Should Kerry be charged with war crimes? (1 Viewer)

[tecoyah]

See...heres the thing....Kerry is a pointless gesture on the political landscape....regardless of his stupidity and how he acted thirty years ago. Bush Is the F@cking President of the United F@cking States......do you Idiots really fail to see the differnce here:

Kerry....Dumdshit without Power

Bush....Dumbshit with lots of power


Can you hear me..Now

 

[DeeJayH]

See...heres the thing....Kerry is a pointless gesture on the political landscape....regardless of his stupidity and how he acted thirty years ago. Bush Is the F@cking President of the United F@cking States......do you Idiots really fail to see the differnce here:

Kerry....Dumdshit without Power

Bush....Dumbshit with lots of power


Can you hear me..Now

except all you posted b4 in the previous post was

................wasted server space......................

now to your feable point
wow
enlightenment from Tecoyah

a Senator has no power in todays government :doh :roll:

and i believe almost your entire post is considered flaming

 

[jfuh]

That would be and unlawful order and you never obey and unlawful order.....

That is the same logic the Nazis used at the Nurenburg trials.it does not hold water.....

Notice that in the other thread where we're discussing the officer from Hawaii that will not go to war because he's deemed Iraq an illegal war? Remember how we concluded that thread? Cowardice? Abandonment?
Kerry not going to Vietnam would've been the same, him not obeying an order would've been the same.
Point it had he gone beyond what the order's stated then yes indeed that would've been war crimes on his self. However that's not the case at all.

 

[Navy Pride]

I read recently that he is going to have them released soon. We shall see.
Sounds like he's preparing for another presidential run.

I would not hold my breath if I were you, he said he would release the information prior to the 2004 elections and it has not happened yet and its not going to happen.........

 

[Navy Pride]

Notice that in the other thread where we're discussing the officer from Hawaii that will not go to war because he's deemed Iraq an illegal war? Remember how we concluded that thread? Cowardice? Abandonment?
Kerry not going to Vietnam would've been the same, him not obeying an order would've been the same.
Point it had he gone beyond what the order's stated then yes indeed that would've been war crimes on his self. However that's not the case at all.

Hores puckey, the war in Iraq was approved by 77 Senators.....Its only illegal to liberals like you..........Nice try though.......

 

[jfuh]

Hores puckey, the war in Iraq was approved by 77 Senators.....Its only illegal to liberals like you..........Nice try though.......

Wow, look at this, again, you're attacking the liberalist ideology and not the argument presented. Go back and reread my argument NP. You're argument has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

 

[tecoyah]

except all you posted b4 in the previous post was


now to your feable point
wow
enlightenment from Tecoyah

a Senator has no power in todays government :doh :roll:

and i believe almost your entire post is considered flaming

Here DJ...I will attempt to use even smaller words.

The thread is titled "Should Kerry be charged with war crimes?". Not only has the statute of limitations long expired and turned to dust on this, the thread was intended as a jab on the earlier thread asking if Bush should be tried (I said no in that one too)...thus my initial post of:

................wasted server space......................

the entire thread is intended as a flame....and undeniably so

My second Post was one of frustration that anyone actually took this thread seriously, rather than understanding the intent of NP to inflame and derail the thoughts generated in another thread that might place Bush in a bad light. My point was basic and simple...though perhaps worded in a way that confused you....so I will state it again with a higher level of clarity:

John Kerry was a soldier in a war....and likely did not commit war crimes in this position. He then cried out against the war upon his return to the United States. Though this is debated as treasonous by some, it has never been considered as a war crime. Added to this is the time that has passed between this action and the start of this thread, and the fact he was not the power behind current warfare and the actions taking place within its context. This would make him powerless to change the current situation as a singularity, only as a member of a Body.He is a non player .

George Bush is the President of the United States, and due to this position has certain responsibilities, and accountability for the war he started. Given the position he holds, the power he has, and the fact the timeline is current, there is a far more compelling case for his being singled out vs. John Kerry. Thus my second statement in theis thread. You can defend Bush all you want, and I will even join you when he deserves the defense, but when we must resort to baseless attack of opposition in an attempt to sideline discussion as a means of defense....there is something terribly wrong with the argument, or the capabilities of the defense team.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

There is no statute of limitations on War Crimes, and that argument is irrelevant. As for the issue of just following orders, carrying out an order that is illegal is not legal grounds for defense, and you will be held accountable for the actions.
I personally don't care, just wanted to clarify the issue of the Military rules.

 

[tecoyah]

There is no statute of limitations on War Crimes, and that argument is irrelevant. As for the issue of just following orders, carrying out an order that is illegal is not legal grounds for defense, and you will be held accountable for the actions.
I personally don't care, just wanted to clarify the issue of the Military rules.

