagree with everything Bush does. (And if I agreed with it in the past, then I don't anymore.)

So let me ask you a question, plover. Why isn't Kerry pounding his Senate voting record to the country? Why isn't he relying on all the great things he did as a Senator? Why isn't he using his Senate voting record to show what kind of leader he is going to be for the country?

[plover]

So let me ask you a question, plover. Why isn't Kerry pounding his Senate voting record to the country? Why isn't he relying on all the great things he did as a Senator? Why isn't he using his Senate voting record to show what kind of leader he is going to be for the country?
What's your point? That you think Kerry is a crappy Senator in some fashion that goes beyond supporting positions you disagree with? If you have a specific problem with his record, why not say what it is? (Though if it's only based on misinterpretations of some of Kerry's more awkwardly worded statements, I don't see why I should respond. And anyway I'm no great defender of Kerry per se, I just find Bush et al. lethally incompetent and deluded.)

The last presidential candidate whose main record was in the Senate was Bob Dole. Here's a link to Dole's '96 convention speech (http://www.4president.org/speeches/dolekemp1996convention.htm). I count one and (possibly) a half mentions of his Senate record. (And I see nothing in the speech that compares as an indication of character to the fact that Kerry chose to serve in Vietnam.) Was Dole's Senate record an embarrassment? If not, why wasn't he talking about it?

[Integral]

2. I disagree with everything Bush does. (And if I agreed with it in the past, then I don't anymore.)

What more does he need to say? I am sold!

[vanesch]

What more does he need to say? I am sold!

Indeed, I haven't seen a worse president than Bush Jr. The reason is not that he has different political views than mine, or that he made mistakes ; all that can happen. The reason is that he's a liar, in that he knew the truth, and, in order to mislead his friends, he made up stories, and killed thousands of people. The Iraq war has killed more people than Ben Laden and Sadam together. The funny thing is that he has no problem continuing to lie even when the evidence is put in his face (and moreover it works!). I think he has abused severely of true friendship such as the one of Tony Blair (I'm pretty convinced Blair himself, when he engaged into the Irak war, thought he was honestly doing the right thing), and he has been quite nasty with friends who knew he was making a big mistake (such as Chirac).
Everything happened exactly as the opponents of the war predicted - even worse - but on top of that he KNEW there were no weapons of mass destruction. Now everybody knows it, but apparently that doesn't play a role anymore. Now the argument seems to be: I made such a big mess, that we are all in big trouble now, so in such a crisis it is not a good idea to change strategies, so vote for me. And he scares so much hell out of people that it seems to work.
So, to come back to the original question, ANYTHING is better than this guy. However, a totally different question is: how to get out of that mess he made ? I don't think Kerry has an answer. In fact, nobody has an answer. Bush certainly doesn't have an answer. In a way he merits to stay, to be confronted with his own catastrophy. On the other hand, what not else can he do as a damage to the US and the world ?
What I do not understand is that he's rising in the voting intentions of the people of the US. Everybody must know now that he lied intentionally, that he made big mistakes doing so, and that he has created single-handed the biggest threat to world peace ever. And thinking that Bill Clinton was fingerpointed for a very tiny lie about having fun with a girl in his office !

[marlon]

The Iraq war has killed more people than Ben Laden and Sadam together.

This is not true. I am not really a Bush fan but i think that he is too often criticized with wrong statements that are totally irrelevant. Iraq is a mess right now, but Saddam is gone. I am convinced that a democratic president would not have been able to solve this problem in another "better" way...

Just look at the actions of Clinton beautifully "demonstrated" and orchestrated in Black Hawk Down...


regards
marlon

[Locrian]

I agree that vanesch's statement is rediculous, but I find the one you followed it with to be inaccurate as well. Pres Clinton wasn't even aware the raid shown in Black Hawk Down was going to take place, or had any hand in it. It would have been rather hard for him to orchestrate it.

[marlon]

I agree that vanesch's statement is rediculous, but I find the one you followed it with to be inaccurate as well. Pres Clinton wasn't even aware the raid shown in Black Hawk Down was going to take place, or had any hand in it. It would have been rather hard for him to orchestrate it.

Yes that is my point. Clinton had to face a lot of things that he did not controll, just like this condition in Iraq...

Them democrats can "mess up" just as badly as the republicans yet they always pretend to be the "correct" and peace-loving politicians.

marlon

[russ_watters]

The president does, however, control the parameters of the overall mission. He decides who goes and what equipment to take with them. When our guys in Somalia had to borrow armored personnel carriers from a 3rd world nation, that was Clinton's fault. Similarly, the lack of MP's and a decent occupation force after the end of major combat in Iraq was a Bush error.
What more does he need to say? I am sold! Indeed, he'll get a lot of votes for that. But what he's finding out is that only gets you just under the amount of votes necessary to win. To get those extra few undecideds (me) requires that he stand for something.

[vanesch]

Iraq is a mess right now, but Saddam is gone. I am convinced that a democratic president would not have been able to solve this problem in another "better" way...


There was no problem to be solved. Bush Sr. had confined Saddam as an external threat, and it was a stable, non-religious dictatorship that was just busy with its own internal affairs. He was a wise man. Bush Jr. changed it into the biggest terrorist zone ever, gave a new raison-d'etre for all islamist fundamentalists, and destabilized all non-religious arabic governments. All this in the name of "safety for the world", hahaha. Iraq will be a dangerous mess for a very long time to come, believe me.

cheers,
patrick.

[vanesch]

I agree that vanesch's statement is rediculous,

How many people did Ben Laden kill ?
~ 3500 for the twin towers, ~ 500 for the two ambassades.
How many people did Bush kill in the Iraq war ? ~ 1000 allied solders if I'm not mistaking, many times more Iraqi people during the occupation because of lack of protection, and an unqualified number of "people to be liberated", which runs in the several thousand if not the several tens of thousand during the targetted bombing. Nobody cared to count.

It is not so ridiculous what I said.

cheers,
Patrick.

