History Test

[Absinthe]

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy you say? Hypocrisy I say-are those who use their freedom to oppose the freedom of others.

Oh yeah, because those that opposed the Iraq War were really dying to see its inhabitants live under tyranny.

 

[CptStern]

I think CptStern can speak for himself and its clear he was side stepping Hapless’s question.

I dont agree, see below

CptStern’s response
I agree, hypothetical questions based on mere speculation leads to inaccurate assumptions and ill-contrived conclusions (a shot in the dark). However hypothetical questions based on logic leads to real conclusions (educated guess). Which I find quite ironic considering Stern’s signature displays Albert Einstein’s name. A scholar who dedicated his life works on hypothesis, hypothetical, and Theoretical problems.

Am I saying Stern’s ignorant? No, I am simply saying he sidestepped a question.

the question was phrased in such a way as to ellicit a response that is supportive of his opinion ..I'm not going to answer a question that I have no real way of backing up my conclusion. The sidestepping here is that no one is taking ownership on the fact that the US vetoed the resolution, it's derailing the issue altogther and pointing to an insignificant circumstance that may or may not have occured if the right set of variables were in place ..needless speculation does nothing to answer the real question

 

[Scoobnfl]

Oh yeah, because those that opposed the Iraq War were really dying to see its inhabitants live under tyranny.

no, more like those that opposed the Iraq War were comfortable in seeing its inhabitants live under tyranny

 

[No Limit]

no, more like those that opposed the Iraq War were comfortable in seeing its inhabitants live under tyranny

It's so great for you to tell them how they should live. I'm sure they love their new life, that is why there are bombings, theft, kidnappings, and just straight killing there everyday. Are you still living that lie that they would see us as liberators? This was proven to be untrue the day we went in to Iraq in case you haven't been paying attention.

 

[burner69]

you need a reality lesson.

I guess by your logic all of the other countries that do business with those countries are immoral?

What would you have us do, not do business with them while countries that are not allies with us do, thus weakening our economy and strengthening the economies of those opposed to us?

Damn, I'm glad the higher ups in our govt. have a bit more experience in reality than your disney mentality

Yes they are, but especially if they're giving them weapons that are being used to further the human rights abuse.

It's not about allies and enemies, it's about not giving resources to nasty bastards.
Why do you always sidestep each one of these points and say "Well others do it." "Saddam is worse than us" etc etc.
If your president is so concerned about stopped the spread of terrorism why is this happeneing?

The U.S. justifies the nearly $3 billion in annual military aid to Israel on the grounds of protecting that country from its Arab neighbors, even though the United States supplies 80 percent of the arms to these Arab states

From Alternet

And you mentioned Columbia...read back a few posts, so did I.

So it's a Disney mentality not to arm regimes, further militarise already over militarised areas, sell WMDs to dictators then fight a war with them to get them back? Is the US economy worth all those hundreds of thousands of people that're getting killed by those actions? Guess what, it's not.

 

[Hapless]

the question was phrased in such a way as to ellicit a response that is supportive of his opinion ..I'm not going to answer a question that I have no real way of backing up my conclusion. The sidestepping here is that no one is taking ownership on the fact that the US vetoed the resolution, it's derailing the issue altogther and pointing to an insignificant circumstance that may or may not have occured if the right set of variables were in place ..needless speculation does nothing to answer the real question

My point was that you keep bringing this up as if it has some bearing on the current situation, in support of your opposition to military action against Iraq. I believe that you would have been just as opposed to military action then as you are now.

Furthermore, it is one thing to say, "The U.S. vetoed the resolution." It is another thing to give a reason why. Is it possible that these resolutions are like the bills that Congress votes on that have certain pork barrel or other types of riders attached to them? Is it possible the U.S. vetoed the resolution because the resolution contained some sort of language or amendment that the U.S. couldn't support? Keep in mind that Iran was under the influence of the Soviet Union back then. Also, there is no official record of vetoes by any member of the Security Council on any issue. So we can't say for sure the veto took place, and we can't find out why. Therefore, it's all needless speculation.

 

[Absinthe]

Furthermore, it is one thing to say, "The U.S. vetoed the resolution." It is another thing to give a reason why. Is it possible that these resolutions are like the bills that Congress votes on that have certain pork barrel or other types of riders attached to them? Is it possible the U.S. vetoed the resolution because the resolution contained some sort of language or amendment that the U.S. couldn't support?

Man, I wish Kerry was given this kind of slack.

