Let's do the time warp again!!!!

[Vendetta]

You seem to be under the impression Kerry would've governed the US better than Bush from 2005-2009.

My left asscheek could've governed the US better than Bush in his second term.

[Big Phil]

How about the entire Cold War? The US had to negotiate with Russia with nothing but a deterrent that both sides knew neither side actually wanted to use. They certainly had no credible option to invade and occupy Russia.

Illuminatus Primus made an unsubstantiated and unsupported claim that the rest of the world utilizes rapprochement rather than war, and the example you toss out is the rapprochement between the US and the Soviet Union? I agree with you that it's a fabulous example of successful rapprochement, but if the intent is to support IP's argument that other countries use rapprochement and the US does not, this seems like a bad example to toss out.

Also, is there a reason why IP isn't expected to support his own arguments? He seems to frequently bandwagon your posts with his own mindless drivel, but since he never disagrees with you, you don't take any issue with his brownnosing. In this thread he throws out a mindless argument that the US uses violence while everyone else uses rapprochement, and when I call him on it you jump to his defense. I really don't get why you jumped in here, however, and didn't let IP support his own posts, particularly when they're completely absent any critical thought.

[Coyote]

I notice a very distinct change in my attitude about war in general, as well as the Iraq war in particular, from before having gone there and seen it for myself, and coming back from it.

I have become very reluctant to see military force as an early option; rather it is the last card in the deck when all else has failed.

[Elfdart]

Let me get this straight: Kerry was a bad man because he made allegations which were true, but did not present his sources and reasoning well enough for you?

No, the problem was Kerry MADE HIMSELF look like a bad man for straining HIS CREDIBILITY with allegations that weren't supported until 2006, two years AFTER the election.

American atrocities in Vietnam were widespread and well-documented before John Kerry returned from his tour of duty, fucktard. A person could be illiterate and still be familiar with atrocities in Vietnam just from these three famous pictures:







Now it's true that people would rather not think of their boys committing atrocities. Eisenhower had German citizens from the area surrounding newly liberated concentration camps dig the graves and bury the bodies with the cameras rolling and there are still a number of shitstains who think the Nazi Holocaust never happened. But that's not a failure on Ike's part, now is it?

[Alyrium Denryle]

As for his allegation that US military servicemen committed multiple atrocities in Vietnam, including rape, torture, mutilation, BEFORE the evidence was publicized by the US military servicemen who investigated these allegations; if I claimed people who attended the University of Waterloo are more likely to be guilty of sexual assault and child molestation, but didn't provide any evidence to support this claim, you and your family would be very offended, wouldn't you?

Were I Mike (or you could substitute ASU or UTA for me... doesnt matter) No. I wouldn't be. Because if you know anything about university campuses you will know they are hot-beds for rape and sexual assault. One should not be shocked to find this out, they should take a look at crime statistics (the ones collected by criminologists, not police reports) and eventually you can just assume it from the get-go.

If you know anything about the history of warfare, there are a few constants.

1) Disease
2) Supply shortages of various types
3) Rape.

The stressful conditions of war, combined with training specifically designed dehumanize enemies and desensitize soldiers to violence and misery leads to incidence of rape sky-rocketing whenever countries are invaded and occupied. What makes you think that US soldiers are magically different? You shouldnt need special evidence for specific cases. The proper response when someone brings up allegations of widespread rape or other horrible things going on during an occupation is to nod your head and say "Yeah, probably"

It is part of the trade-off we make whenever we go to war. We implicitly accept that this is going to happen. Save in the US where we practically fellate our military (not that I am opposed to this, I like men in uniform) and then scream "Our Soldiers are Honorable!" whenever someone produces evidence. I look for specific incidences and it appears they get swept under the rug of history(unlike the rape committed by our enemies). When I do find stuff... like here:

Oh look

And here, dont forget here

Those are our own troops. Can you imagine what happens to the civilians?

a taste

The point is, Kerry didnt damage his credibility at all when he said this shit was going on without being able to prove it at the time. The swift-boaters (even if another gorup did it, I will use them as a catch all if you dont mind), this country, and now you, damaged theirs, its, and your credibility for criticizing and rejecting him for it. if we were anything but the blindingly ignorant and self-serving morons that we are, we would have assumed he was right based on history alone.

