Mr. Kerry, War Hero

[nkb]

Here is a link to an analysis of the Swift Boat Veteran's ads about Kerry's war record, from the neutral Factcheck.org site.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Maybe this link will put this discussion to rest (but somehow I doubt it).

 

[Brian2by2]

Not sure how taking over Kerry's boat gives him any credibility on this subject. If I buy your car from you (which actually would involve some interaction between us), does that qualify me to make statements about your character or your history?

Once again, you need to use some common sense when reading anything. On the subject of the TV debate between Kerry and O'Neill, I have read accounts that just mention that they had a debate, to ones that mention that O'Neill lost. I haven't seen any that claim Kerry clearly lost. Of course, I don't read ultra-conservative sites (any more than I read ultra-liberal ones).

Cars don't count...no other human involvement.

Now, if you took over my company, then thats a different story. You would have interaction with my employee's, you would see how the set up is run, what my customers think of me, what they think of my business, how profitable it is, did I run it into the ground?

And O'Neil's book is much more than just HIS opinion. I believe its the accounts of over 25 individuals who served with or beside Kerry. I'll read it and let ya'll know how it goes.

It cracks me up when people think our government would give a rat's ass about the Middle East if it was the leading producer of dog shlt, instead of oil.

Do you think we would have been involved in Kuwait, if they didn't have oil?

Then don't drive you car. Don't complain when you're paying $2.40 a gallon to fill your NSX. Don't heat your home, don't have anything shipped to you because those trucks use oil too! Don't take your boat out, don't take your plane or helicopter up, don't use any oil if you're going to complain about how it is obtained.

The price of oil is steadily increasing (although, we just got about a $.25 break on gas down here! FINALLY). How does us being in Iraq, removing their leader and setting them up with a democratic government help us in the oil situation?? Sure we'll probably end up being 'friendly' with Iraq in the distant future...thats a bad thing?

I don't see the reasoning: Sure, our decision to invade Iraq may have been somewhat based on misleading information, but guess what? Sadaam is still guilty of committing heinous crimes against his people. He's Hitler without the power.

And do we really know that Iraq never had WMD? I mean, how long did we procrastinate on checking? How long did the UN make us wait? How many times did we give him a chance to disarm? Didn't we find the blueprints to make WMD?? Whats the definition of a WMD? Is a jar of <insert chemical name> a WMD because it can be deposited in a water source and kill hundreds of thousands of people? Are we positive we checked every jar in Sadaams cupboard??

 

[nsxtasy]

Are we positive we checked every jar in Sadaams cupboard??

Brian, take off your rose ("red states") colored glasses for a moment, and USE A LITTLE COMMON SENSE FOR A CHANGE.

We have what, 100-200K military folks occupying Iraq. Every one of them knows that whether or not we find WMD will determine whether the President of the United States is seen as a liar by most of the world. Don't you think they have checked every possible lead ten times over?

 

[Brian2by2]

Brian, take off your rose ("red states") colored glasses for a moment, and USE A LITTLE COMMON SENSE FOR A CHANGE.

We have what, 100-200K military folks occupying Iraq. Every one of them knows that whether or not we find WMD will determine whether the President of the United States is seen as a liar by most of the world. Don't you think they have checked every possible lead ten times over?

Sure...it's only been, what, 2 years now??? Hell, I could have hidden them or disposed of them by now.

 

[Eric5273]

It cracks me up when people think that these wars are about oil, the price of a barrel of oil has never been higher. How does fighting a war help oil availability of oil prices?

It cracks me up how you misunderstand why people think the war is for oil. Those who say the war is for oil (myself included) do not think the purpose was to lower oil prices for the American public by increasing supply -- perhaps some ill-informed people may think that. The purpose was to take control of the oil resources of Iraq. The large oil companies do not want to price to fall, and it won't.

Before the war, very little Iraqi oil was imported to the US -- most of it went to Europe and Asia -- and this will continue (and has continued), even with American corporations in control. The only difference is who controls the supply.

The purpose of this war was so some large corporations could make more money by controling the oil resoursed in Iraq and by stealing our tax dollars with no-bid contracts to rebuild the country after they destroyed it. The purpose was not so that the American public could benefit from lower oil prices, and it was most certainly not to protect us from WMDs. Before the war, Saddam Husseins government posed less threat to us than the government of Guatamala. Those of you who believed it are about as smart as the Germans of the 1930s who thought Poland posed a danger to them. Wake up!

 

[Eric5273]

Sure...it's only been, what, 2 years now??? Hell, I could have hidden them or disposed of them by now.

