Senator Kerry And Hanoi Jane

[zagnut 0]

I'd like to second that motion on the separate politics forum. :D

[GhostDog 0]

IMO the main focus of this site is simulation games and the likes. Everything else is OT - including politics. A "gloves off" political forum might encourage language and behaviour that would only force us to close topics faster that otherwise neccesary (again only IMHO).

 

As far as the main subject in this thread goes i'll just shut my big european mouth and let you guys fight it out in a civil manner ;)

[navychief 1]

Ghost Dog, I am inclined to agree with you. It is almost a sure thing that tempers would flare.

 

I am the one who started this thread, and have posted many others like it in the past. In 1992, when "Comrade Clinton" was elected to office, I became much more aware of my conservative beliefs, and must say that the following eight years of Clinton's "reign" was difficult to go through. His administration reduced our military strength to a new low. Perhaps it is because I was career military that makes me so passionate against liberals. Or maybe it is because that I rebel at the liberal's idea of income redistribution.

 

Politics are such a hot issue in this country. Perhaps it would be best if such discussions would be posted on sites created for that purpose.

 

Navy Chief

[firehawkordy 34]

hear, hear.

I wont cry if there are no political talks on this board.

[PG_Raptor 0]

maybe I should specify. The purpose of a seperate politics forum is so that those who feel like they are being repressed, think someones policies are stupid, etc, can have a place to discuss them with others. Yes, snapple, one with the gloves off. As such, controversial subjects are going to and are expected to come up. From the other ones I have seen, there are a few rules:

 

1. No personnal attacks on forum members.

2. Cussing is permitted, but only in a strict sense (ie no long strings of such language), and only when used sparingly.

 

Common sense is the other rule. Anything that breaks these rules is immediatly deleted. With this type of forum, people can get things off their chest. Those that do not want to read/participate in such proceedings do not have to. Lastly, it is good for public debate. I dont' think such a forum on Biohaz would hurt anyone. It would be better to have such dicussions on that forum then here.

[Falcon Six Two 0]

Hmm....sounds like the former WCE forum @ SimHQ to me, but I'd like to give it a shot.

[snapple2993 0]

Despite all the "Bush is gonna win anyway" talk (including my own)... I think we're in for another 2000 debacle. Now if we can just keep my states Cuban population from f*cking up another election.

 

Last 3 gallup polls attached.

[Dagger 21]

I don't think it was just the Cuban population..the problem was in teh punch cards they used for voting....they need to switch to a more modern type of balloting.It should be a very interesting election year...Kerry has some good points and President Bush has some.I really believe that the country is on the way back,a war economy always helps,but If Kerry is going to allow the un to control our armed forces then I know ALOT of vets who won't vote for him,been there,done that and the un has it's collective head so far up its butt sunshine is viewed through it's mouth.

[Foofighter 0]

Our deficit is in great shape since Bush became Pres. I'd probably be happier if I had interests in Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, Bechtel or Kellog-Brown. I don't know though, could I live with myself if I knew that I was making millions while people were being killed and maimed? Could I "Laugh" all the way to the bank when I knew that I was bankrupting the country by blowing up Iraq just so my friends and I could make millions by rebuilding it? All at the taxpayer's expense?

Daddy Bush quit as the President of The Carlyle Group when George W. became President because it would be a "conflict of interest". Ofcourse that happened before 9/11 so I guess there wasn't any knowledge of 9/11 beforehand?

 

BTW, (profile) I'm James Baker III, I'm a paid Senior Analyst for the Carlyle Group. I just toured Europe and asked all the countries that Iraq owed money to please forgive Iraq's debt. If they do, all the contractors mentioned above will get paid without any problem. Including The Carlyle Group that I work for.

 

Taxpayer's (we/US) pay for the destruction on CREDIT (the deficit has been increased from 5.6 trillion to 7.2 trillion since Bush became Pres.)

