Bush: Flip Flopper in Chief - DPChallenge Forums

08/29/2004 11:41:45 PM · #126

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***So then the military trained Bush to be a pilot for what? To leave service during a time of war? I think not. How did he serve? Just by being trained, taking pay and then leaving when his country needed him the most? Sounds to me like Bush went AWOL, but he didn't have to leave the country like Mr. Hinzman because he came from a very well connected and wealthy family. And that is a double standard on your part, from what I can tell.

The military trained him as a pilot because that is what the military does. How many pilots are trained, who serve their minimal time and elect to leave the military to fly commercially. It happens regularly. But in all those circumstances, those who were trained served their time.

Now, if you have hard, irrefutable evidence that Bush was AWOL, then present it. If you do, you would be the only one, as no one has yet seemed to be able to prove this one way or the other. The same is true with the questions about Kerry. Absent anything concrete, I choose to take the more civilized route by giving them both the benefit of the doubt and ignoring the slurs, innuendos and speculation. Absent hard evidence to the contrary, I will work under the assumption that both Bush and Kerry acted entirely properly. If they didn't, If Bush actually did go AWOL or Kerry lied to receive his medals, then, as I said, I would be more than happy to voice my disdain and condemn their conduct. That is not a double standard.

But, keep in mind that I do not base my conclusions on the inflammatory anti- posts, many of which I find are posted by a select few (and in which category you seem to include yourself -- indeed, see your last post), which do nothing but spout hatred, speculation and reference partisan sources for support.

Again, in the end, in terms of serving as president, I would rather focus the discussions more on these candidates' records as elected officials in more recent years. Not to say that their service record has no relevance, but that relevance is minimal in relation to other, more important factors.

Message edited by author 2004-08-29 23:42:35.

08/29/2004 11:47:32 PM · #127

As far as Clinton goes...you don't know what I think of him, but I can say for sure that he was 100 times better than Bush is. He ran from the military as well, and that doesn't sit right by me either.

08/29/2004 11:48:11 PM · #128

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Mr. Hinzman served 7 months over in Afghanistan, if my memory serves me correctly. I don't know what he did there, but for sure, he did more than Bush ever did in the military to help his country. Bush has NO BALLS and wants others to fight his war. There is a term for that...see the picture of the tee-shirt I posted above...it's very appropo of Bush.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

This goes a long way to showing the way you present an argument... no substance or factual information. Simply name-calling, speculation (Bush went AWOL) and hatred (your "Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief" reference, your "NO BALLS" reference and the speculation that Bush actually did go AWOL) to make your point (which I gather is nothing more than you hate Bush). You even tell us your "point" is based on speculation when you say "I don't know what he did there..." If you don't know what he did there, how can you say "he did more than Bush". You tell us you don't like Clinton, but he is "100 times better than Bush", again without any support or factual basis.

Really, Olyuzi, grow up a little more and give us some well presented and intelligent posts in the future will garner you at least some of the respect you seem to want people to give your points.

Edit... corrected misquote and added some stuff :)

Message edited by author 2004-08-29 23:57:42.

08/29/2004 11:56:18 PM · #129

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***So then the military trained Bush to be a pilot for what? To leave service during a time of war? I think not. How did he serve? Just by being trained, taking pay and then leaving when his country needed him the most? Sounds to me like Bush went AWOL, but he didn't have to leave the country like Mr. Hinzman because he came from a very well connected and wealthy family. And that is a double standard on your part, from what I can tell.

The military trained him as a pilot because that is what the military does. How many pilots are trained, who serve their minimal time and elect to leave the military to fly commercially. It happens regularly. But in all those circumstances, those who were trained served their time.

Now, if you have hard, irrefutable evidence that Bush was AWOL, then present it. If you do, you would be the only one, as no one has yet seemed to be able to prove this one way or the other. The same is true with the questions about Kerry. Absent anything concrete, I choose to take the more civilized route by giving them both the benefit of the doubt and ignoring the slurs, innuendos and speculation. Absent hard evidence to the contrary, I will work under the assumption that both Bush and Kerry acted entirely properly. If they didn't, If Bush actually did go AWOL or Kerry lied to receive his medals, then, as I said, I would be more than happy to voice my disdain and condemn their conduct. That is not a double standard.

But, keep in mind that I do not base my conclusions on the inflammatory anti- posts, many of which I find are posted by a select few (and in which category you seem to include yourself -- indeed, see your last post), which do nothing but spout hatred, speculation and reference partisan sources for support.