Are you just trying to be funny or are you really this stupid?

Chemical weapons (which are the WMDs which Iraq was supposed to have had) cannot just be taken and hidden. They are toxic and require special temperature controlled labs to store them. Just to move them would be a very big ordeal. You cannot just take them and stuff them on a truck and drive them to Syria, nor can you just pour them in the Ocean or into the ground to dispose of them. If this was done, millions of people (and wildlife) would die from the contamination.

In the mid-1990s, the United States signed the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty which required us to dispose of all of our chemical weapons by the end of 2007. Recently the military said they need more time. Was a dozen years not enough? Actually, it really was not enough. The process is so difficult and time consuming that it takes years. Currently, over 97% of the world's chemical weapons are in Russia and the United States, and Russia (who also signed the same treaty) is having the exact same problem. Most likely both countries will be given extentions of at least another 2-3 years.

 

[Brian2by2]

Are you just trying to be funny or are you really this stupid?

Chemical weapons (which are the WMDs which Iraq was supposed to have had) cannot just be taken and hidden. They are toxic and require special temperature controlled labs to store them. Just to move them would be a very big ordeal. You cannot just take them and stuff them on a truck and drive them to Syria, nor can you just pour them in the Ocean or into the ground to dispose of them. If this was done, millions of people (and wildlife) would die from the contamination.

In the mid-1990s, the United States signed the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty which required us to dispose of all of our chemical weapons by the end of 2007. Recently the military said they need more time. Was a dozen years not enough? Actually, it really was not enough. The process is so difficult and time consuming that it takes years. Currently, over 97% of the world's chemical weapons are in Russia and the United States, and Russia (who also signed the same treaty) is having the exact same problem. Most likely both countries will be given extentions of at least another 2-3 years.

Good to know...seriously.

But WMD aren't limited to just chemical weapons, are they? Do other WMD posses the same requirements for disposal?

 

[nkb]

Cars don't count...no other human involvement.

Now, if you took over my company, then thats a different story. You would have interaction with my employee's, you would see how the set up is run, what my customers think of me, what they think of my business, how profitable it is, did I run it into the ground?

If I took over your company, and all the employees and customers, with direct contact with you, spoke well of you (in the past and now), then I would assume that you were a good guy. Now, 35 years later, some people that had no direct dealings with you, come out and say that you were a dishonest person, and there is some potential motive to discredit you, I'm going to look at their claims with considerable skepticism. Do you agree that my approach would make sense?

So, how come you don't do the same with this whole issue? How is it possible that everybody that served on that boat with Kerry is supporting him, and declaring that what the Swift Boat Veterans are alleging is completely inaccurate? Other people, who, it has been established, did not serve on his boat, are making claims that run counter to his boatmates, and you believe them? Where is the logic there? Are you perhaps biased?

 

[nkb]

Good to know...seriously.

But WMD aren't limited to just chemical weapons, are they? Do other WMD posses the same requirements for disposal?

Nuclear weapons have a tendency to emit radiation, and therefore are not easily stuffed into a jar under someone's bed.

With your above statement, you are admitting that you have absolutely no clue about WMDs, yet you run your mouth. This seems to be a pattern for you.

 

[Brian2by2]

If I took over your company, and all the employees and customers, with direct contact with you, spoke well of you (in the past and now), then I would assume that you were a good guy. Now, 35 years later, some people that had no direct dealings with you, come out and say that you were a dishonest person, and there is some potential motive to discredit you, I'm going to look at their claims with considerable skepticism. Do you agree that my approach would make sense?

So, how come you don't do the same with this whole issue? How is it possible that everybody that served on that boat with Kerry is supporting him, and declaring that what the Swift Boat Veterans are alleging is completely inaccurate? Other people, who, it has been established, did not serve on his boat, are making claims that run counter to his boatmates, and you believe them? Where is the logic there? Are you perhaps biased?

That statement is completely and totally inaccurate and you need to not post that crap without a little research. Everyone on Kerry's boat did not like him or his leadership abilities and his addiction to making accusations of war-crimes after all's been said and done.

You should do yourself a favor and read O'Neils book. From what I understand, many of hte accounts in his book are from people who DID in fact serve under Kerry. And the people who are making claims against him are people such as those that treated him when he was injured and what not.

You need to do a little more research before you call someone biased, because you my friend, are equally as biased as i am.

 

[Brian2by2]

Nuclear weapons have a tendency to emit radiation, and therefore are not easily stuffed into a jar under someone's bed.