 

[Absinthe]

no, more like those that opposed the Iraq War were comfortable in seeing its inhabitants live under tyranny

So was that what this war was all about? Was it first and foremost a humanitarian effort?

 

[RZAL]

I dont agree, see below the question was phrased in such a way as to ellicit a response that is supportive of his opinion ..I'm not going to answer a question that I have no real way of backing up my conclusion.

Ok, correct me if I wrong Hapless original question was…

Stern, let's say we didn't veto the Iranian resolution, just hypothetically. Would you have supported military action then to take him out?

He is asking for your personal opinion about how you might have felt about military action if the US would have voted yes to the Iranian resolution. How is this question phrased to elicit a response, other than your personal opinion? To me it sounds like he is trying to understand your point of view better.

Oops sorry Hapless you just told him that…



The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[Scoobnfl]

Man, I wish Kerry was given this kind of slack.

considering that he refused to make his military records public and harped on his opponenets public records every chance he could I'd say he did get a free pass at least from the MSM.

if I was dishonorably discharged I'd want to keep it a secret too though.

 

[Bodacious]

That and kerry was given tons of slack seeing as how he admitted to committing war crimes and was stil the democratic nominee.

 

[RZAL]

So was that what this war was all about? Was it first and foremost a humanitarian effort?

In part yes. Then again I could really care less about what got us here, what matters the most is what direction will the Iraqi people take after they win their freedom. Will they share the same level of freedom most countries enjoy…let us hope so.

I just think its wrong for people with more freedom than the Iraqis to pass judgment on them. It should be common sense to know if we pull out now Iraq will fall apart and these people will continue to live in tyranny. I don’t think any of us wants this to happen.



The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”

 

[Absinthe]

considering that he refused to make his military records public and harped on his opponenets public records every chance he could I'd say he did get a free pass at least from the MSM.

You mean like Bush's record?

Any way, I was referring to his voting record. Not his military service.

if I was dishonorably discharged I'd want to keep it a secret too though.

He wasn't dishonorably discharged.

 

[Absinthe]

That and kerry was given tons of slack seeing as how he admitted to committing war crimes and was stil the democratic nominee.

Kerry protested those very things after he returned home. Hell, at least Kerry has the balls to admit he's done bad things, unlike a certain other person...

 

[Absinthe]

In part yes. Then again I could really care less about what got us here, what matters the most is what direction will the Iraqi people take after they win their freedom. Will they share the same level of freedom most countries enjoy…let us hope so.

I just think its wrong for people with more freedom than the Iraqis to pass judgment on them. It should be common sense to know if we pull out now Iraq will fall apart and these people will continue to live in tyranny. I don’t think any of us wants this to happen.

I do agree that pulling out right now would be unwise. Aside from tarnishing the USA's reputation even further, it would possibly devestate Iraq.

I still, however, take issue with the time it took place and the methods being used.

 

[Hapless]

Kerry protested those very things after he returned home. Hell, at least Kerry has the balls to admit he's done bad things, unlike a certain other person...

Ah, so if Bush, "had the balls" to admit whatever bad things you think he's done, everything would be hunky-dorey in Absinthe's world? And you would support him?

 

[Bodacious]

Kerry protested those very things after he returned home. Hell, at least Kerry has the balls to admit he's done bad things, unlike a certain other person...

So because he protested something he is absolved of those crimes?

Hey, lets go lynch someone because of skin color, but then turn around and protest the act, and we will be absolved of the crime.

I like that idea. :thumbs:

By your logic I can say or do anything I want as long as my actions after the fact were in protest of the original act.

 

[No Limit]

That and kerry was given tons of slack seeing as how he admitted to committing war crimes and was stil the democratic nominee.

Wow, see how brainwashed you are by your Republican talking points? The quote you get that from was Kerry quoting someone else. Funny how the Republicans left that part out. Let me guess you want a source? Go watch the entire senate hearing that speech came from and Kerry suddenly won't seem so evil when everything is said in context. Let me guess, you also believe the quote where he voted for the 86 billion before he voted against it?

If only the democrats did the same with taking things out of context, you would believe Bush was Hitler.

 

[Hapless]

If only the democrats did the same with taking things out of context, you would believe Bush was Hitler.

They may not think he IS Hitler, but many think he is LIKE Hitler.

 

[Absinthe]

Ah, so if Bush, "had the balls" to admit whatever bad things you think he's done, everything would be hunky-dorey in Absinthe's world? And you would support him?

Oh brother...

1) I would have more respect for Bush. That does not mean that I would automatically support him.

2) There's a difference between being part of a war machine that commits these atrocities and being the person commanding it. Not saying it excuses Kerry, but there is a difference.

