Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Ex-RoNiN

Bush vietnam service record released

Recommended Posts

  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,04:18) said:
Some men are destined for leadership.  Bush is one of them.

Again, Kerry may be a war hero, but he's not the man to lead the country.

Why yes,he has led you to unemployment,a huge financial death-pit,did all his rich buddies favours,while cutting in the matters that concern common Joe Sixpack and has made the rest of the world look down upon you with contempt (oh,and after sep 11 they were all on your side,so it's quite the acomplishment) .

Huzzah!All hail Bush the Second! rock.gif

Seriously though,'doing his duty' & 'serving his country' ?

Tell that to the people his age who spent a year (as opposed to a mere nine days) in some god-forsaken jungle in SE Asia,taking his place,spilling their blood and guts,doing their duty and serving their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (walker @ Feb. 16 2004,22:14) said:
  (denoir @ Feb. 17 2004,03:10) said:
3) He voted for the Iraq war although it at the time was perfectly obvious that the claims were pure BS. Check the first Iraq thread at the time that congress voted.
As did I and I have made my case for why I changed my view. The prospectus for war in Iraq has since been proven to my satifaction to have been a false one. Not only that but if you look in my posts it is clear I highlight how TBA and TBA2 designed the authoring of that false prospectus to fool their respective nations.
  (denoir @ Feb. 17 2004,03:10) said:
4) He is now suddenly opposed to the war as attacking Bush is his ticket to the white house.
If you were to follow this realy silly line of reasoning the whole concept of this forum would be null as inherent in your thesis is the negation of discussion, persuasion and free will.

So Sentences 3 and 4 are semanticly NULL. They mean nothing, Nada, not even as much as one of Avon's Spam posts (I am sure Avon will be along to make one soon)

Not to get personal here, but I have to agree with Denoir if those are accurate points. And Walker I do not think you can absolve anyone in the "free world" with access to all sorts of information sources, completely(100%) if they supported the war. Even if you forgive yourself completely you are bound to make the same kind of grave ethical mistake in the future. And it is a grave mistake to support something like this, wether you were lied to or not, you have a responsibility to weigh what you know and what you _really know_ before supporting wars.

I would personally prefer any candidate that was able to see through the TBA/TBA2 propaganda while it started, went through and goes on; rather than someone who realized this after the fact.

This does not NULL the discussion, because it is still good for people to realize where they went off track into supporting such a silly invasion. It is better to know than to know in hindsight, but the latter is better than not knowing at all. (make any sense? maybe not)

Cheers and no disrispect meant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Frisbee @ Feb. 17 2004,04:33) said:
  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,04:18) said:
Some men are destined for leadership.  Bush is one of them.

Again, Kerry may be a war hero, but he's not the man to lead the country.

Why yes,he has led you to unemployment,a huge financial death-pit,did all his rich buddies favours,while cutting in the matters that concern common Joe Sixpack and has made the rest of the world look down upon you with contempt (oh,and after sep 11 they were all on your side,so it's quite the acomplishment) .

Huzzah!All hail Bush the Second!    rock.gif

Seriously though,'doing his duty' & 'serving his country' ?

Tell that to the people his age who spent a year (as opposed to a mere nine days) in some god-forsaken jungle in SE Asia,taking his place,spilling their blood and guts,doing their duty and serving their country.

Don't let him get to you, Frisbee. Just rise above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The campaign in Iraq is not even over yet and you people are already judging it as a grave error that we are all embarrased about. People arn't noting all the progress being made in Iraq. Schools being built, people getting access to a better quality of life and much more progress. I bet that in months to come people will see a much better Iraq.

Then all the people saying what an awful situation we created over there and all this about this Iraq mess will be real quiet.

It's not over yet you know.

I'm sick of all the people trying to bring us down saying we didn't find any WMD. That kind of talk only hurts us in the short run. Not good for morale.

Just makes me sick to my stomach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi IceFire

Some points you need to note.

I have always made these points clear.

1)I am a practicing practical anarchist. I dont vote.

2)I live in and was born in the UK.

3)As an anarchist I am active in the political arena

Obviously therefor I dont vote in elections (unless there is a great risk say a Hitler, Stalin or some such) I can not vote in a US elections nor would I want to.

I do seek through voice, writing, actions and even the lyrics of songs to pursuade.