With your above statement, you are admitting that you have absolutely no clue about WMDs, yet you run your mouth. This seems to be a pattern for you.

Brought to you courtesy of the "mouth"
Here ya go

 

[eg9]

Back to the VIETNAM Discussion... I CAN'T BELIEVE SOME OF YOU!! How dare you critique those who received a Purple Heart(or any tangible merit) from the Vietnam War. My father received one along with his squadron of 14 men. They received it just for making it back from supplying several troops with food supplies towards the end of the war. He still feels silly about having it since he was only there for 11months. He will tell you that other men deserve it more than he does. He and many other troops knew that the government were giving them out like candy towards the end to keep troop moral high since the war was proving to be A FUC$ING MESS!!!! GOD DA#N YOU GUYS who belittle ANY troop from the Vietnam War. You should spend some time talking to my father about what he had to see and live through. There is still a lot he doesn’t want to talk about TO HIS OWN CHILDREN!! I don’t care if a man was only there for 1 DA%N day. He should be respected and THANKED for even suiting up. If I was at an NSX event and overheard ANY OF YOU belittling a Vietnam Vet, you would have a definite ISSUE with ME!

I have always voted republican until I heard about all of the anti-Kerry Vietnam stuff…. My father and I will vote against Bush almost specifically because of this, unless he comes out and denounces these accusations.

McCain For President!... I think…. I’m pushing for a “None of the Above” vote on the ballot…

 

[nsxtasy]

You need to do a little more research before you call someone biased, because you my friend, are equally as biased as i am.

I've read nkb's posts. He asks a lot of questions. He asks for sources and background. He never claims to always be correct. He never jumps to conclusions. He never replies to every post made in this topic. Heck, I'm not even sure who he favors in this election. He seems to be perhaps the least partisan, least biased, and most open-minded, participant in this entire discussion.

 

[Brian2by2]

I've read nkb's posts. He asks a lot of questions. He asks for sources and background. He never claims to always be correct. He never jumps to conclusions. He never replies to every post made in this topic. Heck, I'm not even sure who he favors in this election. He seems to be perhaps the least partisan, least biased, and most open-minded, participant in this entire discussion.

once again, biased eyes. Of course, I get flamed for ASKING if Kerry got a purple heart for a foot fungus...not swearing he did. I also ASKED about WMD...and a few other things. I haven't claimed to be correct. If someone proves something otherwise, then I'm open to it. Eric has proved me wrong a few times and I don't mind admitting to it, such as the chemical warfare disposal plan.

If you think nkb is hte most unbiased person in this thread, you need to re-read his posts.

 

[SCS2k]

What disturbs me is that presidents seem to INCREASE in popularity when things go badly. You would think a president's approval ratings would go up when there is peace, but instead they go up when there is war. You would think a president's approval ratings would go up when we are safe, but they actually go up when the public is scared and perceive they are not safe. Herman Goering was right when he said the people are sheep who can be frightened to support any agenda of the leaders. If Bush is behind in the polls come election time, look for some sort of scare-tactic to appear and sway the polls in Bush's favor.

It's called ruling by fear. If you keep everyone frightened all of the time then they are reluctant to vote for change. Thus the recent terror alerts based on 4 year old information.

It's funny that they pushed for the world series and superbowl to go on after 9/11 despite the security risks but the election, we better plan to delay that.

 

[nsxtasy]

once again, biased eyes.
.
.
.
If you think nkb is hte most unbiased person in this thread, you need to re-read his posts.

I just did. There is no doubt in my mind that nkb is the least biased person in this thread. He asks questions in 75 percent of his posts. And I still cannot tell which, if any, candidate he favors. (I am not asking, either.)

Compare that with your constant posts which ONLY favor one candidate, over and over, and ONLY accuse his opponent, over and over. You dispute anything negative anyone has to say about Bush - ANYTHING - and you dispute anything positive anyone has to say about Kerry - ANYTHING. The few questions you ask (in only 25 percent of your posts, BTW) tend to be rhetorical, in which you already claim to know the answer.

You just don't like nkb because he asks GOOD questions - ones that require thought and analysis, ones you don't have answers for.

Yes, nkb is the least biased. And, based on comments posted by others, there are quite a few here who agree on who is the most biased.

 

[Brian2by2]

I just did. There is no doubt in my mind that nkb is the least biased person in this thread. He asks questions in 75 percent of his posts. And I still cannot tell which, if any, candidate he favors. (I am not asking, either.)