[marlon]

There was no problem to be solved. Bush Sr. had confined Saddam as an external threat, and it was a stable, non-religious dictatorship that was just busy with its own internal affairs. He was a wise man. Bush Jr. changed it into the biggest terrorist zone ever, gave a new raison-d'etre for all islamist fundamentalists, and destabilized all non-religious arabic governments. All this in the name of "safety for the world", hahaha. Iraq will be a dangerous mess for a very long time to come, believe me.

cheers,
patrick.

that is just wrong man,... this is the typical hypocrite view of the average European citizen who hardly know the difference between democrats and republicans. terrorism is as old as the human kind. Just look at where Bin Laden came from.

It disturbs me very much that we Europeans always criticize the US for being the police force of the world. We proclaim to be the diplomats of the world, but i don't see how diplomacy can achieve something when you are "talking" to fundamentalists who are ready to die for their cause.

Why do we see the US as the aggressor here? they are just doing a job that we could never execute with our "fantastic" military capabilities. What do you think would happen if Saddam or Bin Laden would have the same power as Bush ??? I think the world is better of with Bush having this amount of international influence.

Besides, in Europe there is a fundamental fear for islam, let's be honest and admit that. Just look at the success of right wing parties in Belgium, The Netherlands, France and recently Germany... These are not just right wong parties but extreme right-wing parties. Look at the growing popularity of the neonazis in Germany or Le Penn in France. In my country, Belgium, The extreme right-wing party called the Vlaams Blok is the BIGGEST party in Flanders (The dutch speaking part of Belgium...)
This happens not without some reason. We need to open our eyes, the world is deeply divided here and we keep on wining about how to solves everything with just words. Diplomacy is worth nothing without a military "spine" backing it up, but i admit it is the best "reasonable" solution.


The only solution to terrorism is EDUCATION and humor...people need to see that everything is relative. Maybe the solution may come from the work of Einstein applied onto social structures... :wink:

regards
marlon

[marlon]

How many people did Ben Laden kill ?
~ 3500 for the twin towers, ~ 500 for the two ambassades.
How many people did Bush kill in the Iraq war ? ~ 1000 allied solders if I'm not mistaking, many times more Iraqi people during the occupation because of lack of protection, and an unqualified number of "people to be liberated", which runs in the several thousand if not the several tens of thousand during the targetted bombing. Nobody cared to count.

It is not so ridiculous what I said.

cheers,
Patrick.

??????????????????????????????????????????
and how many people did al Quada kill
how many people did Saddam kill ???

this is just crazy man...this is childish and naive... I think there is a "little" difference between nature of the intentions of these killings, wouldn't you say.

I do not think that Bush is gonna whipe out the entire city of LA with chemical weapons

[vanesch]

Yes that is my point. Clinton had to face a lot of things that he did not controll, just like this condition in Iraq...
Them democrats can "mess up" just as badly as the republicans yet they always pretend to be the "correct" and peace-loving politicians.


Bush Jr. pushed the button when THE WHOLE WORLD told him not to do so ; he was in full control there. This is not messing up a mission. It is far worse, it was working out the wrong strategy, for the wrong reasons, with the wrong means. Especially because he did so for reasons he knew very well were false. And, indeed, he also messed up the mission! But it was difficult NOT to do so, was it ? Was he serious when he thought that the Iraqi people would wave with american flags ? You don't have to be a bright politician to see you're gonna have a small problem there.
So you have there in the most powerful seat in the world a liar who messes up, and has no idea where he's going. Can't think of anything worse, honestly.
This has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. This is mean stupidity of the worst kind.

cheers,
Patrick.

[Locrian]

How many people did Ben Laden kill ?


You didn't say Bin Laden. You said Bin Laden and Saddam together. Saddam was certainly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, which the Iraq war and occupation cannot be said to have caused. Therefore I find your statement to be a gross exaggeration.

[marlon]

Bush Jr. pushed the button when THE WHOLE WORLD told him not to do so ; he was in full control there. This is not messing up a mission. It is far worse, it was working out the wrong strategy, for the wrong reasons, with the wrong means. Especially because he did so for reasons he knew very well were false. And, indeed, he also messed up the mission! But it was difficult NOT to do so, was it ? Was he serious when he thought that the Iraqi people would wave with american flags ? You don't have to be a bright politician to see you're gonna have a small problem there.
So you have there in the most powerful seat in the world a liar who messes up, and has no idea where he's going. Can't think of anything worse, honestly.
This has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. This is mean stupidity of the worst kind.

cheers,
Patrick.

First of all it is a lie to say that the whole world was against the actions in Iraq. Now, we can discuss about the reasons for starting such a military action but i think that is useless right now. I think that in the US many people may say publically that they are against Bush but between the safe walls of their houses they are glad that Saddam is gone. Just like here in Europe where everybody is opposed against right-wing parties, yet they keep growing and growing, this is one of the many aspects of the hypocrisy i was referring to.

i am just saying that a democratic president would not have done a better job with trying to fight terrorism.

marlon

[vanesch]

how many people did Saddam kill ???

I do not think that Bush is gonna whipe out the entire city of LA with chemical weapons

This was all internal affairs to Iraq. The outside world didn't have anything to do with it. Outside of his own country, Saddam didn't kill so many people, and he didn't claim to do so for the safety of the world, no ?

As I said, Ben Laden killed probably about 4000 people.

cheers,
patrick.

[marlon]

This was all internal affairs to Iraq. The outside world didn't have anything to do with it. Outside of his own country, Saddam didn't kill so many people, and he didn't claim to do so for the safety of the world, no ?

As I said, Ben Laden killed probably about 4000 people.

cheers,
patrick.


ohh come on man, you must be joking here.

The people Saddam killed in Iraq were not even regarded as being real equal citizens of Iraq. He literally called them dogs. And how about the actions in Cuwait or the chemical war in Iran ???


And this not just about Bin Laden, you need to talk about al quaeda in total...
You might as well speak about Hitler without mentioning the entire holocaust. That is illegal, you know...
marlon

[vanesch]

I think that in the US many people may say publically that they are against Bush but between the safe walls of their houses they are glad that Saddam is gone.

Saddam was no thread AT ALL. As I said, it was a stable dictatorship, occupied with killing his own people in his own backyard. He was no external thread. This was the Big Lie of Bush Jr. His father had already solved the problem. In the mean time, Bin Laden is still happily walking his way, isn't he ? So their walls aren't so safe. And they are a lot less safe (just as ours in Europe) since Bush Jr. had his Bright Idea.

cheers,
Patrick.