[Sidewinder]

Elfdart, the atrocity in the first photo was committed by a SOUTH VIETNAMESE National Police officer. The second was an accident; the aircraft bombed what the crew thought were Viet Cong hiding places, and some sources believe the bombs were dropped by South Vietnamese aircraft.

The My Lai Massacre was public knowledge in 1971, but Kerry's testimony stated, "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Evidence that US military servicemen committed these atrocities on a day to day basis wasn't released until 2006.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Evidence that US military servicemen committed these atrocities on a day to day basis wasn't released until 2006.

The fact that war crimes, like systemic and implicitly sanctioned rape, happen on a day to day basis in any war should not be shocking. It should not "offend" anyone because if they were not fucking idiots they would know it is true.

[Sidewinder]

During the presidential campaign, Kerry's comments from three decades ago have been fodder for conservative talk radio and have drawn fire from some of his fellow veterans, who say they can't forgive the stigma attached to his words.

Bush campaign officials -- who have had to handle persistent questions about the president's National Guard service during the war -- have largely steered clear of the topic, preferring to focus on Kerry's Senate votes on national security issues.

But [Karen Hughes, the former White House communications director], who remains a close political adviser to Bush even though she is no longer on the White House staff, waded into the dispute.

"I remember watching Senator Kerry, back when he was against the war, when he came home, and I was very troubled by the kind of allegations that he hurled against his fellow veterans, saying that they were guilty of all kinds of atrocities," said Hughes, the daughter of a retired Army officer who served in three wars, including Vietnam.

"As someone whose father was over there fighting, I don't appreciate that. I resent that. I know my father was not guilty of any atrocities, and I really find that that's an irresponsible kind of charge to make."

Emphasis mine.

Alyrium Denryle, it's not just right-wing nuts who say, "But our troops are honorable!" and fellate US military service members. It's current and former US military service members saying, "I am honorable!" their spouses saying, "My husband" or "My wife is honorable!" their siblings saying, "My brother" or "My sister is honorable!" their children saying, "My father" or "My mother is honorable!" their parents saying, "My son" or "My daughter is honorable!"

Of the 25 million veterans currently alive, nearly three of every four served during a war or an official period of hostility. About a quarter of the nation's population -- approximately 70 million people -- are potentially eligible for VA benefits and services because they are veterans, family members or survivors of veterans.

Do you understand now why Kerry alienated American veterans during his campaign?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do you understand now why Kerry alienated American veterans during his campaign?

Oh, I understand. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. But does not mean that the response is anything other than that. A massive cultural lie stemming from cognitive dissonance. No one wants to think that their son or daughter is or has committed war-crimes. That his CO who he is supposed to trust raped one of his squad mates. No one wants to think that when their son goes on float to Thailand, they get to shore and have sex (effectively rape through coercion) with a thirteen year old transexual prostitute who doesnt have any other choice. And no one wants to remember that the girl they slept with in Normandy in 1944 was not moaning "Oui! Oui!" but was instead screaming "Descendez-moi. Arrêtez, vous êtes mal-moi!". No one wants to think about these things. So they get offended when someone points this out to them.

Now bear in mind. I am not calling ALL servicemen rapists (though there is a good chance that huge portions of our japanese and possibly german occupation forces post WW2 were). But it is certainly a significant portion. And getting offended about it, and refusing the confront these very real problems because they are uncomfortable or fill us with unfathomable personal and national shame, does not get us anywhere. And the politicians/PACs who took advantage of this very real shame for political gain need to hang their heads in shame for the consequences of their actions, which is the perpetuation of a war, and the continuation of these same horrors every day for the last 4 years.

