Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Bring it on, John Kerry
- Thread starter p0ink
- Start date
PRESIDENT KERRY
New member
I'm sick and tired of that draft-dodger Bush making me defend my Vietnam service. Why don't we talk about how he is losing this country millions of jobs and flushing our national security down the toilet to the fucking Saudis?
Fuck you Poink and 4everhung.
Fuck you Poink and 4everhung.
S
Spartacus
Guest
go outside and then come back in and tell me how far you can seehooch said:
Kerry wasn't in some "jungle" boat with him and his crew operating out in the jungle all by themselves like some special commando team
though he probably has claimed as much
S
Spartacus
Guest
the Kerry Kommando "helo" boat
lifted itself up out of the Mekong and dumped his super secret CIA operative in cambodia on christmas day 1968
while no one was watching
everyone else was too busy opening Xmas care packages of Rebel Yell and smoking reefer in between raping viet teenagers,some of them girls
while the "helo" boat hovered around nam Lt Kerry was able to observe
GI's shooting water buffalo for sport,burning villages and generally causing a ruckus
he saw them,but they didn't see him
the "helo" boat had super cool camoflauge
the clandestine operations of Kerry's "helo" boat often took him far in country
and he would be on missions on the ground while the "helo" boat hid in foliage
missions such as this required Lt Kerry to change into regular Army fatiques as opposed to his ordinary navy gear
he did this so as to better blend in, in-country
this explains the films of him in army fatiques(the CIA wanted him to document his exploits as they may the lessons learned to train future qualified officers)
most of this has been hush-hush up until now
I'm still investigating
lifted itself up out of the Mekong and dumped his super secret CIA operative in cambodia on christmas day 1968
while no one was watching
everyone else was too busy opening Xmas care packages of Rebel Yell and smoking reefer in between raping viet teenagers,some of them girls
while the "helo" boat hovered around nam Lt Kerry was able to observe
GI's shooting water buffalo for sport,burning villages and generally causing a ruckus
he saw them,but they didn't see him
the "helo" boat had super cool camoflauge
the clandestine operations of Kerry's "helo" boat often took him far in country
and he would be on missions on the ground while the "helo" boat hid in foliage
missions such as this required Lt Kerry to change into regular Army fatiques as opposed to his ordinary navy gear
he did this so as to better blend in, in-country
this explains the films of him in army fatiques(the CIA wanted him to document his exploits as they may the lessons learned to train future qualified officers)
most of this has been hush-hush up until now
I'm still investigating
PRESIDENT KERRY
New member
4everhung, you and Poink just don't get it. Now take out your White-trash, redneck Daddy's shotgun, point it at your thick skull, and pull the trigger.
Tell Lucifer I said hello.
Tell Lucifer I said hello.
I agree with you totally on this point except for the staggeringly naive notion that we have any intention whatsoever of removing the U.S. presence in the region. That is tinfoil hat territory. We have no interest in a stable Mideast running it's affairs by the will of their own people. That notion is beyond ignorant. We are there for regime change: from any form of government in any way hostile to our goals directly to a puppet regime ready to do our will at a moments notice. 'Remove U.S. presence...': hilarious. I had to double check who posted that to make sure it was you, you are so much smarter than that.JerseyArt said:
Who said anything about them being unnecessary? I have maintained accross dozens of posts that my quarrel is with the lies, and that the last president got impeached for lieing: so should this one.
Anyone who perceives that Libya's 'surrender' was for any other reason than it's own economic well being is being silly, but it IS a wonderful by product, I agree with you. The fact remains that it had nothing whatsoever to do with our justification for war so how is it that you use it to defend that justification?
Read your inspectors reports again, please. The fact is that he was much further away than anyone suspected from acquireing the tools or the infrastructure needed to create any such weapons, much less any way of delivering them. Yes, Sadaam having those weapons would pose a major threat... er... so why aren't we actively going after the rogue countries that DO have them and have left no question about their rediness to use them? BECAUSE: that has nothing to do with why we went to iraq!