 

The contractors that all of the senior people in office have interests in get the contracts to rebuild Iraq. Making millions!

 

It's all about a transfer of money. Bush/Cheney are the masters of converting US tax dollars into profits into their own private interests. That's why Bush could care less about how high he raises the National Debt because he knows after he's gone he's set for life. What you and I are left with after they leave is an astronomical deficit that we could never pay off. Kiss your $40,000.00 that you paid into Social Security goodbye! They just ripped you off :D :D :D ! And your too stupid to see it and they even think that is even funnier than the actual act.

 

My argument is that people ar dying, losing limbs and having their entire lives altered on both sides just so these people can make money.

 

Bush is laughing all the way to the bank and is even being "cocky" about it, he even arrogantly smirks while he is talking about it.

 

But keep buying the "inuendo crap". They want you to keep waving the flag, responding to keywords like "resolve" and "patriotism" meanwhile they are stealing your future.

 

I just hope you guys look at the financial end of this. We are in record deficits again, we have been warned by the IMF that we need to curtail our spending and we could get cutoff.

 

Is Bush's leadership really sending the country in the right direction long-term?

If he gets re-elected when he leaves in 2008 the national debt will accrue to 10 Trillion dollars. We went from 0 debt to 5.6 Trillion in 80 YEARS, Bush will have all most doubled that in 8 years!

 

Where will you and I be after he's gone?

 

Foofighter

[PG_Raptor 0]

To be honest, the national debt isn't as big of a deal that the liberals are making it. Sure, its not as blue sky and the republicans are making it out to be, either. But the world isn't coming to an end.

 

Where I will I be when Bush gets out? In 5 years, I'll be in the Air Force. I will have graduated from one of the nations prestigous flight schools, that I payed for through scholarships that i worked hard for. After that, I'll become a civilian pilot, and become rich. (well, that's the plan :D)

 

Sorry Foo, but your liberal conspiricy theories aren't going to turn many people. The answer to this deficet (actually, to most of America's problems) is not government action. the answer comes from individual hard work. If a person cannot work hard enough through their life with enough morals and dedication to what they beleive in, they do not deserve to be rich. While a liberal socialist view is ideal, it DOESN'T WORK. Look at reality.

[snapple2993 0]

If a person cannot work hard enough through their life with enough morals and dedication to what they beleive in, they do not deserve to be rich.  While a liberal socialist view is ideal, it DOESN'T WORK.  Look at reality.

PG are you sure you are looking at reality? I dont think Foo is insinuating anything political, merely an honest and true fiscal statement.

 

This whole national debt thing is not a new thing. Britain (our teachers of capitalism) had this same problem during the 18th century. George II and III much like our King George II... (sorry he's supposed to be a President ) Escalated military spending to astounding rates. Although Britain's tax incomes grew in this period at high percentages (booms in economy and newer taxes), it could not keep up with government spending. Notice they had newer taxes (a bad thing in our Country), which means that they were able to assign certain tax revenues to certain outstanding debts (certain creditors). Bush is cutting taxes while increasing spending (hence the explosion of debt). Unfortunatly we dont have a William Pitt the younger to tell Bush that he's F*cking Up, and if we keep borrowing money, and not paying back debts with tax revenue (the method of borrowing more to cover debt is not smart), our government will no longer be allowed to borrow any more money. The World Reserves will shut us out, and we will be forced to cut spending and possibly increase taxes... this means cutting the military and everything else.

 

Borrowing against expected tax revenue is as old as taxes and credit (thosands of years). This administration is content with ignoring the lessons learned over the millenia, and sending this country spiralling into relative poverty.

 

Don't you dare think that an Enron fiasco is limited to corporations. A government is run in much the same way as a corporation, the only difference is that they have more controls and have more room for bargaining. But also remember that the Banks of the world control the economy of the world. No not your pissant corner bank, the big ones, the ones that have enough money to right a 500 billion dollar check and not sweat it. But just like your local bank, they can red flag you or a counrty if they do not pay up, and that red flag means that your credit, and your word is screwed.