So now to your post

  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,03:01) said:
Walker, you are only looking at one aspect of both candidates, their military record.
Au contraire my friend I have made my case on many aspects of TBA whether it be on George Bush Jnr.'s Self admited Vietnam War Dodging, TBA's failures in foreign policy, TBA's Failure at a time of war in not finding bin Laden or reducing the coalitions enemies, TBA's failure to its allies at a time of war, its links to The Carlyle Group, Dodgy Dick Cheyney and the Halliburton fiasco, the fixing of elections, I could be here for hours, read some of my posts.
  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,03:01) said:
You can call bush a vietnam war dodger all you want.  He still completed his necessary time. We do not even know the full story on this.
 We Know he conived to dodge the War in Vietnam.
  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,03:01) said:
Sure, John Kerry may be a war hero too.  Noone is debating that.
Err? I am not debating it. I am contrasting it in order to win the debate. Its a good contrast and one that is well worth highlighting and I will continue to do so. (it is also the subject of this thread wink_o.gif )
  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,03:01) said:
There is more to these candidates than their military past.
Yeh! and on most of them John F. Kerry is the better man.
  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,03:01) said:
Bush is still a better man to lead the country.
On what basis do you make this absurd statement?

As the Miserable Failure George Bush Jnr. has:

Failed his nation at a time of war.

Failed to stear his nation on an economic safe course.

Failed to paint his nation in a fair light in foreign policy.

Failed to find Bin Laden

Failed to decrease the number of coalition enemies.

etc.

The list of George Bush Jnr.'s failures is endless.

He has managed to get his rich mates tax cuts

He has managed to get his mates fat juicy Government Contracts

He has destoyed a country.

He says he is a War President.

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Tex [uSMC said:
@ Feb. 17 2004,04:50)]Don't let him get to you, Frisbee. Just rise above.

What's that supposed to mean? ? ? ?

My opinions are just as valid as anyone elses.

Just because you think you are morally or logically superior doesn't mean you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,04:57) said:
It's not over yet you know.

You're pulling out in june,do you really think a complex country like Iraq will be built up in just *counts* 4 months?

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]Don't let him get to you, Frisbee. Just rise above.

My Zen wears off past midnight,I'll take that advice and sleep. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (IceFire @ Feb. 16 2004,23:01) said:
  (Tex [uSMC said:
@ Feb. 17 2004,04:50)]Don't let him get to you, Frisbee. Just rise above.

What's that supposed to mean? ? ? ?

My opinions are just as valid as anyone elses.

Just because you think you are morally or logically superior doesn't mean you are.

You certainly are trying to look inferior with your posts, and nobody even said what you jsut did.

How can you say this war was not a grave mistake? How logically is this possible, people have told you in a straight forward fashion why your argument does not make sense. So it's not about being superior, it is about making sense of "stuff".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 16 2004,19:22) said:
Still denoir, he served, and he served not somewhere hidden in the backyard of the national guard, he served in Vietnam. Whether or not he had polticial ambitions do so doesnt count. To go to Vietnam to get a reference for your political CV, that sounds very odd to me.

As far as Bush is concerned I have nothing to criticse. Of course his parents, priviledged as they were, didnt want him to go into battle. I suppose it was their decision rather than his. The problem only occurs once Mr. Bush called himself " a military man" and a "president of war" (see video posted). THAT, doesnt make no sense and after a silly occasion like the impeachment of Mr. Clinton he should have known that journalists would dig in his past. It cant be that presidents are so unaware of future campaign-threats

I disagree.  Serving in the National Guard, even in time of war (and at a time when the National Guard was really just an inept avenue of escape) is not dishonorable.  It is not as respectable as serving in the Armed Forces, or even going into combat, but it is not dishonorable.  What is dishonorable and despicable, is using the power and privelege of your family and its money to get you out of doing your duty.  To take away someone else's deferrment because you have a richer, more powerful daddy is simply wrong and un-American.  I'd like to know what happened to the 50 some odd candidates who were better qualified than Bush and who had spots ahead of him on the waiting list until his daddy bailed him out.  How many of them fought and died?  Who were they?  What might their potential have been?  How do their families feel about this?

Bush is no leader, he started a war by either A.  Outright lying to the American public, or B.  Being duped by lousy intelligence data.

Either way, he's unfit to lead.  I don't know which is worse, dishonesty or ineptitude. crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If inferior means having a differing opinion than you, then fine. Then you live in a very sad world. If everyone must agree with you.