Sorry, you might want rethink that in, according to your timeline, 10 years when 20 thousand of our troops are dead and we discover that the region STILL has no desire or intent to cow to our demands and that we have actually inflamed the entire region rather than stabilize it... don't forget that 'your' plan requires the end of every non-democraticly elected goverment in the region, if we are to follow the crap that flows from the whitehouse. In the words of Pres. Bush: we are going to give them the 'gift of democracy'. I suppose that would mean everyone?
That means no more Bathist regime in Syria and the overthrow of the governments in Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan and Iran, not to mention our biggest arab ally in the region, Egypt, who has a veritable one party 'democracy' and is the second largest recipient of aid dollars second only to the largest holder of WMD in the entire region: Israel.
Or is regime change and the 'gift of democracy' just for those countries whose governments disagree with us? That must be it, if you agree with us, or if you happen to keep the oil flowing without bitching too much, then you get to subjugate and torture your starving people 'til the camels come home and the U.S. looks the other way. Nice. That sure will stabilize the region and just burst the coffers of good will...
So.... democracy for everyone in the mid'east. Do you think 20 thousand american lives will do it? 50 thousand? I think not.
I am saying that it is in Americas best interest to stablize that region: it's absolutely necessary. My problem is that we are not stablilizing a damn thing, and certainly not trying to give the people of that region 'democracy'. Anyone who thinks that that is in America's best interest, or even a minute part of Bush's agenda, is a fool.
On a slightly different note: where have you been, man! Glad to 'see' you back.
Last edited:
Chef
In La bro, sweating my ass off
Couple of points
(1) I never suggested we would leave the region. I do suggest that it is in our interests to leave SA in particular, which would have been inconceivable with Saddam in power. It allows us to follow a wiser policy without appearing to be caving into the terrorists, who demnaded our withdrawal from that fundamentalist nation.
(2) Democracy in the middle east is in our interests. That doesnt mean it is not also in the interests of the local population. Why does the left constantly feel the need to automatically put the two at odds. Our interest is specifically in having a content and stable local population. How does that motive detract from our efforts, or claims to wish to aid them?
(3) Re: Libya. It has been pathetic witnessing the left try to spin this into anything but a tremendous Bush victory. Kadaffi himself has stated that he signed the agreement specifically because he was worried that what happened to Saddam might happen to him. He also admitted as much to the Italian PM. What eveidence do you possess that his statements, embarassing to him, were dfisingenous?
(4)Our justifications for war were never publically outlined in total. In that I agree. We weren't about to state that we wisheds to pressure Iran into a civil revolution by putting a democracy on its border. We never publcially acknowledged our desire to leave SA, which required deposing Saddam. We never stated that a democratic Iraq would allow us to put pressure on the Saudis by giving us the comfort of having the second largest reserves in the region friendly to the US. We never admitted that we wished to pressure a chane in Syria either. But we know, and they know, that is exactly what we intended to do, which is why they fought the moves so tenaciously. If this specific brand of terrosim is ever going to be nipped in the bud, it requires a democratci middle east which offers true representation to its citizens. Bush has been the first to make any concrete step in achieving that goal
(5) I've read the Kay report several times, and it outlines specifically that Saddam had an ongoing effort of research and acquisition, along with widespread coverups and destruction of evidence. Its a shame that the anti Bush interests in the media and on the left glanced over those documented prohibited and systematic activities and diluted it to "no womd's found." Hiding a few trailers in a country as large as California hardly strikes me as either inconceivable or particualrly difficult.
(6) Your policy represnts nothing more than capitulation. Don't upset the dangerous animals who are already killing your family or you might just make them angrier. It is a difficult course, but what was your other option? Containment, which everyone, including the French, already acknowledged was broken and couldnt work? Or a continuation of Clintons brilliant policy of ignore everything until the day it blows up in your face?
