Miss Me Yet? George W. Bush Stuff....Great!!

[MannyPim]

So apparently, despite your claim that Cheney has dangeorus ideas, the only real beef you seem to have with him, which is even close to being based on fact, is that he didn't fight in Vietnamn....

 

[mental_avenger]

Anybody that dodges the draft is a [profanity deleted] coward, so yes if Obama dodges the draft then he is a [profanity deleted] coward. Every coward always has a valid reason for being a coward, its called cowardice

So, in addition to violating forum rules by posting thinly disguised profanity, you effectively admit you don’t have a clue about the situation. Way to go.

There are people who have a legitimate moral or religious belief that it is wrong to kill another human being, or support the killing of another human being, regardless of the circumstances. In some cases, they believe that they would be condemned to eternal damnation if they did so. Now, regardless of what you may have heard, during the draft, the military could press a man into the service, send them to Viet Nam, hand them a weapon, and put them directly into the fighting. You think about the consequences of that.

George W Bush, John Kerry, and I (and thousands of other men)all were scheduled to be drafted. If drafted, we had no choice of where we would be sent, or what job we would be given. We each decided to join the Military for six years and choose our service, rather than be drafted for two years and have no choice. Circumstances put John Kerry on the rivers in Vietnam where he did not expect to be. Circumstances kept George W Bush in the US when he was scheduled to be rotated into Vietnam (and fully expected to go) flying the single most dangerous-to-fly aircraft we have. Circumstances put me in harms way several times in various ways. We all served six years, and technically, we all “dodged” the draft.

Now, are you calling me a coward?

In addition to all that, there are other circumstances in which “dodging the draft” is far from cowardice. But since you clearly know little or nothing about the subject, you wouldn’t know about that.

Perhaps you should find out more about a subject before making rash statements.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Now, are you calling me a coward?

Only you know that about yourself MA, I never said that about you, but if you feel the shoe fits its upto you to wear it or not.

So apparently, despite your claim that Cheney has dangeorus ideas, the only real beef you seem to have with him, which is even close to being based on fact, is that he didn't fight in Vietnamn....

Manny a coward IS dangerous. Remember, its the scared dog that bites.

 

[mental_avenger]

Only you know that about yourself MA, I never said that about you, but if you feel the shoe fits its upto you to wear it or not.

Now who is the coward, afraid to answer my direct question with a direct answer? I put it into context and asked a direct question based upon that context. The fact is that you are afraid to make a direct answer because it would mean either changing your irrational original statement, or effectively calling thousands of men who served bravely in the military, cowards. So you weasel out and do neither, and instead you dodge the question and try to turn it around.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

MA
Your 3rd post is rather confusing and I am not sure what you’re trying to say?

Most of your 2nd post was irrelevant and rather confusing as well, until you got to a simple question:

You asked me if I was calling you a coward? You asked a question, and I answered it.

I think you maybe a bit confused here, let me see if I can help you out. I stated in my post that people that did NOT serve their country at a time of need were cowards. A simple enough proposition, perhaps you did not read my post? Therefore people that served their country in any capacity when their country needed them are obviously NOT cowards.

Mr. Cheney did not serve his country at a time of crises therefore he is a coward.

Rather elementary. Everything else is outside of the scope of this simple comment. Now I feel that we have derailed the original posters thread enough. My original comment was about Mr. Bush, it was only as a result of a direct question that I responded to Manny. To be honest I am not sure how you managed to entangle yourself in this thread? I don’t see where you have responded to the OP. So maybe if you answer the OP somebody may have a question to ask you and then you can answer that.

 

[mental_avenger]

Your 3rd post is rather confusing and I am not sure what you’re trying to say? Most of your 2nd post was irrelevant and rather confusing as well, until you got to a simple question:

The transmission was clear, the problem must be with the receptor. It was all quite relevant to the discussion and in response to your comments.

You asked me if I was calling you a coward? You asked a question, and I answered it.

No, you did not. All you said was “I never said that about you” I provided context and asked again. You dodged the question.

