Home Politics & Debate

Kerry balls up again...

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Former Presidential Candidate John Kerry in the run up to the mid-term elections has cocked up. During an address to a US University he said;

"Stay in school and get a good education or end up in Iraq."

What he meant to say was;

"Stay in school and get a good education or end up leading us into Iraq."

So, of course his comments have been leapt on by Republicans who were looking a major defeat or at least a good hiding from the Democrats to try to rouse some support. Making out Democrats are insulting the intelligence of American soldiers.

All in all, the whole election is serious, for once and getting more serious by the day.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote:
    Former Presidential Candidate John Kerry in the run up to the mid-term elections has cocked up. During an address to a US University he said;

    "Stay in school and get a good education or end up in Iraq."

    What he meant to say was;

    "Stay in school and get a good education or end up leading us into Iraq."

    So, of course his comments have been leapt on by Republicans who were looking a major defeat or at least a good hiding from the Democrats to try to rouse some support. Making out Democrats are insulting the intelligence of American soldiers.

    All in all, the whole election is serious, for once and getting more serious by the day.

    Of course his second comment is even more ironic as Bush did better at University (albeit marginally)

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a load of bhullshit stirred up byu the republicans, and it is basically meaningless.

    besides which, even if he meant it as an attack on soldiers, he'd be right. Intelligent people with everything going for them in life don't go into the Army to be cannon-fodder.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    besides which, even if he meant it as an attack on soldiers, he'd be right. Intelligent people with everything going for them in life don't go into the Army to be cannon-fodder.
    Ain't that the truth. Remember that scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 with Michael Moore asking senetors to sign up their own sons and daughters for the army?

    Well actually, it's more down to situation than intelligence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm guessing neither of you have bothered to look at why people join the army. I know there's the old quote about the army being full of people who couldn't hack it in civilian street, but after after seeing both sides of the fence I'd suggest that civilian life is full of people who couldn't hack the army.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ain't that the truth. Remember that scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 with Michael Moore asking senetors to sign up their own sons and daughters for the army?

    Well actually, it's more down to situation than intelligence.

    I'm guessing because most of them realised that you can't sign up other people. A fact the supposedly intelligent audience of F9/11 failed to grasp.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm guessing because most of them realised that you can't sign up other people.

    Yes you can - its called conscription. A policy that the US will probably have to implement in the next decade if they continue to rely on exploitation of artificially low-priced foreign energy resources.

    And the situation today is not so far from that: the point that Moore was (clumsily) trying to make in F9/11. Some people have been so fucked over by society that they have little choice but to sign up and be flown to some alien land to be mutilated or killed.

    Having said that, I think some of the posts people have made have been offensive generalizations. Not all (or even necessarily the majority) of those who join the army are unintelligent or forced into it through lack of choice. Many hold genuine conviction and bravery. We are lucky to have such people to defend us and our interests abroad - something that should not be forgotten or taken for granted, especially in the run up to Rememberance Day.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually it is true the Armed forces take in a significant number of highly intelligent people and so put them on officer training courses and so forth. The less intelligent or lesser educated often join the armed forces as it provides further education and training in practical activites where new skills can be learned.

    To insult the intelligence of people who choose to join the armed forces really is a sign of ignorance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote:
    Former Presidential Candidate John Kerry in the run up to the mid-term elections has cocked up. During an address to a US University he said;

    "Stay in school and get a good education or end up in Iraq."

    What he meant to say was;

    "Stay in school and get a good education or end up leading us into Iraq."

    So, of course his comments have been leapt on by Republicans who were looking a major defeat or at least a good hiding from the Democrats to try to rouse some support. Making out Democrats are insulting the intelligence of American soldiers.

    All in all, the whole election is serious, for once and getting more serious by the day.


    Series...hmmm

    Elections are screwed up out there. We were studying campaigning in one of my seminars and watched a video against a Democrat called Ron Kind which was on his opponents website. It accuses him of making children watch porn.

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=517940

    Theres the story, Im still searching for the video.
    "Ron Kind has no trouble spending your money, he'd just rather spend it on sex. That's right. Instead of spending money on cancer research, Ron Kind voted to spend your money to study the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes. Instead of spending money to study heart disease, Ron Kind spent your money to study the masturbation habits of old men,Ron Kind,even spent your tax dollars to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia. Ron Kind pays for sex but not for soldiers.

    so screwed up...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote:
    To insult the intelligence of people who choose to join the armed forces really is a sign of ignorance.

    I don't think it is especially.

    I'm well aware of why a lot of people join the armed forces- steady employment, big bursaries, good skills. But the fact remains that most troops on the ground are in the army because they were unable to get meaningful employment on the outside. That isn't an attack on their bravery or their morals, just a statement of fact.

    A principled soldier is a bad soldier, don't ever forget that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:

    A principled soldier is a bad soldier, don't ever forget that.

