BS: There is no terrorist threat

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 05:26 PM

"The VC had the North to help them"???

You missed my point. Vietnam was always one country. It was one country before the French, it was one country under the French, it was one country under Japanese occupation in WWII, it was one country under the French again in the 50's, it was intended to be one country upon their departure. The USA interfered in that process and established a new administration (under their control, run by Vietnamese Catholics) in the southern half of that one country. They abrogated the nation-wide elections that were supposed to occur when the French pulled out! The USA denied Vietnam its national elections.

The rise of the VC was the response to that situation. The assistance of the North was the assistance of one half of Vietnam against a puppet regime in the other half, supported by a foreign power which had violated and blocked the legal arrangement to hold country-wide elections.

This doesn't got talked about in the USA, but it's real history. Look it up. You'll find that I am correct.

The Vietnam war was a war of national liberation from foreign control by the majority population in BOTH halves of that country, and it ended with a victory scored BY Vietnamese soldiers without the assistance of 500,000 foreign troops and without the assistance of the World's biggest air force.

The South Vietnamese government was a fraud, from day one. It was set up in direct violation of agreements made at the peace conference between France and the Viet Minh, shortly after the final French defeat at Dienbienphu.

No foreign ground troops assisted the Vietnamese in the 60's and 70's, aside from a paltry number of Russian technical advisors, I believe, who helped them set up their SAM missile sites (purely defensive weapons).

My point was that the puppet regime in the South needed gigantic foreign forces to protect it and fight for it in the field. Their opponents did not. They did it all by themselves, because they were fighting for their own country, not for somebody else's interests.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 04:12 PM

Did anyone read what bin Laden had to say? It was instructive. It wasn't about killing everybody because he was the devil. It was about specific things. Israel invading Lebanon and putting American troops in Muslim lands.

I'm not defending him. He's a criminal and needs to be put away. But it's important to understand him better instead of just demonizing him indiscriminatly. He's another Al Capone, mafia Godfather, gangster, crook,
etc. etc.

But remember that it took more than one person to pull off 911. bin Laden is merely a figurehead. There are a lot of other criminals like him out there.

It's about VALUES folks. Does that sound familiar?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 06:33 AM

Just watched the last episode of Power of Nightmares too. As a bit of a sceptic about the threat of terrorism and the war against it, I didn't think it would tell me much I didn't already know. I was very wrong. If anyone is ever brave enough to release it in the US, I recommend everyone watch it with an open mind.

Remember when all the politicians were tellin g about the devastation that would be caused if terrorists got a hold of nuclear material and made a dirty bomb? Well did you know that if you were in the vicinity of a dirty bomb and weren't actually injured by the blast, then it would probably have no effect on your health, or maybe would raise your risk of getting cancer by 1%. You raise your risk more when you sit in a smoky pub.

And remember all those arrests of people who were supposedly al-qaida terrorists in the UK and US. What percentage do you think were convicted of or even charged with planning terrorist attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Nemesis
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 05:46 PM

Hear hear Ken, just watched it too .. (ditto Global warming)

Actually, I quite liked John Lydon's (aka Johnny Rotten) remark (over on shark prog (Ch5 before the documentary) vis the worldwide slaughter of 100,000s of sharks: "791 people were killed world-wide in a year, due to faulty toasters and only 4 peope were killed by sharks ... I don't see a global campaign to eradicate faulty toasters!"

Like Richard Perle(?) said: (paraphrased) "Until you drain the swamp of poverty, you'll never deal with the mosquitos of terrorism".