I think you maybe a bit confused here, let me see if I can help you out. I stated in my post that people that did NOT serve their country at a time of need were cowards.

I was not responding to some other post. In the post I replied to, you said, ” Anybody that dodges the draft is a coward”. I responded to that comment.

Therefore people that served their country in any capacity when their country needed them are obviously NOT cowards.

Mr. Cheney did not serve his country at a time of crises therefore he is a coward.

That is a direct contradiction. Mr. Cheney served his country during several times of crisis. Starting in 1969, Mr. Cheney continuously served his country in Congress, in the White House, as Secretary of Defense, and as Vice President.

Rather elementary. Everything else is outside of the scope of this simple comment.

Again, your comments which I responded to were ” Anybody that dodges the draft is a coward” and ”Anybody that dodges the draft is a [profanity deleted] coward”, two comments which showed your ignorance of the draft and how various people dealt with it. I took exception to your comments because you were effectively calling a lot of brave men, cowards.

The appropriate thing to do would be to retract your statement and apologize.

 

[MannyPim]

Now, are you calling me a coward?

Only you know that about yourself MA, I never said that about you, but if you feel the shoe fits its upto you to wear it or not.

So apparently, despite your claim that Cheney has dangeorus ideas, the only real beef you seem to have with him, which is even close to being based on fact, is that he didn't fight in Vietnamn....

Manny a coward IS dangerous. Remember, its the scared dog that bites.

Ok... I got it.... that's the case you are making for not liking Cheney.
You don;t like him because he is dangerous and he is dangeroous because he is a coward and he is a coward because he didn't serve in Vietnam.

So, if he had served in Vietnam, you would be ok with Cheney ???

 

[mental_avenger]

GR has a rather harsh attitude about this. I wonder if his age has something to do with it.

Gravity Ray, how old are you?

 

[Gravity_Ray]

So, if he had served in Vietnam, you would be ok with Cheney ???

Manny if this, then that, if that, then this. If pigs had wings they would certainly fly. There are many ifs in life, many forks in the road. The character of a man is determined by the road he takes. If he would have chosen a different road? Who knows. By the way just one question mark would have achieved your aim.

GR has a rather harsh attitude about this. I wonder if his age has something to do with it.

Gravity Ray, how old are you?

MA

What is it with you and all the quotes and the consternation you are going through? Maybe you need a nap. I made a simple statement of how I feel about Mr. Cheney and it seems you are about to have a conniption. He is a coward, as simple as that.

Its like the sun is shinning outside and I say its day light, and you say not only is it night, but you have to apologize for saying its day light!

Look, you don’t have to go away angry, but its time you walked away from this issue, because nothing you say will change my mind about how I feel about a person that is so obviously a coward.

Age has nothing to do with how a person feels about things. Don’t assume because you are older or younger than somebody that your opinions have more merit, that’s just silly.

 

[MannyPim]

So, if he had served in Vietnam, you would be ok with Cheney ???

Manny if this, then that, if that, then this. If pigs had wings they would certainly fly. There are many ifs in life, many forks in the road. The character of a man is determined by the road he takes. If he would have chosen a different road? Who knows. By the way just one question mark would have achieved your aim.

GR has a rather harsh attitude about this. I wonder if his age has something to do with it.

Gravity Ray, how old are you?

MA

What is it with you and all the quotes and the consternation you are going through? Maybe you need a nap. I made a simple statement of how I feel about Mr. Cheney and it seems you are about to have a conniption. He is a coward, as simple as that.

Its like the sun is shinning outside and I say its day light, and you say not only is it night, but you have to apologize for saying its day light!

Look, you don’t have to go away angry, but its time you walked away from this issue, because nothing you say will change my mind about how I feel about a person that is so obviously a coward.

Age has nothing to do with how a person feels about things. Don’t assume because you are older or younger than somebody that your opinions have more merit, that’s just silly.

I don't think neither MA nor I are trying to change your mind about Cheney. I have not even determined if your mind has the capacity to be changed. And unless I felt that there is at least some non-zero probability that you can, it would be a waste of time for me to try it and not a very smart use of my efforts. One does not try to move an imovable object.