Again, in the end, in terms of serving as president, I would rather focus the discussions more on these candidates' records as elected officials in more recent years. Not to say that their service record has no relevance, but that relevance is minimal in relation to other, more important factors.

***At a time when a war was going on and the draft was taking place in this country if Bush did not serve in Viet Nam then chances are he was AWOL. The military doesn't train these people for flying commercial aircraft. At least Kerry volunteered to go to Viet Nam. Bush could have done that if he was so inclined and patriotic, but he's not.

As far as other issues are concerned...I'm all for discussing them. It wasn't me who was so vociferiously arguing about the military service of either of these candidates...I did not post much about that, although I have posted some in the past.

08/30/2004 12:01:25 AM · #130

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***At a time when a war was going on and the draft was taking place in this country if Bush did not serve in Viet Nam [/b]then chances are he was AWOL[/b]. The military doesn't train these people for flying commercial aircraft. At least Kerry volunteered to go to Viet Nam. Bush could have done that if he was so inclined and patriotic, but he's not.

As far as other issues are concerned...I'm all for discussing them. It wasn't me who was so vociferiously arguing about the military service of either of these candidates...I did not post much about that, although I have posted some in the past.

Wow, that's the best factual argument I have heard... Bush certainly must have gone AWOL because "the chances are..." Wow, you have convinced me. You seem to continue to prove my point, which is that the hatred of a candidate seems to be so strong that we will simply assume and speculate the candidate is immoral, unethical and a deserter and call him names anyway.

08/30/2004 12:02:24 AM · #131

Originally posted by RonB:

Just SOME of the 2,000 bodies of Iraqi civilians recovered from a mass grave near Musayib, Iraq, about 75 KM south of Baghdad. They were murdered following an uprising against Sadaam Hussein in 1991.

No one protested.

Not in the streets of Baghdad; and not in New York City.

***Did you protest the Hussein murders, Ron? Did you protest when Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein, hugged him and were acting like best of friends and making deals for Iraq to get WMD's from the US to use on Iranians and the Kurds?

08/30/2004 12:07:35 AM · #132

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***At a time when a war was going on and the draft was taking place in this country if Bush did not serve in Viet Nam [/b]then chances are he was AWOL[/b]. The military doesn't train these people for flying commercial aircraft. At least Kerry volunteered to go to Viet Nam. Bush could have done that if he was so inclined and patriotic, but he's not.

As far as other issues are concerned...I'm all for discussing them. It wasn't me who was so vociferiously arguing about the military service of either of these candidates...I did not post much about that, although I have posted some in the past.

Wow, that's the best factual argument I have heard... Bush certainly must have gone AWOL because "the chances are..." Wow, you have convinced me. You seem to continue to prove my point, which is that the hatred of a candidate seems to be so strong that we will simply assume and speculate the candidate is immoral, unethical and a deserter and call him names anyway.

***There's only one fact here that you have to bear in mind, SoCal. Bush was trained by the military during war to be a pilot and he didn't serve in VietNam when others were dying there. He could have helped his fellow military men/women, but he chose to do something else...Was it golf, of business school?

08/30/2004 01:10:35 AM · #133

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

OK, so he made a choice that you do not agree with. It seems that you conceded that there is a possibility, however likely or unlikely absent any uncontrovertable evidence, that he did not go AWOL. Are you saying that this then justifies the kind of name-calling which you have engaged in?

We all have differing opinions as to the qualifications of the candidates and their ability to lead as an elected official. I will defend your right to hold the beliefs which you do, just as I expect you would defend my right to the same. But is it really necessary to spout such inflammatory comments about a person simply because you don't agree with their positions? Was it really necessary to make your point or state your own opinion? I have issues with the conduct and positions of many elected officials (on both sides of the political spectrum), as I am sure many others do. I find it insulting when people choose to use inflammatory and hate-filled comments to attack a position which I may happen to agree with. Similarly, I would not use such tactics to insult those who don't happen concur with my opinions. Lets try to be a little more civilized about out political discussions.

If you really hope to have people take your positions and comments seriously, name-calling and inflammatory comments do not help your cause.

08/30/2004 01:32:12 AM · #134

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***There's only one fact here that you have to bear in mind, SoCal. Bush was trained by the military during war to be a pilot and he didn't serve in VietNam when others were dying there. He could have helped his fellow military men/women, but he chose to do something else...Was it golf, of business school?

OK, so he made a choice that you do not agree with. It seems that you conceded that there is a possibility, however likely or unlikely absent any uncontrovertable evidence, that he did not go AWOL. Are you saying that this then justifies the kind of name-calling which you have engaged in?