[Sidewinder]

Oh, I understand. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. But does not mean that the response is anything other than that. A massive cultural lie stemming from cognitive dissonance. No one wants to think that their son or daughter is or has committed war-crimes.

And you expect those US military service members and their families to become as logical and unemotional as Vulcans, and NOT be offended by Kerry's allegations when SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS UNAVAILABLE UNTIL 2006... how?

Now bear in mind. I am not calling ALL servicemen rapists (though there is a good chance that huge portions of our japanese and possibly german occupation forces post WW2 were). But it is certainly a significant portion.

I checked Google to see if there was any evidence to support or disprove your claim that "a significant portion" of servicemen are rapists. This is what I found.

Comparing Military and Civilian Rape Rates

To place military rape rates in context, it is valuable to compare them with civilian rates. Comparisons of the crime rates of civilian and military populations during peacetime periods in 1986–92 reveal that contemporary peacetime rates of rape by American military personnel are actually lower (controlling for age and gender) than civilian rates. However, the data also indicate that peacetime military rape rates are diminished far less from civilian rates than are military rates for other violent offenses. This “rape differential” is also reflected in the World War II data: U.S. Army rape rates in Europe climbed to several times the U.S. civilian rates for that period, while military rates for other violent crimes were roughly equivalent to civilian rates. Thus, in both contexts studied, a rape differential exists: the ratio of military rape rates to civilian rape rates is substantially larger than the ratio of military rates to civilian rates for other violent crimes.

The same article notes, "No systematic compilations exist of rape incidence [committed by US military service members] prior to World War II."

From 2002 to 2003, the number of reported rapes rose another 5 percent, but the crime’s rate actually dropped because the number of active duty soldiers increased 20 percent.

Ms. Magazine cites the following article:

Army officials noted that the five-year tally included reports of abuse that proved to be "unfounded" after investigation, a number said to have tripled from 48 to 157 between 1999 and 2003. Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Diane Battaglia said she could not explain why the number of cases deemed false had risen so much.

"The Criminal Investigation Division takes all reports of criminal behavior very seriously," she said.

I've yet to find conclusive evidence either way, but in nations with a rule of law, aren't the accused considered innocent until proven guilty?

And getting offended about it, and refusing the confront these very real problems because they are uncomfortable or fill us with unfathomable personal and national shame, does not get us anywhere.

Again, the issue wasn't just about being offended by Kerry's allegations, it was being offended by allegations made IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, as the US government didn't reveal the results of its investigation until 2006, two years AFTER the election.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Also, is there a reason why IP isn't expected to support his own arguments? He seems to frequently bandwagon your posts with his own mindless drivel, but since he never disagrees with you, you don't take any issue with his brownnosing. In this thread he throws out a mindless argument that the US uses violence while everyone else uses rapprochement, and when I call him on it you jump to his defense. I really don't get why you jumped in here, however, and didn't let IP support his own posts, particularly when they're completely absent any critical thought.

Oh please, right-wing cumguzzler. Its quite obvious, what does France, Germany, Russia, and everyone else do when they want a country to do something? Offer them a carrot (contracts, trade relations, bribes), and a stick (support for insurgents, cut off of relations, etc.) and let the incentives do the work. The U.S. expects to be able to bitch slap a country for decades with endless sanctions, and then expects it to just continue conceding to us forever. Why would Saddam give up ambitions with weapons and what have you? Its obvious the American hawks would never concede to allowing him to become a dictator we could do business with again. No, that's only acceptable for real countries like Iran, DPRK, and China.

What kind of bribes and how the threat of force can be used against other states without actually having to invade them is blindingly obvious to everyone. You have just moved the goalposts to me being a "brownnoser" for the sake of your puny little ego. And Mike thinks I'm an American jingoist, just look up the thread we had on Russia's Victory Day parades. But of course, like every little right-winger, you think you're scoring points on an invisible chalkboard if you show "bias" in your opponents. You're just a moron who thinks that everyone will accept a black/white fallacy like we have to just let them develop weapons or we have to invade them without critique.