The only reason I asked you to elaborate on yoru opinion about Cheney was to see on what facts or evidence you based that opinion. You made a claim abouth him being dangerous because of his ideas and I wanted to know what ideas those were that troubled you so much.

In the end , and according to your responses, it appears tht the only thing you can fault Cheney for is for not fighting in Vietnam.... now, I still can't make the connection from not fighting in Vietnam to being dangerous and that is why I asked you that last question.... but you certainly don't have to answer... I just think that if you hold opinions that were arrived at by looking at the evidence and applying reason and logic to your analysis, that your sharing that process with us helps us to know more about you and how you think (which is really the thing that makes these forusm interesting - learning how others think). Also, if your facts are sound and your logical analysis is sound, then you may very well persuade some of us to change our minds.... I think that reasonable people are always capable of being persuaded if the evidence and the argument are sound.

Unfortunately, in this case, telling us that Cheney is dangerous because he did not fight in Vietnam is not persuasive and it leaves me believing that if this is the process by which you arrived at your opinion about Cheney, that you may need to review your logic there. Also, I would have liked to know a bit more about the circumstances sorrounding his not going to Vietnam (although that information is not critical to this discussion).

 

[mental_avenger]

gravity ray,
In some cases age does make difference, and this is one of those times. Someone who was not eligible for the draft in the US during the Vietnam War has not earned the right to call anyone who did not go to Vietnam, a coward. That right is reserved for those who actually had to face that hard decision.

People who make irresponsible comments should be held accountable for those comments. That is why I pressed you on the issue of your “anyone” comments, not on your “Cheney” comments.

Integrity is taking personal responsibility for your words and actions, but hey, if you’d rather bob & weave, dodge and misdirect, that’s your business.

As for Cheney, IMO he did not dodge anything, he obeyed the law. Deferments have always been available for a variety of reasons, and deferments are granted by TPTB when it serves the best interests of the country as a whole. I cannot speak for the motives of another person, but it seems probable that Cheney was originally intending to serve as an officer, a college degree being required for that. Later, with a family on the way and more education, he felt he could serve his country better in the government. Apparently the draft board agreed. No one can know for sure, but at least I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[mental_avenger]

BTW, regarding responding to the OP, it was a joke to start with and didn’t deserve a serious response.

 

[MasterComposter]

I think the thing that rankles most with Cheney concerneing the draft and the Viet Nam war is that it certainly appears he ducked out on his opportunity to fight a war for his country, but he had no problem seeing other people off to the war he sold and no problem questioning the patriotism of those who opposed that war. I have no idea if he is truly a coward or not, but I think he is a hypocrite.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

...it seems probable that Cheney was originally intending to serve as an officer, a college degree being required for that. Later, with a family on the way and more education...

:lol: MA Your funny.
October 26th 1965, the Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

July 28th 1966, Elizabeth Cheney is born.

Due to your age you may have to go get your abacus, but as any young girl can tell you his daughter is born 9 months and 2 days after Mr. Cheney realized he would have to go to war. So pray tell which military school teaches their officer candidates to hide behind a baby girl?

...the only thing you can fault Cheney for is for not fighting in Vietnam...

I’m not holding Dick Cheney at fault here; I am saying that because he dodged serving his country at a time of need he is a coward. Because he is a coward is not the reason he is dangerous, he is dangerous because he keeps advocating preemptive strikes against oil rich countries in the Middle East, in order for his company to make more money. He is dangerous because he has no compunction about sending our kids to war to die, but because he is a coward he would not go to war himself.

 

[mental_avenger]

October 26th 1965, the Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

July 28th 1966, Elizabeth Cheney is born.

Your argument is invalid because it consists of the Logical Fallacy of Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Because of your demonstrated penchant for harsh judgment without all the facts, I sincerely hope that you are never allowed to sit on a jury in judgment of another person. God help them if you do.

