Clark Blasts McCain's Military Service

[Juan_Bottom]

General Westly Clark had this(lol) to say about John McCain "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Oh snap!

Of course Joseph Lieberman wants you all to understand this increadably general and overly abused political mumbo-jumbo statement “Sen. Obama, unfortunately, like a lot of the Democratic leadership, continues to take a position that we ought to withdraw ... even though the new policy is working,” said Lieberman. “If we had done what Sen. Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today Iran and Al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world.”

Oh no he didn't!!!

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/ ... 1200218416

This made me laugh, so I had to share.

[InkL0sed]

First quote is great.

[Jenos Ridan]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

[Hologram]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

I think the lesson from both Vietnam and Iraq is that no one should try to impose any kind of government on anyone. I believe it was Ben Franklin that once stated "An democracy imposed on the people against their will is the worst kind of tyranny." At least it was something like that.

That and to think through actions a lot better.

[InkL0sed]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

But Vietnam in the long run didn't turn out to be such a horrible place, did it?

[Jenos Ridan]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

But Vietnam in the long run didn't turn out to be such a horrible place, did it?

Maybe compared to North Korea, it isn't nearly that bad. But compare it to Germany and Japan, and it is almost as bad. Other "third-world" nations like Indonesia and India are better of, both of which are republics.

The main point I was making was that don't get sold on the idea that we are just going to pack up our gear and move out, take a good long look at Iraq's neighbors Syria, Iran and Turkey. If we just pack up and leave, expecting the neighbors to play nice (puh-LEEZE), don't be surprised when we see in the news that they have invaded under the pretence of "UN Peacekeeping". Or rather, simply invaded with or without UN approval. Nothing a Resolution or several dozen can't fix, eh?

[Hologram]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

But Vietnam in the long run didn't turn out to be such a horrible place, did it?

Maybe compared to North Korea, it isn't nearly that bad. But compare it to Germany and Japan, and it is almost as bad. Other "third-world" nations like Indonesia and India are better of, both of which are republics.

The main point I was making was that don't get sold on the idea that we are just going to pack up our gear and move out, take a good long look at Iraq's neighbors Syria, Iran and Turkey. If we just pack up and leave, expecting the neighbors to play nice (puh-LEEZE), don't be surprised when we see in the news that they have invaded under the pretence of "UN Peacekeeping". Or rather, simply invaded with or without UN approval. Nothing a Resolution or several dozen can't fix, eh?

Yeah, we are definitely in between a rock and a hard place at the moment. On the one hand, Iraq has to take responsibility into it's own hands, and from the mouth of a veteran who was over there not long ago, they're apparently some of the laziest people in the world (but that's just hearsay, don't take that for gospel), and I don't think we belong in the crossfire of a theological civil war. Yet on the other hand, the U.S. does happen to have interests it needs to protect in the Middle East, and Iraq is at the moment a major focal point because it's the only place where we're really allowed to dump as many troops as we want for any reason we could need them in the Middle East. And those interests aren't just the ones Bush originally took us in there for (yes, I'm talking about the oil and shit, not lies that were shoved down our throats back when I was a small child and held extremely conservative views because I didn't know any better). For one, Iran is suddenly a threat since we destabilized the entire balance of power and made the once-powerful Iraq as weak as wet tissue paper. If I were the one making the decisions about Iraq I honestly don't know what I'd do to resolve the situation.

[Juan_Bottom]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

Don't fall for it. What Mr. Joe Lieberman said is just a political catch phrase. They all say it about each other, and it's dumb. Terrorism is the new communism.

The fact is that Obama has no real time line for leaving Iraq, and has said himself that he would have to be president "to assess the situation." Why does he have to be president to get anything done? Because he isn't planning on leaving Iraq, he sold out.

As far a Clark, and Lieberman, pff. Idiots!

It seems like every week new talk of a draft starts. If we (impossible?)attack Iran, you better believe a (impossible?)draft is coming.

[GabonX]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

But Vietnam in the long run didn't turn out to be such a horrible place, did it?

HA! If you don't count the slaughter of women and children associated with men in South Vietnam or the invasion of Cambodia and the millions killed there by the Communist Vietnamese THE YEAR AFTER THE US PULLED OUT then sure, it worked out fine. Odds are nobody told you about these things though.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-2226.html

[GabonX]

To address the statement about McCain being shot down, no that in and of itself does not qualify him to be President. A lifetime of service, years of political experience and international diplomacy, and consistently displaying high moral character on the other hand do. Making a mistake and being shot down is not an example of great service in and of itself but this is only part of a bigger story. For example, the United States and the Vietnamese set up a prisoner exchange deal to free McCain and McCain refused to go without the rest of the men in the torture camp. He wouldn't leave unless his men got to go with him. If that isn't character I don't know what is.

