Guest charlie Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 When did I use the word "liar"....you seem quite liberal with that word...LOL You implied it, and you ARE very fond of the word "liberal". You should go back and reread your post. Your tone was not nice so don't expect an ichy sweet reply from me. ......So, what was stupid about my question? I don't understand something here with the military issue. We often hold up our candidates military participation like George Bush Sr. and Bob Dole who both fought in WWII and we're fond of pointing out the lack of or minimum military service by democratic opponents such as Clinton and Gore. But this time around the tables seem to be somewhat reversed. Kerry has more "hands on" experience than Bush so now some say "why bring up military service from 40 yrs ago?". Why not? Let's be brutally honest here people, if Pres. Bush had spent any time at all in vietnam with the exact same record that Kerry has we'd never hear the end of what a great war hero he was, on this forum. If Kerry had Pres. Bush's national guard record we've never hear the end of that either and it would be very negative. MOST here would insist that he skipped out on his duty even if it was proven to be otherwise; it'd be called the 'liberal' media covering up the truth. Let's see a show of hands on who agrees? ......be honest now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Amaze Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Okay now I'm reading the other website (the swiftboat one) you gave and they're saying those atrocities were 'false'. I'm still reading that one. (I'm spending way too much time on here today) I may have mis-spoken. Kerry testified before Congress, but he also spoke to the media about the alleged attrocities. I may be confusing the two. I seriously thought that he had claimed to have either personally witnessed, or taken part in the attrocities he described. At any rate, I tend to believe the vets more than I do Kerry, seeing as they seem to have no agenda or gain to be made from their claims. You were right the first time. Kerry did include himself as committing the atrocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest charlie Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 At any rate, I tend to believe the vets more than I do Kerry, seeing as they seem to have no agenda or gain to be made from their claims. I agree with that God-Man, that's why I noticed when some of the vets who served with him seemed to hold him in such high regard. But, I will try to read the rest of your sites when I can (I'm getting way behind today). Bearing this in mind I would really like to hear from the other vets or national guardsmen that served with Pres. Bush. According to the article it's been proven that he did "show up" when he was suppose to. Now let's hear from those who served with him, to get a better picture......same as with Kerry. Will we get conflicting opinions there as well, or will no-one even remember him at all. I'm curious to know. My personal opinion on this, and I mean no offense to anyone out there, but I think most people that got in the national guard during vietnam did so in order to get out of vietnam without having to run off to Canada to do it. (I'm not throwing stones here, in retrospect I can't really blame someone for that) If memory serves me correctly Al Gore did the same thing. Of course we know this time around in Iraq, being in the National Guard is no guarantee that you won't end up in a war zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eve Posted July 30, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 203 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/19/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2004 I) Reposting this article. February 14, 2004 Dallas, Texas Dear Senator Kerry, Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason is simple, you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that respect. You see, I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II; and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in the military. The oldest is an Army Lieutenant still on active duty in Afghanistan after already being honored for his service in Iraq. The youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the national guard and the navy. In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They landed on Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days including the Cherbourg Peninsula, Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge. You earned a Silver Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating enemy soldier. My father won a Bronze Star for single handedly charging and knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down. You received three purple hearts for what appears to be three minor scratches. In fact you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for these wounds. The men of my father's unit, the 87th, had to be admonished by their commanding officer because: "It has been brought to our attention that some men are covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for fear of being evacuated and permanently separated from this organization..." It was also a common problem for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from hospitals in order to rejoin their units. You used your three purple hearts to leave Vietnam early. My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan and from there back to Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest regard and respect for their fellow soldiers. Yet, you came home to publicly charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Our current crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets left behind; and they have practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East. Yet as chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose to defend the brutal Vietnamese regime. You even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIAs as Professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos. As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment, and against money to improve our intelligence capability. I find this particularly ironic since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the efforts of our government and our troops to win. Is this what our fighting men and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly send them to war, only to then aid the enemy by undermining the morale of our troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win? Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since the American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight. Sorry Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is not just no, but Hell No! Sincerely, Michael Connelly ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- II) Introducing this interesting link: http://www.newsmax.com/pundits/Koch.