Before making any more irresponsible harsh personal judgments, you might want to consider that your freedom to do so without fear of reprisal was paid for by George W Bush, John Kerry, Dick Cheney, I, and millions of other citizens who served our country in our own way, probably before you were born, so that you could sit here in uniformed judgment against people who have accomplish more and contributed a lot more than you have any concept of.

I’m not holding Dick Cheney at fault here; I am saying that because he dodged serving his country at a time of need he is a coward.

What do you know about it? Were you drafted? Were you ever eligible for the draft?

 

[MasterComposter]

Your argument is invalid because it consists of the Logical Fallacy of Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Are you sure you are not committing a post hoc pompus ego mock?

 

[MannyPim]

...the only thing you can fault Cheney for is for not fighting in Vietnam...

I’m not holding Dick Cheney at fault here; I am saying that because he dodged serving his country at a time of need he is a coward. Because he is a coward is not the reason he is dangerous, he is dangerous because he keeps advocating preemptive strikes against oil rich countries in the Middle East, in order for his company to make more money. He is dangerous because he has no compunction about sending our kids to war to die, but because he is a coward he would not go to war himself.

Again ( and I will end this discussion here since you have resorted to simple repetition of your point as if you actually had a point, rather than providing backup for it) you simply repeat that Cheney advocated preemptive war on Iraq to help Halliburton... but you have not supported your case with any evidence... that may be because you CAN'T.... and you can't because you have not proven to any one here that you can read minds or divine other people's motivations....

Additionally, your claim that he is casual about sending troops to war, is another of your assertions made in a vacuum. It is possible to send troops to war and to agonize over the decision and be very concerned about placing the lives of American soldiers on the line...
How about obama taking months and months to reach a decision on Afghanistan ( a decision that he had already told us he had mande back in MArch or 09) even as the dithering was emboldening the taliban and costing American lives every day.... ? Now THAT is a clear example of someone who is cavalier about the lives of our soldiers....

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Before making any more irresponsible harsh personal judgments, you might want to consider that your freedom to do so without fear of reprisal was paid for by George W Bush, John Kerry, Dick Cheney, I ...

Digging deep in the bag for a Latin phrase eh? However, you are misusing it in this case. You would have done better if you had used (Cum hoc ergo prompter hoc). Maybe you should have stayed in school in the 60s yourself.

What you are trying to say with Post hoc ergo prompter hoc translated into English as (coincidental correlation) is wrong. Let me put what you are saying in this example: You are implying that I say "Because the Roster crowed before the sunrise I am assuming the sun rises because the roster crows"? But you are wrong. This isn’t a simple case of coincidental correlation. Mr. Cheney dodged the draft not one time, not two times, not three times, not four times, but five times. Not only that, but each time the law changed to draft more people, Mr. Cheney made slight adjustments to his way of life in order to remain just out of reach of the draft. When the draft was limited by an education, he started an education, when it was limited by having children he had a child.

The deferment was there because in our great country the government allows for certain situations. That is if you find yourself in a situation such as finishing school or if you are a working father and your children need you to provide for them, the government allowed you to defer.

The word deferment itself means to put off until a later time, not; I am not going to serve ever.

What Mr. Cheney did was not only cowardly, but also showed contempt for the laws of this country and abused the process of deferment, which shows him to be doubly cowardly. He was a coward to not serve and then cowardly in the way he misused this noble process put in place to simply put off the service until other arrangements could have been made.

In Mr. Cheney’s own words he “flunked out of school” so the education was obviously not that important to him. Both the education and his child were just tools he used to cover his cowardly act of not serving his country.

Also it’s pathetic that you use Mr. Kerry as an example of a brave American that served his country in combat as somebody I should be thankful for. Well I am. But this is the same Mr. Kerry that this coward Cheney implied would be a bad commander in chief and was instrumental in swift boating him? How dare you now use Mr. Kerry for this example and put him in the same sentence as Mr. Cheney who is an out an out coward, and Mr. Bush who basically dodged the draft by having his father put him in the National Guard (do you know how few people were allowed in the National Guard at that time?).

How dare you! Now you show yourself as a flunky to cowards. Up to this point, I was allowing you the slight chance that you did serve your country in some limited fashion in whatever small way you could. But now you are putting yourself in the same sentence as Mr. Kerry who was a decorated Vietnam veteran and was attacked during a Presidential campaign by these cowards? Sir, you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you no decency? Have you no shame? Don’t ever compare yourself to Mr. Kerry; you are not good enough to be in the same sentence as him. Shame on you!

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Additionally, your claim that he is casual about sending troops to war, is another of your assertions made in a vacuum. It is possible to send troops to war and to agonize over the decision and be very concerned about placing the lives of American soldiers on the line...
How about obama taking months and months to reach a decision on Afghanistan ( a decision that he had already told us he had mande back in MArch or 09) even as the dithering was emboldening the taliban and costing American lives every day.... ? Now THAT is a clear example of someone who is cavalier about the lives of our soldiers....

Manny it appears to me that you are allowing your hate for the President of the United States of America to color your judgment in this case. It is always easier it seems, for people like yourself that cannot change to see fault in other people before they see the same fault in themselves.

You say that Mr. Cheney a known coward could have been agonizing about sending the troops to war and in the same sentence you say President Obama does not. American natives called that speaking with a forked tongue.

Meanwhile Mr. Cheney was instrumental to send these troops in harms way, Mr. Obama is just trying to get them out of there with out showing the terrorists that the policies of the last administration failed and we are retreating from the theater of war before our country goes broke.

 

[MannyPim]

Additionally, your claim that he is casual about sending troops to war, is another of your assertions made in a vacuum. It is possible to send troops to war and to agonize over the decision and be very concerned about placing the lives of American soldiers on the line...
How about obama taking months and months to reach a decision on Afghanistan ( a decision that he had already told us he had mande back in MArch or 09) even as the dithering was emboldening the taliban and costing American lives every day.... ? Now THAT is a clear example of someone who is cavalier about the lives of our soldiers....

Manny it appears to me that you are allowing your hate for our President to color your judgment in this case. It is always easier it seems, for people like yourself that cannot change to see fault in other people before they see the same fault in themselves.

All right.... you win... I will stop arguing that you can't read minds... you seem convinced that you can, so from here on I will just allow you to believe that nd I won;t contradict you. Since you can read minds, you know that what I feel for obama is hatred.... and you know that I cannot change.... we have never met and your direct knowledge of who I am and what I think is limited to a few posts and interchanges here.... but because of your advantage over all other human beings alive - the fact that you are a mind reader- I will just have to accept that you know me much better than even I know myself...

You say that Mr. Cheney a known coward could have been agonizing about sending the troops to war and in the same sentence you say President Obama does not. American natives called that speaking with a forked tongue.

There is no inconsistency at all in what I am saying. Check again.... come on GR.... concentrate very hard.... since you can actually read my mind there is no way you can say that I am applying different standards in this situation.... that being the case, you must consider the possibility that you are listening with forked ears....

Meanwhile Mr. Cheney was instrumental to send these troops in harms way, Mr. Obama is just trying to get them out of there with out showing the terrorists that the policies of the last administration failed and we are retreating from the theater of war before our country goes broke.

Mister Cheney was "instrumental".... he merely had an advisory role.... Mr. obama is the "decider".... he is the one who actually sends troops to their deaths.... And of course, since he wants to TAKE OUT the troops, that is why he is SENDING IN 30,000 MORE troops... I suppose that is teh same kind of logic that says global warming causes severe snow storms....

 

[mental_avenger]

Digging deep in the bag for a Latin phrase eh? However, you are misusing it in this case. You would have done better if you had used (Cum hoc ergo prompter hoc). Maybe you should have stayed in school in the 60s yourself.

Not at all. That is a standard Logical Fallacy known as a Causal Fallacy. It essentially means: Concluding that something causes something else simply because it comes after. You assumed that Cheney applied for the last deferment solely because it was enacted.