I was unaware there was no limitation to warcrimes timeline....my bad. I have never seen documentation concerning John Kerry commiting atrocities in Viet Nam either...is there actually some merit to these accusations? If so then by all means he should be charged....alone with the thousand others who meet this criteria. Then we dig up a couple dead presidents and charge them as well.....along with several generals and hundreds of Commisioned officers. My point is....there is a Zero Likelyhood these things can become a reality, and so this thread is a means to dismiss what Bush is accused of in the light of what transpired long ago.
I do not think Bush has commited war crimes....and will defend his actions in this regard, my opposition is to the "Way" these people are doing it.....it cheapens the argument to drag Kerry into this, and makes no sense whatsoever. Just once I would like to see those who so blindly back our President fess up to his failures.....Just Once.

 

[dragonslayer]

Your comments please

Granted the troops are Heros and Heroines. They belong to a great military.

Now may we please get them out of Irag and back to their families, before any more of our heros die for nothing.

Bush needs to be impeached for starting war of aggression for no reason.
Bush is responsible for as many pointless Iragi deaths as Sadam.

You have no point other than to say that Our wonderful children being sacrificed in Iraq are heros. Most americans accept this.

What has Kerry got to do with anything in Iraq? Kerry is proven war hero and Bush is a wimp, who just kills for corporate profit.

I am just a old man who does not get paid for saying nasty things about the NeoCons, the Bush Administration, I speak the truth.
that is word that Neocons are not familiar with. Because greed and truth have nothing in common.

Navy, when I came back from Viet Nam in 1973 I was jeered and ridiculed. I was called child killer. I was called the lowest of the low. We had more ligitimate reasons to fight in VietNam, than in Irag. If this stupid war continues and we have more incidents of murder and torture, All of the troops in Iraq, will be open to ridicule and to be mocked.

 

[DeeJayH]

Here DJ...I will attempt to use even smaller words.

The thread is titled "Should Kerry be charged with war crimes?". Not only has the statute of limitations long expired and turned to dust on this, the thread was intended as a jab on the earlier thread asking if Bush should be tried (I said no in that one too)...thus my initial post of:

................wasted server space......................

the entire thread is intended as a flame....and undeniably so

My second Post was one of frustration that anyone actually took this thread seriously, rather than understanding the intent of NP to inflame and derail the thoughts generated in another thread that might place Bush in a bad light. My point was basic and simple...though perhaps worded in a way that confused you....so I will state it again with a higher level of clarity:

John Kerry was a soldier in a war....and likely did not commit war crimes in this position. He then cried out against the war upon his return to the United States. Though this is debated as treasonous by some, it has never been considered as a war crime. Added to this is the time that has passed between this action and the start of this thread, and the fact he was not the power behind current warfare and the actions taking place within its context. This would make him powerless to change the current situation as a singularity, only as a member of a Body.He is a non player .

George Bush is the President of the United States, and due to this position has certain responsibilities, and accountability for the war he started. Given the position he holds, the power he has, and the fact the timeline is current, there is a far more compelling case for his being singled out vs. John Kerry. Thus my second statement in theis thread. You can defend Bush all you want, and I will even join you when he deserves the defense, but when we must resort to baseless attack of opposition in an attempt to sideline discussion as a means of defense....there is something terribly wrong with the argument, or the capabilities of the defense team.

while kerry was a nobody at the time, he is somebody now
and the only reason you think this is an inflamatory thread is because it points out the common duplicity of todays politics
kerry admitted committing war crimes
whereas bush is only accused of such
so i would say this is a perfrectly reasonable thread to counter the hysterics of the other thread
if only to point out the duplicity

 

[Navy Pride]

Wow, look at this, again, you're attacking the liberalist ideology and not the argument presented. Go back and reread my argument NP. You're argument has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

No I am comparing your feeble attempt to compare that coward who refused a lawful direct order to Kerry who you claimed carried out and unlawful direct order................

See Nurenberg Trials............

 

[Captain America]

Granted the troops are Heros and Heroines. They belong to a great military.

Now may we please get them out of Irag and back to their families, before any more of our heros die for nothing.

Bush needs to be impeached for starting war of aggression for no reason.
Bush is responsible for as many pointless Iragi deaths as Sadam.

You have no point other than to say that Our wonderful children being sacrificed in Iraq are heros. Most americans accept this.

What has Kerry got to do with anything in Iraq? Kerry is proven war hero and Bush is a wimp, who just kills for corporate profit.

I am just a old man who does not get paid for saying nasty things about the NeoCons, the Bush Administration, I speak the truth.
that is word that Neocons are not familiar with. Because greed and truth have nothing in common.

Navy, when I came back from Viet Nam in 1973 I was jeered and ridiculed. I was called child killer. I was called the lowest of the low. We had more ligitimate reasons to fight in VietNam, than in Irag. If this stupid war continues and we have more incidents of murder and torture, All of the troops in Iraq, will be open to ridicule and to be mocked.

Hear! Hear!

PS...thank you for your service in the Nam.

 

[faithful_servant]

I figured it was a pointless thread but I thought I would see the response anyway.



Only individuals that confess to crimes should be charged? I guess a lot of prisons need to start releasing inmates.

OR are war crims one of those things where it is ok to do aslong as you never talk about it?

Psstt.... Just so you don't go looking like you don't know what's being discussed: We're talking about John Kerry.

 

[faithful_servant]

I read recently that he is going to have them released soon. We shall see.
Sounds like he's preparing for another presidential run.