Compare that with your constant posts which ONLY favor one candidate, over and over, and ONLY accuse his opponent, over and over. You dispute anything negative anyone has to say about Bush - ANYTHING - and you dispute anything positive anyone has to say about Kerry - ANYTHING. The few questions you ask (in only 25 percent of your posts, BTW) tend to be rhetorical, in which you already claim to know the answer.

You just don't like nkb because he asks GOOD questions - ones that require thought and analysis, ones you don't have answers for.

Yes, nkb is the least biased. And, based on comments posted by others, there are quite a few here who agree on who is the most biased.

nkb:

Brian, please explain what you mean by fishy, when a privileged person volunteers to go to war. Is it possible that he bought into the whole "communism is spreading, we have to fight it" propaganda of the time, and decided that it wasn't right for him to sit at home because he was rich, and the poor went to die?

Please explain what is fishy about it. Also, please compare that to Bush joining the National Guard, instead of the regular Armed Forces. Which one is more fishy?

Rhetorical....answered himself, with his opinion, in the form of a question...

If I took over your company, and all the employees and customers, with direct contact with you, spoke well of you (in the past and now), then I would assume that you were a good guy. Now, 35 years later, some people that had no direct dealings with you, come out and say that you were a dishonest person, and there is some potential motive to discredit you, I'm going to look at their claims with considerable skepticism. Do you agree that my approach would make sense?

So, how come you don't do the same with this whole issue? How is it possible that everybody that served on that boat with Kerry is supporting him, and declaring that what the Swift Boat Veterans are alleging is completely inaccurate? Other people, who, it has been established, did not serve on his boat, are making claims that run counter to his boatmates, and you believe them? Where is the logic there? Are you perhaps biased?

Also rhetorical...anyone could ask questions like this. I don't know if her seriously wanted an answer or if he was just trying to get on your good side by giving his opinion in the form of a question.

It cracks me up when people think our government would give a rat's ass about the Middle East if it was the leading producer of dog shlt, instead of oil.

Do you think we would have been involved in Kuwait, if they didn't have oil?

Rhetorical...

Actually, the WMD sources were British and US intelligence, I don't think there were that many other sources.

Also, the terrorism links were found to NOT be accurate. There has been no proof so far that Hussein did more than show his support for terrorists.

Inaccurate statement. The link I posted used the United Nations as well as the CIA as a source of information. It wasn't just the Brits and CIA that said they had WMD.

I haven't heard the background on how Kerry got his Purple Hearts (or didn't deserve them).

Do you have a neutral site that analyzes this, or are you basing it on pro-Republican sites?

Good, honest questions where he seems to genuinely want information...no problems with that.

I might add its followed by a post where I ask if the foot fungus rumor was true. Sure I could have done some research to find my answer...so could he though.


The more and more I read, all nkb seems to do is ask questions to furthre spark debate. "Do you think this has anyting to do with that??" He knows the answer to a majority of the questions, but instead of saying what he thinks and having the chance of being proven wrong, he asks a question to cover himself up in the case that he is wrong.

Hell, I'll flat out admit when I'm wrong...such as the foot fungus rumor, the chemical disposal theory and a few other things.

Nothing against you nkb...I'm enjoying this little debate back and forth between us (except when you tell me I'm running my mouth while at the same time backing up my mouth with research). It's Ken who has to chime in at everything I say and pick it apart. Probably automatically subscribes to all threads with my name it....

ANYWAYS, eg9:

I don't think any of us are trying to bring down John Kerry for his service. I appreciate him going off to the war and I'm sure he saw some pretty bad things over there. I too have family that served in Vietnam. If my uncle's commander EVER came back and wrote a book full of lies defamating those that served with him and watched out for him, he'd be furious too. If my uncle saw one of his comrades campaign for a purple heart over a scrape, he'd be furious.

No one is trying to criticize him for serving, simply for bashing on fellow soldiers when he returned and publishing what is seeming to be outright lies and dramatizations to make himself look better in some strange way (The botox wasn't enough).

 

[eg9]

Brian2by2 wrote: "No one is trying to criticize him for serving, simply for bashing on fellow soldiers when he returned and publishing what is seeming to be outright lies and dramatizations to make himself"
__________________________________

Wrong...

I've heard enough in the past two weeks with MANY people bashing Kerry for his service... I've heard reports of him killing a small Vietnamese child in linen cloth....rebelling against certain orders because he was afraid.....creating lies so that he could get 3 purple hearts....

