Bush just called himself KING...

Read the rest of it, then reply. My comment was:

"Many have called for an investigation into his activities and charges to be brought."

At no time did I suggest this was proof of his treason, but rather that many have called for an investigation into his activities.

Please read before responding. It will save both of us time.

 

Okay Gtech:

I'll agree with you on 1 thing. "It was a bad time in history".

To try and paraphrase what you stated, you view Kerry as treasonous for what he did after his service in Vietnam.

You described some of his actions as part of the Veterans Against the Vietnam War.

But you couldn't help but "question" his service.

So it comes down to what you believe. And you labeled those post service in Vietnam actions when acting with the anti-war group as treasonous.

And since it is what you believe...here is what I believe.

1. "It was a bad time in history" as you said.
2. Kerry took serious anti-war actions.
3. I don't believe they were treasonous.
4. They were very similar to actions taken by many Americans at that time who were seriously questioning actions and decisions by the Administration.
5. This country should be big enough, free enough, and healthy enough to allow debate on all issues including big issues such as war and peace and death of young American soldiers.
6. When the administration in power, and its followers label all who disagree as "traitors, "wanting to cut and run", cowards, etc. It leads the dissenters to more serious forms of disagreement and dissent.


Here is an article that goes into some depth about both Cheney's deferments and conditions at that time: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/p...&en=1c0259e620183dd6&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

My reading of it is that it is only marginally biased against Cheney, with more of it focused on conditions at the time. It is illustrative of conditions during those years as the draft grew in size.

It is interesting to see that far more young men enlisted then were drafted.

It is important to realize that young men didn't want to fight in Vietnam. They weren't rushing to do so.

Cheney, Bush and Kerry all attended college before facing service in the military. They each took different actions when faced with the draft.

Cheney, being older than Bush and Kerry, was less susceptable to the draft in the very early 60's. He then picked up student deferments and a Married with child deferment.

Kerry, as you pointed out used college deferments, was denied a subsequent study deferment, (and as you pointed out - and I subsequently read) joined the Navy reserves.

Bush, following his undergraduate student deferments, joined the National Guard.

It should be pointed out from the same statistics you provided about National Guard Service and numbers who died in Vietnam, that 5780 members of the Reserves died in service in Vietnam, almost 10% of the total. Far, far, far higher than the numbers and percentages of the Guard. It is clear from the numbers that the Guard played almost no part in Vietnam It should also be clear from looking at the numbers that the Guard is playing a vastly different role in the war in Iraq.

All 3 above referenced men took actions that most who honestly lived through, and remembered that period of history, represented ways to avoid the most dangerous aspects of service in Vietnam.

As I mentioned in earlier posts, many young men tried to avoid service in Vietnam. These discussions heighten my memory. While I referenced the Guard, draft dodging, and conscientious objectors as personal strategies to avoid the most dangerous service in Vietnam there were many other strategies.

If i remember correctly, enlisting directly, rather than being drafted gave a young man more choices, and thereby the ability to choose a branch of the military and a type of service that was less dangerous. Similarly, the reserves were less dangerous than either enlisting or being drafted. Though we see from the death statistics dramatically more dangerous than the National Guard.

All three men didn't jump into service. Kerry's actions were the most service oriented. We went to Vietnam and he was fired on and fired back.

Bush and Cheney completely avoided service in Vietnam. Cheney never went into the military. Bush joined the National Guard.

While the Guard fought in Vietnam as you pointed out, the statistics show that its presence in Vietnam was miniscule. Moreover being in the Guard allowed and enabled Bush to switch units from Texas to Louisiana, to take time to campaign for someone, and to leave early. People stationed in the Guard today don't have those liberal rights and priveleges. In fact they are very much a part of forces in the midst of fighting in Iraq.

Being in the Guard then and now are totally different.

There were a number of horrible consequences that came out of the Vietnam period.

One was that soldiers in the war were treated like sh*t by those who didn't support the war. That was horrible. Fortunately that is very much not the case now.

A second consequence was that those who ran the war, the administration at the time branded those who opposed the war as traitors, cowards, etc. In fact, two administrations did that, Johnson's democratic administration and Nixon's republican administration.

The more they branded the opposition as unpatriotic and worse, the stronger the opposition became and the worse conditions within the United States got. There was much worse dissonence within the US then there is today.

Sadly, this administration, and its supporters didn't learn from that. They continue to brand and label people who disagree with them in the most virulent and horrible ways, calling them trecherous, cowards, cut and runners, etc. This fuels fire to discussions on the conduct of the war.

I actually want to see the strongest America possible. I think this administration is doing a horrible job now. I think it is turning us weaker. Several years ago Bush identified 3 nations that were an Axis of evil, including Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

North Korea has a missle ready for launch that reportedly can reach the West Coast. Iran is moving toward building atomic bombs.

We are stuck in Iraq, the one nation of the 3 that turned out not to have a nuclear capacity or the ability to move in that direction. Our small volunteer military is stretched to capacity. Our ability to refresh the military with new recruits is significantly hampered. Far fewer nations of the world are prepared to join us in confronting either Iran or North Korea and fewer still would take military action.

Based on current political conditions it would be impossible to initiate a draft to build our military unless we were attacked and the situation was far worse.

Carrying out the war has been a big mess. It has possibly been incompetent. We put too few troops in Iraq upon conclusion of the actual fighting against the Iraqi army. We didn't seal the borders. We didn't clean the country of weapons. We didn't jump into rebuilding the infrastructure and build jobs for young male Iraqi's. Conditions are very very close to an Iraqi civil war.

Here's a little chart following Dick Cheney's claim on June 20, 2005, that he believed that the insurgency in Iraq was dieing out.

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days % of American deaths versus percentage of coalition deaths
Jul-06 1 0 0 1 1 1
Jun-06 62 0 2 64 2.13 30
May-06 69 9 1 79 2.55 31
Apr-06 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
Mar-06 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
Feb-06 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
Jan-06 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
Dec-05 68 0 0 68 2.19 31
Nov-05 84 1 1 86 2.87 30
Oct-05 96 2 1 99 3.19 31
Sep-05 49 3 0 52 1.73 30
Aug-05 85 0 0 85 2.74 31
Jul-05 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
792 829 95.5%

Total American soldiers who have died in the Iraq war since it started 2536 Percentage of American soldiers who have died in Iraq since Cheney told us that the insurgency was ending 31.2%


Almost 1/3 of American soldiers who died in Iraq were killed after Cheney made that claim. Its also interesting to note that while Bush keeps speaking about a coalition with us fighting the war in Iraq over 95% of this coalition who died in the last year were Americans.

Its statements like these that lead Americans to distrust the Administration. Then the administration and its supporters brand all who disagree with them as traitors, cowards, unpatriotic, and ones who want to cut and run.

This of course leads to more and stronger dissent.


When it comes to treachory one of the most disturbing aspects of this period is when Valerie Plames identity was revealed in the press...and it turns out it came from the highest sources of the Administration.

Imagine taking a job at the CIA, getting a secret identity so that you can work on behalf of the US to uncover and find dangerous enemies and then being outed by the very administration that is running the country.

Imagine the morale conditions among members of the CIA and other agencies like it with employees who have secret identities who now have to worry if you disagree with the administration, or have a spouse who disagrees with the administration your identity will be revealed. Of course you could be killed. Revealing the identity of members of the CIA and like type spies is treachorous. It is a crime.

I believe that is treachorous.

 

Good, because after this post, I have no remaining doubt in my mind that we are going to agree on anything else.

Very correct. I do question his service because putting oneself in for medals for self-inflicted wounds that required nothing more than bactine is not honorable. Nor is doing such in order to get out of country early, honorable. These things made him a scumbag, a loser, a glory seeker, insecure in his own abilities. It made him a thief, because he stole something others earned. But these things didn't make him treasonous.

Many things exposed about kerry during the campaign about his service, including "Christmas in Cambodia," which was a blatant lie, but he was using all these years AGAINST his country to portray illegal activities, of which never happened. Since it was proved that this was a fabricated lie and did not happen, then one could not say that this was treasonous in relation to his service, per se. However, it was treason after his service, because that's when he began to deliberately lie about having spent Christmas in Cambodia in order to bring discredit upon the USA.

This is treason. Fabricating stories to show discredit upon your country and using this story all these years, then it was exposed it never happened. This is not only treasonous, but the lowest thing I can think of that someone can do to their country. It is shameful.

Now we take it a step further. Kerry deliberately lied (fake but accurate, I know ) during his Senate testimony. This was a shameful mistake he has lived down the rest of his life.

No. It comes down to the facts. And believe me when I say, where this Bush's service record and history, I'm quite sure you would be calling this treasonous. We only need to look at how you responded with Bush when I initially brought up kerry.

1. Fair enough
2. Indeed he did, and he took them way past the line.
3. I do. They were treasonous. He met with the enemy of the US while still an officer of the US to not only negotiate terms of surrendering, but also to take back action items to complete in the US on behalf of the enemy. This is treason. If Bush had done this, there's not an angry liberal in the world that would say it wasn't treason.
4. No they were not. Many other Americans did not sell their country out. They did not make up stories of Christmas in Cambodia to bring discredit upon their country. They did not meet with enemies of our country. They did not attend meetings to plan the assassination of US Senators, they did plan attacks on the Statue of Liberty.

And somehow, what little truth there is in that, that makes it acceptable to put yourself in for medals over self-inflicted wounds and get out of service in three months? Thanks, I don't buy that.

Neither Bush nor Cheney sold out their country. This isn't about them, it's about kerry's treason. There is no moral equivalence.

You are fond of pointing this out and it always appears in a context of how dishonorable National Guard service is. Certainly I do not recall you saying it was honorable. Bush served his country. And he didn't sell it out while doing so and as far as I know, did not put himself in for medals or make up stories about his service to discredit his country. He did more than a lot of people did when it comes to serving their country. Right? But he certainly didn't sell it out.

 

these are the biggest posts ever...Is there actually intellectual debate occurring in a forum ? Where are the 4 line posts with personal insults?

 

Wow im not even going to read all there posts lol. What are you doing pasteing books on here , lol.

 

Um, yes, this IS the intellectual debate. 4 line posts with personal insults are NOT intellectual.

 

Really? I always personally believed personal insults were the most intelligent way to win an argument. How else do you do it?

 

kick em in the nuts till they cry for mommy?

 

Punch upside the head... I gues...

 

Now you guys are thinking!

 

You know, it shows that you guys know nothing about winning a serious debate. "Punch upside the head"? C'mon. Get real. This goes to show how only debating on message boards such as these will cause your skills to atrophy.

The only sure fire way to win a debate, hands down, is to invite the person to debate you in a public forum, such as public access television. Somewhere with an audience. You set it up, make sure it's advertised well in the community. Then, just before the debate starts, make sure your opponent is the one who gets the coffee laced with 6 chocolate ex-lax*. They don't dissolve easily, so you have to make sure the coffee is hot enough to melt them, and stir well. As long as you go first, and eat up all 20 minutes of your time, it's in the bag.

-Michael

*Note - when used against elderly individuals who may come prepared with Depends this tactic has been shown to have limited success.

 

hahahhahaha. Mvandemar is a flat out genius. I bow to his deep knowledge and skillz.

 

I was, um, joking.

Now THAT'S funny

 

I love both your debates and find it very intelluctual.






Green rep appreciated but im not begging!

 

Here, let me sum up the "debate" going on here:

Bush Good! Bush Bad!
Bush Good! Bush Bad!
Bush Good! Bush Bad!
Bush Good! Bush Bad!

That about do it, guys?

P.S. Guru-Seo: Can I help you pull your head out of your ass, son?

 

But ya gotta love my suck up nature for a rep now

 

You're an idiot and why don't you go F**K yourself you coward!

 

Coming from someone who couldn't read a simple sentence earlier in the thread ....

 

Look who's the immature one here

 

stop throwig f-words arround guys! you could do so much usefull stuff meanwhile:
- adopt some cute kittens form the animal shelter
- fix your car, or clean it at least
- buy some christmas gifts while its still cheap
- cook something for your friends
- plant a tree
- recycle your trash
- have a threesome
- share a joint, sing a song and bring back the hippie-ness