PDA

View Full Version : John Kerry: A Disloyal Liar



Leader
09 May 04,, 00:18
Unfit for Office
I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander in chief.

BY JOHN O'NEILL
Tuesday, May 4, 2004 12:01 a.m.

HOUSTON--In 1971, I debated John Kerry, then a national spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for 90 minutes on "The Dick Cavett Show." The key issue in that debate was Mr. Kerry's claim that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Now, as Sen. Kerry emerges as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've chosen to re-enter the fray.
Like John Kerry, I served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. Ironically, John Kerry and I served much of our time, a full 12 months in my case and a controversial four months in his, commanding the exact same six-man boat, PCF-94, which I took over after he requested early departure. Despite our shared experience, I still believe what I believed 33 years ago--that John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades.

Neither I, nor any man I served with, ever committed any atrocity or war crime in Vietnam. The opposite was the truth. Rather than use excessive force, we suffered casualty after casualty because we chose to refrain from firing rather than risk injuring civilians. More than once, I saw friends die in areas we entered with loudspeakers rather than guns. John Kerry's accusations then and now were an injustice that struck at the soul of anyone who served there.

During my 1971 televised debate with John Kerry, I accused him of lying. I urged him to come forth with affidavits from the soldiers who had claimed to have committed or witnessed atrocities. To date no such affidavits have been filed. Recently, Sen. Kerry has attempted to reframe his comments as youthful or "over the top." Yet always there has been a calculated coolness to the way he has sought to destroy the record of our honorable service in the interest of promoting his political ambitions of the moment.

John Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage," and Dwight Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" inspired generations. Not so John Kerry, who has suppressed his book, "The New Soldier," prohibiting its reprinting. There is a clear reason for this. The book repeats John Kerry's insults to the American military, beginning with its front-cover image of the American flag being carried upside down by a band of bearded renegades in uniform--a clear slap at the brave Marines in their combat gear who raised our flag at Iwo Jima. Allow me the reprint rights to your book, Sen. Kerry, and I will make sure copies of "The New Soldier" are available in bookstores throughout America.

Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces.
John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?

Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. Nobody has recruited me to come forward. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience.
Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamist terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing--John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.

Mr. O'Neill served in Coastal Division 11 in 1969-70, winning two Bronze Stars and additional decorations for his service in Vietnam.

http://www.csamerican.com/linkFrame.asp?p=a&k=2539

jth298
10 May 04,, 11:39
"Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing--John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge"

I would agree that the best way forward is for reasonable people to make these kinds of decisions. You say that Kerry is disloyal, dishonest and the wrong man to have in charge. It would be a great shame if this is true as a lot of hope is placed by the people of the world in Kerry being an improvement on Bush... or at least to help bring some reasoned thinking back into world affairs and some credibility back to America.

Leader
10 May 04,, 14:11
"Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing--John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge"

I would agree that the best way forward is for reasonable people to make these kinds of decisions. You say that Kerry is disloyal, dishonest and the wrong man to have in charge. It would be a great shame if this is true as a lot of hope is placed by the people of the world in Kerry being an improvement on Bush... or at least to help bring some reasoned thinking back into world affairs and some credibility back to America.

American positions are reasoned and have credibility where it counts.

jth298
10 May 04,, 16:07
American positions are reasoned and have credibility where it counts.

I would love to believe this. I would also love to believe that there was some greater purpose and stategy to the path taken by Blair and Bush... or indeed an ethical and credible reason for our great and historic nations to fight this war. Sadly I don't share your faith in the reasoning or credibility of American positions, or British ones for that matter. We appear to be involved in a pointless and poorly planned war, where countless numbers of soldiers, innocent civillians and Iraqi fighters have died... How exactly is this campaign reasoned and credible when it was apparently based on incorrect intelligence in the first place? As I said, I would love to believe that my country was involved in a just war and that we should not feel guilty about it but unfortunately I do not.

Leader
10 May 04,, 16:14
I would love to believe this. I would also love to believe that there was some greater purpose and stategy to the path taken by Blair and Bush... or indeed an ethical and credible reason for our great and historic nations to fight this war. Sadly I don't share your faith in the reasoning or credibility of American positions, or British ones for that matter. We appear to be involved in a pointless and poorly planned war, where countless numbers of soldiers, innocent civillians and Iraqi fighters have died... How exactly is this campaign reasoned and credible when it was apparently based on incorrect intelligence in the first place? As I said, I would love to believe that my country was involved in a just war and that we should not feel guilty about it but unfortunately I do not.

The war is reasonable because evil sadistic people like Saddam can not be allowed to be in power. The war is credible because it is fought for good, by good people.

Confed999
11 May 04,, 01:26
a lot of hope is placed by the people of the world in Kerry
The governments of Iran and North Korea have stated as much.

Personally I'm not sure what Kerry's positions are on the issues today. I knew what they had been changed to yesterday, but I haven't looked today and I'm sure at least something has reversed. :rolleyes:

Leader
11 May 04,, 01:30
The governments of Iran and North Korea have stated as much.

Personally I'm not sure what Kerry's positions are on the issues today. I knew what they had been changed to yesterday, but I haven't looked today and I'm sure at least something has reversed. :rolleyes:

John Kerry's positions are like the weather is New England. If you don't like them, just wait a minute and they’ll change.

Ray
11 May 04,, 03:38
I like Kerry. He is so unpredictable. Weather cock?

Even Bush is nice. He too represents the weather. He is a cyclone, a tornado, a typhoon and what you all call a twister!

But Rumsfeld is the best. He is an Earthquake registering 10 on the Richter (?) scale.

Cheney is a weather icon. He is the eye of the storm.

Wolfowitch is that a wolf in witch's clothing and getting Bush and Rumsfeld in hot water while keeping his chair cosy.

But then, let the best man win in this wind of political chicanery.

Leader
11 May 04,, 04:16
I like Kerry. He is so unpredictable. Weather cock?

Even Bush is nice. He too represents the weather. He is a cyclone, a tornado, a typhoon and what you all call a twister!

But Rumsfeld is the best. He is an Earthquake registering 10 on the Richter (?) scale.

Cheney is a weather icon. He is the eye of the storm.

Wolfowitch is that a wolf in witch's clothing and getting Bush and Rumsfeld in hot water while keeping his chair cosy.

But then, let the best man win in this wind of political chicanery.

Your posts are a waste of space. Why don't you post something substantive instead of wasting time coming up with weather analogies?

Bill
12 May 04,, 02:14
That was a bit fucking harsh don't you think Leader?

Confed999
12 May 04,, 02:33
I like Kerry. He is so unpredictable. Weather cock?

Even Bush is nice. He too represents the weather. He is a cyclone, a tornado, a typhoon and what you all call a twister!

But Rumsfeld is the best. He is an Earthquake registering 10 on the Richter (?) scale.

Cheney is a weather icon. He is the eye of the storm.

Wolfowitch is that a wolf in witch's clothing and getting Bush and Rumsfeld in hot water while keeping his chair cosy.

But then, let the best man win in this wind of political chicanery.
Cute ;)

I'm still freaked out that I have to vote for one of these fellas, they're both way too liberal for me.

Bill
12 May 04,, 03:05
Bush is by far the lesser of the two evils.

Not voting at all is the same as voting for JFK the lesser.

Kerry must be stopped.

Confed999
12 May 04,, 03:48
Bush is by far the lesser of the two evils.

Not voting at all is the same as voting for JFK the lesser.

Kerry must be stopped.
Oh, I like Bush's conviction and tax cuts. I have no idea what Kerry stands for. This is the first time, in my voting lifetime, that a presidential election really mattered enough to vote Rep/Dem. Big government scares me, so I vote Libertarian as a protest, plus if they ever win I have to see that victory party. :tongue:

Ray
14 May 04,, 19:44
Confed,

You are a Kerry fan?

Confed999
14 May 04,, 23:41
Confed,

You are a Kerry fan?
I don't want him to die, but that's about it. I don't trust the guy, heck he is just plain untrustworthy.

themuffinman
15 May 04,, 00:22
I like Kerry. He is so unpredictable. Weather cock?

Even Bush is nice. He too represents the weather. He is a cyclone, a tornado, a typhoon and what you all call a twister!

But Rumsfeld is the best. He is an Earthquake registering 10 on the Richter (?) scale.

Cheney is a weather icon. He is the eye of the storm.

Wolfowitch is that a wolf in witch's clothing and getting Bush and Rumsfeld in hot water while keeping his chair cosy.

But then, let the best man win in this wind of political chicanery.



Sen. Miller: Kerry a National Security Threat

In the most scathing attack yet against Sen. John Kerry delivered by one of his peers, Sen. Zell Miller warned yesterday that the likely Democratic presidential nominee would be a threat to U.S. national security if elected.

Reacting to claims by Kerry ally Sen. Ted Kennedy that "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under U.S. management," Miller told radio host Sean Hannity:

"Those twin Senators from Massachusetts are the co-chairmen of the handwringers of America - the HWA. And they continued to bash this country.

"Both of them," Miller said, "voted against every major weapons system that won the Cold War. And Sen. Kerry has made it very clear that his national security policy is to vacillate and retreat and hand over the leadership to the United Nations."

The Georgia Democrat warned that the prospect of Kerry's election posed such a serious threat to U.S. national security that it could ultimately cost the U.S. its freedom.

"Here's a man who says he's against outsourcing, and yet he wants to outsource our foreign policy - that's the most dangerous outsourcing of all," Miller charged.

He then added, "This man wants to be the leader of the Free World? Free for how long?"

Leader
15 May 04,, 06:24
That was a bit fucking harsh don't you think Leader?

No.

Leader
15 May 04,, 06:28
I don't want him to die, but that's about it. I don't trust the guy, heck he is just plain untrustworthy.

Well said. The man clearly has no foundation for his opinions he simply changes them as he pleases.

Leader
15 May 04,, 06:31
"Here's a man who says he's against outsourcing, and yet he wants to outsource our foreign policy - that's the most dangerous outsourcing of all,"

Bush should put that in an Ad.

Trooth
15 May 04,, 10:28
John Kerry's positions are like the weather is New England. If you don't like them, just wait a minute and they’ll change.

followed by:-



Your posts are a waste of space. Why don't you post something substantive instead of wasting time coming up with weather analogies?


LOL. I don't know whether to suggest you apologise to Ray, or to yourself!

themuffinman
15 May 04,, 14:19
followed by:-



LOL. I don't know whether to suggest you apologise to Ray, or to yourself!



Regardless, as the old saying goes, “If you don’t like the weather in Missouri, wait a minute—it’ll change.” Truer words were never spoken—especially for Senator Kerry.

ChrisF202
16 May 04,, 22:48
Ive read that all the commanding officer's Kerry had in Vietnam have said that he is not fit to be President. This is a man that made up lies about the Vietnam War to further his gains. We should never allow a lier and a man who uses his latest poll results to determine his seating on an issue to be President of the most powerful nation on Earth.

As M21 said, Kerry must be stopped at the polls this November ... or were screwed.

Leader
17 May 04,, 01:34
followed by:-



LOL. I don't know whether to suggest you apologise to Ray, or to yourself!

I suggest you look at this thread.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=1979&page=2&pp=50

Trooth
17 May 04,, 09:58
You children lost the ability to debate issues then?

I am sure somewhere in that post there is name calling, lots of pointed references to what the other person "is" or "really believes" and probably bits typed in capitals.

Aryan
17 May 04,, 16:35
You children lost the ability to debate issues then?

I am sure somewhere in that post there is name calling, lots of pointed references to what the other person "is" or "really believes" and probably bits typed in capitals.

Hows Bush's popularity rating going right now? From what I hear in the news its taking a pretty damned beating...

themuffinman
17 May 04,, 17:20
Hows Bush's popularity rating going right now? From what I hear in the news its taking a pretty damned beating...


I think it all depends on who is being asked and who is doing the polling

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5122287

Confed999
17 May 04,, 17:23
Hows Bush's popularity rating going right now? From what I hear in the news its taking a pretty damned beating...
#1: I don't think Trooth cares about Bush popularity. His country will fare about the same with anyone as president.
#2: Kerry was ahead in the polls at the end of the Democrat's primary but now they are tied. Bush's war record has declined as of late, but it was April, nasty month, and this "prisoner abuse scandal". That hasn't had much effect on the "who will you vote for" question though.
#3: If you are Pakistani you should be cheerleading Bush. You know if the Democrats get in office they are going to pick on all of the countries, except the UK, that have stood by the United States through this. I would guess Poland and Pakistan will be hammered the most, they're getting the most press. Spain and France will be rewarded, on the other hand.

Confed999
17 May 04,, 17:24
I think it all depends on who is being asked and who is doing the polling
Nobody has ever called me for a poll.

Leader
17 May 04,, 22:44
You children lost the ability to debate issues then?

I am sure somewhere in that post there is name calling, lots of pointed references to what the other person "is" or "really believes" and probably bits typed in capitals.

Or just personal attacks like you engage in.

Trooth
17 May 04,, 22:52
Really. I see one word "children" that i have inferred from behaviour. I don't know how old you, say, are Leader. I take it you are not a child?

Then i am apologise for my outrageous comment.

Will you do the same?

Leader
17 May 04,, 22:56
Really. I see one word "children" that i have inferred from behaviour. I don't know how old you, say, are Leader. I take it you are not a child?

Then i am apologise for my outrageous comment.

Will you do the same?

lol Why should I apologise to you?

Trooth
18 May 04,, 00:08
You shouldn't. You have nothing to apologise to me about. Others possibly, but not me.

Leader
18 May 04,, 00:20
You shouldn't. You have nothing to apologise to me about. Others possibly, but not me.
:rolleyes:

Aryan
18 May 04,, 00:48
#1: I don't think Trooth cares about Bush popularity. His country will fare about the same with anyone as president.
#2: Kerry was ahead in the polls at the end of the Democrat's primary but now they are tied. Bush's war record has declined as of late, but it was April, nasty month, and this "prisoner abuse scandal". That hasn't had much effect on the "who will you vote for" question though.
#3: If you are Pakistani you should be cheerleading Bush. You know if the Democrats get in office they are going to pick on all of the countries, except the UK, that have stood by the United States through this. I would guess Poland and Pakistan will be hammered the most, they're getting the most press. Spain and France will be rewarded, on the other hand.

I don't know about the cheerleading part but yeah, I'm pro Bush. Not just because the great satan democrats will bugger my country if they get elected (like they've done in the past), being a nationalist, I agree with the political and economic policies of the Republicans, and oppose the left wing measures the Democrats would bring in.

Regarding ratings, I think its important for Bush to keep ratings around the same as Kerry now, remember Nader announced he'll be standing too, a number of "liberal" voters who polled for Kerry will go for Nader in the elections themselves..

Ray
26 Jun 04,, 05:33
No matter how 'scientific' the polls are, they can always go wrong.

Notwithstanding, Bush is a better bet for India; at least the last so called 'Hindu' govt felt so. I wouldn't know how the new 'secular' govt of today will view the polls.

I think Bush is a good bet. But then I am not a gambling man.

Ray
26 Jun 04,, 05:35
Trooth,

Dont bother.

Physical attributes have nothing to do with mental maturity.

In so far as that person is concerned, his posts defy logic. He cannot debate an issue since he is logic and knowledge deficient. His only weapon is to browbeat others in accepting his line of thought, which anyway is near bred to aliens from outer space. He personifies the mode of submission attributed to the Communist regime of the USSR. There is no difference.

Though this is not for him yet its worth noting that only gentlemen can apologise. He is after all an honourable man like Ceaser!

Lenin and Stalin were also Leaders in their own countries.......ensured by the hammer and the sickle!

Maxcraft
02 Aug 04,, 22:26
You children lost the ability to debate issues then?

I agree with Trooth's general observation, though not particularly Ray.

Having read some of the posts on this site, and having tried to participate in some of the debates, World Affairs Board seems to be an opinion board for one or two right-wing American moderators than a discussion or debating board.

The moderators very rarely allow any dissent from conservative, pro-American, pro-Bush opinions and proclamations of America's divine mission. If it does happen, then the members involved are deemed to be trolls and eventually banned from the site. So most people outside of the U.S.A., myself included, 2 friends from the U.K. and one from Russia, are not encouraged to return to regularly post messages. Some of the regulars are permitted to swear (which some of us find offensive), be overtly hostile and personally insulting, and the rules do not seem to be uniformly applied.

Bill
02 Aug 04,, 22:41
This is a voluntary board. No one asks you to come here and post.

If you don't like WAB, find a board you do, and live your life in happiness.

Simple as that.

Insulting the moderators at WAB will get you banned, that is a long standing policy. Most of the people banned at WAB have been banned for exactly that reason, regardless of who they are.

As an example, HawkEye, a former US military NCO was banned today for the same reason.

I have never once banned anyone for expressing a legitimate opinion, nor has any other member of the WAB moderation staff.

ZFBoxcar
02 Aug 04,, 22:45
Maxcraft, if you keep whining about unfair treatment by the mods in any thread no matter what the topic, then you will be typing a self fulfilling prophecy. You can disagree with any opinions you like and you can argue any points you want. Do you really believe we would be able to maintain a forum for a prolonged period of time if nobody disagreed with anybody? Just stick to issues without falling back on accusations.

Maxcraft
02 Aug 04,, 22:46
This is a voluntary board. No one asks you to come here and post.

If you don't like WAB, find a board you do, and live your life in happiness.

I have never once banned anyone for expressing a legitimate opinion, nor has any other member of the WAB moderation staff.

Why are you being so aggressive? There's really no need for it, and I was not making personal attacks on the moderators, but expressing a view. I'm perfectly willing to participate in debate and discussion, but last time I posted a message (2 weeks ago) I felt very insulted by one of your moderators, attempted to complain, and was temporarily barred.

Bill
02 Aug 04,, 22:57
I don't feel i'm being aggressive, i feel i'm being no-nonsense and getting you in touch with the bottom line.

The bottom line is that WAB is a voluntary site to post at, and if you don't like it here, you are more than welcome to find a board that suits your tastes better.

It's very simple.

Next time you feel unfairly picked on by a mod send a PM to me, and if i feel you have a just cause it will be discussed among the mods.

You may not know this, but there is a section of this forum for mods only, and we routinely critique one another's job performance there. We also will usually unban someone if they appologize. Every mod has his own style, just the way it is.

ringtoss
28 Aug 04,, 05:25
Hang in there. You are doing the right thing. Millions are behind you.



Unfit for Office
I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander in chief.

BY JOHN O'NEILL
Tuesday, May 4, 2004 12:01 a.m.

HOUSTON--In 1971, I debated John Kerry, then a national spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for 90 minutes on "The Dick Cavett Show." The key issue in that debate was Mr. Kerry's claim that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Now, as Sen. Kerry emerges as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've chosen to re-enter the fray.
Like John Kerry, I served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. Ironically, John Kerry and I served much of our time, a full 12 months in my case and a controversial four months in his, commanding the exact same six-man boat, PCF-94, which I took over after he requested early departure. Despite our shared experience, I still believe what I believed 33 years ago--that John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades.

Neither I, nor any man I served with, ever committed any atrocity or war crime in Vietnam. The opposite was the truth. Rather than use excessive force, we suffered casualty after casualty because we chose to refrain from firing rather than risk injuring civilians. More than once, I saw friends die in areas we entered with loudspeakers rather than guns. John Kerry's accusations then and now were an injustice that struck at the soul of anyone who served there.

During my 1971 televised debate with John Kerry, I accused him of lying. I urged him to come forth with affidavits from the soldiers who had claimed to have committed or witnessed atrocities. To date no such affidavits have been filed. Recently, Sen. Kerry has attempted to reframe his comments as youthful or "over the top." Yet always there has been a calculated coolness to the way he has sought to destroy the record of our honorable service in the interest of promoting his political ambitions of the moment.

John Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage," and Dwight Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" inspired generations. Not so John Kerry, who has suppressed his book, "The New Soldier," prohibiting its reprinting. There is a clear reason for this. The book repeats John Kerry's insults to the American military, beginning with its front-cover image of the American flag being carried upside down by a band of bearded renegades in uniform--a clear slap at the brave Marines in their combat gear who raised our flag at Iwo Jima. Allow me the reprint rights to your book, Sen. Kerry, and I will make sure copies of "The New Soldier" are available in bookstores throughout America.

Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces.
John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?

Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. Nobody has recruited me to come forward. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience.
Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamist terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing--John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.

Mr. O'Neill served in Coastal Division 11 in 1969-70, winning two Bronze Stars and additional decorations for his service in Vietnam.

http://www.csamerican.com/linkFrame.asp?p=a&k=2539

getreal
28 Aug 04,, 15:28
Your posts are a waste of space. Why don't you post something substantive instead of wasting time coming up with weather analogies?

No post is a waste of space not even yours. Everyone expresses his/herself in different ways.

Confed999
28 Aug 04,, 16:15
No post is a waste of space not even yours. Everyone expresses his/herself in different ways.
As a Mod I am forced to disagree. Any post not following the forum rules, (found at http://www.militaryaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=2232 ) or that contains purposefull disinformation is a waste of space. i.e. If Mike Moore came here and posted, odds are his post would be a waste of space. ;)

ChrisF202
28 Aug 04,, 17:37
If Mike Moore came here and posted, odds are his post would be a waste of space.
I say we invite him to the forum, that way we can bash him and prove him wrong left and right. I can see myself dicussing his lies from Farenhight 911 with him and him calling me a right wing nut. :biggrin:

porsteamboy
26 Sep 04,, 10:58
Sen. Miller: Kerry a National Security Threat

In the most scathing attack yet against Sen. John Kerry delivered by one of his peers, Sen. Zell Miller warned yesterday that the likely Democratic presidential nominee would be a threat to U.S. national security if elected.

Reacting to claims by Kerry ally Sen. Ted Kennedy that "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under U.S. management," Miller told radio host Sean Hannity:

"Those twin Senators from Massachusetts are the co-chairmen of the handwringers of America - the HWA. And they continued to bash this country.

"Both of them," Miller said, "voted against every major weapons system that won the Cold War. And Sen. Kerry has made it very clear that his national security policy is to vacillate and retreat and hand over the leadership to the United Nations."

The Georgia Democrat warned that the prospect of Kerry's election posed such a serious threat to U.S. national security that it could ultimately cost the U.S. its freedom.

"Here's a man who says he's against outsourcing, and yet he wants to outsource our foreign policy - that's the most dangerous outsourcing of all," Miller charged.

He then added, "This man wants to be the leader of the Free World? Free for how long?"
We have already outsourced our foreign policy, to multi-national corporations, thats why we are in Iraq!