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Ken
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 05:30 PM

Just seen the third episode of the 'The Power of Nightmares' programme here in the UK tonight (3 Nov); powerful stuff. What the programme underlined for me is the really frightening fact that we seem to have a strong need to believe in worldwide terrorist networks with 'evil' masterminds controlling them - too much James Bond perhaps? Bush's re-election suggests that we can be putty in the hands of clever politicians who will tell us any old fairy tale to keep us voting them into power. Pity they won't be around when the real threat caused by global warming hits us all.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: pdq
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 11:13 PM

Actually, there is no Michael Moore.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 11:06 PM

So read some of the rest of the paper, for once.   You might be surprised

Also, beware of sarcasm---you might find it here.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Burgermeister
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 11:51 AM

"we need a pro-Kerry site----e..g. the Wall St Journal, CNN etc
Wall St. Journal, that well-known leftist rag. Have you ever read their editorials? "

BM

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 10:49 AM

Burgermeister--

Perhaps you can find someone to explain to you the difference between an editorial and a news article.

You're slower than most.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 09:01 AM

I watched the first two episodes of The Power of nightmares" and will certainly be watching the third. Might manage to post my impressions of it after it has finished.

So far though, very insightful and thought provoking - the central premise is the almost identical philosphies behind both the neo conservatives and the islamic fundamentalists at the beginning of the movements and how they have changed from being allies to bitter enemies

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,MM
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:24 AM

I am very happy to be an advisor to Osama.

Michael Mooron

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Burger Meister
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:19 AM

we need a pro-Kerry site----e..g. the Wall St Journal, CNN etc

RD got what he wanted and still he is not satisfied.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 04:39 PM

Sorry LH---

I part company with you here----words do mean something intelligible. If we're not happy to be called "liberal" or "conservative", I suppose we could be called "middle of the road"--but what does that mean?

If you mean they're loaded terms, them's the breaks, especially in politics.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 04:24 PM

Burgermeister---

Do you ever read anything in the Wall St. Journal but the editorials?

I'm very aware the editorial policy is Neanderthal (no offense to Neanderthals). So you can easily tell the Bushite line on an issue by reading it.

That very fact establishes that it's not a left-leaning newspaper---ever heard of sarcasm? You may possibly run into it here---watch out!

Since the Journal is not left of center, I can quote freely from it in attacking Bush----and if you were to read the rest of it, in detail, as I do, it undercuts Bush at every turn-----by the amazing device of telling the truth---imagine that.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:35 PM

LH:

Be fair, now. The VC had plenty of help from t he Noath.

A

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:14 PM

LH

You forgot some of the other words... "neocon", "Republican", "Bushite", and so on-
They are just as much used to let people avoid thinking about something in real terms...

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:08 PM

Why would anyone NOT feel sympathy for a Vietnamese national struggle to achieve indenpendence and self-governance under the heel of first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally the U.S. of A....???? For this you object to Kerry?

It makes not one damn bit of difference whether or not they were Communist. They had no friggin' choice about it, given the situation in the World at that time. When you fought for independence against the USA in the 50's and 60's you had better be Communist, because otherwise no one would help you, and where the hell would you get the weapons to fight them?

To be Communist, for the Vietnamese, was the only game in town at that time. What they were fighting for was not Communism...they were fighting for their own national sovereignty.

Do you note that the South Vietnamese administration needed 500,000 foreign soldiers on the ground and the biggest airforce in the World to prop it up and still couldn't win? The North Vietnamese won without 500,000 foreign troops helping them. That tells you just how legit that puppet regime in the South was. It was basically run by the Catholic minority in South Vietnam, who were the same people who had cooperated with the French colonial administration. The Vietnamese population was mostly Buddhist. That should tell you the whole story in a nutshell. The South Vietnamese government which the USA created after the French left was a puppet on strings, and it did not represent the will of the vast majority of the Vietnamese population. Accordingly, its army couldn't fight worth a damn and it folded up like an accordion after the USA pulled out.

That fight was not about Communism, it was about foreign colonial control of a small Asian country. "Communism" is a word you hypnotize yourself with in order to avoid actually thinking about anything in real terms. Another such word is "Anti-semitism" and another is "liberal". It's knee-jerk BS that relieves you of the need to ever analyze or understand anything.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:10 AM

"Kerry… has been honored as a "people's hero" in the Vietnamese government's war museum."