[vanesch]

ohh come on man, you must be joking here.

The people Saddam killed in Iraq were not even regarded as being real equal citizens of Iraq. He literally called them dogs. And how about the actions in Cuwait or the chemical war in Iran ???


I agree that Saddam was dangerous BEFORE the first Gulf War, and Bush Sr. was a wise man. He knew exactly what to do and what not. He broke Saddams external military power, and was wise enough to let the dictatorship exist so that it was stable and confined. But sonnyboy couldn't hear reason.
I don't count the people Saddam killed in Iraq. That is the internal affair of the Iraq people ; as long as they don't start a revolution themselves, and ask for external help, it is not up to the initiative of an outside force to interfere.

cheers,
Patrick.

[marlon]

Saddam was no thread AT ALL. As I said, it was a stable dictatorship, occupied with killing his own people in his own backyard. He was no external thread. This was the Big Lie of Bush Jr. His father had already solved the problem. In the mean time, Bin Laden is still happily walking his way, isn't he ? So their walls aren't so safe. And they are a lot less safe (just as ours in Europe) since Bush Jr. had his Bright Idea.

cheers,
Patrick.

Father Bush did NOT solve the question of Iraq, he solved the invasion of Saddam in Kuwait. he left Iraq after he urged thousands of people to stand up against saddam with his support (of the military) and then just walked away leaving these people to die. They were slaughtered by Saddam once the US was gone.

And what is this nonsense about a stable dictatorship??? You are forgetting all the embargo's against Iraq because Saddam would not allow foreign investigations into the country he stole...leaving his own people to starve on the streets

saddam did fought war abroad, why do you deny that ??? have you forgotten about Iran and the very reason for Gulf War one???

saddam was definitely an external threat. I know they never found no WMD's but he would never hesitate to use one if he had the option. He used chemical weapons for christ's sake... OPEN YOUR EYES MAN... :surprised :surprised


regards
marlon

[vanesch]

Now, we can discuss about the reasons for starting such a military action but i think that is useless right now.

No, it is the main point, to me. If Bush Jr. would have started the war for the right reasons (imagine that there WERE weapons of mass destruction ready), and it turned into a mess, then I wouldn't be so virulent. Then he might have messed up the mission, but the strategy was right and he was a honest man taking the courageous and right decisions (but made a few unfortunate mistakes). He would have been telling the truth.
But there was none of all that. He just USED the fear of the american people to implement a neo-liberal viewpoint, and he lied to everybody in order to get them going with him. I don't think one single second he really thought himself that Saddam was any kind of threat.

On the other hand, you're right. What has been done, has been done. The mess is there. And indeed, from a practical point of view, I haven't got any idea who can clean it up. But the idiot who made it in the first place does deserve spanking, no ?

cheers,
Patrick.

[Locrian]

This was all internal affairs to Iraq. The outside world didn't have anything to do with it.

So Iraqi lives mean so little to you? I find that disturbing. As someone who isn't a fan of the war in Iraq, I wish you would take a more reasonable line of argument. Overexaggerations and moral miscalculations do little to promote good critical examinations of what has occured.

[marlon]

No, it is the main point, to me. If Bush Jr. would have started the war for the right reasons (imagine that there WERE weapons of mass destruction ready), and it turned into a mess, then I wouldn't be so virulent. Then he might have messed up the mission, but the strategy was right and he was a honest man taking the courageous and right decisions (but made a few unfortunate mistakes). He would have been telling the truth.
But there was none of all that. He just USED the fear of the american people to implement a neo-liberal viewpoint, and he lied to everybody in order to get them going with him. I don't think one single second he really thought himself that Saddam was any kind of threat.

On the other hand, you're right. What has been done, has been done. The mess is there. And indeed, from a practical point of view, I haven't got any idea who can clean it up. But the idiot who made it in the first place does deserve spanking, no ?

cheers,
Patrick.


a spanking ? hmmm??? depends on where exactly ?? :uhh:

On a more serious note though, there were facilities found in Iraq that were used in order to construct WMD's. Yet indeed they never found WMD's.

In North Korea there are WMD's, do you feel there needs to be an invasion over there when this "nation" does not follow the interantional rule of the VN ???

marlon

[marlon]

So Iraqi lives mean so little to you? I find that disturbing. As someone who isn't a fan of the war in Iraq, I wish you would take a more reasonable line of argument. Overexaggerations and moral miscalculations do little to promote good critical examinations of what has occured.

you read my mind , Locrian

marlon

[vanesch]

So Iraqi lives mean so little to you?

It is just that it isn't our business, as long as there is no danger for it to devellop into a thread to us. And let us be honest, there are A LOT of dictators in the world who kill A LOT of people. Yet, nobody cares. So this cannot be the argument. What I see is that the non-existing threat of Saddam was used as an lie to turn it into a REAL threat. You have to be damn stupid, no ?
And that's where I admire the wisdom of Bush Sr. and see the stupidity of Bush Jr.

cheers,
Patrick.

[vanesch]

In North Korea there are WMD's, do you feel there needs to be an invasion over there when this "nation" does not follow the interantional rule of the VN ???


That's up to the VN to decide. Just as it was in Iraq, no ?
In the US too, there are WMD. In Russia, China and Pakistan, too. In France and the UK, too. In Israel too. As long as they are in the hands of democracies who care for themselves, or in the hands of non-religious dictators who play power games, there is no problem, because the rational power calculation will always refrain them from using them. So they are rather useless toys to show off with, no big deal. The real danger is when WMD are in the hands of religious fanatics. North Korea is no issue.

cheers,
Patrick.

[marlon]

North Korea is no issue.


hahahaha, really ???

Why do you think the light in that country is only used for illuminating pictures and statures of the leader over there. Why do you think there are concentration camps out there???

Why do you think they are best friends with the world???

OOOhhh, yes i forgot, that is not our business since this involves stuff that is going on inside this "nation".

If I follow your "deep" way of thinking we would probably still be under the supremacy of the nazi-regime. Are you a real European Vanesch, or just a loner in this world minding his own futile business...just wondering :uhh:

regards
marlon

[kawikdx225]

It is just that it isn't our business, as long as there is no danger for it to devellop into a thread to us.

That is the French way, not the American way.

[vanesch]

That is the French way, not the American way.