 

This is what foo was saying. So just because he may say something bad about the President, doesnt mean he's a socialist. For F*cks sake he works for Carlyle Group (or so he says), he cant be a socialist.

 

Something you military people need to understand. Just because a guy is escalating spending in your department doesnt mean he's doing the right thing. You need to ask where is the money coming from? Just because he's supposed to be a defender of your freedoms, doesnt mean that he really is. He has instituted many laws that do infringe on your freedoms, and he is not a moderate (neither is Kerry for that matter), so his ideas of morality do not represent the mainstream.

 

The Democratic Party is not the Party of Jackson and Jefferson anymore, and the Republican Party is not the Party of Lincoln anymore either. Both Parties are increadibly similar in the way they do things. Both want more controls on the people, they both want specific laws that go against the constitution (our constitution is against any of these infringing laws), and I'm afraid that our founding fathers from all sides are looking down upon us in disgust and perhaps in tears, for we have created a bureaucracy that no longer represent the will of the people. Only special interest groups, and yes the Republicans are full of special interests too, so stop saying that its only the Dems.

 

I will stop now, for I know that all that I say on this forum usually falls on deaf ears. All that I ask of anyone that reads this post, is that they not look at a President or anyone and take them for some sort of super righteous representative of your ideals. No one is perfect, and no one agrees with all that you believe in. Just because they escalate spending in your special area, doesnt mean that they arent hurting you in another place. This goes for all of our Presidents. We have had about the same number of good as bad, but they all thought that they were doing the right thing. It's up to us as Americans to tell them that we dont like what they are doing when they screw up, and applaud them when they do well. But do not overlook the bad just because you applauded them once or twice. Always scrutinize a President (and all politicians), otherwise you will have fullfilled the nightmare of our founding fathers... giving yourselves a KING.

 

PS: I know some if not most of you will think to yourselves, that you do always look with open eyes, but that is not what I see here on the boards, or in conversations. People in general tend to stand by their politics with great ferver, and rarely listen to what the opposition has to say. I do not ask that anyone change their political beliefs, I only ask that they starting living and believing in a word.... "Doubt".

 

Sincerely,

Jason R. Saffell

[PG_Raptor 0]

You're right snapple, I let my political feelings get in the way. As such, I will not replay to this thread anymore, until a political forum is formed, and we can have discussions on more specific topics.

[navychief 1]

One thing you all need to consider, is Kerry's idea of turning the control of our military over to the UN when it comes to overseas protection. Big mistake. Fatal mistake, in my opinion.

 

Add to that the fact that he voted against every weapons program since he has been in office, and one has to wonder how safe our country might be if he became president.

 

Doesn't give me a sense of being protected. Does it you?

 

The man is a phony.

 

Navy Chief

[snapple2993 0]

I'm so frustrated and pissed off right now, that I cant even have a thought that makes sense. If I type anything of meaning, I'm gonna get banned. Seriously my hands are shaking, this is almost as bad as those two commies ragging on Bush in my 10 oclock class yesterday.

 

I'm just gonna sit back and wait for it to get really really aggavating, then maybe I can jump in and get myself banned. ;)

[+Fates 63]

This is why we don't have an Open Political Forum....

 

so...lets move on....

 

For Sale on Ebay

 

<C>

Fates

[navychief 1]

Great patch, Fates.

 

Jane is lucky Vietnam was never declared an actual war, or she would have been tried for treason.

 

Jane, call home: 1-800-HANOI

 

NC

[Foofighter 0]

Where's Bush in '72?

Kerry did a full combat tour! And if when he came back and thought it was wrong AFTER SERVING (which Bush somehow can't recollect where he was at the time) you guys are going to criticize him? Maybe he was smarter than we are, he did his tour and then thought the war was wrong! WE LOST. The guy did his tour and then made his own accurate assessment that we were going to lose and opposed it. At least he showed up!

