Kerry part 2 [Archive]

Lemur

11-02-2006, 19:48

Interesting take from Andrew Sullivan (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/the_kerry_gaffe.html):

Maybe this story isn't over. I've been thoroughly persuaded by John Derbyshire and Christopher Hitchens that John Kerry's words were indeed a botched joke. The clincher for me was the actual prepared text, which I confess I hadn't seen till I watched the Daily Show (where I tend to get the news these days) last night. The actual text was that if you didn't work hard, "you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

Now, I may be typical of many people's real-time response to this piece of "news." When I first heard the remarks, I cringed and was appalled. When I saw the context, I could see what Kerry might have meant, but also saw the need for him to apologize for the way his spoken remarks could have plausibly been misinterpreted. I stand by that. But now I also see the prepared remarks in black and white, I have a third wave of sentiment. I agree with Jay Nordlinger here:

When you see Kerry's prepared text — I guess you would have to accept it as authentic — you can see precisely what Kerry meant: Bush is stupid, he has always been a slacker, that left him unprepared to lead in Iraq, blah, blah, blah.

So the debate over what Kerry actually meant is now over.

Now what do I next remember? I remember that the president vehemently went after Kerry, as did McCain. Now, when a president decides to do such a thing, his staff have examined the upsides and downsides every which way. They are paid to know any possible backfire for the remarks. And Rove is very smart. So this much I now know: knowing full well that he was deeply distorting Kerry's meaning, the president used the quote full-bore to impugn Kerry's commitment to the troops - and to help turn the base against the Democrats.

I know it's politics. I'm not naive. But it's also revealing about someone's character that he could authorize and exploit such a thing. Most fair-minded people will have to concede that, in retrospect, this was a very, very, very low blow. It hadn't sunk in for me till last night how low. In retrospect, this incident says much more about Bush than about Kerry. I'll bet I'm not the only one mulling that over this morning.

CrossLOPER

11-02-2006, 19:50

Low blow or not, I'm afraid it worked.

Xiahou

11-02-2006, 19:51

The clincher for me was the actual prepared text, which I confess I hadn't seen till I watched the Daily Show (where I tend to get the news these days) last night.That is horrifying.

CrossLOPER

11-02-2006, 19:53

He wasn't serious, at least not in the way you think he was.

yesdachi

11-02-2006, 19:57

Kerry tried to take another cheep shot at W and he botched it because he can’t read his own prepared text? :freak:

Redleg

11-02-2006, 20:09

So nice and simple , option a or option b
John Kerry meant with his statement.......
a stupid people join the military

b stupid people get stuck in a crazy situation without a clue as to how to get out (and they are not really sure why they went in in the first place)

In the matter that Kerry screwed up his attempt at a low blow, I can only conclude that he meant both. When one ad libs a joke, they often demonstrate their own feelings toward something.

Now Lemur's noted article is very telling - and I have a tendency to agree with the author's thought. The insuing political flap by both Kerry and Bush is very telling on both of them.

Kanamori

11-02-2006, 20:11

Bush started it.:tongue:

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-02-2006, 20:13

I thought the "joke" was offensive. I don't mind him saying stuff about Bush, but he should have re-phrase it,because it does sound like he racking up our troops sadly.

Crazed Rabbit

11-02-2006, 20:25

What Kerry said was;
a stupid people join the military

Though it appears he meant to say;
b stupid people get stuck in a crazy situation without a clue as to how to get out (and they are not really sure why they went in in the first place)

Why he wouldn't just apologize after being called on it by non-partisan organizations, like the American Legion and American Veterans, though, is puzzling if one accepts he does not believe in option a and meant and only believes option b.

Continuing what Redleg said, it is likely he meant to say something like option b, though it seems to me it is likely he believes option a (especially given his past comments about an all volunteer army being all poor and minorities, and more likely to commit war crimes.)

Most fair-minded people will have to concede that, in retrospect, this was a very, very, very low blow. It hadn't sunk in for me till last night how low. In retrospect, this incident says much more about Bush than about Kerry.
Sullivan assumes he was distorting Kerry's meaning; given Kerry's refusal to apologize for several days, I find it hard to believe one could know absolutely that Kerry did not mean what he said. It seems to me, it was Kerry who distorted the meaning of his speech, and with his refusal to apologize, I am unconvinced of how Bush comes off as terriblely evil in his response.

Crazed Rabbit

CrossLOPER

11-02-2006, 20:26

I thought the "joke" was offensive. I don't mind him saying stuff about Bush, but he should have re-phrase it,because it does sound like he racking up our troops sadly.
HE. MESSED. THE. JOKE. UP.

Yes. The joke, as he gave it in his speech, was offensive. However, the fact that the Republicans are knowingly misinterpreting it and assaulting the Democratic party is also quite offensive in a sense. Not that there is room to get offended in politics.

Don Corleone

11-02-2006, 20:29

I think Redleg is right. The prepared joke was most likely less offensive towards the troops. Kerry's bungling of a seemingly simple line to repeat indicates his own personal biases.... i.e. he read it the way he really feels, not the way his speechwriter intended.

As for Bush being some nefarious character for seizing on a chance to swing back... come on Lemur, you really are turning into a shill. Yes, Bush took advantage of a bad situation and pulled it further then he knew it was originally intended.

Is it your contention that the president should sit back and let Kerry insult him and when Kerry screws up and winds up insulting the armed forces, Bush is supposed to just keep quiet and silently suffer the slings and arrows?

I imagine the truth is Bush and his advisors said "Good, let's make Kerry own what he said, not what he meant to say". Maybe that's a low blow for you and the rest of the DNC, but in the real world, when you kick a guy in the shins, you don't expect him to follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules when he repsonds.

yesdachi

11-02-2006, 20:34

Wasn’t Kerry’s GPA a bit lower than W’s? Isn’t W the President of the United States of America? Didn’t Kerry loose a presidential election to W? If W is soooo dumb why is Kerry speaking at a university and not from the White House? Bush may be a stupid slacker that’s unprepared to lead but he still beat John Kerry.

Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Its pretty lame to not be smart enough to pick on someone else about being smart. :dunce:

Watchman

11-02-2006, 20:41

Personally I think US politics in general suck. The politicians even worse. The campaign tactics, for their part, conduct a spirited attempt at limboing under the trivial and tasteless.
And am quite happy it's not my country.

Anyway, as my younger brother is wont to say: "serving your military time is a healthy learning experience - it gives you considerable motivation to study hard, so you don't have to make a career there." He also says it fulfills several useful roles in society; first, it's a dumb and crappy job that nonetheless needs to be done, and second it cleans young men out of the streets at the age when they're just about at their dumbest. And finally it is a convenient repository for folks who're really better off languishing as junior officers until their retirement...

drone

11-02-2006, 20:49

If it's pure politics, it might be a little short-sighted of the GOP to crush Kerry on this. While it may help win over a few votes in the mid-term elections, it also eliminates Kerry from future presidential runs. The possibility of Kerry running again in 2008 would be a GOP wet dream.

Don Corleone

11-02-2006, 20:50

Personally I think US politics in general suck. The politicians even worse. The campaign tactics, for their part, conduct a spirited attempt at limboing under the triviall and tasteless.
And am quite happy it's not my country.

Anyway, as my younger brother is wont to say: "serving your military time is a healthy learning experience - it gives you considerable motivation to study hard, so you don't have to make a career there." He also says it fulfills several useful roles in society; first, it's a dumb and crappy job that nonetheless needs to be done, and second it cleans young men out of the streets at the age when they're just about at their dumbest. And finally it is a convenient repository for folks who're really better off languishing as junior officers until their retirement...

Totally agree Watchman, American politics is a cesspool these days. Sure, Bush and Rove took the low road, but that's where Kerry was in the first place, making a crack about how dumb Bush is getting us stuck in Iraq. For everybody to start clamoring "This isn't fair... Bush should just shut up and let the insults pass" is pretty pathetic. If Kerry can't take it, he shouldn't dish it out.

Watchman

11-02-2006, 20:57

Dissing Bush over Iraq is merely a demonstration of possessing a minimum degree of good judgement, these days. Not terribly original though.

But you know the election priorities are fookered when the results just might turn out hinging on a lame duck joke about soldiers. :inquisitive:

Don Corleone

11-02-2006, 21:01

Preach on, Brother Watchman. Personally, in looking at the American electorate... more and more I'm starting to think Robert Heinlein was right :shocked: Scary thought...

Pindar

11-02-2006, 21:04

The issue is not the intent or the mis-delivery per say, but the response to the reaction. Kerry's folly was in entrenching instead of apologizing under intense Democratic pressure two days after the fact. Kerry handed a club to the GOP and effectively killed any 08 notions he might have carried.

Watchman

11-02-2006, 21:10

Pindar

11-02-2006, 21:18

You sure you're not rather overrating the Amercian electorate's five-second attention span there, Pindar ? ...well, okay, if you consider that Rove (in the case he's not finally been jailed for spouting so much hot air and BS it's become an environmental issue) and his jolly fellows are bound to dig it up...

No, I am not. Noting the reaction that has come from military personnel, that several Democratic Candidates cancelled scheduled appearances with Kerry, Senators such as McCain and Clinton have come down against Kerry's statement and the White House went on the offensive indicates the severity of the error. The error is solely the product of Kerry's entrenchment. If he had quickly come forward to say he misspoke and was sorry etc. much of the force of the reaction would have been muted. Kerry did not do so. The storm was his own making.

Banquo's Ghost

11-02-2006, 21:18

Anyway, as my younger brother is wont to say: "serving your military time is a healthy learning experience - it gives you considerable motivation to study hard, so you don't have to make a career there." He also says it fulfills several useful roles in society; first, it's a dumb and crappy job that nonetheless needs to be done, and second it cleans young men out of the streets at the age when they're just about at their dumbest. And finally it is a convenient repository for folks who're really better off languishing as junior officers until their retirement...

The tone of your post indicates perhaps a dissatisfaction with a conscripted service. National service may indeed provoke the observations made by your brother.

However, the US Forces and the UK Forces are both volunteer and professional. They provide ways for young people to excel, and build the skills necessary to take that excellence back into the civilian community. Service also builds character and resilience.

The men I was proud to lead were not dumb youngsters and they were not performing a dumb and crappy job. Far, far from it. They were consummate professionals, in many cases brighter (in the sense of more savvy) than some of the MBAs, directors and others I have worked with in other paths of life.

Since Senator Kerry was not making misplaced remarks about Finnish conscripts but about US professionals, I don't think your argument helps him.

As for the earlier issue, I agree with Redleg that neither side comes out of this with any credit, but Senator Kerry should have apologised immediately. I also think he ought to have had a little more respect for the office of President - I don't agree with most of President Bush's policies, but I don't think he is any sort of a fool.

The wretched politics of negativity will eventually come back to haunt not just politicians, but voters too - and the very fabric of our democracies.

Xiahou

11-02-2006, 21:23

You sure you're not rather overrating the Amercian electorate's five-second attention span there, Pindar ? ...well, okay, if you consider that Rove (in the case he's not finally been jailed for spouting so much hot air and BS it's become an environmental issue) and his jolly fellows are bound to dig it up...
He said it and is on tape saying it. Campaign ads showing Kerry calling our troops dumb are going to have alot more impact than response ads that try to say 'Yeah, he said it... but he didn't really mean it. What he meant to say was blah blah blah...'