If Kadaffi founf a way to acquire nuclear weapons, then it is inevitable that Saddam would as well. He was historically farther along, and wqe only found out about those because his son in law defected. We had been there for years after the first gulf war before that came to light.
What the soldiers are doing is necessary. Do you read what is written in the Iranian press for example. The state run papers openly suggest that nuclear war is not only possible, but desirous. That Israel is a small country which could be easily annihilated, but that they would never be able to kill a billion muslims in response. At best only 20-30 million arabs would die in such a war, but every jew would be dead.
Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of these maniacs is our greatest national security interest. There is nothing our soldiers could be doing of greater import.
And dont obfuscate with allusions to North Korea. You know damn well we cant do crap there without triggering a slaughter greater than the problem. Thankfully Bush didnt wait for Saddam to become similarly uncontrollable before acting, although that appears to have been the preferred course of the left
In La bro, sweating my ass off
Couple of points
(1) I never suggested we would leave the region. I do suggest that it is in our interests to leave SA in particular, which would have been inconceivable with Saddam in power. It allows us to follow a wiser policy without appearing to be caving into the terrorists, who demnaded our withdrawal from that fundamentalist nation.
(2) Democracy in the middle east is in our interests. That doesnt mean it is not also in the interests of the local population. Why does the left constantly feel the need to automatically put the two at odds. Our interest is specifically in having a content and stable local population. How does that motive detract from our efforts, or claims to wish to aid them?
(3) Re: Libya. It has been pathetic witnessing the left try to spin this into anything but a tremendous Bush victory. Kadaffi himself has stated that he signed the agreement specifically because he was worried that what happened to Saddam might happen to him. He also admitted as much to the Italian PM. What eveidence do you possess that his statements, embarassing to him, were dfisingenous?
(4)Our justifications for war were never publically outlined in total. In that I agree. We weren't about to state that we wisheds to pressure Iran into a civil revolution by putting a democracy on its border. We never publcially acknowledged our desire to leave SA, which required deposing Saddam. We never stated that a democratic Iraq would allow us to put pressure on the Saudis by giving us the comfort of having the second largest reserves in the region friendly to the US. We never admitted that we wished to pressure a chane in Syria either. But we know, and they know, that is exactly what we intended to do, which is why they fought the moves so tenaciously. If this specific brand of terrosim is ever going to be nipped in the bud, it requires a democratci middle east which offers true representation to its citizens. Bush has been the first to make any concrete step in achieving that goal
(5) I've read the Kay report several times, and it outlines specifically that Saddam had an ongoing effort of research and acquisition, along with widespread coverups and destruction of evidence. Its a shame that the anti Bush interests in the media and on the left glanced over those documented prohibited and systematic activities and diluted it to "no womd's found." Hiding a few trailers in a country as large as California hardly strikes me as either inconceivable or particualrly difficult.
(6) Your policy represnts nothing more than capitulation. Don't upset the dangerous animals who are already killing your family or you might just make them angrier. It is a difficult course, but what was your other option? Containment, which everyone, including the French, already acknowledged was broken and couldnt work? Or a continuation of Clintons brilliant policy of ignore everything until the day it blows up in your face?
If Kadaffi founf a way to acquire nuclear weapons, then it is inevitable that Saddam would as well. He was historically farther along, and wqe only found out about those because his son in law defected. We had been there for years after the first gulf war before that came to light.
What the soldiers are doing is necessary. Do you read what is written in the Iranian press for example. The state run papers openly suggest that nuclear war is not only possible, but desirous. That Israel is a small country which could be easily annihilated, but that they would never be able to kill a billion muslims in response. At best only 20-30 million arabs would die in such a war, but every jew would be dead.
Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of these maniacs is our greatest national security interest. There is nothing our soldiers could be doing of greater import.
And dont obfuscate with allusions to North Korea. You know damn well we cant do crap there without triggering a slaughter greater than the problem. Thankfully Bush didnt wait for Saddam to become similarly uncontrollable before acting, although that appears to have been the preferred course of the left
Similar threads