 

In terms of the UN, do you really think that anyone including Kerry is going to give the UN complete command of our forces? Never gonna happen!

 

Bush went unilateral on Iraq and then when overwhelmed went back to the UN for help. Who's the real Hypocrite here?

 

Foofighter

[Chaingun 0]

Where did this UNILATERAL BS get started. There are over 41 countries in this coalition, but I guess it's only Multilateral if FRANCE, GERMANY OR RUSSIA say that it is okay.

 

My Father did three tours of NAM with the Marine Corp. and I know from experience that some of those medals that the military give out for so called bravery quite often got to the ones that know how to kiss butt. (Not all mind you, but the some of them are.)

 

Don't want to start a fight here, just expressing my feelings..........

 

This is really hard to discuss without attempting to throw the flame.

Edited February 20, 2004 by Chaingun

[snapple2993 0]

Man! Faking 3 Purple Hearts must have been a total b*tch.

[Chaingun 0]

When later asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it.

 

Yep, them cuts while shaving really hurt. :D kidding, nobody said anything about his service, just all the details are not really known. At least I don't.

 

I just know I would never vote for this man.........

[Foofighter 0]

I have a few pics I'd like to share. My uncle (Paul Stratton Jr.) was an MP at the embassy when it was attacked and evacuated. These are original photos that he had taken during the attack. A lot of my views are formed by his experience in the war and his thoughts on it. He later moved up within the State Department and became Deputy Undersecretary of State (number 5 under the Secretary of State) before retiring.

 

This UNILATERAL BS got started because the 41 countries that YOU include in THIS coalition BARELY have any military prescence to support it! Do the national troop numbers dude! The main force is US (130,000), secondary British(5,000), third Italian and Polish(3,000), the rest are less than a thousand.

 

You call that a 41 Nation Multilateral force?

 

Chaingun, are you stating that your Father's medals were earned and Kerry's were for just as you said "kissing butt"?

 

In terms of Vietnam I just want to make one point clear!

 

60,000 US Soldiers lost their lives, countless others forever changed.

2 million VC lost their lives, countless others forever changed.

 

FOR WHAT?

WHAT WAS CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THAT WAR THAT JUSTIFIES THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT DIED OR WERE MAIMED?

 

Don't want to start a fight here either, just expressing the facts and my feelings.

 

No Flame intended,

Foofighter

[+Fates 63]

Nobody wants War.

 

And nobody wants another Hitler.

 

I'm sure both candidates for Presidency can agree on that.

[Seawolf 0]

I have a few pics I'd like to share.  My uncle (Paul Stratton Jr.) was an MP at the embassy when it was attacked and evacuated.  These are original photos that he had taken during the attack.  A lot of my views are formed by his experience in the war and his thoughts on it.  He later moved up within the State Department and became Deputy Undersecretary of State (number 5 under the Secretary of State) before retiring.

 

This UNILATERAL BS got started because the 41 countries that YOU include in THIS coalition BARELY have any military prescence to support it!  Do the national troop numbers dude!  The main force is US (130,000), secondary British(5,000), third Italian and Polish(3,000), the rest are less than a thousand.

 

You call that a 41 Nation Multilateral force?

 

Chaingun, are you stating that your Father's medals were earned and Kerry's were for just as you said "kissing butt"?

 

In terms of Vietnam I just want to make one point clear!

 

60,000 US Soldiers lost their lives, countless others forever changed.

2 million VC lost their lives, countless others forever changed.

 

FOR WHAT?

WHAT WAS CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THAT WAR THAT JUSTIFIES THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT DIED OR WERE MAIMED?

 

Don't want to start a fight here either, just expressing the facts and my feelings.

 

No Flame intended,

Foofighter

If your not trying to start a flame war then why are you still going on with it?? Personally I read everything you had to say and had an open mind and still it hasn't changed my decision to vote for Bush in November.