I think Kerry's finished, and Im glad. Sure, it'd be a GOP candidate's dream for Kerry to get nominated again- but it wouldnt be my dream. I hate it when the only competing candidate is so utterly worthless that you are forced to vote for the GOP candidate no matter who he is, just to keep some moron like Kerry out of office.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-02-2006, 21:33

I think Kerry's finished, and Im glad. Sure, it'd be a GOP candidate's dream for Kerry to get nominated again- but it wouldnt be my dream. I hate it when the only competing candidate is so utterly worthless that you are forced to vote for the GOP candidate no matter who he is, just to keep some moron like Kerry out of office.

This sums up most of my dissatisfaction with politics in the USA as well.

yesdachi

11-02-2006, 21:42

FYI - Here is an article where they quote some things that Kerry said back in 72’

Kerry's '72 Army Comments Mirror Latest
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who turned against the war, made the observations in answers to a 1972 candidate questionnaire from a Massachusetts peace group.

After Kerry caused a firestorm this week with what he termed a botched campaign joke that Republicans said insulted current soldiers, The Associated Press was alerted to the historical comments by a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities

Kerry apologized Wednesday for the 2006 campaign trail gaffe that some took as suggesting U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq were undereducated. He contended the remark was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers.

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote.

Kerry's spokesman, David Wade, said Wednesday the historical document needed to be viewed in the era in which it was written but that it nonetheless raised a "bedrock question in a time of war when sacrifice should be shared by all Americans."

"These are the words 34 years ago of a 28-year-old veteran home from a war gone wrong, wondering who in America will bear the cost of battle and shoulder the responsibility of military service," Wade said.

Kerry filled out the candidate questionnaire at the request of Massachusetts Political Action for Peace, an anti-war group that decades later turned over its historical documents to university researchers.

AP obtained the document from someone who gathered it from archives during Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign against President Bush. Republicans in that election relentlessly assailed Kerry's role in the anti-war movement decades earlier.

Kerry and Bush renewed their rivalry again this week, with the president accusing Kerry of offending troops. Kerry said he botched the text of a joke and didn't mean to insult troops.

On Wednesday, Kerry canceled campaign appearance on behalf of Democratic congressional candidates and issued an apology.

Goofball

11-02-2006, 22:20

This whole thing would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Yes, Kerry did mis-speak and give the impression that he meant U.S. troops are stupid, and since he is in politics he should be much more careful about that sort of thing. Bad toad.

On the other hand, his explanation that he really meant to imply that Bush is an idiot for getting the country stuck in Iraq seems very believable, and Republicans (and some people in the Backroom as well) are now acting like jackasses by ignoring that and continuing to swear up and down that Kerry meant to call the troops stupid.

Big picture effects? Hard to say. I don't think that this will do enough damage to prevent Dems from at least capturing a majority in the House. But I do agree that this has probably ended Kerry's long-term political aspirations. No great loss there. In fact, probably a good thing for the Dems in the long run.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-02-2006, 23:11

HE. MESSED. THE. JOKE. UP.

Yes. The joke, as he gave it in his speech, was offensive. However, the fact that the Republicans are knowingly misinterpreting it and assaulting the Democratic party is also quite offensive in a sense. Not that there is room to get offended in politics.

NO.KIDDING.

He should have known that it was going to stir up alot of People's Feathers.
Having the Republicans striking back is ok to me, you messed up a joke before election day,that your own fault..

Watchman

11-02-2006, 23:15

The tone of your post indicates perhaps a dissatisfaction with a conscripted service. National service may indeed provoke the observations made by your brother.

---

Since Senator Kerry was not making misplaced remarks about Finnish conscripts but about US professionals, I don't think your argument helps him.
Argument ? Merely an observation. And I - as well as most Finns, my brother included - actually quite like our concript/reservist system. It has all kinds of neat attributes. One is that it's a cheap way of maintaining troops in the numbers required for credible regional defense. Another is that as it is a civic duty shared by everyone (okay, so it's voluntary for women), the motivation is ultimately high.
The fact that reservist armies frankly suck for foreign adventures also rather helps disperse certain worries people might have of what the ultimately soldiers get employed for, and discourages the governement from getting stupid ideas.

But one of the altogether greatest assets in the system is the fact that not counting certain small groups (some pacifistic religious sects and the inhabitants of the Åland islands, which have been demilitarized with an international treaty since around WW1) and sufficient medical conditions, each and every adult male undergoes it. Rich, poor, upper class, lower class, second-generation Somali immigrant or scion of ancient German noble family, it's all the same. Everyone dons the uniform (affectionately known as "the cucumber suit"), lives in the same dreary barracks, eats the same bland food, undergoes the same training regimes, stands guard over a tent in driving rain deep in the woods, has to put up with the same annoying regulations and officers... Does wonders for a certain sense of social camaraderie and belonging irrespective of individual background, you know ?

More practically, not a few guys rather benefit from the experience of having to arrange their beds and tie their shoelaces themselves. Having to deal with the kinds of idiots you'd normally avoid like the plague also builds interpersonal skills and tolerance.

However, the US Forces and the UK Forces are both volunteer and professional. They provide ways for young people to excel, and build the skills necessary to take that excellence back into the civilian community. Service also builds character and resilience.It's also an interesting detail that by what I understand of it not a few of the US ones do it to pay for their future education. (I personally rather prefer a system where the poor have fair chances of getting decent upper education without having to risk their lives in uniform, but...)

Which sort of illustrates one of the issues with straight volunteer/professional militaries, namely the inescapable underlying suspicion of "the poor fighting for the rich". I'm willing to bet the lower ends of the social and income scales are rather proportionally over-represented in the ranks, for the rather simple reason the better off have by far fewer concrete incentives to enroll (and those that do are probably dedicated enough to make it into senior positions relatively quickly if they're not terminally stupid or lazy, and are likely somewhat rare too).

Which, by what I know of US education system, would also suggest rather low average base education level in the military in question.

The US and UK aren't exactly the only ones with fully professionalized armies BTW, just so you know. Reservist systems like the Finnish and Swiss ones are becoming increasingly uncommon these days.

The men I was proud to lead were not dumb youngsters and they were not performing a dumb and crappy job. Far, far from it. They were consummate professionals, in many cases brighter (in the sense of more savvy) than some of the MBAs, directors and others I have worked with in other paths of life. Good for you, although personally I'm slightly dubious of the objectivity of your judgement. I would be singularly surprised if the professional armed forces did not have their quota of rank idiots and jerks like all other walks of life; all the more so as unlike the conscript systems (which get the entire age-group, sometimes also of the women as in Israel) they can't really be all *that* picky about their recruits.

Which, I've read, is actually becoming a bit of an issue in the US. Some merry folks apparently like to draw swastikas on Baghdad walls, and some street gangs reputedly encourage members to sign up so they can bring home decent training in firearms and explosives...

Incidentally, my brother ended up as a squad leader. He was in the unadultered opinion that of his about five subordinates he'd trust about two with a gun in a tight spot. In the service the opinion on the long-serving career personnel also tends to be rather low, should they still be stuck on a junior rank - since there's obviously reasons why they haven't progressed.

The opinion on people who choose to become rank-and-file soldiery tends to be rather low in general around here. Tends to boil down to them being regarded as either disturbingly zealous patriots or hapless sods with no better career opportunities. The vaguely mercenary air that hangs around the financial side of all-professional forces doesn't really help; it probably brings the merry days of "musket, fife and drum" to mind a little too readily.

And, yes, I have personal antipathies against glorifications of militaries. What made you ask ?

Major Robert Dump

11-02-2006, 23:16

Who is this Jim Kerry you speak of? Surely he ain't no Democrat

Devastatin Dave

11-02-2006, 23:21

Devastatin Dave

11-02-2006, 23:28

.

It's also an interesting detail that by what I understand of it not a few of the US ones do it to pay for their future education. (I personally rather prefer a system where the poor have fair chances of getting decent upper education without having to risk their lives in uniform, but...)

Which sort of illustrates one of the issues with straight volunteer/professional militaries, namely the inescapable underlying suspicion of "the poor fighting for the rich". I'm willing to bet the lower ends of the social and income scales are rather proportionally over-represented in the ranks, for the rather simple reason the better off have by far fewer concrete incentives to enroll (and those that do are probably dedicated enough to make it into senior positions relatively quickly if they're not terminally stupid or lazy, and are likely somewhat rare too).

Which, by what I know of US education system, would also suggest rather low average base education level in the military in question.?

Here's some numbers.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
I believe you would lose your bet. Your post reeks of the same elitism that Kerry seems to suffer from. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb Vet.

CrossLOPER

11-02-2006, 23:36

NO.KIDDING.

He should have known that it was going to stir up alot of People's Feathers.
Having the Republicans striking back is ok to me, you messed up a joke before election day,that your own fault..
I'm not even sure about you anymore. :no:

Watchman

11-03-2006, 00:00

Here's some numbers.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
I believe you would lose your bet. Your post reeks of the same elitism that Kerry seems to suffer from. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb Vet.
I stand corrected, but now I'd like to know the reason why the ratio of recruits from the poorest categories has been dropping so much. Most of the interested ones already sign up or something ?

Papewaio

11-03-2006, 00:13

Surely Kerry is guilty of what he was trying to accuse Bush of?

Being woefully underprepared in reading his own speech he has got himself stuck in a political quagmire due to his own slack preparation.

If he can't even navigate himself through one of his own speeches I would hate to see him trying to make a peace deal between say the PLO and Israel. It would end with both sides signing a joint treaty to attack the US. :oops:

Watchman

11-03-2006, 00:17

Wouldn't that be a major improvement then ? They'd be agreeing on something, and it's not like either of them could actually reach the US...

Goofball

11-03-2006, 00:23

On the other hand, his explanation that he really meant to imply that Bush is an idiot for getting the country stuck in Iraq seems very believable, and Republicans (and some people in the Backroom as well) are now acting like jackasses by ignoring that and continuing to swear up and down that Kerry meant to call the troops stupid.You can name say that we're acting like jackasses all you want, it does not take away what the man said this time, or the countless other times he has disparaged the troops. You act as though we ARE stupid for comprehending what the man said. Who's the real jackass?:wall:

Point proven (as you have been so fond of saying with respect to this discussion).

Kerry said something that gave the impression that he was calling U.S. soldiers stupid. He then retracted his statements and said what he really meant was that Bush was stupid.

Now, everybody has two logical choices:

1) They can either believe his explanation and say, "Okay, we believe that you just misspoke, but still think you're an idiot." (This is the camp that I fall into.)

or

2) They can say "Whatever. We don't believe your explanation. You are an elitest liar." (This is the camp that some conservative posters fall into, and while I disagree with them, I respect their point of view and can't really argue against it. Because believing Kerry's explanation is nothing more than a subjective judgement call, and mine is no better than theirs.)

Either one of the above arguments makes sense.

On the other hand, we have just about the entire Republican party (and some posters in the Backroom) who just keep repeating over and over again "Yeah, but, we heard him! Kerry said the troops are stupid!"