Probably (although it hasn't always been that way :-).
I prefer it that way. By large. Only mix in with others if you are concerned yourself.

cheers,
Patrick.

[vanesch]

If I follow your "deep" way of thinking we would probably still be under the supremacy of the nazi-regime.

No, because that was an external agression. Just as the agression of Kuwait was. So intervention to help a friend is no problem. What I have a problem with is declaring an uninvited war for an ungrounded reason of which the one who declares it knows very well that it is ungrounded.

cheers,
Patrick.

[JohnDubYa]

I prefer it that way. By large. Only mix in with others if you are concerned yourself.

As someone else has said, that selfish, cowardly attitude is not American. In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can. Sure it may bite us on occassion, but our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed. There are a lot of free South Koreans that can thank us for not being so self-centered.

[marlon]

No, because that was an external agression. Just as the agression of Kuwait was. So intervention to help a friend is no problem. What I have a problem with is declaring an uninvited war for an ungrounded reason of which the one who declares it knows very well that it is ungrounded.

cheers,
Patrick.

Well, i see your point here and i agree. But then in this case the war in Iraq would be justified since Saddam committed crimes against virtually every population that lives at the borders of Iraq. Look at what happened in southern Turkey and Syria...

Besides in this case, making the analogy with the second world war, Bush sr should have eliminated the regime of Saddam in the first place just as was done with the nazis here...I mean, Germany and italy and Spain,... were no allies of the US back then yet they were all liberated by the US and Canada. father Bush should have eliminated the regime of Saddam, he failed to do so. Now his son is cleaning up his mess. Thus the War in Iraq is justified, no ???

marlon

[plover]

As someone else has said, that selfish, cowardly attitude is not American. In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can. Sure it may bite us on occassion, but our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed. There are a lot of free South Koreans that can thank us for not being so self-centered.
As a statement about American foreign policy, this is so a-historical it's funny. Historically the U.S. was isolationist. Americans entered the World Wars out of concern for others? Korea and Vietnam were about the Korean and Vietnamese peoples not fear of communism?

Our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed, but traditionally those who thought it was part of foreign policy were "bleeding-heart" liberals... :eek:

Maybe things have changed in some fashion, but I have trouble seeing the degree of care, planning, coalition forming, and sophistication applied to actually helping and rebuilding Afghanistan or Iraq (as opposed to just toppling their regimes and introducing political instability) as showing any evidence of "concern for the lives of others" on the part of the administration. And just because there is a detail or two that can be found as a sop to war-supporters consciences doesn't mean that considered from the viewpoint of that concern that the overall effect of Bush's policies is not epically catastrophic.

[vanesch]

father Bush should have eliminated the regime of Saddam, he failed to do so. Now his son is cleaning up his mess. Thus the War in Iraq is justified, no ???


Simply speaking, you're right. The problem is that Bush Sr. had a lot of foreign affairs policy experience, while his son didn't even knew where Afghanistan was on the map, and so Bush Sr. realized that when a Western army would do such a thing, all Arab islamists would take it as an occasion to shoot on him, and moreover, than chances were big that Iraq would turn into a second Iran. He thought that, once Saddam's power broken, it was a regional affair ; remember that the other Arab nations DID NOT want the Western armies to invade Iraq: the agreement with the Gulf states was exactly that he could come and be there ONLY TO LIBERATE KUWAIT and then shove off. He kept his promise.
The only way to topple an Arab dictator and not have it turn into an islamist mess, is with concensus and support of other Arab nations and armies. The US, being military much stronger, could do the initial blow, but then it should be to the Arab forces to stabilize the after-war situation. There is no other way (because of feelings of national pride, religious considerations and so on). So it was BECAUSE other Arab nations didn't want Bush Sr. to topple Saddam that he didn't do so, because he knew very well he would be in deep sh*t if he did it on his own.
Bush Jr., thinking that Arabs go on a crusade, didn't realize this at all and went in like an imbecile, with the known result. Show me ONE Arab nation where there has been a non-Arab toppling of the local regime that didn't turn into a long-time islamist terrorist breeding ground.

Again, Saddam's power to be a nuisance to Western countries had been broken, and he wasn't involved in international terrorism. So from that point of view there was no problem for us. Ok, he was a merciless dictator, but there are others in this world, and then this is a problem (especially in this case) which can only be solved locally, and with international concencus. ALL these reasons make it that a war, such as started by Bush Jr, could only make the situation worse, as well for us as locally. And indeed, that is what happened. Moreover, based on lies.

cheers,
Patrick.

[vanesch]

In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can.

Well, sure. And this happened a few times in the past, and (western) Europe to can thank them. I wasn't criticising the US at all. I'm claiming that Bush Jr. is a patented idiot and a lier, that's all. Coming back to your "help": one can only "help" someone else if that someone else asks for it, no ? Where are the little american flags in the hands of the Iraq children, thanking Bush for his "help" ?
And, remember, the reason for the war was not to go out and help! The reason was that mean Saddam was training members of Al Quaida and had hydrogen bombs ready on intercontinental launchers to plunge right in the heart of Washington, no ? The argument was self-defense based on "very accurate intelligence information", wasn't it ? It would be clear to the world, after the war, that they had to go in, wasn't it ? It was not only wrong, he knew it wasn't true. And things DIDN'T happen the way he thought, as was also clear for everybody else. QED.

cheers,
Patrick.

[GENIERE]

The opinions of the French government are no longer relevant. France has disgraced itself by providing billions of dollars to Saddam while pretending to honor the sanctions imposed by the UN. For the same reason the UN, as presently organized, as presently corrupted, is useless as a peace making body. France is now losing its influence in the EU; none of its ministers were given positions of importance.

Michel Barnier has replaced the ridiculous foreign minister De Villepin. Barnier has been instructed to “make nice” with the USA. It’s a little too late for that.

[JohnDubYa]

Korea and Vietnam were about the Korean and Vietnamese peoples not fear of communism?

Fear of communism oppression of others, actually. Did anyone really think that North Korea was going to invade the US by sailing across the Pacific Ocean?

[JohnDubYa]

Well, sure. And this happened a few times in the past, and (western) Europe to can thank them. I wasn't criticising the US at all. I'm claiming that Bush Jr. is a patented idiot and a lier, that's all. Coming back to your "help": one can only "help" someone else if that someone else asks for it, no ?