We all have differing opinions as to the qualifications of the candidates and their ability to lead as an elected official. I will defend your right to hold the beliefs which you do, just as I expect you would defend my right to the same. But is it really necessary to spout such inflammatory comments about a person simply because you don't agree with their positions? Was it really necessary to make your point or state your own opinion? I have issues with the conduct and positions of many elected officials (on both sides of the political spectrum), as I am sure many others do. I find it insulting when people choose to use inflammatory and hate-filled comments to attack a position which I may happen to agree with. Similarly, I would not use such tactics to insult those who don't happen concur with my opinions. Lets try to be a little more civilized about out political discussions.

If you really hope to have people take your positions and comments seriously, name-calling and inflammatory comments do not help your cause.

***SoCal...I apologize if any of my comments have insulted your positions. I find you to be a very well spoken and intelligent person, who I have enjoyed discourse with, despite our differences of opinion.

I do respect your views, but in this case I feel completely justified in calling Mr. Bush what I have called him in my above comments and in my anger towards him. The reason for that is that he is sending to war thousands of military men/women and so far, 1,000+ are coming home in coffins. This for a war that I, and many, feel is unjustified and unwarranted. Bush ran into this war choosing not to heed the many opinions to the contrary from many experts. A number in his administration have already accused him of having decided to invade Iraq before 9/11. That fact is that many are dying needlessly in a war that was not well thought out or planned. It looks as if we'll be at war with Iraq, and other countries, for many years to come.

It's one thing to have opinions, but this is about life and death and as such, since mothers and fathers are losing their children and many children are being made orphans in Iraq, I feel I have every right to call him names when he's not served a day in war, and looks to have avoided it becasue of his family's position. Are there any in his cabinet, or administration (higher ups) that have served in war? What makes this even more tragic is that his administration is run by neocons, who have very imperialistic means and goals.

The war in Iraq seems to have created many more terrorists than would have been against us had we not invaded. So he's not made this country any safer, and to the contrary, has made us more vulnerable. My personal feeling, is that he doesn't give a damn, but I hope I'm wrong about that, because that would say what we're witnessing from him is purely diabolical, rather than just misguided. Either way, I do not see him as deserving our votes in November.

08/30/2004 01:59:37 AM · #135

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Now, I am not certain whether the war in Iraq was an appropriate move, and I disagree with your apparent opinion that the evidence against was was so uncontrovertable at the time (as is apparent by the concurrence of congress, including democrats, as well as the 9/11 commission) that the choice should have been so crystal clear. Indeed, that is another one of these issues where there has been no factual basis to reach a conclusion either way. Your stated opinion is not as black and white as you seem to think. In the long run, I think more good than bad will come of the removal of the Hussein Regime. I also believe that, although many brave Americans have died, many more Iraquis have been spared as a result. In the end however, what you have been doing is spouting hatred about events which have nothing to do with the Iraq war. Your statements refer to events of 35 years ago and do nothing to advance your beliefs but rather alienate those who you purport to convince.

So, why can't you simply state your opinions and beliefs more intelligently and in a manner which might possibly lead to more reasonable and informed discussion. I see posts such as yours which say Bush is a liar, that Bush is "chicken-hawk-in-chief", that (and this one is not yours) the christian right should be assassinated (because they exercised their First Amendment Rights?) Really... let's be grown up about this. I don't agree with many others and many others don't agree with me, but the kind of inflammatory language, name-calling and hate-mongering is inappropriate to any informed discussion. Is it really so hard to simply state your position?

I look at your statements above, and all I see is unfounded assumptions and speculations which you then use as justification for the hatred you spout. Are there really more terrorists now than if we had not invaded? Are we really more vulnerable now? How did you come to these conclusions? Have you performed a census or are you just stating more opinion? It seems to me based on the three years since 9/11 that we are actually not more vulnerable. However, that is my opinion, and I present it as such. I don't feel that my opinion justifies name-calling and inflammatory comments.

By way of example, based on his own statements and admissions, I believe that "the chances are" (to use your own words) that John Kerry committed many of the atrocities he described in Vietnam. Until it is proven one way or the other, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But even if I truly believed it (and you didn't), would it be appropriate for me to be calling him "murderer," or "war criminal" or posting doctored photos showing him committing some type of atrocity? Believe me, I could say all kinds of nasty things about many people who I don't agree with. I understand that many feel strongly one way or another, but the discussion should remain intelligent, reasonable and grounded in fact.