That is the grade three argument.

Quite frankly, people using that argument should be careful or they may find themselves in Iraq...

~;)

BigTex

11-03-2006, 01:00

I had heard earlier today that he had apologized, originally I hoped this would just settle down now. Since an apology should end the argument about what he said. But it seems like he's still trying to justify what he said. Not only justifying what he said but crying fowl about Bush using a low blow. Well here's the problem, Kerry decided to first make a joke and a low blow about Bush, he majorly screwed it up. Nuff said if you screw up a low blow expect that you'll have hell to pay. Irrelavent of what he meant, what he said was the US army is full of idiots.

Hopefully this will end this skums political aspirations. It might be a GOP's wet dream but without 2 good canidates or more then its bad for the country.

Xiahou

11-03-2006, 01:02

Did he actually come out and apologize or is this still in reference to the blurb someone put on his website?

KukriKhan

11-03-2006, 01:03

Wouldn't that be a major improvement then ? They'd be agreeing on something, and it's not like either of them could actually reach the US...

Lots of folks believed that about Mr. bin Laden a few years back, too ("Haha! The Mouse That Roared! Wingnut in the middle of nowhere declares war on the US" *change channel to impeachment hearings*)

Re: Mr. Kerry. His flubs and late apology won't likely effect next weeks elections, except that it may motivate more PO'd veterans to actually march down to the polls.

However, I'm certain that the Repub machine will have stored his flub video in the arsenal for use in '08, should he even hint about thinking about considering a maybe sorta-kinda trial balloon shot at the White House. He'll retire as Senator, write a book, speak at a few campuses, and be generally ignored.

There are many sins the american electorate will forgive a politician. Condescension is not one of them.

Tribesman

11-03-2006, 01:11

Wow , just wow .
Looky looky ......
On the other hand, we have just about the entire Republican party (and some posters in the Backroom) who just keep repeating over and over again "Yeah, but, we heard him! Kerry said the troops are stupid!"

That is the grade three argument.
..........and in the next post lo and behold .........
Irrelavent of what he meant, what he said was the US army is full of idiots.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Undoubtably you can find a source where he said that Tex:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Though it might be a bit hard as he never said anything about the US army or idiots in his speech .

BigTex

11-03-2006, 01:14

Did he actually come out and apologize or is this still in reference to the blurb someone put on his website?

He came out and apologized "to anyone who took offense to the joke". Not exactly a very good apology but what do you expect to extract from a vile and repulsive narcissist such as him?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :idea2: :juggle2::balloon2: :book: :inquisitive:

Tribesman

11-03-2006, 01:33

Originally Posted by Tribesman
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Indeed Tex , any luck with finding a source that quotes what you claimed was said ?
It shouldn't be that difficult should it , you are after all quite sure of what he said .....
he said was the US army is full of idiots.

Sooooooooo .......can I expect you to post anything to back that up ?
:no:

Don Corleone

11-03-2006, 01:47

Crazed Rabbit

11-03-2006, 03:44

Indeed Tex , any luck with finding a source that quotes what you claimed was said ?
It shouldn't be that difficult should it , you are after all quite sure of what he said .....

Sooooooooo .......can I expect you to post anything to back that up ?

That is exactly what he said July 28 of this year. Or are you just being ignorant again? Sheesh, can't you do a little background research?

CR
Seriously, tribesy, you're being obtuse (most probable) or have a severe lack of comprehension of how language and communication works.

Byzantine Prince

11-03-2006, 03:58

KukriKhan

11-03-2006, 04:18

Bush was an idiot for being stuck in Iraq, how is this about the troops who are there because Bush sent them there? It's not like the military itself has much free will in matters of invasion. You republicans/ex-soldiers are proving your comprehension skills here.

Oh look: even the little Prince has an opinion, and managed to craft an almost grammatically perfect riposte, proving not only his comprehension skills, but his mastery of the language and political astuteness.

How cute.

Never a Republican here. But I'll take credit for the ex-soldier bit.

Byzantine Prince

11-03-2006, 04:35

How cute.
~:wacko:

Papewaio

11-03-2006, 04:51

Its good of course that Bush never makes any speech mistakes... :laugh4:

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-03-2006, 04:53

Goofball - I fall into a fourth category. I think Kerry is an idiot who screwed up and he's an elitist liar. He just didn't lie at that time. :medievalcheers:

KukriKhan

11-03-2006, 05:02

Its good of course that Bush never makes any speech mistakes... :laugh4:

Yeah.

"No doubt in my mind, with your help, Dave Lamberti will be the next United States congressman."—Speaking at a campaign rally for Jeff Lamberti, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006.

just the most recently-recorded mis-spokenism. :)

Prince of the Poodles

11-03-2006, 05:46

Here's some numbers.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm
I believe you would lose your bet. Your post reeks of the same elitism that Kerry seems to suffer from. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb Vet.

Nice.

It never ceases to amaze me how underestimated the US military is by foreigners who seem to know more about our armed forces than we do. I cant say how many times Ive heard the poor, stupid, lowest of society claims, never with any proof. I'd like to see an idiot carry out the complex tasks America's soldiers are required to perform.

Just because the rank and file in Finland are aren't too bright*, doesn't mean the US will accept that low standard. Maybe thats why our army is professional.

*going by what Watchman said...

CrossLOPER

11-03-2006, 06:03

Just because the rank and file in Finland are aren't too bright*, doesn't mean the US will accept that low standard.
Well, I don't mean to derail this thread but...*link* (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/09/national/main2074099.shtml)

They're not going to be as bright as they are.

EDIT: Also, apparently most people really don't want to end up in Iraq.

Fragony

11-03-2006, 11:18

What a lot of noise because of an inapropiate joke :yes:

Watchman

11-03-2006, 13:00

Nice.

It never ceases to amaze me how underestimated the US military is by foreigners who seem to know more about our armed forces than we do. I cant say how many times Ive heard the poor, stupid, lowest of society claims, never with any proof. I'd like to see an idiot carry out the complex tasks America's soldiers are required to perform.

Just because the rank and file in Finland are aren't too bright*, doesn't mean the US will accept that low standard. Maybe thats why our army is professional.

*going by what Watchman said...
Actually, I firmly believe anyone who voluntarily signs up for a war as idiotic as the On Terror one without the excuse of major economic incentives has to be pretty dim in at least some ways.

The level of intelligence of the rank and file isn't actually terribly important anyway. Soldiers aren't supposed to think too much, but to do what they're told and trained to (by officers presumably chosen from among the smarter specimen). Something to do with same the logic behind the vertical/hierarchical chain of command, I understand.

Not the material, but how you use it you know ?

Ironside

11-03-2006, 13:51

I stand corrected, but now I'd like to know the reason why the ratio of recruits from the poorest categories has been dropping so much. Most of the interested ones already sign up or something ?

Can have something to do with that it's war-time numbers, making patrioism a more important factor. And poor people doesn't tend to be as patriotic. It also lowers the potential as a career factor, due to the increased risk involved.

"No doubt in my mind, with your help, Dave Lamberti will be the next United States congressman."—Speaking at a campaign rally for Jeff Lamberti, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006.

It's obvious that Bush supports DDave for congress!! ~D

Seamus Fermanagh

11-03-2006, 14:21

Actually, I firmly believe anyone who voluntarily signs up for a war as idiotic as the On Terror one without the excuse of major economic incentives has to be pretty dim in at least some ways.

I disagree, but this position is very consistent with your previously stated criticisms of the war on terror in general and the Iraq conflict in particular.

The level of intelligence of the rank and file isn't actually terribly important anyway. Soldiers aren't supposed to think too much, but to do what they're told and trained to (by officers presumably chosen from among the smarter specimen). Something to do with same the logic behind the vertical/hierarchical chain of command, I understand.

A rather out of date view from my way of thinking. This was true of an army of the late 1700's and through the middle of the 1800s. They wanted blokes who would hold formation despite cannon balls ripping through and fire in volley when they were told. The key was discipline, and the officers were supposed to do the thinking to move around a formation that was, essentially, "one" person in action.

This kind of thinking killed tens of thousands of my countrymen during our Civil War and millions of Europeans during the Great War.

Modern combat demands looser/non-existent formations, is often shockingly mobile, and creates intense and often ambiguous decision-making situations that have to be resolved on an ongoing basis. Adaptability and rapid-fire decision-making are not encouraged by simply sweeping up the "lumber of the land" and sticking them in a uniform.

Whatever the faults of our leadership -- and to learn what people suppose those to be you can consult nearly every other thread in the Backroom -- the US military puts an emphasis on brains too. Modern combat may not be "rocket science," but it does not reward stupidity.

I will never know if Kerry simply botched a joke, or let slip some prejudice about the armed forces. Either is possible. Kerry himself is a decorated combat veteran who can't possibly be unaware of what that means -- he's been there. On the other hand, the army we fielded in Vietnam did, for a number of reasons, field too much of the "lumber," as the conscription & deferment process was full of inequities. Since that time-frame has to be a compelling part of his life experience, his views of the military may well have been somewhat "calcified" with that framework in mind.

The only thing I can see for sure here is that Kerry's gaffe (real or blown out of proportion) has handed the GOP a chance to mobilize their core voters and possibly retain Congress. This one event may reverse all of the Foley fallout that had seemed to "ice" things for the Dems. The vote was always going to come closer, but the Dems hoped that disgusted GOP voters would stay clear of the polls. Kerry (or Rove using him) just managed to remind all of them that Kerry would have more of a role in national security if they don't vote, and that will galvanize many to come to the polls on Tuesday.

yesdachi

11-03-2006, 14:37

The level of intelligence of the rank and file isn't actually terribly important anyway. Soldiers aren't supposed to think too much, but to do what they're told and trained to (by officers presumably chosen from among the smarter specimen). Something to do with same the logic behind the vertical/hierarchical chain of command, I understand.
It seems to me that even the even the mundane tasks the rank and file are required to carry out are more involved and require a smarter or at least a better trained soldier than ever before. I agree that soldiers are not expected to think too much but I take that to mean that they are not to think too much about things outside their given tasks, tasks that seem to take more thinking than ever. :bow:

IRONxMortlock

11-03-2006, 15:12

Fragony

11-03-2006, 15:22

I've never really understood why Americans of the right hate Kerry so much. Ok, I get the partisan thing but I mean the right-wing is famous for its glorification of the military and veterans etc. Using such criteria for what makes a real man, I don't understand how when they look at the following two men they end up supporting Bush.

Man 1: Used family connections to take the safe way out of the war. Even then stayed AWOL for long periods, didn't take a stand on anything and enjoyed a drunken, coke fueled free-ride through life.

Man 2: Served two tours of duty in a war zone, awarded Silver Star, Bronze Star and three purple hearts. From his experiences he realised the war was wrong and needed to be ended and took a stand on a cause he believed in.

In short, one man is a decorated war hero and the other is... well, his record shows he is kind of like Mayor Quimby's son.
This site provides a comparison of the two military records. http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

I'm not trolling here, this is a serious question;
How can a right-wing which idolises the military and its heroes despise a war hero while supporting a man who didn't step up to the plate during a time of war?