    Whys that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ain't that the truth. Remember that scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 with Michael Moore asking senetors to sign up their own sons and daughters for the army?

    Jim Webb who will hopefully pretty soon be a Senator has a son serving in Iraq.

    If John Kerry truly meant to say "Stay in school and get a good education or end up in Iraq" he's a disgrace.

    Or if he really meant "Stay in school and get a good education or end up leading us into Iraq" one has to ask if that's the best he can do...cheap, baseless insults. Thank god Americans made the right choice in 2004 and lets hope Kerry's latest embarrassment firmly scuppers his 2008 ambitions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    A principled soldier is a bad soldier, don't ever forget that.

    Depends what those principles are. The principle of standing by your mates, self sacrifice, integrity, loyalty, courage, duty, are all principles and ones that a good soldier will have.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And any wider humanitarian principles (say, for instance, not fighting in an illegal and immoral war against innocents) mean that he's a bad one.

    They do their job and morals don't come into it.

    As for Kerry, I'd rather have him as president than a warmongering terror-merchant. But even the chimp is better than someone who thinks the best charity they can support is a charity that sponsors the murderers in the IDF. "Helping new immigrants through (enforced) military service" indeed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cheap, baseless insults.
    Something that the Republicans are exceedingly good at.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    And any wider humanitarian principles (say, for instance, not fighting in an illegal and immoral war against innocents) mean that he's a bad one.

    They do their job and morals don't come into it.

    Everything you've said there is completely unfounded.
    1) The only "wider humanitarian principles" you are referring to are your own, if somebody holds different principles to you it does not mean he is unprincipled.
    2) A soldier can hold your principles and still be a good soldier, as long as the military he serves gives him orders that do not contradict them (which is what most defenders of the US/UK armed forces would argue).
    3) You switch between principles and morals halfway through - these are not the same thing.

    A soldier's over-riding principle is to obey they orders of the military that he serves and has sworn allegiance to. As long as he does that, you cannot condemn him as unprincipled.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    But even the chimp is better than someone who thinks the best charity they can support is a charity that sponsors the murderers in the IDF. "Helping new immigrants through (enforced) military service" indeed.

    Whatever. I got fed up of seeing Aladdin's Israel hatefest link so I added another link...

    "sponsors the murderers in the IDF"

    Young Israelis doing their national service in the IDF are not murderers and you're a twat for saying that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Young Israelis doing their national service in the IDF are not murderers and you're a twat for saying that.

    Did he say that?

    Collectively they are a bunch of murderers and I assume they've generated hate for Palestinians from the constant attacks on their country. Same with British soldiers here, they're been very brutal towards the Irish here because they've been attacked so many times and I don't see why it would be any different over there.

    Anyways, Blame Canada is what I say.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whatever. I got fed up of seeing Aladdin's Israel hatefest link so I added another link...
    You're not doing your cause any favours by suggesting anyone critical of Israel's actions in Palestine is "anti-Israeli". No one buys it Disillusioned.

    Unless of course you can point us somewhere within that website that might actually be "anti-Israel".

    I sympathise with young Israelis being forced to join the IDF. My total support and respect goes to those who refuse to do so, even at the penalty of jail sentence. And my support also goes to those who do join the IDF but draw the line at being sent to occupied Palestine and actively participate in the oppression and crimes against the Palestinians.

    What do you think of these fine Israeli soldiers Disillusioned?

    Israeli soldiers open fire on unarmed Palestinian women

    It makes one proud doesn't it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Young Israelis doing their national service in the IDF are not murderers and you're a twat for saying that.

    No, and anti-war protestors never get shot by the IDF for standing in front of diggers :rolleyes:

    They are murderers because they are enacting the orders of war criminals.
    carlito wrote:
    A soldier's over-riding principle is to obey they orders of the military that he serves and has sworn allegiance to. As long as he does that, you cannot condemn him as unprincipled.

    I can condemn him as unprincipled and immoral though.

    It isn't a principle to follow the orders of a superior regardless of the moral justification of them. The SS did that, and I'd condemn them as unprincipled and immoral- wouldn't you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I can condemn him as unprincipled and immoral though.

    You can say virtually anything you want, just bear in mind its because of those principled and immoral men you can. Of course none of this means you're right.
    It isn't a principle to follow the orders of a superior regardless of the moral justification of them. The SS did that, and I'd condemn them as unprincipled and immoral- wouldn't you

    It depends. I'd condemn them for murdering prisoners or civilians under orders. But then I condem British soldiers for doing the same. In the British army those would be illegal orders and not only are you under a duty to disobey, your under a duty to take whatever steps you can to stop others doing so.

    I wouldn't condemn the SS for following an order to take out a Sherman with a panzerfaust.

    Soldiers don't follow orders regardless and that hasn't been part of British military thinking since around the end of the nineteenth century. They are trained to follow legal orders.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    What do you think of these fine Israeli soldiers Disillusioned?