Haven't we waded through this horse hockey enough by now?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 01:15 AM

"As indicated, Kerry's misplaced sympathy for the Vietnamese Communists has not been just a "youthful indiscretion", but has been a consistent posture throughout his political career, up to today, when he has blocked a human rights initiative for the Vietnamese and has been honored as a "people's hero" in the Vietnamese government's war museum."

http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=20588

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Burger Meister
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 01:11 AM

Ron Davies:

"we need a pro-Kerry site----e..g. the Wall St Journal, CNN etc
Wall St. Journal, that well-known leftist rag. Have you ever read their editorials? "

"Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

Amid the controversy over "Unfit for Command" and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, it's worth noting that John Kerry's surrogates continue to overstate their man's Vietnam record...
"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005516
BM

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 02:24 AM

Arnie--

I got an ad the other day for a "conservative" book club. On the outside of the flyer they had a quote from Ann Coulter with her picture. The quote was

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Speaking of Moslems, of course.

I figure to a Moslem that sounds the same as "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Islam." sounds to you.

People like her are recruiting for Al Qaeda.

clint

and five will get you ten Arnie & OG & that crowd don't understand that. Or won't.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 09:27 PM

Note, Old Guy, that I talked about the terrorists Bush was creating through "collateral damage" (his term) BEFORE the news of the 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed came out.

Even if you don't care at all about 100,000 dead Iraqis (which, if true of you, is revolting,) you should care about the fact that, as I've said over and over, Bush's policies are creating a bottomless supply of terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

ABC Airs Videotape of Man Making Al Qaeda Threat
"After decades of American tyranny and oppression now it's your turn to die. Allah willing, the streets of America shall run red with blood matching drop for drop the blood of America's victims,"

Arnie

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 09:13 PM

Sorry, Old Guy--you misphrased that.

In fact, I, a Republican and veteran, am on the side that thinks----and has realized that Bush is creating far more terrorists than he is killing.

You might try thinking some time---hope it isn't too much strain.




Sorry you're not getting enough sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM

Ron:

You are on the side that gives up.
The side that wimps out on terrorisim.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:57 PM

That is unlikely...

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:54 PM

Newer thread- BUSH SAYS RON CORRECT!

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:47 PM

New thread- RON SAYS BUSH CORRECT!

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:36 PM

That's right BB---the Bush admin is correct they have no case against Kerry, much to Old Guy's distress, and probably fatal to his last strands of hair.

Thanks for bringing it up again.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:08 PM

So, Ron:


Can I quote you, that the Bush Administration is correct in something?


I wanted to check and make sure you did not want to change your last post to remain ideologically pure...

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:06 PM

Old Guy---


You may as well give up---if the Bush administration doesn't think it's worth pursuing---and they don't---- you can kiss it goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:51 PM

You know the sad thing about all of this? "Terror" as a propaganda tool to make people want to lean on a false sense of security, a sabre-rattling Bush.
The real sad thing for Bush supporters who are not making money is that Bush doesn't care about you unless you are rich. In his view, there is something inferior and inadequate about not making enough money. I don't know how many of you who support Bush are rich, but if you have other values than just making money or acquiring power, these are not interesting to the Bush Dynasty. I am not afraid of a policy that will put our country back in world esteem, compassion for those not making the minimum wage and the working poor, the reclaiming of the middle class and the funding for all of the programs that we need. I feel badly that the poor folks who believe that Bush cares about them are so vehemently in defense of his anti-social policies. I am confident that if we are "nuanced' and not hot-headed in a knee-jerk reaction to Al Quaeda, we can defeat them. We certainly can't do it in Iraq. Bush has lost that war. But we can defeat Al Quaeda not by becoming like them but affirming our American ideals of civil liberty, justice through the voting booth, and generosity. BTW, the synonym for generous is Liberal.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:52 AM

Well said, LH

clint

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:28 AM

That Jane Fonda quote does not in any way discredit her anti-war stance, Old Guy...it just gives recognition to the emotional feelings of veterans who may have been upset by her stance. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for her to say. I have said similar things in regards to people I have upset with my outspoken views...not because I felt that I had spoken wrongly in substance, but that I had done it in a way that would seem hurtful to some people.