I don't get it, what do you have against the USA, despite being nuked a few times? Why do you care so much about what goes on there? Americans are their own best critics, and there is much more debate going on then there is here in the number one champion of free press which supposedly is the Netherlands. I saw a documentary called 'outfoxed' a few weeks ago, our statetelevision was foaming because fox always seems to have two with the fox-mind and only one who opposes, kinda funny because only lefties get a stage here, would love to have only one rightwing debater against two lefties, would be a major improvement.

IRONxMortlock

11-03-2006, 15:47

I don't get it, what do you have against the USA, despite being nuked a few times? Why do you care so much about what goes on there? Americans are their own best critics, and there is much more debate going on then there is here in the number one champion of free press which supposedly is the Netherlands. I saw a documentary called 'outfoxed' a few weeks ago, our statetelevision was foaming because fox always seems to have two with the fox-mind and only one who opposes, kinda funny because only lefties get a stage here, would love to have only one rightwing debater against two lefties, would be a major improvement.

:no: :shame:

Yeah, well perhaps that will happen sometime.

I have no idea what your comments have to do with anything I said. I didn't bring up anything remotely "anti-american" just asked a simple question.

Lemur

11-03-2006, 15:49

I have no idea what your comments have to do with anything I said. I didn't bring up anything remotely "anti-american" just asked a simple question.
Why do you hate freedom?

yesdachi

11-03-2006, 15:56

I'm not trolling here, this is a serious question;
How can a right-wing which idolises the military and its heroes despise a war hero while supporting a man who didn't step up to the plate during a time of war?
There is more to picking a president than their military record, and Kerry has pretty much spit on his own military record by repeatedly saying stupid things about the military. Kerry is scary looking, uncharismatic, flip flops, who disses the military, has a history of aligning with idiots, has had a drab political career and gets his money from his wife’s family (yummy Michigan pickles), and these are all things people don’t like. I would absolutely love it if the Democratic Party would give us a decent candidate. Please John Kerry, for the sake of your party, just retire.

Don Corleone

11-03-2006, 16:04

You raise some valid questions Iron Mortlock. I think the answers lie in:

-Only partisan Democrats really believe this fantasy that George W Bush used family influence to get into the Air National Guard, then partied his way through it the entire time. Likewise, he most likely got into Yale, and earned the grades he received there for better or worse, on his own merits. Your assuming a lot of facts not in evidence, and the primary document supporting this theory was proven to be a forgery, written by a Democratic party hack from Texas (who just happened to also be in Bush's Air National Guard unit).

-Above anything else, the Right believes in the sovereignty of the USA. When John Kerry said that he would begin his presidency by going around apologizing to the rest of the world, and then asking the UN for permission whenever he thoguht we needed to use force, he lost any hope of getting the right or the middle in this country. Americans may not agree with the war, but they certainly don't agree with the idea that France, Russia and China should have the right to dictate American policy to us.

-Americans as a whole respect people who actually believe in what they're saying. A majority of Americans do not agree with Bush's views on Iraq and the necesity of entering the conflict, but most agree that Bush himself actually believed in it and still does. Kerry on the other hand seems to take whatever position is politically expedient. That business about 'flip-flop'? That wasn't just namecalling. We don't want a leader that will do whatever he thinks is popular, or will get him the most votes. We want a guy who whether we agree with him or not will make some statements about where he stands and then will stand behind them. John Kerry seems utterly incapable of taking a principled stand of any sort, other than that he has the best hair.

Fragony

11-03-2006, 16:04

I have no idea what your comments have to do with anything I said.

It's not just this thread, you seem to have a fascination with america, for Japan counts the same as for Holland, if we dislike america so much we should just stop buying it. Our companies love the way america is, they don't back give the conservative plenty $ for their campaigns for nothing, we own a great chunk of the place and would love the place to stay the way it is.

yesdachi

11-03-2006, 16:08

John Kerry seems utterly incapable of taking a principled stand of any sort, other than that he has the best hair.
And that he hates W! :laugh4:

Redleg

11-03-2006, 16:10

Actually, I firmly believe anyone who voluntarily signs up for a war as idiotic as the On Terror one without the excuse of major economic incentives has to be pretty dim in at least some ways.

The problem seems that you have heard of the enlistment bonus that the military in the United States is giving for people to enlist into the service. It also seems that you are attempting to equate the United States all volunteer force to the military of your nation. The two do not necessarily equate to the same types of military.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/bonus/blarenlbonusnew.htm

The level of intelligence of the rank and file isn't actually terribly important anyway. Soldiers aren't supposed to think too much, but to do what they're told and trained to (by officers presumably chosen from among the smarter specimen). Something to do with same the logic behind the vertical/hierarchical chain of command, I understand.

Again it seems you do not have much in the way of accurate information about the United States Military. For instance what is the role of the Battalion Sergant Major in the United States Military. Take a look what influence this individual has at all levels of command, from Battalion to Corps.

Guess who I leaned on as a commander for sage advice on how to best command my troops. (Give you a hint, it was not a commissioned officer.)

The units that I served with - wanted all its soldiers to think about what they were doing. For instance I know of several occasions where the quick thinking of an NCO change the course of several training battles at the National Training Center. I know first hand the importance in changing the course of action for a division because of a non-commissioned officer during Desert Storm.

I would suggest some reading on the role of the NCO in the United States Army before believing that they are not required to think and lead. (For instance while I took the officer ranks, my younger brother went enlisted. You don't make First Sergeant in the United States Army if you can not think and lead, and I find it highly amusing when people believe that it does not take any intelligence to be in the military, given my own experiences in the service, while there are some true knuckleheads in the military, they are less then many would want to believe.)

Not the material, but how you use it you know ?

Exactly, which makes me wonder why you believe that enlisted soldiers are not required to think and lead?

Lemur

11-03-2006, 16:20

The units that I served with - wanted all its soldiers to think about what they were doing. For instance I know of several occasions where the quick thinking of an NCO change the course of several training battles at the National Training Center. I know first hand the importance in changing the course of action for a division because of a non-commissioned officer during Desert Storm.
This is pretty spot-on. One of the things that distinguishes a great military from a house of cards is the quality of the NCOs. Many commentators have pointed out that a fatal weakness in the Iraqi army of old was the lack of an NCO class -- there were the officers who disconnected whenever possible from hard work and danger, and the soldiers who were expected to obey and die.

That sort of army is fragile and hollow, as our latest conflict showed. You could lose the entire officer class and our military would still roll on, largely because of the strength of our NCO tradition. Any good account of D-Day will demonstrate the importance of non-officers who can lead and decide in the heat of battle.

Oh, and Don C's points about Bush/Kerry were very cogent, one of the best summations I've yet read. I'm not sure that suspicion about Bush's history is the exclusive province of lefty paranoids, but I'm sure it doesn't matter at this late date.

Kerry dug his own hole, time and time again. I'm kind of glad he messed up so badly. It would be great if this ended his political career; he's been a walking disaster for some time. A politician, by nature of his frickin' job, should know how to not say just the wrong thing at just the wrong moment.

Kralizec

11-03-2006, 16:22

-Only partisan Democrats really believe this fantasy that George W Bush used family influence to get into the Air National Guard, then partied his way through it the entire time. Likewise, he most likely got into Yale, and earned the grades he received there for better or worse, on his own merits. Your assuming a lot of facts not in evidence, and the primary document supporting this theory was proven to be a forgery, written by a Democratic party hack from Texas (who just happened to also be in Bush's Air National Guard unit).

Nevertheless I think it's funny that while a war was going on in Vietnam and while he was awarded a relatively safe job of guarding Texan airspace from a possible Vietcong attack, he still stressed out as there's no indication that he reported for work or physical exams for the last two years of his service.

30 years later, he crawls back into uniform shoot some nice pictures.

http://www.davidstuff.com/usa/lincoln/bush-pilot.jpg

Spino

11-03-2006, 17:40

Preach on, Brother Watchman. Personally, in looking at the American electorate... more and more I'm starting to think Robert Heinlein was right :shocked: Scary thought...

On the bounce trooper! MOVE IT!

Tribesman

11-03-2006, 17:49

Oh grow up Tribesman. We all know how the joke reads at surface level and now we all know what the speechwriter meant for him to say. Not to mention, as the reigning king of refusal to provide links, you've got some nerve demanding them from anyone.

Don't be silly Don , someone managed the amazing feat of posting what the previous poser had described as the little schoolkids answer , that deserves ridicule . I didn't demand a link to what Kerry said , the comment is already linked , Tex claimed rather fooishly that what he posted is what was said . since what was said has already been linked and is not what Tex claimed was said then he obviously has another source where the speech contains different words
I would be very interested in this other source , though I suspect it is only available to those who can pretend it exists in their imagination .

That is exactly what he said July 28 of this year. Or are you just being ignorant again? Sheesh, can't you do a little background research?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Nice try Rabbit , but no cigar . Feel free to prove me wrong in calling bull on that one .
Take the whole month of July , take the whole year if you like ,and show the speech where he says that , or anything even remotely similar .

But seriously , what is wrong with the rabid republican people .
Kerry is a bloody fool , yet again and again they have to invent things that he didn't say , misrepresent things that he did say , or take the occasional sensible things he said and call them stupid .
Can they not just attack the substance of Kerry , or his lack of it , insread of just spouting bullshit

Don Corleone

11-03-2006, 17:56

Don't be silly Don , someone managed the amazing feat of posting what the previous poser had described as the little schoolkids answer , that deserves ridicule . I didn't demand a link to what Kerry said , the comment is already linked , Tex claimed rather fooishly that what he posted is what was said . since what was said has already been linked and is not what Tex claimed was said then he obviously has another source where the speech contains different words
I would be very interested in this other source , though I suspect it is only available to those who can pretend it exists in their imagination .

Okay,first, I don't know if you have any idea how annoying it is when you make a complicated argument and insist on referring to each and every party as indirect pronouns: (this is how what you say comes out, to me)
Somebody said something that was some sort of a something, but somebody else might have said something that nobody thought was anything... Nobody has said anything that somebody didn't say that somebody said they didn't say or they didn't say it.:dizzy2:

Second, if what you're trying to say above is that Big Tex stated that he was directly quoting Kerry, then you're right, I was absolutely wrong, and Big Tex should be called on it. But I missed that part. What I saw was Big Tex paraphrasing the joke. Or are you the only one that's allowed to paraphrase around here?

Crazed Rabbit

11-03-2006, 18:18

Nevertheless I think it's funny that while a war was going on in Vietnam and while he was awarded a relatively safe job of guarding Texan airspace from a possible Vietcong attack, he still stressed out as there's no indication that he reported for work or physical exams for the last two years of his service.

30 years later, he crawls back into uniform shoot some nice pictures.

:dizzy2: Because, of course, he should have worn a dress suit in the plane instead of a flight suit.

Nice try Rabbit , but no cigar . Feel free to prove me wrong in calling bull on that one .
Take the whole month of July , take the whole year if you like ,and show the speech where he says that , or anything even remotely similar .

What? I think it is your imperative to look them up. Or are you just going to keep on making arguments that have no factual basis since you are unaware of important events?

But seriously , what is wrong with the rabid republican people .
Kerry is a bloody fool , yet again and again they have to invent things that he didn't say , misrepresent things that he did say , or take the occasional sensible things he said and call them stupid .

Eh, no we don't. We don't have to invent stupid things and claim he said them, he already says plenty of stupid things. Plus, as the swift boat thing and this proves, he's a really stupid political operator.

CR

Goofball

11-03-2006, 18:19

Goofball - I fall into a fourth category. I think Kerry is an idiot who screwed up and he's an elitist liar. He just didn't lie at that time. :medievalcheers:

Also a reasonable, defendable position, and one that I would be hard pressed to find fault with.

:sweatdrop:

Pindar

11-03-2006, 18:38

I've never really understood why Americans of the right hate Kerry so much. Ok, I get the partisan thing but I mean the right-wing is famous for its glorification of the military and veterans etc. ...How can a right-wing which idolises the military and its heroes despise a war hero while supporting a man who didn't step up to the plate during a time of war?

Hi IRONxMortlock,

In addition to what Don posted I think its instructive to know the Right's distain for Kerry predates the rise of Bush by decades. The derision traces back to Kerry's Vietnam Era testimony before Congress (1971) where he charged U.S. Military war atrocities as the norm and aligned himself with the Winter Solider Investigation (1972). Kerry's stance was(is) taken as agenda ridden, disingenuous, and contributing to a domestic hostility toward the war that would ultimately lead to defeat.

Tribesman

11-03-2006, 18:38

What? I think it is your imperative to look them up. Or are you just going to keep on making arguments that have no factual basis since you are unaware of important events?

You are not very good at it are you Rabbit . :oops:
It was a very silly move to put in a specific date for the speech you imagined :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: or did you think statements and speeches would be hard to find .

So ,you have the offer from the last post , surely even in that limited time frame you can find something that may make your claim slightly less of the bullshit variety .

Second, if what you're trying to say above is that Big Tex stated that he was directly quoting Kerry, then you're right, I was absolutely wrong, and Big Tex should be called on it. But I missed that part. What I saw was Big Tex paraphrasing the joke. Or are you the only one that's allowed to paraphrase around here?
What part did you miss.......
what he said was the US army is full of idiots.
.....so which part of the speech contained those words to paraphrase ?

Tribesman

11-03-2006, 18:42

edit to add to the last sentance.....or intent....

Don Corleone

11-03-2006, 18:46

What part did you miss.......
what he said was the US army is full of idiots.
.....so which part of the speech contained those words to paraphrase ?

"If you work hard in school, be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you wind up stuck in Iraq".

One possible interpretation of that, clearly, is that Kerry was speaking to the students. In this interpretation, Kerry is implying that those in the military didn't work hard in school or weren't smart. It is this interpretation that Big Tex was summarizing with "he said the US army is full of idiots".

I agree that the joke called for a dig at Bush, and him not being very bright and dragging us into Iraq, but that's hardly the only reasonable conclusion. Which meaning you seized upon will color how you paraphrase the joke.

Tribesman

11-03-2006, 19:13

In addition to what Don posted I think its instructive to know the Right's distain for Kerry predates the rise of Bush by decades. The derision traces back to Kerry's Vietnam Era testimony before Congress (1971) where he charged U.S. Military war atrocities as the norm and aligned himself with the Winter Solider Investigation (1972). Kerry's stance was(is) taken as agenda ridden, disingenuous, and contributing to a domestic hostility toward the war that would ultimately lead to defeat.

But atrocities as described were the norm , it was a very messy conflict .
What ultimately led to defeat is almost identical to the current conflict , domestic hostility is only one aspect of it .

Sir Moody

11-03-2006, 19:21

god people just let it rest the poor horse past on years ago....

Pindar

11-03-2006, 19:30

But atrocities as described were the norm...

That is a controversial stance that does not appear to have any supporting data. As I recall, studies that have gone in for such comparisons found less incidence than in say WWII. Regardless, Kerry's testimonial to such (comparing the U.S. Military's behavior to the Hordes of Ghengis Khan etc.) is one of the reasons he is despised by the Right.

Prince of the Poodles

11-03-2006, 20:31

The level of intelligence of the rank and file isn't actually terribly important anyway. Soldiers aren't supposed to think too much, but to do what they're told and trained to (by officers presumably chosen from among the smarter specimen). Something to do with same the logic behind the vertical/hierarchical chain of command, I understand.

I think Ive found the disconnect.

That concept is no longer supported by the American armed forces.

While soldiers are of course expected to follow orders, they are also expected to think for themselves.

Crazed Rabbit

11-03-2006, 20:39

You are not very good at it are you Rabbit .
It was a very silly move to put in a specific date for the speech you imagined or did you think statements and speeches would be hard to find .

Tribesy, tribesy, tribesy. You just haven't found the speech yet, have you?

Come back after looking a bit harder.

What part did you miss.......
what he said was the US army is full of idiots.
.....so which part of the speech contained those words to paraphrase ?

So, what should the odds on being obtuse vs not fully comprehending english be?

CR

Kralizec

11-03-2006, 20:56

:dizzy2: Because, of course, he should have worn a dress suit in the plane instead of a flight suit.

I just thought it was ironic. But even then, I was wrong- a nice picture to show how much Bush loves the military can't have crossed his mind for a second, it was purely accidental. He also didn't know that the thanksgiving turkey was made out of plastic ~:rolleyes:

That is a controversial stance that does not appear to have any supporting data. As I recall, studies that have gone in for such comparisons found less incidence than in say WWII.

Are you saying that the Vietnam was more "civil" then WWII? (bar the Russian front, wich was a horrorible nightmare)

Pindar

11-03-2006, 21:28

Are you saying that the Vietnam was more "civil" then WWII? (bar the Russian front, wich was a horrorible nightmare)

The comment concerns the U.S. Military and incidence of war crimes or similar atrocities based on the 71 testimony of Kerry before Congress. Kerry referenced Genghis Khan, I mentioned WWII as a easier frame of reference.

Tribesman

11-03-2006, 22:25

That is a controversial stance that does not appear to have any supporting data.
There is nothing contraversial about that stance at all , the hearings themselves provide supporting data , but the biggest supporting data would have been the Militaries own inquiries into practices used and events in Vietnam and neighbouring countries , but unfortunately the government re-classified them shortly after they were released under FOI .Apparently because the 9000pages of data contain names they cannot be released .

Tribesy, tribesy, tribesy. You just haven't found the speech yet, have you?

Still playing silly buggers eh rabbit .
Tell you what , you find any speech at all that Kerry made that friday and I will open a full page topic saying you ain't talking bullshit :yes:
hey , it don't even have to say the army is full of stupid people , any public comment from that day will do .
Until then .......

Prince of the Poodles

11-03-2006, 22:28

Do you do this to every thread?

Goofball

11-04-2006, 00:11

While I don't agree with all of the following, I found it interesting as it jibed well with my earlier "3 options" theme:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/

Tribesman

11-04-2006, 00:44

While I don't agree with all of the following, I found it interesting as it jibed well with my earlier "3 options" theme:

Yep , there are several similar ones from various media outlets in the US and elsewhere .

Kanamori

11-04-2006, 02:06

This whole thing is ridiculous. Why must my civil life be determined by moronic public intrigue and surreal nightmares like this?:wall:

AntiochusIII

11-04-2006, 03:24

This whole thing is ridiculous. Why must my civil life be determined by moronic public intrigue and surreal nightmares like this?:wall:Why? Democracy. :tongue:

Just look at this thread. I'm sure the average interest in politics and enlightenment level of the Backroom frequenters is relatively higher than most of the population, and yet the sentiment, "Kerry insulted our troops!" is still very prevalent.

Quite frankly, some of the people just scream how sick they are of the government on one side and then go out to vote for them again on the other, with excuses such as "The lesser evil" or "Loyalty to my Party." Or better yet, "Kerry insulted our troops."

IRONxMortlock

11-04-2006, 03:33

Thanks for the answers guys.

So the real issue with Kerry then is that he fails to make a stand and appears to change his opinions on important topics depending on how the political winds are blowing?

However I would have thought alligning himself with the peace movement after he served two tours of duty in Veitnam would demonstrate that he does (or at least did) stick up for what he believes in. Surely that shows he can take a stand?
I guess for his "flip-flopping" on Iraq he could claim he was voting on the same crappy intelligence that Bush had rather than the pitiful excuse for war which anyone with a memory and some common sense could tell was a pack of lies (WMDs and threat to world (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU)) (I've got to stop throwing in little digs like this I know but I can't help it! Just irresistable to me.). Now that the truth has come out (and it's not political suicide to do so) he has changed his mind on the issue. I find that more admirable than senselessly sticking to your guns when your what you're trying to do is not working.

Just to let you know, I don't support Kerry. I think the guy's a bit of a smartarse to be frank. It's just that a lot of the criticism against him doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Americans may not agree with the war, but they certainly don't agree with the idea that France, Russia and China should have the right to dictate American policy to us.
Unrelated to this Kerry thing, if you reverse the order of the countries in this sentance (i.e exchange Russia, China and France with America) it would go a long way to explaining why so many people in France, Russia and China dispise the US.

Because, of course, he should have worn a dress suit in the plane instead of a flight suit.
ROFL! You must be the only person in the world who believes Bush is wearing that costume for utilitarian purposes!
BTW - Anyone else here think they put a sock in his undies "We are Spinal Tap" style?

Don Corleone

11-04-2006, 04:17

Unrelated to this Kerry thing, if you reverse the order of the countries in this sentance (i.e exchange Russia, China and France with America) it would go a long way to explaining why so many people in France, Russia and China dispise the US.

How so? The last time we attempted to push the French on their policies was in the Suez, when our so-called alliance ended.

The only time we've ever dared to tell the Chinese what to do was when we 'advised' them that entering Taiwan, South Korea or Japan would be a mistake. As the third beneficiary of that protectorate, I would think a Japanese national would appreciate that we limit China's aggressive posturing (and we don't actually limit it all that much). China is a sovereign state, we respect that and do not interfere with their ability to protect themselves. But perhaps you are right and we should allow them to look for a little breathing room and withdraw our forces from the Pacific rim. Have fun.

As for Russia, I would really have to search the memory banks for the last time we've attempted to dictate policy to them. Well, we did let them know that we didn't appreciate their policy towards us in Cuba in 1962. Yes, what a bunch of warmongers we were, not wanting nuclear warheads parked 30 miles off our coast.

Yet all of three of these nations, and others, feel free to dictate terms to the United States on what we can and cannot do to defend ourselves. Your gratitude is underwhelming.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-04-2006, 05:02

I'm not even sure about you anymore. :no:

And What Happens to be your Point?:whip:

IrishArmenian

11-04-2006, 07:52

I picked B.

BigTex

11-04-2006, 07:55

What part did you miss.......
what he said was the US army is full of idiots.
.....so which part of the speech contained those words to paraphrase ?

Indeed he did state the US army is full of lazy idiots. Yes I did paraphrase the joke, that was refered to earlier in the paragraph you qouted.

education if you make the most of it, study hard and do your homework and make an effort to be smart you'll do well. If you don't you get stuck in iraq.

Ok english teaching time. If you are not smart, you are unintelligent also known as being an idiot. If you don't work hard, you are called lazy. He is stating wether he meant to or not (but since the speech was written out infront of him...) that the US armed forces are neither smart, nor do the work hard.