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 You are not alone here and you are appreciated. Some of us will listen and offer you a reasonable and fair conversation. I'm with River on this one...you do at least have a reason for what you believe even if it's bad info. I appreciate your sincerity. I don't understand something here with the military issue. We often hold up our candidates military participation like George Bush Sr. and Bob Dole who both fought in WWII Both of those men completed their military service and never made it THE CENTERPIECE of "why" they should be elected. Kerry, on the other hand, left the service after 4 months because he shot a bullet that bounced off the wall and came back to graze his arm. It is also KERRY who keeps bringing it up as his main qualification. If that is what he wants us to know, then it is only fair to examine it. Personally, I think he's trying to distract us from his Senate record. But this time around the tables seem to be somewhat reversed. Kerry has more "hands on" experience than Bush so now some say "why bring up military service from 40 yrs ago?". That is no longer true. The Commander in Chief IS a military position. Bush has been on that job for 4 years now...and has performed superbly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senerhu Posted July 30, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 I feel sorry for people who have to "lord" themselves over someone just because they "think" they are right all the time. Anyway, believe it or not I care for every single person here. I have no doubt we'll all meet up in Glory one day and all this political, war, moralistic, judgmental mess won't matter one iota. Thank GOD in Heaven we'll have none of these worries. Everyone here is basically "good people". It's the bad attitudes they cop from time to time that shed them a bad light. And I know good and well that I myself get heated and shoot off my mouth at times as well. I am no innocent. The difference is that I WILL apologize if I've hurt someones feelings, knowingly or unknowingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted July 30, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted July 30, 2004 I don't understand something here with the military issue. We often hold up our candidates military participation like George Bush Sr. and Bob Dole who both fought in WWII and we're fond of pointing out the lack of or minimum military service by democratic opponents such as Clinton and Gore. But this time around the tables seem to be somewhat reversed. Kerry has more "hands on" experience than Bush so now some say "why bring up military service from 40 yrs ago?". Why not? Let's be brutally honest here people, if Pres. Bush had spent any time at all in vietnam with the exact same record that Kerry has we'd never hear the end of what a great war hero he was, on this forum. If Kerry had Pres. Bush's national guard record we've never hear the end of that either and it would be very negative. MOST here would insist that he skipped out on his duty even if it was proven to be otherwise; it'd be called the 'liberal' media covering up the truth. Let's see a show of hands on who agrees? ......be honest now Charlie, I agree with you...to a point, though. There have been several former Presidents that did not serve in the military during a conflict. But that aside, I don't think that it's something to bolster a political campaign. In deciding between candidates I want to know what they have been doing in office, whether as senators, mayors, or what have you. I personally could care a single whit what Kerry did or did not do during Vietnam - but hey, if they want to bring it up it's up to them to prove that the guy is this great hero. That's why I'll be interested to see how the Kerry campaign plans to combat the allegations made in the Vet's book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest charlie Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 You fight a good fight Charlie and you are fair and civil in your debates. Keep in mind that there is a group here who will belittle, undermine, and disregard everything you have to say. Then there are those who are willing to have a REAL debate in PM's and emails if you are interested. Sadly, alot of good, decent people refuse to post on these forums anymore out of frustration and frustration. A few bad apples in a forum can spoil the whole thing. Thank you River, I do appreciate that. I sent George a pm the other day and asked him to delete my account. He has a lot of mail to go thru so he probably hasn't gotten to it yet since I'm still here. Anyway, if you don't see me around, all of a sudden, that's why. I don't seem to fit in too well on forums. On the secular forums, when people find out I'm a Christian or pro-life, I get called a "right-wing fundamentalist extremist" and worse. Here I seem to arouse anger from the same crowd that I'm accused of being part of on those other forums. I'm just kind of tired of the whole thing. I didn't mean to get caught up in another thread but I have as you can see and now my day is pretty much wasted with nothing accomplished. Sadly, even without the cussing, I think this is one mean forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted July 30, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted July 30, 2004 My personal opinion on this, and I mean no offense to anyone out there, but I think most people that got in the national guard during vietnam did so in order to get out of vietnam without having to run off to Canada to do it. (I'm not throwing stones here, in retrospect I can't really blame someone for that) If memory serves me correctly Al Gore did the same thing. Of course we know this time around in Iraq, being in the National Guard is no guarantee that you won't end up in a war zone. That's a good point. I also don't think that this is something to throw stones over. I suppose it remains to be seen whether G.W. joined the guard to keep from seeing action in Vietnam. But I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't think it makes him a coward. Who's to say that given the opportunity you or I wouldn't have done the same thing? No sane person really enjoys being shot at. (BTW. We know which foremer PResident was the draft dodger anyway. Shhhh....say no more) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted July 30, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Letter to President Bush on Iraq ~September 12, 2002~ September 12, 2002 The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President:... Well....good for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts