ShadowWar ShadowWar

Senator Kennedy has caused Americans to DIE in Iraq.

▼

Senator Kennedy has caused Americans to DIE in Iraq.

His statements have cost lives, and he doesn't care....

from JoeUser Forums
I have had it with this piece of fecal matter. I have read to many web sites and quotes that say it was an innocent statement he made when he said that Iraq was going to be another Vietnam. And that we could not win.

He obviously did not think before he spoke. The Iraq insurgents are empowered by talk that seems like anything that may show we are divided by the war. Anytime someone in any position of power says that we can not win, it makes it appear that what they are doing (the terrorist) is working to make America think we are losing. There is no comparison and we should not be publicly stating something that is not true. Especially from what is supposed to be a public leader (although that is another discussion all in itself).

Lets look at the results and compare Vietnam with Iraq. Ten years in Vietnam, we lost the war, at a cost of about 58,000 lives. In Iraq, in one year, we ousted a dictator, set the groundwork for installing a democratic republic government, freed 50,000,000 people from tyranny, at a cost of about 600 lives. So, 600 divided by 58,000 comes to 1.03%. That makes Ted Kennedy 98.97% wrong. However, since we are comparing apples to oranges, Ted is 100% wrong

He is a traitor and about as un-American as they come. He is a disgrace to the US Government and does not deserve to be called Senator.
international
12,888 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
but i do want to see if someone who accuses other americans of being traitors is consistent and has a firm enough belief to call their own side on their crap, not just those who disagree with their side. if shadowwar feels that those republicans don't fit his traitor criteria, i would like to know why. if they do, i would like to see if he will accuse them and call them names.


They were talking about the Kosovo government and the Russians. So I think it may not apply to being traitors of the US.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

and this blog has a comments section to post that sort of thing.


      yes it does have a "comments" section, not a "post-an-entire-blog-on-their-comments-section" section. By all means wrtie a rebuttal and link to it. You are far more likely to actually get folks to read it that way in any case. Most of the "forum" scanners just automagically roll on when they see page+ long screeds in a "comments" section. Your "comment" was longer than the original article!

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
pseudosoldier: "russellmz2 - You do have your own blog to post that sort of thing, y'know."

and this blog has a comments section to post that sort of thing. if the author truly believes his article, doesn't that mean he should be calling those republicans names for voicing dissent, too? i am not calling the republicans in the article traitors. i firmly believe they are not traitors and merely voicing their opinion.


As my associate mentioned, this forum has a comments section, yes. Making a valid point counter to a point in his article is more than fine, it's downright outstanding. Cut-and-pasting an entire article (that you also link to) is much less so plus-plus good.

Additionally, I was referring to ShadowWar when I mentioned the "calling people traitors" bit, not you. (Indicated by the "SW -" in front of my comment.)
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
ok, you're right, next time, i'll explain it out in full detail instead of assuming that the quotes i bolded were obvious and self-explanatory. also, i tend to post long replies in comments because i am used to normal forums where i don't start threads that often, but often make long replies.

shadowwar: yes, i knew it was about kosovo. my point was to highlight some comments during that conflict that were just as bad as what you said kennedy said.

let me take a comment from your original article:

The Iraq insurgents are empowered by talk that seems like anything that may show we are divided by the war.


now, given all the quotes i bolded shows at least some division between clinton and the republicans while us military forces were involved in a military campaign, why do the republicans get a by on saying things like we should use "words, not weapon", that the war will be "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war"? or the part where they compared it to lebanon and that we should cut and run.

wouldn't that sort of talk empower milosovic? whether you think the starting the war was right or wrong at that point, the us was already engaged.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
In the most successful wars you don't leave until the enemy is defeated utterly. We seem to have stopped doing that about halfway through the last century. Something about relativism and understanding and "international law" and whatnot. Seems to have something to do with making war about NOT killing people... I don't get it, but I am sure when Europe gets into their every-century-or-so mess that they'll show us how it is done.