Yes he said he didn't mean it, and later the portion of the speech was shown. But when he spoke he didn't mention bush, he didn't mention the presidency he only mentioned the US armed forces.

Keba

11-04-2006, 09:09

Soldiers don't get stuck in Iraq, political leadership does ... I found the joke quite obvious, even before I learned of this whole mess.

Typical American, instead of interpreting everything the most polite way, you always go for the worst possible interpretation.

Oh, and I don't see in that snippet any mention of the US armed forces.

Tribesman

11-04-2006, 12:17

Indeed he did state the US army is full of lazy idiots. Yes I did paraphrase the joke, that was refered to earlier in the paragraph you qouted.

:wall: :wall: :wall: No he didn't

Ok english teaching time. If you are not smart, you are unintelligent also known as being an idiot. If you don't work hard, you are called lazy. He is stating wether he meant to or not (but since the speech was written out infront of him...) that the US armed forces are neither smart, nor do the work hard.

Yes he said he didn't mean it, and later the portion of the speech was shown. But when he spoke he didn't mention bush, he didn't mention the presidency he only mentioned the US armed forces.

Is English not your first language then ?
Tex try any language you like , any translation whatsoever , and show that the speech delivered does not mention the presidency or does mention the US armed forces .
Since your post leaves only two possible options
ayou havn't read or heard the speech
byou , like the president mentioned in the speech , have moved from the State of Texas and are in the state of denial .

Oh , add option c ...both of the above .~:doh:

Oh, and I don't see in that snippet any mention of the US armed forces.
Well thats where it gets tricky Keba and hence the confusion .
If you get the whole speech instead of just the snippet , it is really amazing , as it doesn't contain any mention of it either .:laugh4:

whyidie

11-04-2006, 15:23

Typical American, instead of interpreting everything the most polite way, you always go for the worst possible interpretation.

You can't be properly outraged if you don't take the extreme view.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-05-2006, 08:14

No he didn't

He certainly did. There was no mention of Bush getting us stuck there. He was speaking to students. This is a case of him saying what he really thinks instead of saying the bad joke that was written for him. Hes an elitist pure and simple. He probably thinks the only smart person ever to enter the military was him. He should have just apologised right from the start.

Keba

11-05-2006, 09:44

He certainly did. There was no mention of Bush getting us stuck there. He was speaking to students. This is a case of him saying what he really thinks instead of saying the bad joke that was written for him. Hes an elitist pure and simple. He probably thinks the only smart person ever to enter the military was him. He should have just apologised right from the start.

So, you know what he was thinking how? Telepathy?

Look, I'm not saying the guy's not an idiot for screwing up a joke like that, but this whole insulting the troops thing is even more foolish than Kerry is, and you have to try really hard to achieve that.

Prince of the Poodles

11-05-2006, 10:02

You dont know what he was thinking either...

His history on the military would lend itself to Gawain of Orkeney's point of view though.

Kanamori

11-05-2006, 11:46

Okay, I've tried to find things that Kerry's said about the military before, and all that I can find is general descriptions of his testimonies of widespread war-crimes comitted by American Soldiers and his general anti-war stance after coming back from Vietnam...

Tribesman

11-05-2006, 12:02

He certainly did. There was no mention of Bush getting us stuck there. He was speaking to students. This is a case of him saying what he really thinks instead of saying the bad joke that was written for him. Hes an elitist pure and simple. He probably thinks the only smart person ever to enter the military was him. He should have just apologised right from the start.

Another one residing in the great State of Denial .

So Gawain , undoubtably you can find a reference from the speech actually refering to the military being the carreer choice for idiots and also show an absence of the the reference which preceeded the 10 second snippet where he is talking about Bush being the idiot .
Until then you havn't got a leg to stand on .

Meneldil

11-05-2006, 15:13

Yet all of three of these nations, and others, feel free to dictate terms to the United States on what we can and cannot do to defend ourselves. Your gratitude is underwhelming.

Come on Don, what he was speaking about is the way the US pretend to always know what is good for everyone and what is not. How the US don't give a crap about the UN, how the US quite often regard their ally as sh*t whenever the given allies don't agree with US' policies.

Of course, France does the same thing, just as China and Russia, but France doesn't have neither the same political nor military power as the US

Gawain of Orkeny

11-05-2006, 17:52

So Gawain , undoubtably you can find a reference from the speech actually refering to the military being the carreer choice for idiots

And you can find one to Bush? Just read what he said.

Until then you havn't got a leg to stand on

So, you know what he was thinking how? Telepathy?

No Im going by his track record.

Okay, I've tried to find things that Kerry's said about the military before, and all that I can find is general descriptions of his testimonies of widespread war-crimes comitted by American Soldiers and his general anti-war stance after coming back from Vietnam...

How about the comment on US troops terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the middle of the night?

Lemur

11-05-2006, 17:58

Personal favorite (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAsSzTkX94): "To maintain control of Congress, Republicans must exhume and re-animate the bloated political corpse of John Kerry, so that they can kill him again."

Gawain of Orkeny

11-05-2006, 18:28

"To maintain control of Congress, Republicans must exhume and re-animate the bloated political corpse of John Kerry, so that they can kill him again."

Duh. He did it himself. He opened his dumb mouth. He and Gore are the gifts that just keep on giving. To think thatv these two were the last two democratic candidates for president is really scary. Notice that the democrats have hidden away Pelosi and and Dean so that they wont cause further trouble until after the election.

Brenus

11-05-2006, 19:41

“Yes, what a bunch of warmongers we were, not wanting nuclear warheads parked 30 miles off our coast.” And the fact you had nuclear war head at 5 km from their borders never occurred to you? (Turkey)

“Yet all of three of these nations, and others, feel free to dictate terms to the United States on what we can and cannot do to defend ourselves. Your gratitude is underwhelming.” Why China and Russia should be grateful, for what exactly?

France should be grateful and is, however, it doesn’t give the right to US to ask France to follow blindly in an adventure every body knew it was smelling fish: because actually it was more the US who “feel free to dictate terms” than the others. Who told “our intelligence said”, “we know that”, “link with Al-Quaida”, “believe us” and all the other deliberate lies? I don’t believe the CIA is just an incompetent bunch of people, nor the MI5, or 6.
So France should have follow, sending her soldiers to die because Bush and Blair decide to lie? You ask a lot on the name of gratefulness, are you?

Now about Kerry, I still don’t understand how the Americans can see a guy who never fought as a war hero and the guy who actually earn a Medal of Honour as almost a traitor…
And if you want statistics, just go on ratio of Orange Agent, Napalm and tons of Iron flooded on Vietnam and you will understand why perhaps some comparisons were done…

Kralizec

11-05-2006, 20:43

“Yes, what a bunch of warmongers we were, not wanting nuclear warheads parked 30 miles off our coast.” And the fact you had nuclear war head at 5 km from their borders never occurred to you? (Turkey)

How would that have comforted any American living then? And the American public didn't know about the missiles in Turkey at that point)
Kruschev's backing off at the end of the missile crises was thus interpreted as a factual US victory, the truth was that as an exchange the missiles in Turkey were dismantled and/or moved.

Kenedy did a good job handling the crisis. Mcnamera wanted to bomb Cuba back to the stone age till Kenedy dissuaded him. A I remember from a documentary that years later a Russian general told Mcnamera that the USSR had operating missiles at that point and would have retaliated. According to the documentary Mcnameras face went entirely pale :beam:

Redleg

11-05-2006, 22:17

How would that have comforted any American living then? And the American public didn't know about the missiles in Turkey at that point)
Kruschev's backing off at the end of the missile crises was thus interpreted as a factual US victory, the truth was that as an exchange the missiles in Turkey were dismantled and/or moved.

Only some - there was still a nuclear weapons storage site maintained in Turkey until all battlefield nuclear weapons were removed from the inventory after the fall of the Soviet Union. In fact in the 1970's the Turks wanted access to the weapons and a potential crisis developed between the United States and Turkey over the issue.

Kenedy did a good job handling the crisis. Mcnamera wanted to bomb Cuba back to the stone age till Kenedy dissuaded him. A I remember from a documentary that years later a Russian general told Mcnamera that the USSR had operating missiles at that point and would have retaliated. According to the documentary Mcnameras face went entirely pale :beam:

The Cuban Missle Crisis and the Speech at the Berlin Wall are the two main history lessons of the Kennedy Adminstration

Seamus Fermanagh

11-06-2006, 05:53

“Yes, what a bunch of warmongers we were, not wanting nuclear warheads parked 30 miles off our coast.” And the fact you had nuclear war head at 5 km from their borders never occurred to you? (Turkey)

Cuba and Florida are roughly 90 miles apart.

I sincerely doubt we'd have stationed missile less than 5 klicks from the Soviet border -- too close and too tempting for a commando raid/surprise attack.

Yes, we did have missiles in Turkey at the time of the Cuban Crisis. Yes they were withdrawn shortly afterwards. Yes some have made the argument that this was a "de facto" arrangement between the governments, though no concrete proof has surfaced. It is known that the missiles did annoy the Soviets.

Brenus

11-06-2006, 08:54

Xiahou

11-06-2006, 09:44

Kerry "botches (https://youtube.com/watch?v=t4Uf3PpaDT8)" another joke. :laugh4:

Seamus Fermanagh

11-06-2006, 14:13

“I sincerely doubt we'd have stationed missile less than 5 klicks from the Soviet border”: It was a figure of speech. I could have spoke about USSR feeling to be surrounded by potential enemies. In their point of view, to put nuclear warheads in Cuba was jut the answer of the Sheppard to the Wolf.

I agree. There were definitely a good few in the politburo who thought that arming Cuba would be no more than a "quid pro quo" to counter the Jupiters we already had deployed in Turkey.

The scary part was how close we came to a nuke war in that incident. Soviet sources and interviews after the breakup in 89-91 confirmed that the local Soviet commander had a couple of tac nukes, knew himself to be outclassed, and would have used them on the US invasion fleet if we had tried the other approach, which was an airstrike followed by a landing.

While the USA would have won the resulting strategic exchange -- our missile were more reliable than theirs as well as equal in numbers at that point, and our bomber fleet would have penetrated reasonably well -- the casualties in such a war would have been ghastly.

yesdachi

11-06-2006, 15:34

Typical American, instead of interpreting everything the most polite way, you always go for the worst possible interpretation.
I didn’t realize there was a polite way to interpret it.

Keba

11-06-2006, 17:00

I didn’t realize there was a polite way to interpret it.

There is ... first, you think of the context. It is election time, and the campaign is mostly about low blows, which means insulting other politicians is common. Then you think of what Kerry was talking about, and it wasn't the military.

Thus, the sole conclusion possible is that he was talking about the President of the US ... after all, he did get stuck in Iraq, something even his dad didn't manage to do. After all, Bush was expousing the whole 'Stay the course' thing, thus, he was the one stuck there.

How any sane person could draw the conclusion that Kerry was talking about the soldiers is totally beyond me.

yesdachi

11-06-2006, 17:16

There is ... first, you think of the context. It is election time, and the campaign is mostly about low blows, which means insulting other politicians is common. Then you think of what Kerry was talking about, and it wasn't the military.