3) The Vietnam War took place over 30 years ago. I don't believe it's indicative of how he would lead the country (although somebody with a little combat experience wouldn't help when it comes to warfare).

However, coasting through life on daddy's money and having a consistent record of drug abuse, running businesses into the ground, spewing lies/misinformation, and generally being shrouded with suspicion (his service in the National Guard, the 2000 elections, the reasons for going to war, the convenient oil supplies in the Middle East) do cause me to question your ability as acting president.

But now that I think about it, I've yet to come across any hard and concrete information regarding Kerry admitting to these atrocities. I'm not saying he didn't, but I've even heard that those admittances came from the mouth of Bob Kerry instead. So if you'd be willing to post an article on it, I'd be happy to give it a read.

 

[Steve]

They may not think he IS Hitler, but many think he is LIKE Hitler.

Aw, come on, dude. You know what he meant.

 

[Absinthe]

So because he protested something he is absolved of those crimes?

Hey, lets go lynch someone because of skin color, but then turn around and protest the act, and we will be absolved of the crime.

I like that idea. :thumbs:

By your logic I can say or do anything I want as long as my actions after the fact were in protest of the original act.

What's the matter? I would have thought this falls directly into the Republican idea of "This is war, shit happens". I mean, that's how you justify civilian casualties and torture, right?

 

[Hapless]

What's the matter? I would have thought this falls directly into the Republican idea of "This is war, shit happens". I mean, that's how you justify civilian casualties and torture, right?

So you were playing devil's advocate then?

 

[No Limit]

They may not think he IS Hitler, but many think he is LIKE Hitler.

Show me 1 quote from any mainstrea democrat that said Bush is like Hitler. I'll play this stupid game with you since all you want to do is ignore my point and see how you can get around it. (you won't win)

 

[Hapless]

Oh brother...

2) There's a difference between being part of a war machine that commits these atrocities and being the person commanding it. Not saying it excuses Kerry, but there is a difference.

So, it is the policy of the U.S. war machine to commit atrocities? If, in fact, John Kerry actually committed atrocities during his extensive 4 month tour of duty, President Johnson or whoever was president at that time was ultimately responsible because he was the Commander in Chief? Is the organizer of a peaceful protest involving thousands of people responsible for the actions of a hundred or so protesters who damage property, assault police officers and generally run amok?

 

[No Limit]

So, it is the policy of the U.S. war machine to commit atrocities? If, in fact, John Kerry actually committed atrocities during his extensive 4 month tour of duty, President Johnson or whoever was president at that time was ultimately responsible because he was the Commander in Chief? Is the organizer of a peaceful protest involving thousands of people responsible for the actions of a hundred or so protesters who damage property, assault police officers and generally run amok?

Again, ignoring my point, how can that be? Oh yeah, you are a Republican. I clearly pointed out how what the Republicans said about Kerry's war crimes were lies and I know you read the post because you quoted a part of it. So are you going to stand by the lie or are you going to man up and admit you were wrong?

 

[Hapless]

Show me 1 quote from any mainstrea democrat that said Bush is like Hitler. I'll play this stupid game with you since all you want to do is ignore my point and see how you can get around it. (you won't win)

http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000018.html

^Yes, I know, it's not a mainstream American Democrat, but you didn't specify.....

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/printjl20040628.shtml

And can you get more mainstream than this:

Former senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) took the defense a step further by comparing the Republicans' misleading statements to those of Nazi Germany. "You've just got to separate out fact from fiction. . . . Too often, too often, in this country, if you hear something repeated, it's the old Hitler business -- if you hear something repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, you start to believe it," he said.

Ready to, "play," some more?

 

[Bodacious]

Wow, see how brainwashed you are by your Republican talking points? The quote you get that from was Kerry quoting someone else. Funny how the Republicans left that part out. Let me guess you want a source? Go watch the entire senate hearing that speech came from and Kerry suddenly won't seem so evil when everything is said in context. Let me guess, you also believe the quote where he voted for the 86 billion before he voted against it?

If only the democrats did the same with taking things out of context, you would believe Bush was Hitler.

HAHAHAHA. This feel so good:


John Kerry - Interview - Meet the Press with Tim Russert (NBC News)
May 6, 2001

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.


The only one brainwashed here is you.

The actual interview isn't on the meet the press website, but there are a lot of transcripts out there.