And how exactly were they supposed to ask for help with Saddam around? In Iraq, you didn't raise your voice for obvious reasons.

You are trying to deny what is obvious: The people of Iraq were butchered by thousands from Saddam's hands. The notion that they had no problems with it is ludicrous.

Where are the little american flags in the hands of the Iraq children, thanking Bush for his "help" ?

Soldiers have told countless stories about how some in Iraq have thanked them for removing Saddam.


And, remember, the reason for the war was not to go out and help! The reason was that mean Saddam was training members of Al Quaida and had hydrogen bombs ready on intercontinental launchers to plunge right in the heart of Washington, no ?

Part of the reason for invading Iraq was to stop Saddam's butchery. It may not have been the main reason, but it was there.

[vanesch]

Fear of communism oppression of others, actually.

So fear of oppression by dictators in South America was no issue, as long as they weren't communist ?

[vanesch]

Part of the reason for invading Iraq was to stop Saddam's butchery. It may not have been the main reason, but it was there.

Then why only Saddam ? Why not the countless butcheries in Africa ?
Come on, you cannot be serious that this was even a minor reason.
The main reasons were twofold: first of all a (miscalculated) hope of instoring several US friendly "democracies" hence ensuring US dominance over this important oil providing region (that's a neoliberal viewpoint) and second having fat recontruction contracts for Cheney and friends.

cheers,
Patrick.

[marlon]

Simply speaking, you're right. The problem is that Bush Sr. had a lot of foreign affairs policy experience, while his son didn't even knew where Afghanistan was on the map,

This is a common mistake you make here. Bush is surrounded by some of the most experienced people on politics. Are you saying that Rumsfeld and Colin Powell are not knowing what they are doing ??? MMM; i think not...

marlon

[JohnDubYa]

Then why only Saddam ? Why not the countless butcheries in Africa ?

Can't be in too many places at once. And Saddam's regime was particularly nasty. Couple that with the terrorism issue and I can see why Saddam's regime was targeted.

Come on, you cannot be serious that this was even a minor reason.

Who are you to say that I cannot be serious?

The main reasons were twofold: first of all a (miscalculated) hope of instoring several US friendly "democracies" hence ensuring US dominance over this important oil providing region (that's a neoliberal viewpoint) and second having fat recontruction contracts for Cheney and friends.

Ye olde "Bush and Cheney are evil and want to kill for oil" crap.

Oh, let me respond in your fashion: YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS??!?!?!

[vanesch]

This is a common mistake you make here. Bush is surrounded by some of the most experienced people on politics. Are you saying that Rumsfeld and Colin Powell are not knowing what they are doing ??? MMM; i think not...


Rumsfeld is indeed not knowing what he is doing, because he, together with his adjoint what's-his-name are the originators of the neo-liberal doctrine. Or, he's knowing very well what he's doing, but he's doing this on Israel's account, I don't know.
Colin Powell did know very well what he was doing, and he was against it, remember. Only, Colin Powell is a very faithful servant, and obeyed the boss. If you read the interviews he gave around the decisional period, this is very clear.

As to the allies of Bush, I think (my opinion) that Blair was simply tricked into Bush's lies. Asnar clearly saw the opportunity to be friends with the US and obtain a lot of favors, as where others. I'm not sure about the Polish position.

cheers,
Patrick.

[JohnDubYa]

So fear of oppression by dictators in South America was no issue, as long as they weren't communist ?

If you are looking for a foreign policy that is consistent over a span of 40 years, good luck. No country I know has been consistent. For years we heard about Switzerland's consistent desire for peace and neutrality. Wasn't the case in WWII, was it?

[vanesch]

Ye olde "Bush and Cheney are evil and want to kill for oil" crap.

Oh, let me respond in your fashion: YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS??!?!?!

The neoliberal policy was laid down end of the nineties, exactly as it is executed right now, and spelling out the reasons I just said. I'll try to find the public statements made back then. It is exactly this: starting with one country (Syria, or Iraq, or whatever), instoring a US-friendly democracy and hoping that a domino effect will contaminate the region. It is also clearly stated that the reason is to have stability and US dominance over the region, given its strategic position concerning oil.

The reconstruction contracts with Cheney's companies were signed just after the start of the war. As if they weren't prepared in advance!

Come on.

cheers,
Patrick.

[plover]

Fear of communism oppression of others, actually. Did anyone really think that North Korea was going to invade the US by sailing across the Pacific Ocean?
From the "Truman Doctrine (http://www.search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00135.html)" speech to Congress:
To insure the peaceful development of nations, free from coercion, the United States has taken a leading part in establishing the United Nations. The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.
Oh for the days when Presidents were so frank about U.S. motivations... :biggrin:

[marlon]

Rumsfeld is indeed not knowing what he is doing, because he, together with his adjoint what's-his-name are the originators of the neo-liberal doctrine. Or, he's knowing very well what he's doing, but he's doing this on Israel's account, I don't know.
Colin Powell did know very well what he was doing, and he was against it, remember. Only, Colin Powell is a very faithful servant, and obeyed the boss. If you read the interviews he gave around the decisional period, this is very clear.

As to the allies of Bush, I think (my opinion) that Blair was simply tricked into Bush's lies. Asnar clearly saw the opportunity to be friends with the US and obtain a lot of favors, as where others. I'm not sure about the Polish position.

cheers,
Patrick.

hi vanesch,

it is clear that we share a very different opinion on the US-policy in Iraq. Although you do not agree with me, i have the deepest respect for you because you take the time to discuss this matter with me in a decent and rational way. It is obvious what country you come from, given your talent for diplomacy :wink: !!!

Yet, i do think that the criticism on Bush is very often wrong. Keep in mind that Bush does not determine the US-policy solo. He is definitely surrounded by some of the most experienced politicians both for domestic as well as for foreign policies. The argument, often heard in Europe, that the entire Bush-administration is incompetent, is a lie and shows lack of knowledge and insight into this subject. The only member I don't really know (i mean qua profession and use in the US-government) is Dick Cheney. What does he do ? What are his responsibilities.

marlon, the US-defender out here in Europe. trust me, i got a lot of work... :wink:

[vanesch]

marlon, the US-defender out here in Europe. trust me, i got a lot of work... :wink:

I understand now... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
you want your Green Card :-)

cheers,
Patrick.

[marlon]

I understand now... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
you want your Green Card :-)

cheers,
Patrick.


damn, did not realize i was THAT transparant... :biggrin:

marlon

[vanesch]

It is obvious what country you come from, given your talent for diplomacy :wink: !!!

Yet, i do think that the criticism on Bush is very often wrong.

:rofl: My talent for diplomacy exists mainly in grossly exaggerating my statements :tongue2: :tongue2:

And of course Bush's administration is not completely incompetent. Also, despite what I said here, I do think that it is a good thing that Saddam is gone. Nevertheless, I'm convinced of 2 things: Bush made a BIG mistake by doing what he did, the way he did it (1) and he did lie about the reasons why he did it (2).

I think that using diplomatic and military pressure, building carefully a strong coalition, especially with Arab countries and carefully working its way, he'd had Saddam's head WITHOUT a fullscale war, and most importantly, without the chaos he created. It might have taken years, true. But the result would have been much more positive. The biggest damage Bush did the way he did things is that he changed all moderate opinions in the Arab world into radical views against the West. He acted as Bin Laden's biggest promotor in the region. Personally I know people who were very reasonable (a Syrian mathematician for instance) and not religious zealots at all, who were ready to go and fight against the Americans in Iraq, so strong was the insult felt by them. If you see that effect, you know how very wrong the American strategy has been. I think they underestimated GROSSLY the Arab nationalist pride.
Second, Bush's main worry was international islamist terrorism. It still is. Now, if there was one thing Saddam wasn't involved in, it was that. So he should have used all means to capture Bin Laden and consorts, instead of opening another Pandora Box.

cheers,
Patrick.

[JohnDubYa]

. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.

In no way does this imply that the security of the United States is the only reason to challenge Communist invasion. In fact, the doctrine repeatedly points out an emotional appeal to help those that being attacked by totalitarian regimes: "... unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes."

[JohnDubYa]

I'll try to find the public statements made back then.

I have an idea: Why don't you find the credible substantiation before you post? It makes your thoughts a little more believable and is more likely to convince readers that you are not terminally full of ****.

By the way, when you state "Cheney's companies," in what regard are you using the possessive? Are these companies owned by Dick Cheney? Is he the CEO? Clarify your statement.

[JohnDubYa]

I think that using diplomatic and military pressure, building carefully a strong coalition, especially with Arab countries and carefully working its way, he'd had Saddam's head WITHOUT a fullscale war, and most importantly, without the chaos he created.

Your pollyanna strategy would not work. In the first Persian Gulf war we united practically the entire world, including most of the Arab states, and we gutted his army. Did we end up with Saddam's head? What would it have taken to topple Saddam at that time? You know the answer: A full scale invasion.

The next time, we amassed a huge army on the borders of Iraq. All indications were that the US was going to invade. No one doubted that Saddam's days as a leader were numbered. And in the final hours, we offered a chance for Saddam to leave the country. Did he take it?

What on Earth makes you think that he would have ever stepped down? Saddam would have mobilized every last military option against his own people before he would have stepped down. There was only one way to remove him -- military force.

[vanesch]

What on Earth makes you think that he would have ever stepped down? Saddam would have mobilized every last military option against his own people before he would have stepped down. There was only one way to remove him -- military force.

The very fact that the secret services of the US and others could convince several Iraqi generals NOT to fight (or just to fight symbolically and surrender) means that such a softer strategy, if applied over a longer period, could have worked. I'm not claiming that Saddam would step down. I'm claiming that with some further work, sooner or later he'd been overthrown. In the end, you could wait for his death ; maybe that'd take 10 years, so what ?


I have an idea: Why don't you find the credible substantiation before you post? It makes your thoughts a little more believable and is more likely to convince readers that you are not terminally full of ****.


The reason is that I read that in some magazines back then, but I don't have them anymore. So I'm not sure these sources are available on the net.

What I find disturbing in this whole history is that the proponents of the Irak war seem to resort to insults to those who disagree. France took a big share of the insults (which do not affect me personally too much: I'm not French, but I find it disturbing as an attitude). After all, if the proof of the pudding is the eating, you cannot say that Iraq was a big success to be proud of, no ? The official reason for the war was to diminish the islamic terrorist menace: tell me, is that goal achieved or not ? Does it look like being achieved in the near future ? All predictions of those against the war came out, except for one: the official war was over more quickly than expected, and the reason was that some generals of the Iraqi army betrayed their country. So the reasoning of the opponents of the war is not that silly, even if you can disagree on it.


cheers,
patrick.

EDIT: some moderated views are expressed here for example:
http://www.weltverschwoerung.de/redaktion/artikel.php?id=6

[plover]

In no way does this imply that the security of the United States is the only reason to challenge Communist invasion. In fact, the doctrine repeatedly points out an emotional appeal to help those that being attacked by totalitarian regimes: "... unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes."
:rofl: I see you couldn't stand to leave in the part of the quote that talks approvingly of the UN and the US' role in founding it...

Also, if you feel it necessary to base an argument on just one part of a quoted sentence, where the complete sentence pretty much makes the opposite point, it's generally best not to also include the complete sentence in your post. :wink: The full sentence reads:
"We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes." [Emphasis added]
The above is even more true when the document being quoted has sections that would make your point better, e.g.:
"When forces of liberation entered Greece they found that the retreating Germans had destroyed virtually all the railways, roads, port facilities, communications, and merchant marine. More than a thousand villages had been burned. Eighty-five percent of the children were tubercular. Livestock, poultry, and draft animals had almost disappeared. Inflation had wiped out practically all savings. As a result of these tragic conditions, a militant minority, exploiting human want and misery, was able to create political chaos which, until now, has made economic recovery impossible."
This is all beside the point however. The emotional appeals are more or less window dressing. Truman knows perfectly well a sentimental argument isn't going to win the support of congress. The real argument starts with:
"I am fully aware of the broad implications involved if the United States extends assistance to Greece and Turkey, and I shall discuss these implications with you at this time."
After this point, emotional statements are consistently punctuated with references to national security and what is now called the domino theory. This is true of the original quote I gave, and equally true of Truman's concluding statement:
"The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.