[Chaingun 0]

This UNILATERAL BS got started because the 41 countries that YOU include in THIS coalition BARELY have any military prescence to support it!  Do the national troop numbers dude!  The main force is US (130,000), secondary British(5,000), third Italian and Polish(3,000), the rest are less than a thousand.

 

You call that a 41 Nation Multilateral force?

 

Chaingun, are you stating that your Father's medals were earned and Kerry's were for just as you said "kissing butt"?

First things first, I didn't mention one thing about my fathers medals, just pointing out relavance about Kerry's service in the military. Back when Clinton was in office, Kerry didn't see the relevance of his service in Vietnam and was supposedly dissappointed by the fact that Vietnam (service)being brought forward once again to prove the mettle of the man. (Clinton), and now he wants to throw it back up again to prove himself to somehow be better than everyone else.

 

Kerry had three purple hearts that he himself states he missed a total of 2 days work over. Musta been awfully rough, as far as my father goes, I don't know about his service, I have never been able to get him to talk about it and I don't think I ever will.

 

As far as the multinational force, that's about how it's been since we been working within the UN, if the Military is sent, it's the vast majority is funded and supported by US troops. The numbers game just never add up.

 

 

Nature of support

The criteria for inclusion in the coalition, as defined by the White House, are very broad, including mere political support.

Combat troops

United States - hundreds of thousands of troops, weaponry, money, etc.

Britain - 45,000 troops, aircraft, tanks

Australia - about 2,000 personnel: a squadron of F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets, three ships, 150 special forces troops, and other weaponry. See Australian contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.

Denmark - submarine & warship, and a medical team

Poland - 54 combat troops, 74-member chemical decontamination team, supply ship with 56 sailors; total troops - up to 200; See Polish contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.

Iraqi Kurdish peshmergas militia - 50,000+

Note: While the Government of Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval, Canada has military personnel serving under the U.S. command in Iraq, provides six hi-tech frigate escorts for U.S. & British ships in the Gulf, and numerous other technical services. U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, stated that Canada in fact is providing more support that virtually all other members of the "Coalition of the Willing".

 

 

Military support (no combat troops)

Kuwait - hosts invasion force

Qatar - hosts U.S. Central Command regional headquarters

South Korea - 700 non-combat troops (However, the Parliament vote to provide such troops continues to be postponed)

Japan - refueling Canadian and Greek warships in the Arabian Sea

 

Chemical, biological, and nuclear specialists

Bulgaria - 150 specialists (and airspace use, bases, use of Black Sea port)

Slovakia - 69 anti-chemical warfare specialists in Kuwait

Czech Republic - sent 400 anti-chemical warfare specialists to Kuwait (and airspace use)

Romania (and airspace use)

Spain - 900 non-combat troops for medical support vessel for treatment of contamination

Ukraine - 532-man 19th Army Battalion deployed to Kuwait, but will not enter Iraq

 

Defense

Netherlands - three MIM-104 Patriot missile batteries and 360 soldiers for defense of Turkey

 

Use of bases and airspace

Ethiopia

Eritrea - use of Red Sea port of Assab

Hungary (hosts U.S. base)

Italy (not for direct military attacks)

Portugal - Lajes Field air base in Azores

 

Airspace use

Albania

Azerbaijan

Georgia (possibly airfields)

Lithuania

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Turkey (after failed negotiations to permit troop deployment)

 

 

Political support only

Afghanistan

Colombia

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Honduras

Iceland (has no military)

Japan

Latvia (may deploy some troops)

Marshall Islands

Micronesia (has no military)

Mongolia

Nicaragua

Palau (has no military)

Philippines

Rwanda

Singapore

Uganda

Uzbekistan

[Dutchy 0]

Chaingun. Our troops (The troops of the Netherlands) are based in South Iraq. And not only with Patriots in Turkey.

They defense the civilians and work as a sort of police.

It is just for the knowing what I say.

 

Salute

Dutchy