"there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it"

Well, yeah. We all are sometimes thoughtless and careless about how we say things when we become vehement over an issue.

She was not repudiating her anti-war stance, simply apologizing for her insensitivity to some in how she expressed it.

How does this equate to apologizing for being against the war? Answer: it doesn't.

She was dead right to oppose that war. She was at times undiplomatic about how she expressed herself. George Bush is at times undiplomatic about how he expresses himself too. That's not what really worries me. What worries me is his actual policies, quite apart from his manner.

The Vietnamese would naturally regard ANY American who protested against that war to have done something good and worthwhile from their point of view. How does that indicate that the American is a "traitor" (in, I assume, your view) when the war was WRONG for both America AND Vietnam? Such people are not traitors, they are patriots to a greater truth than mere nationalism. Would you consider an Englishman who had protested the actions of British troops in the North American colonies in 1777 to be brutal and wrongful...would you consider that Virginian a traitor? No, but the British Crown would have probably considered him to be one (because their interests were threatened by his use of free speech)! You are taking the same position on this matter as the British Crown would have then. It's nothing to be proud of.

Free speech means: having the right to say things that are not necessarily sanctioned by "the powers that be" at any given time. Be glad you still have it.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:40 PM

Ron:

I thought you wanted to see the photo.

Do you want to see the site where a veteran was sent to the museum and held up a newspaper next to the photo and took a photo to prove the date the photo of the photo was taken?

The vets name is there. You could call him up and tell him he is a liar, ask him where his pro Kerry sources and direct quotes are.

Have you discredited the Jane Fonda apology yet? Have you submitted it to a global test?

How about the phony lawsuit filed by the Democrats in Missouri? It's over in the Kerry concedes Mussouri thread. Have you discredited that yet?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:22 PM

bb:
"So, O'Neill is discredited because he has an axe to grind, but Michsel Moore is not? I sense a slight bit of bigotry, here."

I did not say "O'Neill is discredited because he has an axe to grind" You're putting words in my mouth. I said "So it looks like O'Neill is discredited, but Judicial Watch doesn't seem to have an ax to grind…"

I meant "Why would Judicial Watch pay attention to the words of a discredited person when it seems they don't have an ax to grind?" It was something I wondered about.

This is not about Moore, nor about my prejudices. Whether Moore is the AntiChrist or a bunny has nothing to do with O'Neill's reliability, and my opinion of Moore has nothing to do with O'Neill's reliability, and neither does your opinion of me or Moore or does your opinion of Britney Spears.

Nixon and all his machine couldn't substantiate O'Neill's accusations when they were new and any evidence would be fresh and Nixon badly wanted to. Why tread over the ground now? And this seems to be essentially the Navy's position, and largely why I said O'Neill is discredited.

One more time: This is NOT about Moore, NOR about my prejudices.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:58 PM

Old Guy---

Specifically, regarding the photo (remember the photo?) and (Non)Judicial Watch

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:56 PM

Old Guy--

Not good enough-----we're talking about your case against Kerry, which now lies in ruins.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:49 PM

SRS

Yeah, the cowards that went to prison got treated better than the Vets after Kerry got through doing his heroic thing.

Ron:

Where are your pro-bush sources?

Where are your direct quotes?

You are hereby discredited.

Here is a direct quote for you:

In 1988 in an interview with Barbara Walters on 20/20, Jane Fonda talked about her Vietnam visit and issued what some feel was an apology but which her critics say was not enough. Fonda said,

"I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of the things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm...very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1328&catcode=11
Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:20 PM

Old Guy----


1) The photo you mention appears to be on a blatantly anti-Kerry site. Or do you think SRS is lying too?
2) There is no caption or context--can't even tell who the Asian men are.
3) You have provided no direct quote.
4) "Judicial Watch" is also discredited---see Clint's postings
5) Bush's own Navy IG stated that "conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive".