[Terralthra]

Oh, I understand. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. But does not mean that the response is anything other than that. A massive cultural lie stemming from cognitive dissonance. No one wants to think that their son or daughter is or has committed war-crimes.

And you expect those US military service members and their families to become as logical and unemotional as Vulcans, and NOT be offended by Kerry's allegations when SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS UNAVAILABLE UNTIL 2006... how?

Just a thought here, but perhaps the US military service members and their families were offended by the allegations because they knew they were true. Having someone speak the truth about the events and occurrences when everyone involved insisted, many deceitfully, they were honorable can get a strong emotional reaction. The choice for those members of the military who committed the acts, and the many more who would have known about it and covered up, was between acting hurt and offended or admitting they'd lied about committing war crimes. Big surprise, they acted offended.

[Big Phil]

Also, is there a reason why IP isn't expected to support his own arguments? He seems to frequently bandwagon your posts with his own mindless drivel, but since he never disagrees with you, you don't take any issue with his brownnosing. In this thread he throws out a mindless argument that the US uses violence while everyone else uses rapprochement, and when I call him on it you jump to his defense. I really don't get why you jumped in here, however, and didn't let IP support his own posts, particularly when they're completely absent any critical thought.

Oh please, right-wing cumguzzler. Its quite obvious, what does France, Germany, Russia, and everyone else do when they want a country to do something? Offer them a carrot (contracts, trade relations, bribes), and a stick (support for insurgents, cut off of relations, etc.) and let the incentives do the work. The U.S. expects to be able to bitch slap a country for decades with endless sanctions, and then expects it to just continue conceding to us forever. Why would Saddam give up ambitions with weapons and what have you? Its obvious the American hawks would never concede to allowing him to become a dictator we could do business with again. No, that's only acceptable for real countries like Iran, DPRK, and China.

What kind of bribes and how the threat of force can be used against other states without actually having to invade them is blindingly obvious to everyone. You have just moved the goalposts to me being a "brownnoser" for the sake of your puny little ego. And Mike thinks I'm an American jingoist, just look up the thread we had on Russia's Victory Day parades. But of course, like every little right-winger, you think you're scoring points on an invisible chalkboard if you show "bias" in your opponents. You're just a moron who thinks that everyone will accept a black/white fallacy like we have to just let them develop weapons or we have to invade them without critique.

Are you unable to offer specific examples of rapprochement or bribery working successfully, is that why you keep speaking in vague generalities?

So you've accused me of moving goalposts; what goalposts? And being a right-winger? Really? I know you're an idiot, but considering my posting history, being accused of being a right-winger is something else. And black/white fallacy? I didn't suggest invasion was the only alternative; I simply asked when rapprochement/bribery had worked without the threat of military force.

[SirNitram]

Evidence that US military servicemen committed these atrocities on a day to day basis wasn't released until 2006.

Remember: It never matters if the Dirty Fucking Hippies turn out to be completely, utterly right. It never matters if the REAL AMERICANS turn out to be wrong. The Dirty Fucking Hippies must be shunned all the more whenever they are proven right.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Are you unable to offer specific examples of rapprochement or bribery working successfully, is that why you keep speaking in vague generalities?

If you had any knowledge of history, mentioning China should have been a dead-ringer. But you're a moron, so it goes without saying you would not pick up on references like only Nixon could go to China. Or our original rapproachment against Iraq as a counterweight to Iran (we didn't like them for running around with the Soviets and terrorism before the Iran-Iraq War either).

So you've accused me of moving goalposts; what goalposts?

We started out talking about GWB's idiotic war policy and now you're whining about me hoping to get some style points.

And being a right-winger? Really? I know you're an idiot, but considering my posting history, being accused of being a right-winger is something else.

Anyone who creates a false dilemma where invasion of Iraq was the only alternative response to them doing things we don't like other than "just let them," it apologizing for the neo-cons and is a right-winger.

And black/white fallacy? I didn't suggest invasion was the only alternative; I simply asked when rapprochement/bribery had worked without the threat of military force.

Which is retarded, as Mike pointed out. We didn't need Nixon and Kissinger to play China into our field by reminding them "if you don't, we'll nuke you." Furthermore, the U.S. is such a bellicose, militaristic, interventionist country, how could Saddam, ruler of a state we'd kept in a vice and bombed constantly for years, whose army had been destroyed by ours, forget we could always use the military against him if we felt we had to?

[Alyrium Denryle]

And you expect those US military service members and their families to become as logical and unemotional as Vulcans, and NOT be offended by Kerry's allegations when SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS UNAVAILABLE UNTIL 2006... how?

Hear that sound. It is the sound of the point impacting your skull, or you deliberately misrepresenting it. The fact of the matter is, such statements were used for political gain by his opponents, rather cynically.

You are also committing a naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is understandable does not make it right or excusable. I understand the psychological stress that would compel someone to rape. But that does not mean that if a friend who serves in the armed forces were to tell me he raped someone from another unit that I wouldnt report him to Military Police.

I checked Google to see if there was any evidence to support or disprove your claim that "a significant portion" of servicemen are rapists. This is what I found.

Yes. Let us compare probably the most unreliable data imaginable! Rape is the least commonly reported violent crime. Specifically because of the power wielded over the victim. Now imagine an environment where that power is magnified.

In wartime, they increase despite the fact that pressure is even worse, and so is control The fact that this trend gets through the systemic problem of rape-reporting ought tell you something about the true rates. Nor does this take into account the rape of civilians in occupied countries.

I've yet to find conclusive evidence either way, but in nations with a rule of law, aren't the accused considered innocent until proven guilty?

When you have charged someone yes. That does not mean that we do not assume that rapes that are not reported or that do not result in convictions or otherwise dont result in an official record do not happen.

To put this in perspective my Jr year there were 8 rapes reported on ASU's campus. Would you like to know, approximately, how many there really were? If the criminologists who studied the matter are correct, approximately 1300-1500.

Army officials noted that the five-year tally included reports of abuse that proved to be "unfounded" after investigation, a number said to have tripled from 48 to 157 between 1999 and 2003. Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Diane Battaglia said she could not explain why the number of cases deemed false had risen so much.

"The Criminal Investigation Division takes all reports of criminal behavior very seriously," she said.

The easiest solution is that it is very very difficult to investigate and charge rape, and combine that with an increase in the number of women in the armed forces, and an increase in "military activity" and you have more real rapes. More real rapes means rapes being shoved under the rug (as they often are in both criminal and civilian investigations) poorly investigated and otherwise bungled.

[Alyrium Denryle]

When you have charged someone yes. That does not mean that we do not assume that rapes that are not reported or that do not result in convictions or otherwise dont result in an official record do not happen.

Correct statement should be

When you have charged someone yes. That does not mean that we assume that rapes that are not reported or that do not result in convictions or otherwise dont result in an official record do not happen.

[Sidewinder]

It occurred to me the American voters' decisions in 2004 would be better understood if I used 'Revenge of the Sith' as an analogy.

Galactic Republic= USA
Supreme Chancellor Palpatine= POTUS
Mace Windu= John Kerry
Clone Wars= Vietnam War
Jedi attempt to arrest Palpatine= Winter Soldier Investigation
Clonetroopers who executed Order 66= Swift Boat Veterans For Truth

As viewers of the film, we know Windu had a legitimate reason to arrest Palpatine, or to kill him for resisting arrest. But did the citizens of the Galactic Republic know this reason? No. So how did they view the Jedi attempt to arrest Palpatine? As an assassination attempt on the legitimate head of government. Would the citizens have allowed Palpatine to become head of government if they knew what we knew? Doubtful, but THEY DIDN'T KNOW what we knew, that Palpatine was the Sith Lord who instigated the Clone Wars and caused the deaths of billions of sentients.