Thus, the sole conclusion possible is that he was talking about the President of the US ... after all, he did get stuck in Iraq, something even his dad didn't manage to do. After all, Bush was expousing the whole 'Stay the course' thing, thus, he was the one stuck there.

How any sane person could draw the conclusion that Kerry was talking about the soldiers is totally beyond me.
Neither insulting the troops nor insulting the president is “polite” IMO. Pot shot taken in front of students is in poor taste to me, but I guess constructive criticism doesn’t get as many minutes on CNN. :bow:

Keba

11-06-2006, 17:32

I never said I agreed with it, liked it, or would vote for the schmuck if I were an American. Hell, even I think the guy's useless and worse than Bush.

However, this thing annoys me enough to stand up for the guy.

EDIT: Whoops, tiny mistake.

Goofball

11-06-2006, 18:32

Ok english teaching time. If you are not smart, you are unintelligent also known as being an idiot. If you don't work hard, you are called lazy. He is stating wether he meant to or not (but since the speech was written out infront of him...) that the US armed forces are neither smart, nor do the work hard.

English Lesson Part Two:

Today's new word:

con·text (khttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifksthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fcontext) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif
n.

The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.Pay particular attention to 1, as it is very important to this discussion. Rather than type it all out myself, I'm just going to quote from the article I posted previously, as it explains it very clearly. So clearly in fact, that only those who really don't want to understand it won't be able to after reading it.

Sen. Kerry, as you well know, spoke at a college in Southern California. With bitter humor he told the students that he had been in Texas the day before, that President Bush used to live in that state, but that now he lives in the state of denial.
He said the trip had reminded him about the value of education — that “if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
The senator, in essence, called Mr. Bush stupid.
The context was unmistakable: Texas; the state of denial; stuck in Iraq. No interpretation required.

There's that pesky "context" word again...

Yes he said he didn't mean it, and later the portion of the speech was shown. But when he spoke he didn't mention bush, he didn't mention the presidency he only mentioned the US armed forces.

As shown above, he did mention Bush. But you and the rest of the Republican party chose not to include that in your quoting of him.

Yuck. This thread is leaving a bad taste in my mouth, having to defend a guy who I think actually is an idiot, but for different reasons than those stated in the thread.

Don Corleone

11-06-2006, 21:53

Come on Don, what he was speaking about is the way the US pretend to always know what is good for everyone and what is not. How the US don't give a crap about the UN, how the US quite often regard their ally as sh*t whenever the given allies don't agree with US' policies.

Of course, France does the same thing, just as China and Russia, but France doesn't have neither the same political nor military power as the US

(And also responding to Brenus)

The gratitude comment is a fragment that I missed when I removed a portion of the post that I believe our ROK & Japanese orgahs might have found offensive. I did not mean to leave it in, and it certainly did not refer to France, China or Russia. Sorry for the confusion.

Proletariat

11-06-2006, 23:37

Kerry's joke was stupid no matter how he said it. Bush got an education, so it's a really moronic joke. Studying doesn't make you smart, thinking does.

(Sorry if that's been pointed out, a little late to this thread)

Gawain of Orkeny

11-07-2006, 00:18

Kerry's joke was stupid no matter how he said it. Bush got an education, so it's a really moronic joke. Studying doesn't make you smart, thinking does

The ironic part is that even if we take the joke as it was wriiten for him the fact remains that Bush has a better academic record than Kerry. So where does this leave Kerry?

Redleg

11-07-2006, 01:48

The ironic part is that even if we take the joke as it was wriiten for him the fact remains that Bush has a better academic record than Kerry. So where does this leave Kerry?

Jealous

Brenus

11-07-2006, 08:57

“So where does this leave Kerry?”: Real war hero who fought for his country even knowing the battle was lost? Kind of my country was wrong but I did my duty… I think it is one your Green Beret song which says: You have to believe what you are saying, and to say only if you do… Translation of a translation, so of course it probably better in the original, but it is how I learned this song when I was in the Army… Bush said it is the duty to UAS to go to war, and never did, Kerry said this war is wrong but I had to go… Sorry guy, I still prefer the second…

Gawain of Orkeny

11-07-2006, 19:03

Real war hero who fought for his country even knowing the battle was lost

Bull. He was one of the main reasons we lost. Hero my ass.

Brenus

11-07-2006, 20:38

Conradus

11-07-2006, 20:51

Bull. He was one of the main reasons we lost. Hero my ass.

Hope that's ironic. The US decorated him for whatever he did in that war.

As for his 'joke', I don't see what's wrong with it. We could see it here in Belgium on tv, and my first reaction was that he was talking of Bush. A politician who tries to insult his opponent. No harm in that. Hell even our Karel insults our neighbours more.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-07-2006, 21:11

“Bull. He was one of the main reasons we lost. Hero my ass”: Ho, the US gives the Medal of Honour to every body… Didn’t know that… US lost because the Vietcong and NVA showed they won’t give up. You lost because people like W. Bush didn’t show up to go and to fight for their country…:beam:

Gawain made the comment because:

Kerry's spokepersonship during Senate hearings, his participation in the Winter Soldiers anti-war campaign, and the general tenor of his campaign for the House of Representatives in 1972 war ardently anti-war and pretty well anti-military. He played on and played up the anti-war sentiment in the USA at the time. Since it is that sentiment that led to "Vietnamization" and our withdrawal (and subsequent defeat), and not direct defeat upon the field of battle, Gawain is attributing our loss to Kerry's efforts. This may overstate Kerry's role a bit, but I agree with the sentiment. Read up on the conflict and you will find that we won the war by breaking the Tet offensive of 1968 -- only to lose it because Americans were depressed and frustrated that it was taking too long, which gave the NV courage to continue.

Kerry did not receive the Medal of Honor. He was decorated for bravery (silver and bronze stars if I recall) and for being wounded on 3 occasions during his service in Vietnam.

George Bush served in the air national guard. Guard units were largely withheld from combat service as a political decision. Why Bush chose service in the guard over service in the infantry only he can know.

Brenus

11-07-2006, 22:38

“Kerry did not receive the Medal of Honor. He was decorated for bravery (silver and bronze stars if I recall) and for being wounded on 3 occasions during his service in Vietnam.” Ok, sorry, he was JUST wounded three times when W Bush enjoyed life in Texas. Decorated for bravery when the other one would have been decorated for brewery (sorry, couldn’t resist), but he is the coward…
I still don’t understand…

“Read up on the conflict and you will find that we won the war by breaking the Tet offensive of 1968 -- only to lose it because Americans were depressed and frustrated that it was taking too long, which gave the NV courage to continue.”: I studied the Vietnam wars. The first one, because my father went there (1948-1951) and the US’ one because I grew-up with the Vietnam on the news every night (and the comments of my father…). Têt broke the Viet-Cong. In fact, nobody can be sure that it wasn’t the political target for the North. The US loose for the same reasons the French did: too far, too long, too costly. France had the advantage that only volunteers and professionals were sent there, but the war was unpopular.
The US sent GI’s and the bodies count was on. The US population probably didn’t care too much about the Vietnamese but their sons were dying and that was important. The Communist leaders, Ho Chi Minh, Giap and Lê Duc To understood than what ever the cost in their ranks, they had to kill Americans to create a disillusion within the USA.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-07-2006, 23:08

Gawain of Orkeny

11-08-2006, 00:33

Regrettably, many of my fellow travelers among conservatives have said as much, or gone so far as to label Kerry a traitor.

Myself being one of them , I despise the man.

Ok, sorry, he was JUST wounded three times

None of which were serious and some of dubious orign, Not only that but he took the escape clause of 3 wounds and you can go home after only serving there for four months. He deserted his men. Then went home and dispariged them with lies. It was the peace movement and not the North Vietnamese that lost us that war. Thats the only way we can loose in Iraq as well.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-08-2006, 00:37

Who necro'd this thread? It's like 2 years old.

Lemur

11-08-2006, 07:09

None of which were serious and some of dubious orign, Not only that but he took the escape clause of 3 wounds and you can go home after only serving there for four months.
In other words:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/purpleheart140.jpg

Crazed Rabbit

11-08-2006, 08:03

I think Gawain might know a little bit more about it than that lady.

Brenus

11-08-2006, 08:49

“It was the peace movement and not the North Vietnamese that lost us that war.” Ah… It was NOT the total incapacity of the US to win. Well, if as rightly stated the Têt did kill of the Viet-Cong how is it possible that the US couldn’t finish-off the job? If the peace movement took place, it was BEAUSE this incapacity to win. That kind of remark, and no disrespect to the veterans, reminds me what the Germans were saying after WW1.

“None of which were serious and some of dubious orign”: Ooops, the Vietcong missed him on purpose… The NVA recognise him and just INTENTIONALLY inflicted only light injuries. 3 times. Some are dubious means more than one. So, not only the NVA just fake to shoot at him (thing that W Bush was not even exposed at…) but the 2 others injuries were to: a) his own soldiers, b)his own, c) accident, you know, jump from the boat, twist an ankle etc…
“He took the escape door”: Err, if you are injured 3 times, yes, you can do that. You can think your luck was enough challenged and perhaps it is time to go home… Of course, that s the US army can’t recognise when 2 on 3 injuries are fake or dubious, that’s it…

“I despise the man.” Obviously, and in doing it you forget to mention he lied to his mother when young, shoplifted and smoked drugs… It is a think to despise a man for his political point of view, his past behaviour or whatever, but to deny a guy of his past is obviously kind of Stalinist Procedure.
By the way, I don't like him, but with no reason. It is just like that...:beam:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-09-2006, 00:16

if as rightly stated the Têt did kill of the Viet-Cong how is it possible that the US couldn’t finish-off the job?

Because the american people have lost the ability to fight a real war. Just look at Iraq. Bin Laden is correct. America is a paper tiger. Not because its military is weak but because its people no longer have any balls.

Ooops, the Vietcong missed him on purpose…

Well they do honor him in their war museum.

Some are dubious means more than one. So, not only the NVA just fake to shoot at him (thing that W Bush was not even exposed at…) but the 2 others injuries were to: a) his own soldiers, b)his own, c) accident, you know, jump from the boat, twist an ankle etc…

Maybe you should do a little research into the matter before making such statements. His wounds were superficial at best and one self inflicted.

Obviously, and in doing it you forget to mention he lied to his mother when young, shoplifted and smoked drugs… It is a think to despise a man for his political point of view, his past behaviour or whatever, but to deny a guy of his past is obviously kind of Stalinist Procedure.
By the way, I don't like him, but with no reason. It is just like that...

As A Marine who served in Nam I have plenty of reasons to dispise him.

Papewaio

11-09-2006, 02:58

As A Marine who served in Nam I have plenty of reasons to dispise him.

I assumed as a veteran marine you disliked everyone who isn't a vet or a marine. Including vets who aren't marines and marines who aren't vets.

As for officers who were incompetent I think we all can dispise them regardless of our backgrounds.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-09-2006, 03:20

I assumed as a veteran marine you disliked everyone who isn't a vet or a marine.

Why would you possibly assume such a thing?

As for officers who were incompetent I think we all can dispise them regardless of our backgrounds.

So you know the type I mean then. From what Ive read about Kerry he seems a typical case. By the way people its very easy for officers to get medals.