What you are trying to say with Post hoc ergo prompter hoc translated into English as (coincidental correlation) is wrong. Let me put what you are saying in this example: You are implying that I say "Because the Roster crowed before the sunrise I am assuming the sun rises because the roster crows"?

No, I am not. And I will thank you to not attempt to tell me what I am saying or implying.

This isn’t a simple case of coincidental correlation. Mr. Cheney dodged the draft not one time, not two times, not ………….etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

You are taking it out of context. My reply was only to your comment regarding the timing of the birth of his child. That is why I quoted only that comment.

Mr. Cheney made slight adjustments to his way of life in order to remain just out of reach of the draft. When the draft was limited by an education, he started an education, when it was limited by having children he had a child.

Again, you are making an assumption. The fact is, you have no idea of his motives or other possible factors involved at that time. Once again, you make the mistake of attempting the Logical Fallacy of Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

The deferment was there because in our great country the government allows for certain situations. That is if you find yourself in a situation such as finishing school or if you are a working father and your children need you to provide for them, the government allowed you to defer.

The word deferment itself means to put off until a later time, not; I am not going to serve ever.

Now you are apparently presuming to know the thinking of the legislators who enacted that bill.

What Mr. Cheney did was not only cowardly, but also showed contempt for the laws of this country and abused the process of deferment, which shows him to be doubly cowardly. He was a coward to not serve and then cowardly in the way he misused this noble process put in place to simply put off the service until other arrangements could have been made.

You are welcome to your opinion, secured by men such as Cheney, but so far you have not provided any information that indicates you have a valid or relevant basis for that opinion.

Also it’s pathetic that you use Mr. Kerry as an example of a brave American that served his country in combat as somebody I should be thankful for. Well I am. But this is the same Mr. Kerry that this coward Cheney implied would be a bad commander in chief and was instrumental in swift boating him? How dare you now use Mr. Kerry for this example and put him in the same sentence as Mr. Cheney who is an out an out coward, and Mr. Bush who basically dodged the draft by having his father put him in the National Guard (do you know how few people were allowed in the National Guard at that time?).

I dare because I am clearly privy to a LOT more relevant information than you are. Ok, let’s start with John Kerry. Kerry was on the same type ship I was during the same time period. I was in charge of the main battery of the ship, the Terrier Missile System, a two stage long range missile capable of sinking a ship with a single missile. Kerry was in charge of the deck apes (ship maintenance, small boat maintenance, and painting.) I served in that position for 4 years, Kerry served a little over a year. I needed 18 months of intensive training, Kerry’s job didn’t require training. However, I included Kerry because he also served.

But now you are putting yourself in the same sentence as Mr. Kerry who was a decorated Vietnam veteran

More information you are apparently unaware of. (and you can check it out) Kerry applied for Swift Boats when they were restricted to harbor patrol, a really cushy and safe job. While he was in Swift Boat training in the US, those boats were reassigned to the rivers. Kerry served a total of only 80 days on Swift Boats. One of the three purple hearts he used to get out of Vietnam was a small splinter from a grenade he threw into a bin of rice. One of his “wounds” was a 3mm scratch. He had to order the doctor to sign the purple heart document. He was sent back to the US on the three-band-aid-rule. That is your hero.

BTW, I personally know someone who served with Kerry. I know the full story. The Swift Boat Veterans were actually rather lenient, IMHO.

Sir, you should be ashamed of yourself. Have you no dignity? Have you no shame? Don’t ever compare yourself to Mr. Kerry; you are not good enough to be in the same sentence as him. Shame on you![/

I would not compare myself to Kerry as far as honorable service is concerned, because I don’t consider his service to be particularly honorable. However, he did serve, and therefore cannot be called a coward. And since I cannot know all of his motives, I cannot condemn him for his choices. I can, however, honestly and rightfully admonish him for calling himself a hero, under the circumstances.

It is interesting how you continue to make extremely harsh judgments with little or no relevant facts. In most discussions, it is wise to at least a modicum of facts before attempting to engage in debate.

One more fact. Both John Kerry and Hanoi Jane actively campaigned against the war in Vietnam, endangering the lives of our soldiers there, and significantly lengthening the war.

 

[mental_avenger]

Manny it appears to me that you are allowing your hate for the President of the United States of America to color your judgment in this case. It is always easier it seems, for people like yourself that cannot change to see fault in other people before they see the same fault in themselves.

WOW!!! And this from someone who has been making irresponsible harsh statements about others with little or no actual verifiable facts about those persons.

 

[mental_avenger]

BTW, FYI, the sources of information for those comments regarding Kerry came from Kerry’s own biography, Kerry’s shipmates on the USS Gridley, the Gridley’s captain, the Vietnam Order of Battle, and personal acquaintances. Feel free to check out the veracity of any of those comments.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

All right.... you win... I will stop arguing that you can't read minds... you seem convinced that you can, so from here on I will just allow you to believe that nd I won;t contradict you.

I am not sure what this means.

Since you can read minds, you know that what I feel for obama is hatred....

You do.

we have never met and your direct knowledge of who I am and what I think is limited to a few posts and interchanges here.

I can tell a great deal about somebody from talking to them.

I will just have to accept that you know me much better than even I know myself...

That’s true.

since you can actually read my mind there is no way you can say that I am applying different standards in this situation....

Not only there is a way I can say that, I did say that, and further more its true. You said that one person could agonize about something, and in the same sentence said one person cannot. Either people can agonize about a hard decision or they do not. If you say one can and one can not then you are using different standards in the same situation.

that being the case, you must consider the possibility that you are listening with forked ears....

No I cannot. Speaking with a forked tongue is a quote from Chief Joseph (1840-1904) of the Nez Perce, whose peaceful people suffered under broken treaties and deleterious US policies. There is no such thing as listening with a forked ear.

Mister Cheney was "instrumental".... he merely had an advisory role.... Mr. obama is the "decider".... he is the one who actually sends troops to their deaths.... And of course, since he wants to TAKE OUT the troops, that is why he is SENDING IN 30,000 MORE troops... I suppose that is teh same kind of logic that says global warming causes severe snow storms....

Manny you keep giving me softballs and I’ll knock them out of the park every time. Virtually everything that Mr. Cheney said about going to war in Iraq in 2003 was simply untrue. There were no WMD’s and he knew it. Iraq posed no threat to the west and he knew it. There was no connection whatsoever between Iraq and Al Quaeda and he knew it. Mr. Cheney repeatedly lied to make the case for war. What is really sickening is that his assessment in going to war in Iraq was vastly different from his views during the Gulf War when he said that capturing Saddam Hussein wouldn’t be worth additional US casualties or the risk of getting bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq. At that time he was the secretary of defense and made those comments to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, even though at that time the US was just miles away from capturing Saddam Hussein and “liberating the people of Iraq” as you put it.

So why the change of mind? What changed was that Iraq decided to sell its oil to France and Russia and not the US. Mr. Cheney decided that it would be better this time to go in and “get” Saddam or should I say the Iraqi oil fields.

Also I do remember somebody calling himself the “decider” but it was not Mr. Obama, and finally we get to the main point. Afghanistan IS indeed where we should have been fighting from the beginning if Mr. Cheney and Iraq did not sidetrack us.

Remember September 11th? Remember the people that died in New York? Remember Osama Bin Laden? Remember Al Quaeda? Well the families of the people that died in New York have not forgotten! And apparently neither has President Obama. Or are you saying its OK to let Osama Bin Laden escape? Well I am not just against war I am against illegal war. I am all for war that will bring justice to Osama Bin Laden and destroys Al Quaeda and kills every member of that organization, and so is the military and the brave men and women that joined the armed forces after 9/11 to capture or kill these bastards that attacked us.

Finally we will get justice with no thanks to that coward Dick Cheney. Finally.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

However, he (John Kerry) did serve, and therefore cannot be called a coward.

Exactly MA. And that is exactly what makes Mr. Cheney a coward. Thanks for making my point.