Here is one

 

[Hapless]

Again, ignoring my point, how can that be? Oh yeah, you are a Republican. I clearly pointed out how what the Republicans said about Kerry's war crimes were lies and I know you read the post because you quoted a part of it. So are you going to stand by the lie or are you going to man up and admit you were wrong?

Sigh.....Did I, or did I not say, "If, in fact, Kerry actually committed atrocities...." I didn't say, "So you're saying that President Johnson was responsible for the war crimes John Kerry committed." The post was directed at Absinthe, unless you and he are the same person. And judging from the post above mine, apparently you didn't clearly point out anything.

 

[No Limit]

http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000018.html

Ummmm. this guy is German, why the hell would you even post that?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...l20040628.shtml

Post the entire speech that quote came from or at least a large chunk of it around that quote. Then I can comment on it.

Former senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) took the defense a step further by comparing the Republicans' misleading statements to those of Nazi Germany. "You've just got to separate out fact from fiction. . . . Too often, too often, in this country, if you hear something repeated, it's the old Hitler business -- if you hear something repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, you start to believe it," he said.

Comparing Republican policy to Nazi policy is not nearly the same as saying Bush is like Hitler, but nice try.

Ready to, "play," some more?

Maybe if you were good at this game, I feel like I'm playing against a retarded kid.

 

[Absinthe]

So, it is the policy of the U.S. war machine to commit atrocities? If, in fact, John Kerry actually committed atrocities during his extensive 4 month tour of duty, President Johnson or whoever was president at that time was ultimately responsible because he was the Commander in Chief? Is the organizer of a peaceful protest involving thousands of people responsible for the actions of a hundred or so protesters who damage property, assault police officers and generally run amok?

Who the **** said I was accusing the President? Although, Johnson did do a pitiful job with 'Nam, essentially letting the military hawks run the show while he tried to make his "Great Society".

I'm not trying to excuse soldiers that committed these crimes. However, they were in an environment that was far more morally twisted than the one you have in Iraq, and these acts were daily occurences. And let's be frank, the leaders didn't give a shit about the humanitarian aspect. It was a situation that went out of control. The burning of villages and murder of civilians, while also something engaged in freely, were also ordered by superiors on many occasion.

Assuming Kerry did commit atrocities, I wouldn't support them. But a man that can come home, admit to them, and then fight against the war is commendable. You call this hypocritical. Fair enough. How about your give Bush some flak for being a cokehead back in the day, even though he's now a ball-busting hardliner in the War on Drugs.

 

[Hapless]

2) There's a difference between being part of a war machine that commits these atrocities and being the person commanding it. Not saying it excuses Kerry, but there is a difference.

Am I misreading this, or are you not implying that Bush is responsible for war crimes and atrocities?

 

[No Limit]

HAHAHAHA. This feel so good:


John Kerry - Interview - Meet the Press with Tim Russert (NBC News)
May 6, 2001

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.


The only one brainwashed here is you.

The actual interview isn't on the meet the press website, but there are a lot of transcripts out there.

Here is one

Wow, I bet you think you got me oh, noes!!! Notice how he is talking about free fire zones, something that was part of the US Military's strategy. This is not the same as the speech where they said Kerry did things like kill civillians.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Wow, see how brainwashed you are by your Republican talking points? The quote you get that from was Kerry quoting someone else. Funny how the Republicans left that part out. Let me guess you want a source? Go watch the entire senate hearing that speech came from and Kerry suddenly won't seem so evil when everything is said in context. Let me guess, you also believe the quote where he voted for the 86 billion before he voted against it?

No, get the facts straight. Kerry did admit to partaking in war crimes. It was taken from an interview with Tim Russert in 1971 on Meet the Press.

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions...

 

[No Limit]

No, get the facts straight. Kerry did admit to partaking in war crimes.

No, he admitted to participating in free fire zones.

 

[Hapless]

Wow, I bet you think you got me oh, noes!!! Notice how he is talking about free fire zones, something that was part of the US Military's strategy. This is not the same as the speech where they said Kerry did things like kill civillians.

Face it, we both got you. You asked for quotes, I gave you quotes. You claimed Kerry never admitted to atrocities, he gave you a quote where Kerry admitted to atrocities. Live with it.

 

[Bodacious]

Admit it, No Limit, Kerry did say he committed atrociteis. You can't deny it. Read the whole thing.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, he admitted to participating in free fire zones.

Let me repost exactly what he said in the interview.

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions...

 

[Bodacious]

From Kerry's quote:

... in the burning of villages...

BURNING VILLIAGES ISN"T FREE FIRE ZONES!

 

[Hapless]

What was that CptStern said about putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "blahblahblah?"