My dad has MANY stories of soldiers trying to injure themselves so they could be discharged and not be slaughtered in the "killing fields". The Vietnam War became a political mess and MANY soldiers died for little or no reason. My dad has many Vet friends that are lonely, out of money drunks who can't seem to cope with the reality of their lives. My dad never protested the Vietnam war in public BUT MANY times at the dinner table... My dad and I both feel that many of the soldiers who protested against the war ended up fighting two battles, one in Vietnam and another against American Politics... and many found the ladder more dangerous....

Kerry might not be a war hero, but who cares... The only President that comes to mind as a war hero is George Washington... Kerry fought in a bloody, nasty, terrible war, that served NO PURPOSE... If a war is to be protested... it should come from those who faught in it. Kerry had EVERY RIGHT to protest.... That to me shows almost more balls than beign on a swift boat...

 

[nsxtasy]

It's Ken who has to chime in at everything I say and pick it apart.

Wrong again. (Don't you EVER say ANYTHING that's true?) YOU'RE the one who has to chime in at everything that ANYONE says. Heck, I've ignored most of your posts - mostly because they only repeat your political opinion, which we've heard a bazillion times, and never state anything new.

Don't believe me? You have 24 posts in this topic. 24 posts!!! You respond to anything that ANYONE says. I have 8 posts - which means that, even if every one of them is a reply to yours (which they aren't), I've ignored two thirds of yours.

NUMBERS DON'T LIE AND AREN'T BIASED. Based on the numbers, it's easy to see who is obsessive about answering ANY AND EVERY comment in this topic.

Disagree? Do you claim you're not obsessive about answering EVERY post in this topic? Brian, I'll offer you a way to prove whether or not this is true. I won't post any more to this topic, if you won't, either. Whaddya say? Deal?

The only President that comes to mind as a war hero is George Washington...

Bush 41 and Kennedy were legitimate war heros. And there are others (e.g. Carter, Eisenhower, T. Roosevelt, Grant, W. H. Harrison) who have had distinguished military careers, while not necessary awarded medals for their bravery; whether you call them "war heros" or not is up to you. I'm sure there are others as well.

 

[Brian2by2]

Brian2by2 wrote: "No one is trying to criticize him for serving, simply for bashing on fellow soldiers when he returned and publishing what is seeming to be outright lies and dramatizations to make himself"
__________________________________

Wrong...

I've heard enough in the past two weeks with MANY people bashing Kerry for his service... I've heard reports of him killing a small Vietnamese child in linen cloth....rebelling against certain orders because he was afraid.....creating lies so that he could get 3 purple hearts....

My dad has MANY stories of soldiers trying to injure themselves so they could be discharged and not be slaughtered in the "killing fields". The Vietnam War became a political mess and MANY soldiers died for little or no reason. My dad has many Vet friends that are lonely, out of money drunks who can't seem to cope with the reality of their lives. My dad never protested the Vietnam war in public BUT MANY times at the dinner table... My dad and I both feel that many of the soldiers who protested against the war ended up fighting two battles, one in Vietnam and another against American Politics... and many found the ladder more dangerous....

Kerry might not be a war hero, but who cares... The only President that comes to mind as a war hero is George Washington... Kerry fought in a bloody, nasty, terrible war, that served NO PURPOSE... If a war is to be protested... it should come from those who faught in it. Kerry had EVERY RIGHT to protest.... That to me shows almost more balls than beign on a swift boat...

Eg: I have NOTHING against Kerry protesting the war!! I don't think it was very justified either...I didn't live in that time but teh stories I've heard from me and my dad's golfing buddy are horrendous. He plays golf on basically a morphine drip because he was injured so badly.

I do have a problem though when Kerry is protesting the wrong way: against soldiers that fought in vietnam. Protest against the politicians, not against those doing their job.

And as for Kerry shooting innocent people, whether or not he did, there was probably a reason. I'm in no way calling him a war criminal, but I think he needs to examine his calling others war criminals when there seems to be substantal proof that alot of what he says is off-aim from the truth.

Ken: when you post and someone says something in response, you respond back. For the 24 posts that I have, there are 24 responses to mine that continue the conversation. I didn't realize that the meaning of a forum was NOT to talk...

 

[nkb]

That is pretty funny but I'm almost positive I heard that at least one of them was for that...

Pretty pathetic.

OK, let's analyze this post, since you claim to have only asked whether Kerry got a Purple Heart for having foot fungus. If all you were doing was asking for confirmation, why do you punctuate it with a statement that implies that you now believe it?