Message edited by author 2004-08-30 02:04:45.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/30/2004 03:23:21 AM · #136

SoCal69,

You shouldn't be surprised that many reasonable and intelligent people disagree with you in regards to Mr. Bush, and his invasion of Iraq. Now, unfortunately an Internet message board is not conducive to a "level headed" discussion on issues, the medium simply does not allow it. Hey, the web and message boards are what pamphlets were to Tom Paine, and the other forefathers of the American Revolution -- and those pamphlets didn't pull any punches. Now, also consider that our political culture condenses important and complex issues into bumper stickers, and 20 second sound bytes; moreover, when a candidate does try to acknowledge the complexities of an issue, he's labeled "too nuanced" or worst. Therefore, you shouldn't be at all surprised about the level of discussion you're seeing on this board. Finally, let me add one thing: Amid all the ranting there are some nuggets worth examining. I hope that you'll read one of earlier posts, which you may have missed.

..........................

The Bush administration, and even some fellow DPCers, have been passing the buck and have been promoting the false idea that it's only in hindsight that doubts over Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are apparent. Certainly, Iraq HAD possessed WMD; however, at the time of our invasion, it wasn't clear whether Iraq CONTINUED to possess WMD. Mr. Bush's supporters -- on this board and elsewhere -- point to some quotes by Democratic officials (including Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kerry,) where they state what was the U.S. government's public position on Iraq's WMD: 1. That Saddam Hussein had used WMD in the past (over 10 years ago), 2. That Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man, and 3. That the U.S. would prevent Iraq from developing WMD. Here's one of the quotes that Mr. Bush's supporters point to, and which I lifted from another thread in the DPC message board:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Please notice how ellipses (i.e., ...) are used in the quote; indicating that it's not a complete statement, thus Mr. Kerry's meaning has been completely stripped. Now, Mr. Kerry's full statement is longer, but worth reading if you're interested in discerning his real meaning:

First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 (For the full text of the speech before the Council of Foreign Relations please see here).

Mr. Kerry, in that same speech, continues:

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

Please note how important sentences were completely omitted from the quote that Mr. Bush's supporters -- on this board and elsewhere -- attribute to Mr. Kerry. The example of this quote is a good illustration of Bush & Co. twists facts, omit important truths and aim to deflect criticism against the Iraq war -- a war of choice, and not one of necessity.

From Mr. Kerry's full statement the following are clear:

1. Mr. Bush failed to aggressively pursue al Queda in the Afghan-Pakistan border; thus allowing Osama Bin Laden to get away.

2. Saddam Hussein is a bad man and that if permitted to obtain WMD -- that is, "Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction" -- would be bad, given his propensity to miscalculate. However, note that Mr. Kerry's full statement makes it clear that there were doubts about whether Iraq possessed WMD. I'll grant you that there's some nuance here; however, I'd hope that my fellow citizens would have the patience to weight issues of war and peace with some serious consideration.

3. At the time that Mr. Kerry made this speech, only eight weeks before the Iraqi invasion, it wasn't absolutely clear that Iraq possessed WMD; nor, as Mr. Kerry points out, was it clear that Mr. Bush had made a compelling case for war as the only alternative.

Again, it's worth remembering that Mr. Bush's rhetoric during the pre-invasion period did not hint at any doubts over the existence of Iraq's WMD. In fact, Mr. Bush unequivocally stated that Iraq still had WMD: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons." (George W. Bush, Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002). Please see Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq.) So, even though doubts over the continued existence of Iraq's WMD abounded, Bush & Co. sold war to the American people as if it were a clean cut case without any detractors. I sincerely wonder whether the American people would've supported invading another country if the serious doubts that abounded had been publicly weighted by the Bush administration (not to mention the media).

Mr. Bush and his supporters are desperately hoping that the American public will now forget the serious doubts that were voiced about the CONTINUED existence of Iraq's WMD. It's worth remembering that various United Nations members and millions of people around the world, were not convinced by the weak case that Bush & Co. were making for invading Iraq. The head of the U.N.'s WMD inspection team at the time, Dr. Hans Blix, reflecting back on the pre-invasion period, said:

"Well, they [the Bush administration] certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time."
Dr. Hans Blix (read the rest here)

One can argue if Mr. Bush intentionally misled us about the CONTINUED existence of Iraq's WMD; however, one thing is not open to interpretation, because it's a FACT: THERE WERE SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF IRAQ'S WMD AT THE TIME OF INVASION. That fact simply isn't going away, no matter how often Mr. Bush & Co. beat us over the head with their trite excuse of, "Oh, it's only in hindsight that doubts have come to light." As I mentioned to a fellow DPCer on this board, to believe that it's only in hindsight that doubts over Iraq's WMD seem apparent, is to lie to one's self and to willfully ignore recent history.