    Israeli soldiers open fire on unarmed Palestinian women

    It makes one proud doesn't it?

    Are you just as proud that they were called there specifically to be used as shields? I have as much contempt for the sick fucks who did that ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not entirely sure why you bring other people up since we were discussing military service and the IDF specifically to be honest.

    But since you ask, I am not particularly proud of anyone asking for "human shields" (not sure that was the case anyway) but I am proud of anyone who is willing to put their lives on the line to protect others. Those women went there voluntarily and should be commended for such act of valour, which indeed cost the lives of two of them and injuries to many others.

    But back to the subject at hand, this is yet another example of the IDF's catalogue of war crimes and cold-blooded murder. Not all IDF soldiers are murderers of course, but a fair number of those serving in Palestine do appear to be murdering cunts who should be tried by an international court together with their officers and sent to rot in jail for their crimes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    but I am proud of anyone who is willing to put their lives on the line to protect others.

    Even if they're members of the IDF who are protecting their country from insurgents?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If it were unarmed IDF soldiers putting themselves in front of a group of armed invaders to protect their own people in their own country, then yes I would.

    Invading, armed to the teeth IDF soldiers illegally occupying another country and fighting the locals, then no I wouldn't. Not that what the IDF does has anything to do with protecting Israel anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If it were unarmed IDF soldiers putting themselves in front of a group of armed invaders to protect their own people in their own country, then yes I would.

    Invading, armed to the teeth IDF soldiers illegally occupying another country and fighting the locals, then no I wouldn't. Not that what the IDF does has anything to do with protecting Israel anyway.

    So I'm guessing you damn those people the women were protecting as well? After all they often go into Israel to fight the locals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't who those people inside the church were, but the majority of Palestinians don't go into Israel at all.

    A few do go across the border. Many others do not but will take up arms in their own land to confront the invader.

    For the record, I find the targetting of Israeli civilians is disgusting. However I don't have any problem whatsoever with Palestinians targeting the IDF, either in their own land or in Israel, for as long as the illegal and repuganant occupation of their land and oppresion of their people continues.

    So if those inside the church are part of those who do go into Israel, but they attack military personnel and facilities only, I don't damn or condemn them at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:

    I can condemn him as unprincipled and immoral though.

    It isn't a principle to follow the orders of a superior regardless of the moral justification of them. The SS did that, and I'd condemn them as unprincipled and immoral- wouldn't you?

    No, again you confuse "principle" and "moral." You can condemn a man who chooses a certain principle as immoral, but you cannot say he is unprincipled. By definition. It is a principle to follow the orders of a superior regardless of their moral justification. A principle is not a moral code. The two are different.

    If you are saying that it is impossible that you can be a good soldier and a man ruled by morality then that is a different argument. But as Flashman's Ghost (rightly) alludes to that is an entirely different matter. And as he has pointed out the comparison between the contemporary UK military and that of Nazi Germany is entirely invalid. If you are a member of HM armed forces you are bound to follow orders insofar as they do not congradict UK legislation or conventions the UK has committed to (i.e. the Geneva Convention). The Nazis had no such comittment. Their only principle was to follow the orders of "the Furher." Anybody who subscribes to the military now is perfectly entitled to disregard (or disobey) orders which contradict the framework of principles which he/she signed up to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    besides which, even if he meant it as an attack on soldiers, he'd be right. Intelligent people with everything going for them in life don't go into the Army to be cannon-fodder.
    It's a different culture in the states, though. Going into the army, prior to 911, was more like doing the Grand Tour and picking up some qualifications, that would make one more employable back on Civvy Street, at the same time. That ambitions of the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld changed all that. Now, new recruits are enlisting to fight the 'war on terror', but that contingent is slowing to a trickle. Even the excessively patriotic can be taught...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can say virtually anything you want, just bear in mind its because of those principled and immoral men you can.

    That`s the second time recently that I have read on these boards that my ability to speak is due to two groups of individuals in costumes trying to murder each other.

    Amazing.

    I guess I need a further course in biology.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    But as Flashman's Ghost (rightly) alludes to that is an entirely different matter. And as he has pointed out the comparison between the contemporary UK military and that of Nazi Germany is entirely invalid. If you are a member of HM armed forces you are bound to follow orders insofar as they do not congradict UK legislation or conventions the UK has committed to (i.e. the Geneva Convention). The Nazis had no such comittment. Their only principle was to follow the orders of "the Furher."

    What is the difference ? :confused:

    "UK legislation" = someone`s opinion backed by a gun

    "Geneva convention" =someone`s opinion backed by a gun

    "orders of the Furher" =someone`s opinion backed by a gun

    All those examples involve the acceptance of murder on someone`s say so.

    Seems to me like the only difference is the individual(s) giving an opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.