Admiral Route, the officer with jurisdiction, "also declined to investigate Kerry's conduct as a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve".

Sounds as if Bush's own administration doesn't believe you have a case.

You may resume tearing the last strands of your hair out.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:59 PM

Larry K---

1) Good pun on the Rain in Spain

2) "Democrats want to wait...."----

Does the term "false dichotomy" ring a bell?

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 05:11 PM

Old Guy,
Have you noticed that when Bush racks up his "terror" spiel, his poll numbers go up? He has learned how to politicize fear by language. It used to be "communist" and now it's "terrorist". The Domino Theory has been discredited and someday a similar theory will be discredited about the boogie man of "terror".

The problem is that Bush doesn't know who he is calling his enemy. He doesn't even know who stole that explosive stockpile in Iraq. Can you feel safe with this guy at the helm?

As to Kerry and the atrocities, Nixon and Colson couldn't find anything on Kerry. That's why they employed the stooge John O'Neil for their poltical purposes. He is a leader in the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 04:43 PM

Jane Fonda apologized because she lives in a mind-controlled semi-dictatorship of a society, and she figured she couldn't get on with an effective professional career there without publicly kissing Uncle Sam's patriotic tush. (Anyway, I suspect what Jane was really apologizing for was some intemperate statements she made in moments of youthful idealism...we have all made such statements from time to time, but most of them are not on public record.) Joan Baez did not apologize, because she doesn't give a damn whether or not the big marketing system is interested in promoting her career.

And I imagine Marlene Dietrich might just as well have been persuaded to apologize to Der Fuhrer if the Germans had won World War II.

The Vietnam War was not essentially about Communism, it was about Vietnam casting off foreign colonial control (by France/Japan/France/USA-in that order) and achieving national sovereignty at the cost of countless lives and terrible suffering. The USA ought to pay Vietnam the biggest war reparations in history adn apologize to the whole World for what happened there. The USA doesn't care a hoot about anyone else's national sovereignty, so as far as the USA goes I can well believe that they thought the war was about Communism. What else would they think? Experience has shown that the USA sees everything in those black and white terms, quite regardless of local conditions and realities in a country.

Communism in itself, like capitalism, is neither good nor evil...but it can be turned to evil purposes...just like money can. You can have a good or a bad administration under either system. A good administration is one that consciously serves the public. A bad administration is one that serves itself and a privileged elite at the expense of the public. Most societies are a compromise between those two extremes. It is fatuous to define either communism or capitalism as intrinsically evil...it is how they are put into practice and the intentions of those in power that determines their moral legitimacy.

The Cold War was an unnecessary conflict between two power blocs that might just as well have decided to "live and let live" instead of engaging in a "winner takes all" philosophy. But that wouldn't sell arms, would it? And it wouldn't serve those who amass power by spreading fear.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 03:23 PM

Beardedbruce, find some other way to confront people you don't agree with than to use my name in your nasty attacks. I refuse to be your golem.

Meanwhile, this "Kerry photo" site doesn't pass ANYONE's "stink test." It took some digging, but here is the guy who runs the site where a photo of Kerry speaking with Asian men is posted. The photo tells us nothing useful, there are Asian men everywhere in the world, and there is no context in this photo. The site where it is posted is highly partial. The site's owner, Scott Swett, is part of the Swift Boat Veterans to Slam Kerry crew. His bio is buried on the speakers page.

Scott Swett is chairman of the Free Republic Network, an Internet-based non-profit that supports grassroots conservative activism. During the U.S. invasion of Iraq last spring, the FR Network helped coordinate "support the troops" rallies in hundreds of locations across the country. Mr. Swett represented this effort during an April 1, 2003 appearance on Fox & Friends, noting that an overwhelming majority of media coverage was given to anti-war protests -- which he termed "peace riots" -- while ignoring the 150,000 people who had attended pro-America rallies the previous weekend.