At the very least, Mr. Bush & Co. should: 1. Stop deploying the "it's only in hindsight" defense; 2. Mr. Bush should acknowledge that mistakes were made; and, 3. We should not let anyone mislead us (again), by their distortions of the record and by ignoring recent history, into believing that war was the only alternative that we had before Bush & Co. invaded Iraq.

..........................

P.S. The original post was made before Mr. Bush admitted to the New York Times that "miscalculations" were made for the post-invasion period of Iraq (see AP story here).

P.S.S. The 9/11 Commission did not look into whether the pre-War intelligence on Iraq was misused by the Bush Administration, to avoid "division" and get the report out (see article here).

Message edited by author 2004-08-30 03:27:41.

08/30/2004 03:59:36 AM · #137

Originally posted by bdobe:

I am not surprised at all... in fact, I'm not sure how you concluded how I feel about Bush, since I have never really claimed to be a supporter or non-supporter of either of the candidates. However, regardless of my opinions or your opinions, respectful disagreement and factual discussion is more appropriate than the name calling and inflammatory remarks that are designed to do nothing but foster more hatred in return. Do you really think that saying a group "should all be assassinated" because they simply stated their views and intent is really political discussion? These same posters inanely profess that the First Amendment right to free speech is paramount, that is, until it affects them in a way which conflicts with their own beliefs...now really. I think open and fair discussion of disputed opinion is valid and enjoyable, but I think much of what I have seen is a waste of everyones time and really shows those who engage in it to be poorly informed and in a poor light. If they want people to listen to their opinions with an open mind and respect their thoughts, they are going about it the wrong way.

To be fair, I have seen a lot of appropriate discussion which is much more meaningful and factual on here as well, including many posts by yourself and RonB. Even Olyuzi makes a good point and and engages in discussion here and there. However, I always see this fall back to hatred and name calling, and it usually tends to be those who dislike Bush.

You didnt need to repost prior postings here as I do follow these discussions, but only interject if I feel a need to say something. I understand your position about the war in Iraq, and I still think that it is not as black and white as you imply. There are way too many variables involved and too much other information about which we likely do not know. Nonetheless, I do believe in the long run, the world will be better off rather than worse off because of the Iraq war. I may be wrong, but only time will prove that to me. Of course, that doesnt mean I dont listen to reasonable discussions on the issue. What I won't listen too is simple statements like "Bush is a liar", "Bush has no Balls", etc. What possible value do these statements have other than alienate the speaker as someone with little integrity or credibility.

Every politician has strengths and weaknesses, and I cannot think of a single politician who is completely perfect or who is totally evil. Bush has some weaknesses, but he also has certain strengths. The same is true of Kerry. Yet no one seems to acknowledge this... for the most part all I have seen is that Bush and the Republican Party is all evil while the Democratic Party is looking out for the people (and of course a few times we get the reverse viewpoint). I'm not sure about you all, but I am of the more realistic viewpoint that both have good and bad aspects to their positions and that the average working middle class American does not ascribe completely to the views of either party, but shares positions with both parties. Some people like Bush, and some like Kerry (have you seen the polls?) Live with it.

08/30/2004 08:23:43 AM · #138

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Just SOME of the 2,000 bodies of Iraqi civilians recovered from a mass grave near Musayib, Iraq, about 75 KM south of Baghdad. They were murdered following an uprising against Sadaam Hussein in 1991.

No one protested.

Not in the streets of Baghdad; and not in New York City.

***Did you protest the Hussein murders, Ron? Did you protest when Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein, hugged him and were acting like best of friends and making deals for Iraq to get WMD's from the US to use on Iranians and the Kurds?

No, I did not. But neither did I protest against Bill Clinton and his attack on an Aspirin factory ( speaking of intelligence failures ). My point in posting the photo is to once again show the level of xenophobia that exists in most Americans - and the hypocrisy of the anti-Bush protesters, in particular.

On another note, I resent your insinuation that I was AWOL during the Vietnam war. According to your criteria, the fact that I was "trained by the military during war" but "didn't serve in Vietnam when others were dying there" means that I was AWOL. Well, between 1963 and 1968 I was in the U.S. Air Force, underwent 42 weeks of training before going into the field, but never once set foot in Vietnam. If that means that I was AWOL, it means that tens of thousands of others were also AWOL.

For your information, not EVERYONE who was in the military during those years went to Vietnam and it was NOT because they chose not to - it was because the government chose not to. Just because you hate Bush is no reason to denigrate all of us veterans who served honorably - outside of Vietnam. I believe that you owe us an apology.

Ron

08/30/2004 09:24:32 AM · #139

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Just SOME of the 2,000 bodies of Iraqi civilians recovered from a mass grave near Musayib, Iraq, about 75 KM south of Baghdad. They were murdered following an uprising against Sadaam Hussein in 1991.

No one protested.

Not in the streets of Baghdad; and not in New York City.

***Did you protest the Hussein murders, Ron? Did you protest when Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein, hugged him and were acting like best of friends and making deals for Iraq to get WMD's from the US to use on Iranians and the Kurds?

No, I did not. But neither did I protest against Bill Clinton and his attack on an Aspirin factory ( speaking of intelligence failures ). My point in posting the photo is to once again show the level of xenophobia that exists in most Americans - and the hypocrisy of the anti-Bush protesters, in particular.

On another note, I resent your insinuation that I was AWOL during the Vietnam war. According to your criteria, the fact that I was "trained by the military during war" but "didn't serve in Vietnam when others were dying there" means that I was AWOL. Well, between 1963 and 1968 I was in the U.S. Air Force, underwent 42 weeks of training before going into the field, but never once set foot in Vietnam. If that means that I was AWOL, it means that tens of thousands of others were also AWOL.

For your information, not EVERYONE who was in the military during those years went to Vietnam and it was NOT because they chose not to - it was because the government chose not to. Just because you hate Bush is no reason to denigrate all of us veterans who served honorably - outside of Vietnam. I believe that you owe us an apology.

Ron

***Ron, your comment about me insinuating that you and others who served in the military but did not go to Viet Nam are AWOL is definitely a stretch. I fully realize that not everyone who is trained by the military goes to war and that there are support personnel. I never said you did not serve and I have no doubt that you did your duty completely but tell me exactly how Bush served? Was he considered support personnel?

Who could be more xenophobic than the Bushites? They are the ones perpetrating perpetual war and killing against those different from us. They are the ones rounding up innocent Muslims without any formal charges and detaining them for years. There is nothing hypocritical about the demonstrators. They have never been for killing of this sort. Had Clinton committed to the inevitable and perpetual war(s) that the Bush administration has already committed to, you can be sure Clinton would have had to deal with the 500,000+ demonstrators that showed up yesterday in NYC.

08/30/2004 09:38:49 AM · #140

Originally posted by SoCal69:

***SoCal, I have never said that the evidence was so incontrovertible, or black and white, regarding war with Iraq. It is Mr. Bush and his administration who were putting forward the notion that there was undeniable and incontrovertible known intelligence that Hussein possessed WMDs and had ties with al Qaeda. My premise regarding this is that if you are going to invade and attack a country for these reasons then that leader needs to be 100% sure that this is true and that all other alternative avenues have been exhausted before a decision is made to make such a rash move. Bushâ��s rush to war diverted the resources from Afghanistan before our job there was finished. Even with the fact that Hussein was a mass murder and in the past was a threat to other countries many experts were saying that there was no current threat. We had disabled his army in the Gulf War and had eliminated his WMDs during the span of time since. So, from what I could see, and according to others who have worked in his administration, war with Iraq was being planned from the get-go. We had al Qaeda on the run in Afghanistan, but let them get away. A miscalculation on Bushâ��s part? I hardly think so. You donâ��t abandon a fight in the schoolyard from an attacker to bully someone else before your job is done with the first fight. Nor is it prudent take on the fight against terrorism war by war. Eventually our coffers will be bankrupt.

Given the fact that we have not found any WMDs in Iraq or ties with al Qaeda, I believe that Mr. Bushâ��s remarks (and that of his administration) were inflammatory to go to war. You have accused me of inflammatory language and hate mongering, but have not acknowledged the Bush administrationsâ�� use of such language, for, imo, purposes that, though presented in the light of doing good and fighting evil, were diabolical and more for the purpose of resource appropriation. Whatâ��s even more troubling about your obsession with my â��inflammatoryâ�� comments is that you donâ��t acknowledge the Bush administrationsâ�� embracing the neocons agenda as presented in the Project for a New American Century, which is inherently violent, imperialistic and warlike. So please forgive me for my â��emotionalismâ�� because at this stage in world history, and under these leaders, I see no future for our progeny but war, poverty and environmental degradation.
***

Originally posted by SoCal69:

So, why can't you simply state your opinions and beliefs more intelligently and in a manner which might possibly lead to more reasonable and informed discussion. I see posts such as yours which say Bush is a liar, that Bush is "chicken-hawk-in-chief", that (and this one is not yours) the christian right should be assassinated (because they exercised their First Amendment Rights?) Really... let's be grown up about this. I don't agree with many others and many others don't agree with me, but the kind of inflammatory language, name-calling and hate-mongering is inappropriate to any informed discussion. Is it really so hard to simply state your position?

***These threads have existed in the rant section, and so, imo, it is appropriate for comments to have content with emotional overtones when a fairly reasonable argument has been presented. If you have followed some of my previous comments in various threads in the rant section, you will know that I ABHOR violence and killing. Even in self defense, violence and killing is deplorable, yet sometimes necessary. Was it necessary in the case with Iraq? Was the US directly threatened by Hussein at the time we went to war? Many people doubt that. Given that lives are being lost and people maimed, for what I can see, as no good reason, I am incensed about all of this violence that my country is perpetrating. Calling a president, and his henchmen, chickenhawks is minor to their offenses. While you may not like this word, itâ��s also a description and not only meant as minor innuendo. The comment about assasinating the Christian Right I find abhorrent.

Btwâ�¦which statements of mine refer to events of 35 years ago?

Originally posted by SoCal69:

I look at your statements above, and all I see is unfounded assumptions and speculations which you then use as justification for the hatred you spout. Are there really more terrorists now than if we had not invaded? Are we really more vulnerable now? How did you come to these conclusions? Have you performed a census or are you just stating more opinion? It seems to me based on the three years since 9/11 that we are actually not more vulnerable. However, that is my opinion, and I present it as such. I don't feel that my opinion justifies name-calling and inflammatory comments.

I do identify my opinions with words such as "I believe."

Message edited by author 2004-08-30 09:45:48.

08/30/2004 09:56:16 AM · #141

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Ron, your comment about me insinuating that you and others who served in the military but did not go to Viet Nam are AWOL is definitely a stretch. I fully realize that not everyone who is trained by the military goes to war and that there are support personnel. I never said you did not serve and I have no doubt that you did your duty completely but tell me exactly how Bush served? Was he considered support personnel?

First, as I said, I meet the "criteria" you laid down for being considered AWOL - that wasn't a "stretch".
Second, I was not "support" personnel - I was a RADIO/RADAR technician with a Top-Secret security clearance.
Third, I am not Bush - I cannot tell you exactly how Bush served, but I can tell you that he was not "support" personnel - he was a certified combat-ready Fighter Pilot during at least part of his service time.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Who could be more xenophobic than the Bushites? They are the ones perpetrating perpetual war and killing against those different from us. They are the ones rounding up innocent Muslims without any formal charges and detaining them for years. There is nothing hypocritical about the demonstrators. They have never been for killing of this sort. Had Clinton committed to the inevitable and perpetual war(s) that the Bush administration has already committed to, you can be sure Clinton would have had to deal with the 500,000+ demonstrators that showed up yesterday in NYC.

Xenophobes would not be hypocritical and "killing against those different from us" while defending civilians of the same nationality. Xenophobes would not be rounding up non-Muslims along with the Muslims.

Why does it only take perpetual war to qualify? Why isn't a single act sufficient?

08/30/2004 10:22:14 AM · #142

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, your comment about me insinuating that you and others who served in the military but did not go to Viet Nam are AWOL is definitely a stretch. I fully realize that not everyone who is trained by the military goes to war and that there are support personnel. I never said you did not serve and I have no doubt that you did your duty completely but tell me exactly how Bush served? Was he considered support personnel?

First, as I said, I meet the "criteria" you laid down for being considered AWOL - that wasn't a "stretch".
Second, I was not "support" personnel - I was a RADIO/RADAR technician with a Top-Secret security clearance.
Third, I am not Bush - I cannot tell you exactly how Bush served, but I can tell you that he was not "support" personnel - he was a certified combat-ready Fighter Pilot during at least part of his service time.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Who could be more xenophobic than the Bushites? They are the ones perpetrating perpetual war and killing against those different from us. They are the ones rounding up innocent Muslims without any formal charges and detaining them for years. There is nothing hypocritical about the demonstrators. They have never been for killing of this sort. Had Clinton committed to the inevitable and perpetual war(s) that the Bush administration has already committed to, you can be sure Clinton would have had to deal with the 500,000+ demonstrators that showed up yesterday in NYC.

Xenophobes would not be hypocritical and "killing against those different from us" while defending civilians of the same nationality. Xenophobes would not be rounding up non-Muslims along with the Muslims.

Why does it only take perpetual war to qualify? Why isn't a single act sufficient?

***Bush was a certified combat-ready pilot and did not serve in VietNam?! You don't find that curious at the least, and don't suspect that he was AWOL?

A single act of war/hostility/violence certainly does qualify. Did I say it didn't? I think what I was trying to express was that it's a lot harder to gather hundreds of thousands of people to demonstrate for a single military event than for the violence Bush is perpetuating. In addition, the demonstrators were not merely protesting the war. They condemn many of the Bush policies.

Message edited by author 2004-08-30 10:40:33.

08/30/2004 11:23:01 AM · #143

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***Bush was a certified combat-ready pilot and did not serve in VietNam?! You don't find that curious at the least, and don't suspect that he was AWOL?

From a History of the Texas National Guard:

"During the Vietnam War the federal government did not call up many army or air national guard units. No Texas Air Guard units were mobilized, although the air guard mobilized 9,343 nationwide. Only one small Texas Army Guard unit with 124 members received the federal call. This unit was a portion of the 12,234 army guardsmen who were mobilized in May 1968."

Since NO Texas ANG units were mobilized for deployment to Vietnam, I see no reason to question why BUSH, or any OTHER pilot from his unit, didn't go.

08/30/2004 12:21:03 PM · #144

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Bush was a certified combat-ready pilot and did not serve in VietNam?! You don't find that curious at the least, and don't suspect that he was AWOL?

From a History of the Texas National Guard:

"During the Vietnam War the federal government did not call up many army or air national guard units. No Texas Air Guard units were mobilized, although the air guard mobilized 9,343 nationwide. Only one small Texas Army Guard unit with 124 members received the federal call. This unit was a portion of the 12,234 army guardsmen who were mobilized in May 1968."

Since NO Texas ANG units were mobilized for deployment to Vietnam, I see no reason to question why BUSH, or any OTHER pilot from his unit, didn't go.

***Ok, so there was no call for him or anyone in his unit to go to VN, but was he willing and ready to go had he been ordered? In other words, was he fullfilling his duties after his initial training by reporting for continued maintainance of his skills?

08/30/2004 02:03:53 PM · #145

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Bush was a certified combat-ready pilot and did not serve in VietNam?! You don't find that curious at the least, and don't suspect that he was AWOL?

From a History of the Texas National Guard:

"During the Vietnam War the federal government did not call up many army or air national guard units. No Texas Air Guard units were mobilized, although the air guard mobilized 9,343 nationwide. Only one small Texas Army Guard unit with 124 members received the federal call. This unit was a portion of the 12,234 army guardsmen who were mobilized in May 1968."

Since NO Texas ANG units were mobilized for deployment to Vietnam, I see no reason to question why BUSH, or any OTHER pilot from his unit, didn't go.

***Ok, so there was no call for him or anyone in his unit to go to VN, but was he willing and ready to go had he been ordered? In other words, was he fullfilling his duties after his initial training by reporting for continued maintainance of his skills?

I'll let Bush speak for himself. He said, on NBC's "Today" show, "Had my unit been called up, I would have gone".

Your "in other words" isn't - it is a different query. To THAT query I would have to say that he did not maintain his ready status, but as to whether he had legitimate reasons or not, I do not know.
For example: the last time I qualified as sharpshooter, I did so with a .22 caliber rifle, not an AR-15. Why? Because it was 35 below zero and blowing snow so hard that no one could have even seen a target 100 yards away, let alone hit it. So I qualified at an indoor range that couldn't accommodate an AR-15.
For all I know, Bush was unable to meet his requirements for logistical or other legitimate reasons. For one thing, I believe that he has said that the squadron he was attached to in Alabama did not have the type of aircraft he needed to fly for maintaining his status.

Ron

09/07/2004 03:36:45 PM · #146

On December 15, 2003, in a speech at the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, Dean said that "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." Dean also said, "The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion."

But who challenged Dean immediately? John Kerry. On December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

But who challenged HIMSELF yesterday? Why, John Kerry. At a political rally in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania Kerry called the invasion "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time", and said his goal was to withdraw US troops in a first White House term".

MadMordegon

09/07/2004 03:47:56 PM · #147

Stupid Kerry..

In response to your previous post Ron about Bush and his military.. see here

09/07/2004 04:57:13 PM · #148

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Stupid Kerry..

In response to your previous post Ron about Bush and his military.. see here

I did . . . yesterday . . . before you posted a link to it.
What conclusions, if any, do you draw from it?

mrorange002