Likewise, evidence to support Kerry's allegation that US military servicemen committed atrocities "on a day-to-day basis" wasn't revealed to the American public until 2006, so how did US military service members view the Winter Soldier Investigation? As a smear campaign. Would we have supported Kerry over Bush if the US Army released the results of its own investigation before the 2004 elections? Possibly, but the EVIDENCE WASN'T RELEASED to the general public in time to influence the elections.

[SirNitram]

Likewise, evidence to support Kerry's allegation that US military servicemen committed atrocities "on a day-to-day basis" wasn't revealed to the American public until 2006, so how did US military service members view the Winter Soldier Investigation? As a smear campaign. Would we have supported Kerry over Bush if the US Army released the results of its own investigation before the 2004 elections? Possibly, but the EVIDENCE WASN'T RELEASED to the general public in time to influence the elections.

Wait, you're saying the government, which would have seen a major changing of senior officials if these things had effected the elections, stood to retain their jobs and thus profit from not releasing information, did exactly as we'd expect greedy people to do?!

SHOCKING!

Again, you do realize that he's still right, correct? And that it apparently didn't upset so many people as to be a landslide election?

[Darth Wong]

I love the way Sidewinder assumes that Kerry's accusations were completely groundless just because he didn't provide proper documentation (as if politicians actually provide proper sources for every claim they make in campaign or political speeches, when we know that they actually never do). Does it occur to this twit that Kerry was actually in Vietnam, unlike any of us, and he probably had pretty good reason to say what he said?

[Surlethe]

You could put it more strongly than that: Kerry was testifying in the capacity of an expert witness.

I also love the commentary on the quoted reactions of the veterans and their relatives to Kerry's testimony: they acted as though he was saying that every single Vietnam vet was a war criminal. It really speaks loads about their intelligence.

[Big Phil]

Are you unable to offer specific examples of rapprochement or bribery working successfully, is that why you keep speaking in vague generalities?

If you had any knowledge of history, mentioning China should have been a dead-ringer. But you're a moron, so it goes without saying you would not pick up on references like only Nixon could go to China. Or our original rapproachment against Iraq as a counterweight to Iran (we didn't like them for running around with the Soviets and terrorism before the Iran-Iraq War either).

So all of your examples are of the United States and someone else engaging in rapprochement. That's some interesting evidence when your argument was that everyone else uses rapprochement and the US does not.

So you've accused me of moving goalposts; what goalposts?

We started out talking about GWB's idiotic war policy and now you're whining about me hoping to get some style points.

No, I asked you to provide examples of countries who have successfully used rapprochement or bribery.

And being a right-winger? Really? I know you're an idiot, but considering my posting history, being accused of being a right-winger is something else.

Anyone who creates a false dilemma where invasion of Iraq was the only alternative response to them doing things we don't like other than "just let them," it apologizing for the neo-cons and is a right-winger.

Where did I do that? Be specific - use quotes.

And black/white fallacy? I didn't suggest invasion was the only alternative; I simply asked when rapprochement/bribery had worked without the threat of military force.

Which is retarded, as Mike pointed out. We didn't need Nixon and Kissinger to play China into our field by reminding them "if you don't, we'll nuke you." Furthermore, the U.S. is such a bellicose, militaristic, interventionist country, how could Saddam, ruler of a state we'd kept in a vice and bombed constantly for years, whose army had been destroyed by ours, forget we could always use the military against him if we felt we had to?

And as I pointed out, using Sino-American relations as an example of OTHER (non-US countries) utilizing rapprochement doesn't support your argument.

[Thanas]

No, I asked you to provide examples of countries who have successfully used rapprochement or bribery.

Netko already provided one - Serbia and the EU.

[Illuminatus Primus]

But you see, that does not further Sanchez the Wanker's axe-grinding. My comment was supposed to be rhetorical, in response to your typical American right-wing bias in favor of foreign policy jingoism; how is it you think any other country avoids being attacked and remains secure and pursues its interests?

[J]

My comment was supposed to be rhetorical, in response to your typical American right-wing bias in favor of foreign policy jingoism; how is it you think any other country avoids being attacked and remains secure and pursues its interests?

Because America does it for them! Everyone else is leeching off America!