Early this year, Mr. Swett began researching the "war crimes" propaganda campaign that successfully undermined public support for America's defense of South Vietnam. The result of this work is WinterSoldier.com, a web site designed as a central repository of information for writers and researchers investigating the actions of John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War and others during the Vietnam era. The site quickly attracted the interest of Vietnam veterans, hundreds of whom have written in to share their own experiences. Other researchers have now joined the effort, and continue to provide new material and opinion articles. Mr. Swett is also webmaster of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth web site at SwiftVets.com.

The argument about this photo is not one I've paid much attention to, actually. I just went looking to see who posted it out of curiosity. I have my answer. The rest of you resume your discussion of this matter.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 02:56 PM

Little Hawk is right. And it's pretty amazing the transformation that the legacy of Vietnam War has undergone in the last half-dozen years or so. My mother told my brother "you're going to Calgary to live with your Aunt if the war is still going when you turn 18." Lucky for him it ended before his 18th birthday. I have friends who were prepared to go to prison rather than go into the military, and have friends and cousins who were lucky to get those deferments. Going to college was one good way to avoid Vietnam, at least for a time. I also have friends who came back changed, wounded people from time in Vietnam. Now we're plunged into a war as equally divisive as Vietnam, and that was totally preventable (the U.N. was prepared to continue to monitor conditions in Iraq for many years to come).

In a lot of ways, what Dubya did was what many young men wanted to do back then, find a way to serve without having to get emeshed in the immoral war that was in Vietnam. Others did their time and lived to tell about it. Bush wants his cake and wants to eat it to. In this new era of hyper patriotism and arcade game warrior mentality, Dubya wants to be a war hero, though he was always safe away from the fighting and his record of attendance is marginal at best, and bits of it are still missing.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:39 PM

Every sane person (which excludes Michael Moore) should fear terrorism.    Terrorism will exist after the election no matter who wins the recount.    It did not start with Bush, it will not end with Bush.   During the Clinton administration we had:

1st world trade center bombing
Kobar towers
Sudan
Embassy bombings in Africa
US Cole
Somalia (blawk hawk down)
Maybe ever the TWA flight

In the past two years we have had
Russian terrorism and massacre
Train bombings in Spain (The trains in Spain cause terrorists to gain)

Al Queda has declared war on the US on three separate occations.   The biggest difference between the parties:

Democrats want to wait until were attacked and many killed before we respond

Republicans want to respond first to prevent people in the US from being killed.

History will decide who was right.    History has decided that 70 years ago appeasement was the wrong choice.   However, I would be happy to give the terrorists hollywood in a negotiation.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:39 PM

Why did Jane Fonda apologize?

The fight in Vietnam was against Communisim. Communisim is not gone but it has evolved into something different (except in Cuba and N Korea) due to the efforts of the US and it's allies.

Now the fight is against terrorisim.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:18 PM

Look, anyone who opposed that war and wanted to get the USA out of Vietnam ASAP ought to be given a medal. You Americans are living in a fantasyland entirely of your own creation. The USA was WRONG in that war, and had no business being there at all. All the USA did in Vietnam was take over as a colonial power from the French, prevent national unification and national elections after the French left, create a totally corrupt and phony puppet government in the South and kill a couple of million people uselessly while delaying the inevitable.

The fact that Kerry opposed that war, as did Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, and various other Americans of above average intelligence is the best damn thing anyone can say about Kerry.

Your political BS is really something sickening to watch from outside your hallowed borders of grand illusion. The very people you routinely damn and spit upon in your ludicrous war-mad propaganda are the best and freest thinkers among you. They are the ones who have the guts not to live like sheep and just follow orders.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:53 AM

As for [Michael] Moore – the man damn well knows his slackers: check out his 2004 Slacker Oath: "Pick nose! Pick Butt! Pick Kerry!"

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E29079%257E2462599,00.html

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:19 AM

clint,

So, O'Neill is discredited because he has an axe to grind, but Michsel Moore is not? I sense a slight bit of bigotry, here.

If you want to address the facts that are presented, that is fine- but it stinks of SRS closed-mindedness to attack the facts as invalid because of who is presenting them.