The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world -- and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation."
None of this is a statement about Truman's motives—I just note that he skillfully renders his argument in a fashion suited to the context and subject. I don't have a good enough sense of US politics at the time to judge whether his success with this particular policy was due more to that skill, or to the overall idea being "in the air" at the time.

Also, nothing I have said is intended to imply that sympathy for an invaded or oppressed people is not a worthy reason for action, just that it's not the type of reasoning that would have driven US foreign policy in the mid 20th century.

So far your statements here have mostly conveyed a strange taste for sentimental policy arguments, and a fairly foggy perception of the Cold War mindset. Neither of these impressions seem especially likely to be accurate—you are welcome to correct them.

[JohnDubYa]

I see you couldn't stand to leave in the part of the quote that talks approvingly of the UN and the US' role in founding it...

And I see that you butchered the entire context of Truman's speech by omitting the first umpteenth paragraphs. Truman was asking for economic aid for Greece, and made appeal after appeal based on our emotional willingness to help other countries in distress. To turn his Doctrine into a utilitarian, self-centered manifesto is disingeneous.

[JohnDubYa]

This is all beside the point however. The emotional appeals are more or less window dressing.

:rofl:

I love the way you try to quelch any passages that refute your point. That was a good one. Can we use the same tactics on Bush' or Kerry's speeches?

[plover]

JohnDubYa:

Your responses indicate you've made no attempt to understand my argument. You've misrepresented the content of my post, and ignored my statement that I was not writing about motive. You give no sense even of understanding which aspects of your earlier statements I'm arguing against, and which I've left alone. And you still give the impression that you believe that congress accepted the foreign policy direction implied by Truman's speech because they were thinking about Greek orphans, not about the Soviets, that the humanitarian concerns without the Communist threat would have been enough to change the orientation of US policy (that the opposite is true is more or less implied by the case of Turkey). You haven't even really given a sense of recognizing that the outcome of this speech was a change in US policy.

I find it unlikely that you are so naïve as to believe that US foreign policy is or ought to be driven by sentimental reasoning (and this in spite of your statements on other occasions that could be taken to imply that humanitarian reasons alone were enough to convince Bush to invade Iraq, and so all of the administration's stated reasons are moot even if they are lies).

My previous post was also crediting you with the ability to follow a non-simplistic argument. Was that a mistake? I invite you to convince me that it was not. My statements may be unclear and may perhaps be wrong, but you're hardly going to convince me of that if you can't even convince me that you've been reading what I've written.

[JohnDubYa]

Here is my earlier statement, to which you objected.


As someone else has said, that selfish, cowardly attitude is not American. In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can. Sure it may bite us on occassion, but our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed. There are a lot of free South Koreans that can thank us for not being so self-centered.

You tried to brush the passages that support my argument aside by calling them "window dressing," as if the world has entrusted you with the authority to appoint certain passages as relevant or irrelevant. But I think anyone that reads the Truman Doctrine in its entirety will realize that selfish concerns do not dominate the context. Instead the Doctrine repeatedly focuses on the concerns of the downtrodden.

[plover]

As I said: "You give no sense even of understanding which aspects of your earlier statements I'm arguing against, and which I've left alone."
Here is my earlier statement, to which you objected.
As someone else has said, that selfish, cowardly attitude is not American. In this country, we feel obligated to help when we can. Sure it may bite us on occassion, but our concern for the lives of others should never be ridiculed. There are a lot of free South Koreans that can thank us for not being so self-centered.
Right, I said that considered "[a]s a statement about American foreign policy", this is a-historical. Nothing you've said so far convinces me you have a clue as to the various frameworks used by Western leaders in recent eras (i.e. the last few centuries) for conceptualizing international relations.

I've said nothing about the motives of individual Americans or even individual American leaders. If you're really interpreting my statements to mean something like: "all Americans are selfish, so the country never has humanitarian motives", then you're just reading my posts through the lens of whatever caricature of "liberals" you're carrying around rather than looking at what I'm saying.

Pretty much right up to Truman, the cornerstone of US foreign policy was isolationism. This doesn't mean there were no exceptions (e.g. the Monroe Doctrine), but overall our stance was pretty much to stay out of other people's affairs (the resistance among Americans to entering WWII up until Pearl Harbor being a good example). After Truman policy centered on containing Communism. This ended, depending on one's perspective, either when Reagan entered office, when the Berlin Wall fell, or when the Soviet Union dissolved (however this discussion is certainly tortured enough without trying to add in Reagan's foreign policy legacy). In my opinion, the US hasn't succeeded at establishing a truly solid framework since the end of the Cold War. Bush Sr. and Clinton were both mediocre overall on this count, though both got some of their improvisations right.
You tried to brush the passages that support my argument aside by calling them "window dressing," as if the world has entrusted you with the authority to appoint certain passages as relevant or irrelevant.
No, I gave an argument as to why I think these are not the sections that convinced congress to adopt Truman's policy. (The public may be a different story.) Read what I actually said. Why would you assume that I intended such a simplistic argument anyway? What good can such assumptions possibly do?

You still sound like you believe that US foreign policy was organized around sentimentality. And even if you do think about the role of the US in this fashion, you haven't given any indication why I should believe that US policymakers do, especially ones from the 40's. (So, you might ask, isn't this a simplistic characterization? Of course it is. That's why it's phrased in interpretive terms—I think what I'm hearing is relatively implausible, so if you don't confirm or correct it, my suspicion is that the signal/noise ratio will remain lower than necessary.)

It also occurs to me to ask: do you often go around denouncing people you think of as "liberal" for sentimental thinking as many other "conservatives" do? Does it upset you that the US has the lowest per capita foreign aid budget of any industrialized country? If your concern is really relieving suffering in the world, there were certainly a lot of better things the US could have done with 200 billion dollars than change the lives of the Iraqis from one sort of misery to another—one of which might actually have been a well-planned removal of Saddam.
But I think anyone that reads the Truman Doctrine in its entirety will realize that selfish concerns do not dominate the context. Instead the Doctrine repeatedly focuses on the concerns of the downtrodden.
I'm not completely sure what you mean by "context" here, but it appears that you are referring to the full text of the speech. In which case, it would appear you interpret me as calling Truman "selfish"—in spite of my statement that this is not about Truman's motives (and also in spite of the fact that "selfish" is not a word I've used).