And yes, the war in Iraq has been going very well for the last year. I know you all want to believe that this isn't the case and that you don't bother to read the news but Lieberman is correct.

[Ntetos]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

But Vietnam in the long run didn't turn out to be such a horrible place, did it?

HA! If you don't count the slaughter of women and children associated with men in South Vietnam or the invasion of Cambodia and the millions killed there by the Communist Vietnamese THE YEAR AFTER THE US PULLED OUT then sure, it worked out fine. Odds are nobody told you about these things though.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-2226.html

Do you have any idea why the Vietnamese attacked Cambodia? Have you ever heard about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? About the genocides in Cambodia? The Ba Chuc Massacre? Vietnam tried to avoid the war. The Vietnamese didn't kill millions Cambodians. The Cambodian communists did with direct support from China. The US supported Pol Pot as well by condemning the invasion and after he was kicked out by Vietnam with the help of many Cambodians, Khmer Rouge received a big amount of help.

[GabonX]

What a backwards statement. It sounds like you believe these murderers were some kind of heroes. At best the North Vietnamese who took control of South Vietnam were as bad as the Cambodians. They were two groups were vying for power and the Veitnamese communists had no problem killing millions of innocent people in there own country and those neighboring them to achieve there aim. The idea that they tried to avoid war is ludicrous..THEY WERE THE ONES WHO INVADED! The Veitnamese argument to the UN was that they invaded for the cause of human rights but the fact remains that they were no better to civillians then the people they were fighting against.

[Ntetos]

What a backwards statement. It sounds like you believe these murderers were some kind of heroes. At best the North Vietnamese who took control of South Vietnam were as bad as the Cambodians. They were two groups were vying for power and the Veitnamese communists had no problem killing millions of innocent people in there own country and those neighboring them to achieve there aim. The idea that they tried to avoid war is ludicrous..THEY WERE THE ONES WHO INVADED!

The Vietnamocambodian war had more reason than any other war of the time. The Cambodians asked for parts that Vietnam controlled for houndrends of year. Vietnam rejected. Pol Pot starts a genocide of ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia and conducts raidst inside Vietnam, like Ba Chuc. Of the 3,157 civilians who had lived in Ba Chúc, only two survived the massacre. After that Vietnamese invaded. If this isn't a justified invasion then tell me which is. Iraq, perhaps?

[GabonX]

Your post is fundamentally flawed as the Vietnamese never controlled anything. They were constantly subject to another nation and the both the borders and idea that Vietnam is a nation are both very new. They did not have traditional borders as you seem to argue. Even if they did and even if war was justified (neither of which was the case) the wanton slaughter of Cambodian civilians who had nothing to do with the conflict cannot be justified. Both groups were trying to grab territory plain and simple. It was a real life game of risk and in this case the neutral greys were people who got caught up in the middle. Had the United States lived up to the commitments it had made this would not have happened.

[Ntetos]

If the Vietnamese were trying to grab territory the would not have abandoned Cambodia just like this. If another country attacking people in your own country isn't a reason of war, then what is? And of course Cambodian civilians died during the war, but this happens in every war. It's sad but it happens. Hadn't they attacked the Khmer Rouge would continue their attacks in Vietnam and that would result in thousand innocent Vietnamese dying. Not to mention how many innocent Cambodians would have died, had Pol Pot continued to rule. More than those that died because of the war for sure.

[MeDeFe]

Wicked! Come and tell these two eejits that they're hijacking a thread and going off-topic!

[GabonX]

Why don't you say something to put the topic back on the right course? I made some comments about the actual topic but nobody seems to be interested in it anymore.

[Juan_Bottom]

And yes, the war in Iraq has been going very well for the last year. I know you all want to believe that this isn't the case and that you don't bother to read the news but Lieberman is correct.

I do read the news. And no, the war in Iraq is not going well. We are no closer to an Iraqi take-over, and citizens have fled from everywhere. There is just no one left to kill in some areas, and in others, the U.S. has armed everyone.

As far as Pol-Pot and Vietnam goes, the Vietnamese were definitly the better option there. Pol-Pot was bloodthirsty, he slaughtered whole schools. To make sure people didn't become educated. He poisoned wells, instituted slave labor, tortured people for pleasure, starved his people, kept medicine from reaching them, and all of this with the U.S., and U.K.s, support. Because he was fighting the Vietnamese! If you remember it wasn't until the Vietnamese took over that humanitarian aid made its way into Cambodian citizens hands. PLUS what most people forget, is that when Veitnam attacked, they had just finished up their own war. They were going through a massive rice shortage, but still their government asked(you could say forced in some places) each citizen to donate a certain amount(cup?) of rice a day to Cambodia.

[tzor]

I do read the news. And no, the war in Iraq is not going well. We are no closer to an Iraqi take-over, and citizens have fled from everywhere. There is just no one left to kill in some areas, and in others, the U.S. has armed everyone.

News? What news? Give me a break, there is no news. I have friends whose sons are in Iraq. They know that the news reporters are either hiding in the Green Zone or at most looking for those spots where all the problems are. They don't want to report the places where there is suuccess, where the Iraqi forces are actually doing stuff etc. They just want to report the bad stuff because good news never sells. If it did you would see a plethora of news articles about all the wonderful people who just graduated high schools and colleges. Nah, that's good news it will never "sell."

Afganistan, on the other hand, is a festering quagmiire of a hell hole.

[jbrettlip]

Let's not forget, McCain has at least one son SERVING in Iraq. So while "being shot down" doesn't make him fit for President, he has FIRST HAND knowledge of what is going on over there. Not some BS public statements from Generals trying to bolster their public identity.

I just wish McCain would loosen up a little. He is wayyy too nice to these attacks, and with his sarcasm (showed very rarely), he could bury Obama. But he won't do that.

[joecoolfrog]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

But Vietnam in the long run didn't turn out to be such a horrible place, did it?

Maybe compared to North Korea, it isn't nearly that bad. But compare it to Germany and Japan, and it is almost as bad. Other "third-world" nations like Indonesia and India are better of, both of which are republics.

The main point I was making was that don't get sold on the idea that we are just going to pack up our gear and move out, take a good long look at Iraq's neighbors Syria, Iran and Turkey. If we just pack up and leave, expecting the neighbors to play nice (puh-LEEZE), don't be surprised when we see in the news that they have invaded under the pretence of "UN Peacekeeping". Or rather, simply invaded with or without UN approval. Nothing a Resolution or several dozen can't fix, eh?

You are talking out of your arse, Vietnam is entirely stable unlike Indonesia which is basicly ruled by the military and India that often has serious internal conflicts. Vietnam would almost certainly be more prosperous today if the US had kept the hell out of Indochina and let its people decide their future, same is true of Laos whilst Cambodia would have escaped genocide had you not illegaly bombed it to pieces.

[GabonX]

It's stable because they massacred anyone who might oppose the establishment. Stability does not equal a just society and despite attempts here to paint war criminals as saints the facts speak otherwise.

[joecoolfrog]

Joe Lieberman has said bone-headed things before. If memory serves, he was on the committee that investigated the game Mortal Kombat and the (non-existant) correlation to teen violence. But this time I agree with him, because we'll never be able to up and leave at the drop of a hat. Not even a staggard withdrawl. I'd have though Vietnam would teach people that handing the affairs of the natives solely over to the natives without a continuing US military presence is a stupid, stupid idea. Take Germany and Japan; sixty years ago the US and her allies occupied those nations and we still have troops stationed there. So all you teens and high school grads, get ready for the draft.

As for General Clark, pff. I think he is jealous that nobody backed him for the candidacy.

But Vietnam in the long run didn't turn out to be such a horrible place, did it?

HA! If you don't count the slaughter of women and children associated with men in South Vietnam or the invasion of Cambodia and the millions killed there by the Communist Vietnamese THE YEAR AFTER THE US PULLED OUT then sure, it worked out fine. Odds are nobody told you about these things though.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-2226.html

The Vietnamese invaded in 78 which was 3 years after the US pull out and in response to Pol Pots genocidal policies. I suggest that if you quote Cambodian history in future you actualy learn some first though be warned you will be ashamed of your countries shameful part in it.

[joecoolfrog]

It's stable because they massacred anyone who might oppose the establishment. Stability does not equal a just society and despite attempts here to paint war criminals as saints the facts speak otherwise.

Im sorry but you appear to have no real knowledge of this subject,the above is just gibberish. Of course there was large scale violence after the pullout but that is hardly surprising given that the country had been at war with itself for a generation, it did however recover pretty rapidly. The proven war criminals incidently are those who secretly and illegaly carpet bombed Laos and Cambodia,care to tell me who they were ?

[Juan_Bottom]

I do read the news. And no, the war in Iraq is not going well. We are no closer to an Iraqi take-over, and citizens have fled from everywhere. There is just no one left to kill in some areas, and in others, the U.S. has armed everyone.

News? What news? Give me a break, there is no news. I have friends whose sons are in Iraq. They know that the news reporters are either hiding in the Green Zone or at most looking for those spots where all the problems are. They don't want to report the places where there is suuccess, where the Iraqi forces are actually doing stuff etc. They just want to report the bad stuff because good news never sells. If it did you would see a plethora of news articles about all the wonderful people who just graduated high schools and colleges. Nah, that's good news it will never "sell."

Afganistan, on the other hand, is a festering quagmiire of a hell hole.

I know that this will sound crazy, but I like to listen to the Iranians.