Something fishy about a man dropping out of Yale to to 'volunteer' <AHEM> bu!!$#!T </AHEM> to goto Vietnam and then throwing paint on returning veterans (people he supposedly fought with ) and calling them babykillers...

Now to tackle your statement that you do research before posting, and I do not.

You never answered my request for clarification about what was fishy about Kerry volunteering for Vietnam. You have also failed to provide a link to back the allegation that Kerry threw paint on returning veterans (speaking out against the war, and atrocities committed by US soldiers is not the same thing).

Based on your reluctance to back these things up (among other things) makes me think that you do not have any proof of these allegations, or, whatever "proof" you might provide will come from a decidedly anti-Kerry or pro-Bush site.

So, I am still waiting, please provide backup for your statements, as requested.

 

[nkb]

Sure...it's only been, what, 2 years now??? Hell, I could have hidden them or disposed of them by now.

OK, so here, you are making a statement that implies that you know something about WMDs, and how to get rid of them.

However, when Eric rebuts your statement, you admit that you did not know that chemical weapons are that tough to dispose of.

After I call you out on that, you post a link about WMDs, pretending like you knew this all along (even though you probably found this website after the above post).

Please point out where my statement about running your mouth without knowing facts is inaccurate.

 

[nkb]

Rhetorical....answered himself, with his opinion, in the form of a question...

Also rhetorical...anyone could ask questions like this. I don't know if her seriously wanted an answer or if he was just trying to get on your good side by giving his opinion in the form of a question.

Rhetorical...

A lot of these examples of "rhetorical" questions are not rhetorical at all.

I asked you to explain what was "fishy" about Kerry going to Vietnam, and whether you thought that Bush's National Guard service qualified for the same "fishy " status.

I also gave you an analogy to real life (buying your company), and asked you to comment on my logic (you didn't), and why the same logic shouldn't apply in the discussion of Kerry's war record (which you also avoided).

The question about Kuwait, and whether we would have gotten involved if oil was not a factor, was directed at Carguy. However, I was genuinely interested whether anyone thinks that oil was not the reason we went to war.

So, all three examples of "rhetorical" questions by me turned out to not be rhetorical at all.

I might add its followed by a post where I ask if the foot fungus rumor was true. Sure I could have done some research to find my answer...so could he though.

I have stated this before, and I will state it again. The person that makes an allegation is the one that should back it up with research.

In this case, I didn't need to do any research because of the preposterous nature of the statement. Even a smidgen of common sense should have told you that this is so unlikely, it's laughable.

I don't think any of us are trying to bring down John Kerry for his service.....
No one is trying to criticize him for serving...

And with this statement you have outdone yourself, Brian. And I thought you despise "flip-floppers"
This entire thread has been about discrediting Kerry's war service, in which you have been strongly participating. You were the one that implied that there was something "fishy" about Kerry going to Vietnam. Now you're singing his praises as a soldier.

 

[Carguy!]

OK, so here, you are making a statement that implies that you know something about WMDs, and how to get rid of them.

However, when Eric rebuts your statement, you admit that you did not know that chemical weapons are that tough to dispose of.

After I call you out on that, you post a link about WMDs, pretending like you knew this all along (even though you probably found this website after the above post).

Please point out where my statement about running your mouth without knowing facts is inaccurate.

I know for a fact that many other nations told us that there was WMD in Iraq before the war. This has been mentioned on many different news groups. You stated that it was just the U.S. and British intelligence, so you started running your mouth without knowing the facts.

Also about whether the war was about oil, a nation that can generate billions of dollars to purchase weapons and that has a tendacy to develop and use WMD and invade other countries is someone to worry about. With the Intel that the president had I would of sent in our troups also. Kerry even stated that he still supports us going to war with Iraq. So I guess if Iraq didn't have any oil they wouldn't be near the threat because they wouldn't have the type of money to develop WMD.

As far as Ken not knowing you political preference, I can sure tell.

 

[nkb]

I know for a fact that many other nations told us that there was WMD in Iraq before the war. This has been mentioned on many different news groups. You stated that it was just the U.S. and British intelligence, so you started running your mouth without knowing the facts.

Please post links to these facts. I don't think news groups qualify as a reliable source, however.

I am basing my statement on what the Bush administration has told us. At the time of the decision to go to war with Iraq, I believe the government quoted CIA sources, and the British report (which later turned out to be false) that Hussein had attempted to buy nuclear materials from an African nation (I think it was Niger). Those were the most widely quoted sources.

If there were other significant sources, then I stand corrected.