Historically the Truman Doctrine is remembered for laying out the idea of "containment" that structured much Cold War policy. And the speech holds a complex enough place in US history that its hardly likely that there would be a black-and-white interpretation of it.

Since you haven't given a coherent response to any of my actual statements, I'm not even really sure at this point what your argument is. You need to be more specific.

[megashawn]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Vote2004/527_groups_040825-1.html

Today, with the resignation of Bush-Cheney national counsel Ben Ginsberg — who left the campaign after the disclosure he had also been working for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — that charge has taken on new momentum, in the media if not with the FEC.

Hmm, so the Bush campaign was behind the Swift Vote liars.

And Kat, I noticed a comment of yours in the thread about the debate, talking about how the crew of people that served with kerry does not like him.

Well, you continue to spread the manure, neglecting the fact that only ONE person affiliated with the Swift Vote for truth group actually served with Kerry. One person.

And it was orchestrated by the bush campaign. Excellent.

[russ_watters]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Vote2004/527_groups_040825-1.html

Hmm, so the Bush campaign was behind the Swift Vote liars.

And it was orchestrated by the bush campaign. Excellent. megashawn, where were you when we covered this a month ago? The guy is a lawyer who represents a lot of republicans. If you consider that something to be concerned with, does it also concern you that MoveOn.org is represented by a lawer for Kerry's campaign? Maybe he should resign too...

[megashawn]

sorry, I don't live on the forums as much as I used to. When I stumbled on the story, it appeared to be fresh news, but I later noticed it was from back in august.

But if this is no big deal, why did the guy resign?

[kat]

[url]

And Kat, I noticed a comment of yours in the thread about the debate, talking about how the crew of people that served with kerry does not like him.

Well, you continue to spread the manure, neglecting the fact that only ONE person affiliated with the Swift Vote for truth group actually served with Kerry. One person.

I don't think you have a clue as to the difference between "served with" and "crew" ...I also don't see where I said this ANYWHERE in the debate thread. So now that you've accused me you need to link and directly quote me. Otherwise you're the manure spreader ****head.

[russ_watters]

But if this is no big deal, why did the guy resign? Its a nice catch-22 isn't it?: is resigning the honorable thing to do or does it just make you appear more guilty (of what, no one seems to know)? I guess it depends on which you prefer to believe.

I'd prefer that there be more separation (frankly, I'd prefer the soft-money groups be outlawed altogether - they benefit Democrats more anyway). So I do think the soft money groups and campaigns are working too closely together - but its the same on both sides (the CBS thing notwithstanding).

[selfAdjoint]

Obviously the campaign reform law had a loophole John Wayne could drive a stagecoach through. I think the "thou shalt not" approach to campaign finance control is misguided anyway. I would prefer some system where anybody could contiribute to anything, but there would be automatic, instant, impartial, fact checkable publication of each donation, who from, what to, and amount.

[russ_watters]

I would prefer some system where anybody could contiribute to anything... I wouldn't - that gives rich people and corporations a larger influence than they should be able to have (wait, did a Republican just say that....? :confused: ).

[megashawn]

my apologies Kat, I misread. You made post #34, and I musta read #35 and somehow thought it was your response.

Again, my apoligies.

[Loren Booda]

'Bush, Warmonger,' is a Reality

[kat]

'Bush, Warmonger,' is a Reality
Ah yes, I see that bombastic hyperbole is still alive and well here at PF. :yuck:

[kat]

my apologies Kat, I misread. You made post #34, and I musta read #35 and somehow thought it was your response.

Again, my apoligies.

Although I appreciate the apology, I would still like to see some sort of recognition from you that .......many of the men who "served with" Kerry, and who were members of his "unit" did not and were not....his "crew". In fact...they were a tight unit, because of the close proximity of the boats during patrols, because they patroled together...single boats did not patrol ALONE, and because...not only did they patrol together but they all bunked together on the same large boat or base and ate together day in and day out.... You keep making comments and responses mashing seperate terms together as though they all hold the same meaning, this is erroneous and it's about time you researched that and recognized it.

[megashawn]

well, I can only research what I read, and I do not get paid to scour the internet and library for this info. I read the snopes article that said "Only one of the members of the SBVT actually served with kerry" I have family in the military myself. My Uncle served on the USS Iowa. I'm sure some of the people on that boat did not like him, would probably have negative things to say about him were he in the limelight. However, he served as a gunner, and actually only worked with a handfull of people.

My apoligies for not dedicating my life to the study of Kerrys war history, but it really is not that important to me. THe thing that bugs me is that people lie about it, and while you said you were, I still haven't seen anyone debunk the article.

I've seen plenty debunk the SBVT group however.

And I've always known snopes to be quite reputable on their info in other cases.

[kat]

well, I can only research what I read, and I do not get paid to scour the internet and library for this info. I read the snopes article that said "Only one of the members of the SBVT actually served with kerry" I have family in the military myself. My Uncle served on the USS Iowa. I'm sure some of the people on that boat did not like him, would probably have negative things to say about him were he in the limelight. However, he served as a gunner, and actually only worked with a handfull of people.

My apoligies for not dedicating my life to the study of Kerrys war history, but it really is not that important to me. THe thing that bugs me is that people lie about it, and while you said you were, I still haven't seen anyone debunk the article.

I've seen plenty debunk the SBVT group however.

And I've always known snopes to be quite reputable on their info in other cases.
Erm...the USS Iowa is a ship, not a boat and I'm betting if every member of that ship but a handful said bad things about your uncle...I wouldn't want him as president of the united states without researching beyond "snopes" but whatever.

[megashawn]

Erm, I know it was a ship, and it was during the 80's, like, not war time. Not my point.

Most people I know don't like me. Sure, they are all buddy buddy to my face, but most people are jealous of something, etc. And this is generally the case with everyone.

But this particular issue is that the SBVT have bogged down the elections having people being more worried about whether Kerry was truthful about his service or not. When regardless of what he did then is entirely irrelevant to what he has been doing since, and what he could potentially do.

And I also agree it was stupid on Kerry's behalf to drag it up. From this point forth, I'll just sit on the sidelines, I never liked politics anyhow, to much like religion.