Trooth
26 Sep 04,, 11:39
We have already outsourced our foreign policy, to multi-national corporations, thats why we are in Iraq!

Hmmm. Mr Miller needs some perspective. Even if Kerry becomes less unilateral than Bush. He will still be answerable to the US people. Unless of course he is planning on forming a dictatorship.

Ray
26 Sep 04,, 14:46
Since Mr Moore is being discussed, here is something rather interesting from an Indian newspaper.

[QUOTE]Rise of left-wing capitalism
SWAMINOMICS/SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR

[ SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2004 12:00:23 AM ]

Capitalists make millions of out filthy commerce, while their left-wing critics starve, right? Wrong. We are witnessing a new phenomenon, the rise of left-wing capitalism. The prize example of this is Michael Moore's latest film Fahrenheit 9/11.

A famous American leftist, Moore has lampooned corporations and right-wing politicians for over a decade. But he is no starving artiste.

Fahrenheit 9/11 has already grossed close to $150 million, and may ultimately earn over $300 million taking into account DVD sales and TV broadcast rights.

Since the film, a documentary, cost very little to make, it may end up as one of the most profitable films in history, beating Disney and MGM extravaganzas hollow. Left-wing capitalism has become a money-spinner.

Moore started his film career with Roger and Me in 1989. The film was about his attempts to talk to General Motors' chief Roger Smith about the closure of a car factory.

It was immediately hailed as a classic left-wing critique, of not merely General Motors but the whole heartless capitalist system. Viewers queued up to watch the agonies of a city where the main employer had closed down.

The film made Moore not just famous but rich. Moore intended the film to be anti-capitalist. Yet, the capitalist system immediately embraced it, and made anti-capitalism part of itself. This revealed a startling truth: attacking big business is big business.

Now, many leftists claim that capitalists conspire to shut out critics and cover up corporate crimes. This is often the case.

Yet Moore's success shows that the very opposite can also happen. Capitalists are so amoral that they will happily make money out of criticism of themselves.

Ultimately, capitalism is driven not by capitalists but by consumers. Some cozy cartels can indeed milk consumers for a time. But in competitive conditions, capitalists can make money only by giving consumers what they want.

And since consumers want anti-capitalist themes, anti-capitalist films and books have become a money-spinning part of capitalism itself.

Moore's anti-capitalist millions are hardly unique. With the end of the Cold War, authors and film-makers no longer have communist arch-villains against whom heroes can do battle.

And so they have begun replacing the Soviet Union by corporations.

Consider John le Carre's book, The Constant Gardener. For decades, le Carre made millions from tales of the dirty tricks of Soviet spies.

But with the end of the Cold War, he replaced Soviet spies with drug multinationals as the villains of The Constant Gardener.

Even more striking is the recent Hollywood hit, The Manchurian Candidate. This is based on the 1958 book of the same name, which was converted into a film in 1962.

The book and the 1962 film were about American soldiers in the Korean war who were captured, brainwashed, and converted into mind-controlled agents of the Soviet Union to kill an American presidential candidate.

However, in the latest 2004 remake of the film, the brainwashing and mind-controlling is no longer done by the Soviet Union but by a multinational corporation called Man-churian Global!

Making money out of anti-capitalist themes is standard practice in Hollywood. Erin Brokovich, the 2000 hit that won Julia Roberts an Oscar, was about two lawyers exposing how an energy company, PG&E, had covered up its contamination of water that caused sickness and cancer in thousands of people.

Michael Douglas won an Oscar for his role as speculator Gordon Gecko in the 1987 film Wall Street. His famous one-liner in the film was: "Greed is good".

The Insider (2000) was about the attempt of a big tobacco company to abort a TV programme revealing that the company had misled the public about the hazards of smoking. All these left-wing films made millions.

What lessons flow from the rise of left-wing capitalism? First, that capitalists can indeed be a dubious lot, and the public knows it. That is why authors and film-makers can make millions out of capitalist-bashing.

Second, those who expose evil capitalists are in fact serving capitalism, not overthrowing it. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, remarked that businessmen rarely gather anywhere without trying to find some way of milking consumers.

Yet, Adam Smith demonstrated, although capitalists are a lousy lot, capitalism is a good system.

When capitalists are obliged to compete, they end up serving the public good, something that they never intended to. But this in turn requires a vigilant public and effective state that checks corporate collusion and wrong-doing.

Michael Moore thinks he is opposing capitalism. In fact he is doing an excellent job of policing, and hence of strengthening capitalism. Though ostensibly a critic, he is an intrinsic, valuable part of capitalism.

That is why capitalist America has made him a multi-millionaire. May I invite Indian leftists to join the party?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/863816.cms

Trooth
26 Sep 04,, 17:40
Moore isn't anti-capitalist.

He has always struck me as a capitalist and a successful one. His films are not about capitalism being wrong, they are about the lack of accountability within corporate structures.

There is some "bleeding heart" stuff that is a bit anachonistic. Roger and Me was about the fact that failed business strategies don't hurt the board of big corporations, they hurt the worker. The board has golden handcuffs, golden parachutes etc. Their remuneration is such that they are insulated form the decisions they make. Their contract structures are such that when they do screw up they don't suffer, they in effect get paid off early on their contracts.

Its easy to say that if you criticise the effects of our current implementation of capitalism you must be against capitalism. That isn't what Moore films are about (ignoring the war themes for a moment) - he is big fan of capitalism, of companies working in local towns, making products and services. What he also wants is that when a local car worker loses his job and gets evicted due to someone elses decisions, the CEO should face the same risk and his films are about the fact that the supposed gurus on the board don't even have the balls to talk to people about it (such as the scene in the film regarding the shareholders meeting.

Its aboutt he fact that local leaders can be all high and mighty about "hand outs" and "welfare" and then go and give millions to corporations in tax breaks etc to be squandered on bad business plans.

Well, that is until he decided to make films about the war - but i give him credit for still basing the human stories in his home town.

Ray
26 Sep 04,, 20:46
Trooth

I never wrotet that story.

I was just giving the idea how chaps act left wing and then reap the harvest of capitalism!

xxxxx
27 Sep 04,, 10:07
I say we invite him to the forum, that way we can bash him and prove him wrong left and right. I can see myself dicussing his lies from Farenhight 911 with him and him calling me a right wing nut. :biggrin:

Please tell me more about his lies from Fahrenheit 911.

Trooth
27 Sep 04,, 23:04
Trooth

I never wrotet that story.

I was just giving the idea how chaps act left wing and then reap the harvest of capitalism!

Indeed, but i think the article is based on a flawed premise.

Padawan_89
27 Sep 04,, 23:33
Ehy is it so important if John Kerry was in the war? War is not good. Its bad. War does not make heroes og great leaders. In war, you KILL PEOPLE! How can that affect how good you are as a president??
I don't get you americans :)

Confed999
27 Sep 04,, 23:53
We have already outsourced our foreign policy, to multi-national corporations, thats why we are in Iraq!
Prove it...

Prodigal Son
12 Oct 04,, 20:14
Originally Posted by porsteamboy
We have already outsourced our foreign policy, to multi-national corporations, thats why we are in Iraq!


Prove it...
__________________


We spend billions to protect and support one of the most tyrannical governments on Earth -- Saudi Arabia -- for purely economic reasons -- oil. The leftist version of US foreign policy is just as flawed as the conservative version. The truth stands somewhere in the middle.

Confed999
13 Oct 04,, 01:11
We spend billions to protect and support one of the most tyrannical governments on Earth -- Saudi Arabia -- for purely economic reasons -- oil. The leftist version of US foreign policy is just as flawed as the conservative version. The truth stands somewhere in the middle.
And that proves it?