We went to war because Saddam was a threat, and he could use his weapons and power to influence foreign terrorists. In exchange he would get appreciation in the Islamic world etc or whatever the motivations. Even money.

Taking him out was the right thing to do. We couln't just leave him in power during this war on terrorism. Terrorists might be willing to make deals with him for weapons and etc.

Saddam had the capability. That is deadly enough. You people just don't understand. We needed to do this. What do you expect us to do? Just sit around and let the terrorists alone to plot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (RalphWiggum @ Feb. 17 2004,05:39) said:
if you guys are going to argue about IRaq war there is a thread for it.

This thread is about Bush. And Bush is being judged based on his decision to go to war.

So it IS related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (IceFire @ Feb. 16 2004,19:57) said:
The campaign in Iraq is not even over yet and you people are already judging it as a grave error that we are all embarrased about.  People arn't noting all the progress being made in Iraq.  Schools being built, people getting access to a better quality of life and much more progress.  I bet that in months to come people will see a much better Iraq.

Then all the people saying what an awful situation we created over there and all this about this Iraq mess will be real quiet.

It's not over yet you know.

I'm sick of all the people trying to bring us down saying we didn't find any WMD.  That kind of talk only hurts us in the short run.  Not good for morale.

Just makes me sick to my stomach.

Ketting killed in a war that was started because of a lie, or just simple incompetence isn't good for morale either.

Ignoring a Presidential administration that did either is not helpful at all.

Criticism of the war isn't designed to bring us down, nobody wants to bring down the United States, you have to quit being so narrow minded and focus on the larger picture. Criticism is designed to hold an irresponsible leader accountable for his actions, as he should be. We aren't talking about a bad treaty or a poor trade decsion here, we are talking about a war, which is the most momentous and grave decision a leader of free people has to make. You don't make that decision unless you absolutely have to and only after you've gotten all the facts straight. Anything less is criminal.

WMD was the reason given for going to war. Now we find out we were either lied to or our leader didn't do his homework before pulling the trigger. Either way, that is negligence.

If the reason given had been humanitarian, or simply to off an evil dictator, or fuck, even to secure a stable supply of oil in case the Saudis go tits up, people would not be upset right now. We are upset because we have a leader who is either incompetent, dishonest or both. Either way, he fucked up big time and it's time for him to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason people are upset is because they placed ALL their faith in the war on the basis that Saddam had WMD. WMD is not the only reason I supported the war. Infact, WMD plays only a small part of the reason I and most people SHOULD/SHOULD HAVE supported the war.

Now that no WMD has yet been found people are shocked and upset. People have forgotten the main picture.

If you went along with the war on the sole basis of Saddam having WMD, well then I feel bad for you. But that is not the only reason we went to war and most Americans do not understand that fact. There are many unwritten reasons for this war. Most of which has not been discussed on TV, but needs to be read in news papers and news magazines.

Just remember, the war was a GOOD thing. Just repeat that to yourself. It may be tough right now, but things might not be so bad for long. So don't try to take that away from us now that we are this far. We just need patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,05:51) said:
  (RalphWiggum @ Feb. 17 2004,05:39) said:
if you guys are going to argue about IRaq war there is a thread for it.

This thread is about Bush.   And Bush is being judged based on his decision to go to war.

So it IS related.

no you were talking about Iraq war. even Bush subject, the direct discussion of it other than his military record is offtopic.

if you want to discuss about iraq war, THERE IS A THREAD FOR IT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (IceFire @ Feb. 16 2004,21:02) said:
The reason people are upset is because they placed ALL their faith in the war on the basis that Saddam had WMD.   WMD is not the only reason I supported the war.  Infact, WMD plays only a small part of the reason I and most people SHOULD/SHOULD HAVE supported the war.  

Now that no WMD has yet been found people are shocked and upset.   People have forgotten the main picture.

If you went along with the war on the sole basis of Saddam having WMD, well then I feel bad for you.   But that is not the only reason we went to war and most Americans do not understand that fact.   There are many unwritten reasons for this war.   Most of which has not been discussed on TV, but needs to be read in news papers and news magazines.

Just remember, the war was a GOOD thing.  Just repeat that to yourself. It may be tough right now, but things might not be so bad for long.  So don't try to take that away from us now that we are this far.  We just need patience.

You are failing to make a very big intellectual leap here.  It doesn't matter what people supported the war for.  The reason for going to war doesn't matter.  Hell, you would find people who would support war with Mexico because it might mean unlimited tacos and Corona beer for us.  Whether we went to war with Iraq to get rid of Saddam, free the Iraqi people, grab all the oil we could get, or elminate the threat of WMD is not the issue.

The issue is that the war was sold to the American people on the basis of Saddam's WMD.  WMD that the Bush administration either knew he didn't have and lied to us about anyway, or thought he had and started a war before they were absolutely sure.

The issue is that the President is either dishonest or incompetent.  Had he simply told the truth or even gotten his facts straight, he wouldn't be in trouble right now.

Incidently, I supported the war, just look at all my old posts.  I supported it for humanitarian reasons.  I still think that things will end up better in Iraq in the long run.

That doesn't necessitate that I support our dishonest or incompetent President.  On the contrary, I loath him.  If he lied, he should go to prison.  If he was incompetent, he should get the boot.  Either way he is not fit to lead.

Learn to separate the two issues in your mind.  You don't have to be for both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,05:01) said:
  (Tex [uSMC said:
@ Feb. 17 2004,04:50)]Don't let him get to you, Frisbee. Just rise above.

What's that supposed to mean? ? ? ?

It means I don't want Frisbee to get too frustrated by you and end up posting something he will regret later. I've seen it happen to other members before and it isn't a pretty sight.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]My opinions are just as valid as anyone elses.

Unfortunately, yes. You are correct there. And the worst part is that your vote counts just as much as mine, come November. Probably more, taking into account my location and the vagaries of the electoral college.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]

Just because you think you are morally or logically superior doesn't mean you are.

Let's not get twisted off on a rhetorical bent here- besides, I never said anything to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Why Did He Miss The Physical?

Many National Guards Vetrans are disgusted at George Bush Jnr.'s standing down on his own from active duty. Most true volunteers would move heaven and earth to remain a fast jet pilot.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]"There are certain things I expect from my pilots," said Major General Paul Weaver, who retired as head of the Air National Guard in 2002. "He should have kept current with his physicals."

http://www.time.com/time....00.html

The National Guards Vetrans are beginning to question his sincerity in even his disgusting statement where: Bold As Brass he admits he is a Vietnam War Dodger. He did not even do it to serve his nation he did it to

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]"... better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271520/

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]My opinions are just as valid as anyone elses.

Unfortunately, yes. You are correct there. And the worst part is that your vote counts just as much as mine, come November. Probably more, taking into account my location and the vagaries of the electoral college.

Quote  

Just because you think you are morally or logically superior doesn't mean you are.

hey both of you:

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]Relating to terrorism; creating new provisions; and amending

section 19, chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. { + (1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if

the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any

act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to

disrupt:

(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the

State of Oregon;

(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of

Oregon; or

© The educational or governmental institutions of the State

of Oregon or its inhabitants.

(2) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person

conspires to do any of the activities described in subsection (1)

of this section.

If we would be in state of Oregon you would have a serious problem now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (IceFire @ Feb. 17 2004,06:02) said:
There are many unwritten reasons for this war.   Most of which has not been discussed on TV, but needs to be read in news papers and news magazines.

rock.gif

I don't feel the need to shoot down the argument that the humanitarian side was important,I tried to and my comp crashed from the length of the rant,I'll just rest easy thinking that you 'heard' those facts already,but chose not to actually hear them,so me repeating them won't have any influence.

Fact : The UN does humanitarian missions,if there was just cause for a humanitarian mission,the UN would have gone in,and we'd have experienced peacekeepers there,instead of american recruits who are forced to do things they're not trained to do.

Call the UN a stupid bureacratic organisation,because it is,but this is the way the game is played in the world.

In the world of grownups we don't club eachother over the head if we disagree,we file a law-suit or get the police to settle it.

In the world of international relationships,the UN is that police,and they try to stop nations starting war out of self-interest,because it is unbecoming of civilised society to have to resort to violence to do things.

(there are dozens of countries in worse shape than Iraq,but only Iraq has a huge oil reserve,and go figure,Iraq was picked to be 'liberated',well now isn't that surprising?)

So....I strayed off to Iraq... (and I did rant sad_o.gif)

Apologies,but the American people were blatantly lied to in that case,and are being lied to again,although slightly more subtle in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi people

Let us try and keep the thread ontopic eh?

Well Republican attack politics are floudering in the cow muck again; after two of their attacks covered TBA in their own bull s**t.

First their fake mistress attack failed.

The family of the girl, who was reported as being a kerry intern but was not, are said to be livid. Especialy as one of Murdochs papers lied about them too. It is rumoured that a very big legal case is in the offing with several UK lawyers interested if the famly wish to sue Murdoch's papers into the stone age. (Such cases can run to millions of UK pounds fines for Journalists and papers)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselect....00.html

Now their fake photos have failed.

The photo of John F. Kerry on the same stage as Jane Fonda was a fake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselect....00.html

I guess a man who will conive to get himself a Vietnam War Dodging post in special section of the The National Guard finds it no problem to use this kind of attack politics. Just TBA are very inept.

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished watching a documentary (The Third World War: Al Quaeda on the Beeb) and it showed a clip of Bush giving his speech about "if you feed a terrorist, you are a terrorist", presumably a speech made on an army base (`cause he's only given one speech outside a military army base in the last three years), in which he was wearing a jumpsuit with what I swear was a US Airborne `Screaming Eagle' patch on the sleeve. Is he entitled to wear that badge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Frisbee @ Feb. 17 2004,09:36) said:
  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]Fact : The UN does humanitarian missions,if there was just cause for a humanitarian mission,the UN would have gone in,and we'd have experienced peacekeepers there,instead of american recruits who are forced to do things they're not trained to do.

What you are quoting as fact is not entirely true. Fact, the U.N. does participate and organize humanitarian efforts and missions, but it does not own the corner on that market. Sovereign nations also conduct their own humanitarian missions. They have that right under the still governing principle of state sovereignty.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]Call the UN a stupid bureacratic organisation,because it is,but this is the way the game is played in the world.

In the world of grownups we don't club eachother over the head if we disagree,we file a law-suit or get the police to settle it.

The U.N. is a cumbersome bureaucratic organization that has become outdated and outmoded by a changing conception in international relations and by the global marketplace. It is essentially a pre-Cold War dinosaur that forgot to adapt or die off. If the U.N. is going to function as an effective organization in the next few decades (and I sincerely hope it will) it is going to need radical restructuring and a firm redefinition of its role and governing principles.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]In the world of international relationships,the UN is that police,and they try to stop nations starting war out of self-interest,because it is unbecoming of civilised society to have to resort to violence to do things.

This is a fundamentally new argument in the concept of international relations and is by no means the controlling doctrine that international law has operated under for the last 300 years. The controlling doctrine still is the principle of individual sovereignty. Conceptions of sovereignty are starting to evaporate and change in the face of the demands of the information age and rapid globalization, but it would be a grave mistake to assume they are gone away. The U.N. is not yet viewed by the a large number of nations as the global police force and many would fight that notion quite harshly. This is an interesting development and a crucial time in the history of the world. The arena of international relations is changing so rapidly as to make predictions and empirical research into just what it is and what it is becoming nearly impossible. The world you live in now may very well be long gone in 20 years.

Just thought I'd help you out there, as you seem to be jumping the gun so to speak. You aren't entirely wrong, you just aren't exactly right yet. The operative word here is "yet".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Schoeler @ Feb. 18 2004,00:42) said:
but it does not own the corner on that market.  Sovereign nations also conduct their own humanitarian missions.  They have that right under the still governing principle of state sovereignty.  

Oh yeah,you're right,individual nations often solve trouble in their ex-colonies for example,but don't they usually go in with the go ahead from the UN?

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]it is going to need radical restructuring and a firm redefinition of its role and governing principles.

Very much so,the current UN is still stuck with the winners of WWII pulling the strings,and countries who have gained influence during the last 50 years are being left out,mainly 3rd world countries,Annan stated all this very eloquently a few months ago as well.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]Just thought I'd help you out there, as you seem to be jumping the gun so to speak. You aren't entirely wrong, you just aren't exactly right yet. The operative word here is "yet".

Yep,but this is the 'ideal' that was put forward more than a hundred years ago,by the old nations of europe,in the name of international arbitration,the UN is the current branch of that thought.I should have said that the UN should be considered that police.

I just find this idea of international debate far too valuable to be casually tossed aside whenever it suits those in power.

If you turn your back on this international community,they will turn their backs as well,as Bush is experiencing.

Thanks for the corrections smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Bush a fast jet pilot? Lets try to put it all in perspective.

Edit Link Removed

[EDIT]It has come to my attention that on the same site as the above there are some disturbing images. May I suggest you exersize caution if you visit the rest of the site.[/EDIT]

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×