Cool, the only reason he ever stood a chance was the left's unremitting hatred of the President. If he makes it through the primaries, we can just about guarantee 4 more years of Republican leadership.

 

[Gibberish]

Psstt.... Just so you don't go looking like you don't know what's being discussed: We're talking about John Kerry.

This is a pointless reply since I was obviously talking about the same issue.

My point is if you are going to charge Kerry with a war crime you need to charge everyone that also committed that crime with Kerry. Meaning the individuals who gave the orders and the individuals standing next to Kerry.

Some people on this board wish to just charge Kerry or Bush purely because of partisian hatred.

Kerry will never be charged the same as Bush will never be charged witha anything so this is all really pointless.

 

[massive_attack]

This is all I gotta say : No man is above the law !

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

I was unaware there was no limitation to warcrimes timeline....my bad. I have never seen documentation concerning John Kerry commiting atrocities in Viet Nam either...is there actually some merit to these accusations? If so then by all means he should be charged....alone with the thousand others who meet this criteria. Then we dig up a couple dead presidents and charge them as well.....along with several generals and hundreds of Commisioned officers. My point is....there is a Zero Likelyhood these things can become a reality, and so this thread is a means to dismiss what Bush is accused of in the light of what transpired long ago.
I do not think Bush has commited war crimes....and will defend his actions in this regard, my opposition is to the "Way" these people are doing it.....it cheapens the argument to drag Kerry into this, and makes no sense whatsoever. Just once I would like to see those who so blindly back our President fess up to his failures.....Just Once.

Gee, then brace yourself. Bush isn't the greatest president we ever had. He's made some mistakes, just like all the rest. The Pres should rely more on himself than on advisors.
All this thread, or the one about impeaching Bush, are about, is partisanship once again.
If we locked up every politician who ever did something illegal after a serious background investigation, we wouldn't have a single politician left...wait a minute...that may actually be a good idea!!

Scrap both the republican and the democratic party. Start over with new ones. All they'd really be, though, would be the same animals in different skins.

The only true solution is term limits across the board, for all branches of government.

 

[Navy Pride]

Navy, when I came back from Viet Nam in 1973 I was jeered and ridiculed. I was called child killer. I was called the lowest of the low. We had more ligitimate reasons to fight in VietNam, than in Irag. If this stupid war continues and we have more incidents of murder and torture, All of the troops in Iraq, will be open to ridicule and to be mocked.

Thank you for your service..........Contrary to what Fonda say we fought and honorable war in Nam.....

The same thing happened to me......We were told not to wear our uniforms off base for fear of being insulted and spit on..........

The left loves to say that Iraq is another Nam when in reality they are nothing alike except that the left has lost the heart for winning and wants to cut and run..

 

[Gibberish]

The left loves to say that Iraq is another Nam when in reality they are nothing alike except that the left has lost the heart for winning and wants to cut and run..

I would like to point out that far-left (liberals) think this, not the left as a whole.

I am part of the left (democrat) and I, and most democrats I know, do not think we should cut and run. Liberals who jump to conclusions without looking at facts say we should cut and run. These same types usually complain that the war is for the oil also.

I do however think it is impossible, or close to it, to claim victory in a war against an ideology. There is no way to stop a persons thought process and to know all who in the 6.5 billion people on this planet share this ideology.

 

[Gibberish]

This is all I gotta say : No man is above the law !

No but some men can direct the laws view away from themselves.

 

[jfuh]

No I am comparing your feeble attempt to compare that coward who refused a lawful direct order to Kerry who you claimed carried out and unlawful direct order................

See Nurenberg Trials............

Go back and re-read.

 

[massive_attack]

No but some men can direct the laws view away from themselves.

Ya and that part really sucks.

 

[Navy Pride]

I would like to point out that far-left (liberals) think this, not the left as a whole.

I am part of the left (democrat) and I, and most democrats I know, do not think we should cut and run. Liberals who jump to conclusions without looking at facts say we should cut and run. These same types usually complain that the war is for the oil also.

I do however think it is impossible, or close to it, to claim victory in a war against an ideology. There is no way to stop a persons thought process and to know all who in the 6.5 billion people on this planet share this ideology.

Well the base of the democratic party which is far left thinks we should cut and run.......In fact Hillary when she said otherwise at the "Take back America Rally" was soundly booed......

Oh and Kerry did another flip flop on the war saying now it was a mistake to have voted for it..........Of course he was patonizing the far left base but what else is new.........:roll:

 

[Gibberish]

Oh and Kerry did another flip flop on the war saying now it was a mistake to have voted for it..........Of course he was patonizing the far left base but what else is new.........:roll:

Perhaps I missed something..

Isn't this what he has said all along? He voted for it based on the intel provided, that intel turned out to be wrong or misleading, so he said it was mistake to vote for the war. When did he go back and say that he was glad he voted for it?

If someon said "Hey vote for me and I'll give you 5 dollars", I vote for them, they hand me 5 dollars in monoply money, I would say it was wrong fro me to have voted for them, does that mean I flip flopped or was mislead into voting a certain way? I don't see what is wrong with this thought proccess?