Papewaio

11-09-2006, 04:00

Why would you possibly assume such a thing?

Just me being cheeky :laugh4: :clown:

IRONxMortlock

11-09-2006, 04:24

Because the american people have lost the ability to fight a real war. Just look at Iraq. Bin Laden is correct. America is a paper tiger. Not because its military is weak but because its people no longer have any balls.

I don't think this is the case at all. I've always admired Americans for their passion and I think they have plenty of balls to fight a war. The problem is the wars they've been involved in.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-09-2006, 05:06

I've always admired Americans for their passion and I think they have plenty of balls to fight a war

The soldiers yes but the people no, Were too civilised now. WW2 pretty much castrated Europe and Nam was the end of the road for us. The only western nation that still knew how to fight was Israel and it seems even they have lost it now. Were doomed by our own sense of ethics. Thats why civilizations rise and fall. Were too complacent and dont see anything really worth dying for.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-09-2006, 05:21

Correction: We don't think Iraq is worth dying for.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-09-2006, 05:28

Correction: We don't think Iraq is worth dying for

When everyone is facing Mecca maybe reality will finally sink in.

Papewaio

11-09-2006, 06:23

Like when the IRA was running rampant we all thought the world would become catholics. :laugh4:

Tribesman

11-09-2006, 08:29

And you can find one to Bush? Just read what he said.

Until then you havn't got a leg to stand on

So Gawain , clearly you either havn't seen the address or you don't know who your president is .

When everyone is facing Mecca maybe reality will finally sink in.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: yes the invasion of Iraq is a bold move to stop the world converting to Islam :dizzy2:

He deserted his men. Then went home and dispariged them with lies. It was the peace movement and not the North Vietnamese that lost us that war. Thats the only way we can loose in Iraq as well.
Utter nonsense, they lost in Vietnam because they couldn't win .
They had all the information telling them they were highly unlikely to get anything like a win before they went in over a pile of lies , but ignored it just like they have in Iraq .
So Gawain , what lies did Kerry say about you and your service in Nam ?
How many villages did you raze , what livestock did you shoot , how many prisoners did you abuse , did you kill any civilians , did you destroy their food stores ?
If the answer is none then why do you think he was talking about you and your work with cameras ?
If the answer is none then why are you defending those people who did do those things ?
Do I need to remind you that you have written on this forum about torture and abuse practiced on prisoners in Nam , so you cannot deny that it happened , in fact you thought it was OK to do it , though your info was only second hand and you yourself never threw any prisoners out of helicopters as an aid to obtaining information .

Well they do honor him in their war museum.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Soooooo Gawain could you enlighten me as to what the occasion was when Kerrys picture displayed in the museum was taken ?
Could you name any of the other american politicians (and their parties) or the serving and ex military officers who accompanied him on that visit and also had their picture up ?
Do you actually know what the delegation that is featured in the musem was there for , or are you just getting your info from the thouroughly discredited bunch of liars led by O'neil ?

Ronin

11-09-2006, 10:33

As A Marine who served in Nam I have plenty of reasons to dispise him.

But you respect a man that practically fled military service all together? ~:confused:

I mean...for whatever flaws that Kerry has....he sure as hell did a lot more for his country back then then bush did.....if he chose to come back and talk against the war.....hell...who else has more right to do so then someone who was there?

Gawain of Orkeny

11-09-2006, 17:47

Like when the IRA was running rampant we all thought the world would become catholics

The IRA was never about taking over the world or converting people to Catholisim.

Utter nonsense, they lost in Vietnam because they couldn't win .

We couldnt win because we werent willing to fight a total war. Thats why I protested the war and left the Marines. If you want us to go fight and die over there dont handicap us.

So Gawain , what lies did Kerry say about you and your service in Nam ?
How many villages did you raze , what livestock did you shoot , how many prisoners did you abuse , did you kill any civilians , did you destroy their food stores ?

Telling lies about my fellow Marines. I had to put up with all kinds of BS because I was a Marine from civilians. Its not like today when people at least respect the troops.

If the answer is none then why do you think he was talking about you and your work with cameras ?

Never said he was.

Do I need to remind you that you have written on this forum about torture and abuse practiced on prisoners in Nam , so you cannot deny that it hap

Goahead and remind me. The worst I remeber is taking a bunch of them up in a chopper and telling them if they dont answer our questions we'd throw them out. Which we did. However the chopper was only a few feet off the ground. I never saw this personally however but heard it from many grunts. Marines are known to exaggerate at times however,Most of my posts on torture in the Marines were on torture I inflicted on Marine officers in escape and evasion school.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/kerrymuseum1.jpg

Could you name any of the other american politicians (and their parties) or the serving and ex military officers who accompanied him on that visit and also had their picture up ?

Are any of their pictures hanging in the museum? The point is they picked Kerry, Hes their man. The Vietnamese will tell you that the anti war movement won them that war. Heck they like him so much they removed the picture when he started to get flak for so as to help him get elected.

Tribesman

11-09-2006, 18:35

Make your mind up Gawain

Telling lies about my fellow Marines.

So no Marines killed any civilians , no marine shot livestock , none would ever burn a village , none would even consider abusing prisoners .......

Which we did. However the chopper was only a few feet off the ground. I never saw this personally however but heard it from many grunts. Marines are known to exaggerate at times however
so which is it ?

While your mind tries to figure out how to get off that little contradiction which coupled with a wholesale detatchment from reality over Vietnam which makes your insistance of the non-existance over a few words uttered and a few imaginary words that were not uttered by Kerry (that was the original topic) seem like small fry .
Now then , since you were in the vicinity of the conflict when it was going on perhaps you can answer these little questions .
What was the status of prisoners of the various categories ?
What changes were made by your government regarding that ?
Who had jurisdiction over those various categories of prisoners ?
Under what article of either US military law or the international conventions of the laws of war does "grunts" throwing prisoners out of a chopper not = a crime of war ?

Are any of their pictures hanging in the museum? The point is they picked Kerry, Hes their man. The Vietnamese will tell you that the anti war movement won them that war. Heck they like him so much they removed the picture when he started to get flak for so as to help him get elected.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Straight from the swiftboats website eh Gawain , do you have an avertion to truth ?:thumbsdown:

So tell me , what exactly is it you have against the MIA and their families ?

Tribesman

11-09-2006, 19:09

edit to add Hey Gawain , here is a tough one for ya .:inquisitive:
If you were to have looked at the picture of the chairman of the senate committee on missing servicemen , which General from the joint cheifs was in the picture to the right , which leaders of which delegatons of veterans associations were in the picture to the left and where was the picture of the entire delegation placed:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-10-2006, 02:48

So no Marines killed any civilians , no marine shot livestock , none would ever burn a village , none would even consider abusing prisoners .......

There are missfits in every walk of life. But it was not the policy of the Marine Corps or the US do this as insinuated by Kerry an admitted war criminal.

so which is it ?

So which is what? Do you consider that torture?

Under what article of either US military law or the international conventions of the laws of war does "grunts" throwing prisoners out of a chopper not = a crime of war ?

Under the fact that they suffered no physical harm. The guys on Jackass go through lots worse as did every officer who ran into me and my pals at evasion school. Now we knew how to torture people as we got our methods straight from the Vietnamese.

Straight from the swiftboats website eh Gawain , do you have an avertion to truth ?

No that came from me .

So tell me , what exactly is it you have against the MIA and their families ?

Nothing. Only against Kerry. Im not arguing why he went over there. Im just stating that the Vietnamese think he helped them win the war and thats why they singled him out and hung up his picture.

If you were to have looked at the picture of the chairman of the senate committee on missing servicemen , which General from the joint cheifs was in the picture to the right , which leaders of which delegatons of veterans associations were in the picture to the left and where was the picture of the entire delegation placed

Who cares.

Tribesman

11-10-2006, 03:26

Under the fact that they suffered no physical harm.
Utter bollox , also why are you avoiding the question.....
What was the status of prisoners of the various categories ?
What changes were made by your government regarding that ?
Who had jurisdiction over those various categories of prisoners ?
Under what article of either US military law or the international conventions of the laws of war does "grunts" throwing prisoners out of a chopper not = a crime of war ?

Do you not like the answers , the answers that are set out by your government and your military .

No that came from me .

My my, you do have a fertile imagination then don't you , or is it just that you are able to post exactly the same rubbish as O'Neil all by yourself .

Nothing. Only against Kerry. Im not arguing why he went over there. Im just stating that the Vietnamese think he helped them win the war and thats why they singled him out and hung up his picture.

oh I see , so the Vietmanese singled out the chairman of the delegation about whose visit the exhibit was about , not because he was the chairman of the delegation , but because he spoke of atrocities carried out in Vietnam , and they singled him out so badly that they forgot to not put up pictures of the rest of the delegation .:dizzy2:

Who cares.
Well if you didn't care you wouldn't have tried to make the false claim that his was the only photo .
So what you mean by "who cares" is :oops: a bit of a screwup , made a big mistake . But instead of saying that the assertion was completely wrong it is now consigned to the irrelevant file .
Still I suppose it is better than the claim the swiftliars tried to make earlier , before they once again had to retract their bull excrement , which was that the picture was in an exhibition also featuring , not the veterans associations , not members of the general staff , not the delegation , but Jane Fonda:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-10-2006, 03:46

Utter bollox

You dont get hurt falling three ft to the ground.

Do you not like the answers , the answers that are set out by your government and your military .

I havent looked at them lately nor am I inclined to do so now. Whats your point?

My my, you do have a fertile imagination then don't you , or is it just that you are able to post exactly the same rubbish as O'Neil all by yourself .

I wouldnt know as I didnt read what he said on this matter.

and they singled him out so badly that they forgot to not put up pictures of the rest of the delegation

Where arte those pictures? Why do you think that picture is hanging there? To honor them coming over to look for MIAs?

Tribesman

11-10-2006, 09:08

You dont get hurt falling three ft to the ground.

Rubbish , I have seen people die who fell while standing on the ground .

I havent looked at them lately nor am I inclined to do so now. Whats your point?

Awwww poor Gawain is not inclined to look at them now .
The point is .....
what was the status of prisoners of different categories(plus when did that status get changed due to the change in the nature of the conflict)
Who had jurisdiction over those prisoners .
What are the laws regarding the treatment of those prisoners .
Violation of those laws and regulations are war-crimes Gawain .:yes:

I wouldnt know as I didnt read what he said on this matter.

So you came to the same false conclusion all by yourself then , congratulations:dizzy2:

Where arte those pictures? Why do you think that picture is hanging there? To honor them coming over to look for MIAs?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Gawain , you posted the picture , you said what you thought it was hung for .
Didn't you read the caption on the picture you posted ?
Didn't you read what the exhibition was about ?
Thats not very clever is it :oops:
And then you top it all off by first trying to claim that it only featured Kerry , and then saying the pictures that you vainly tried to make an issue out of doesn't really matter .

BTW have you read or heard Kerrys speech yet , not just the 10 second snippet , are you still going to try and maintain your false claims ?

Here have a balloon since you are not doing very well so far , it might cheer you up :balloon2: hey have another as I am feeling generous:balloon2: :laugh4: :laugh4: