JFK: troops are dumb

Faos · Nov 2, 2006

SamFisher said:

In keeping in the spirit of the kind of stupidity that you and your friends are succesfully lowering this dialogue too -- I am forced to conclude that Foas thinks that blacks and hispanics should serve as meat shields on the front lines because they are stupid poor minorities whose lives have no value.

Congratulations Faos, mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

And I'm forced to say you are a jerk for saying that. You know damn well that is not what I am implying. Now I understand why Kerry is such a hero to you and others elitists who think just like you.

El_Conquistador · Nov 2, 2006

SamFisher said:

The tens of thousands who are dead because he wasn't smart enough to figure out that running iraq wasn't going to be a cakewalk would beg to differ.
Click to expand...

By "he" do you mean John Forbes Kerry, who voted for, and openly campaigned for the use of force (even unilateral force) in Iraq?

OOPS

Guess 'ol John forgot about that one. Or more likely flip-flopped. At least the Republicans have tried to win the War on Terror. The libs have done nothing but try to ensure America's defeat. It's been their strategy for 35 years, and remains the reason they have zero cred when it comes to military policy. The fact that John Forbes Kerry and so many members of LibQaeda are trying to use Iraq as a political weapon, after voting for the war, is absurd.

vlaurelio · Nov 2, 2006

Trader_Jorge said:

By "he" do you mean John Forbes Kerry, who voted for, and openly campaigned for the use of force (even unilateral force) in Iraq?
Click to expand...

so you agree that tens of thousands are dead because someone wasn't smart enough to figure out that running iraq wasn't going to be a cakewalk?

SamFisher · Nov 2, 2006

Faos said:

And I'm forced to say you are a jerk for saying that. You know damn well that is not what I am implying. Now I understand why Kerry is such a hero to you and others elitists who think just like you.
Click to expand...

FOAS -since you oppose Kerry's position that it is not right for poor blacks and hispanics to be sent to die on the front lines in disproportionate numbers due to socioeconomic status. - the only possible position for you to be taking is that you feel poor blacks and hispanics SHOULD be sent to die on the front lines in disproportionate numbers by virtue of their socioeconomic status.

If that is not your position, then explain why you differ with this sentiment.

Don't just post some stupid quote without realizing what it means. You're the one to blame here, just because you didn't realize this and others did doesn't make them elitist, it just makes you look bad.

SamFisher · Nov 2, 2006

Trader_Jorge said:

At least the Republicans have tried to win the War on Terror.
Click to expand...

"at least we tried"....

Thanks for admitting that they have FAILED.

El_Conquistador · Nov 2, 2006

Obviously, Sham, I admitted no such thing, but I do admire you for STANDING DOWN on your argument, after being left with no arrows in your quiver except the very blunt, dull semantics arrow. I accept your unconditional surrender.

halfbreed · Nov 2, 2006

Trader_Jorge said:

Obviously, Sham,
Click to expand...

SamFisher said:

FOAS
Click to expand...

Misspelling names on purpose is very A&M-esque.

However, using this simple demonstration, we can see that T_J and SamFisher have something in common!

halfbreed = uniter

SamFisher · Nov 2, 2006

halfbreed said:

Misspelling names on purpose is very A&M-esque.

However, using this simple demonstration, we can see that T_J and SamFisher have something in common!

halfbreed = uniter

Click to expand...

LOL, In Foas' case there is some history regarding misspelling

StupidMoniker · Nov 2, 2006

SamFisher said:

FOAS -since you oppose Kerry's position that it is not right for poor blacks and hispanics to be sent to die on the front lines in disproportionate numbers due to socioeconomic status. - the only possible position for you to be taking is that you feel poor blacks and hispanics SHOULD be sent to die on the front lines in disproportionate numbers by virtue of their socioeconomic status.

If that is not your position, then explain why you differ with this sentiment.

Don't just post some stupid quote without realizing what it means. You're the one to blame here, just because you didn't realize this and others did doesn't make them elitist, it just makes you look bad.
Click to expand...

This was originally posted by MadMax almost four years ago, in response to a similar argument that a draft would make the demographics of the military more representative of the population:

MadMax said:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030114-27407742.htm

Defense disputes racial imparity
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Pentagon yesterday disputed assertions by two congressmen who seek a reinstatement of the draft that blacks are assigned to disproportionate numbers of combat positions.

"Blacks tend to be concentrated in administrative and support jobs, not in combat jobs," the Pentagon report says. "This is in sharp contrast to the situation in a draft force."
The 11-page report says blacks make up 21 percent of the enlisted force, but only 15 percent of infantry, armored and artillery units. Blacks are about 12 percent of the overall population.
The report was made public in response to calls last week for reinstituting the draft by lawmakers who claimed that military burdens fell unfairly to minorities and the underprivileged.
In support and administrative jobs, blacks account for 36 percent of all U.S. military personnel, and 27 percent of all medical and dental personnel in the armed forces.
The report was produced by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to highlight the benefits of the all-volunteer force, which proponents said had resulted in the most professional military in American history.
"Contrary to myth, data show that the enlisted force is quite representative of the civilian population," the report said, noting the benefits since the draft ended in 1973.
The report stated that casualties in the 1991 Persian Gulf war were consistent with racial representation in combat and noncombat jobs.
Blacks made up 23 percent of the 550,000 U.S. troops deployed to the Gulf and accounted for 17 percent of the combat and noncombat deaths.
Whites made up 71 percent of U.S. forces during the Gulf war and accounted for 76 percent of the deaths. Hispanics made up 4 percent of the forces and took 4 percent of the deaths in the conflict.
Two black Democrats, Reps. Charles B. Rangel of New York and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, introduced legislation last week to reinstate the draft, claiming that minorities and poor people were disproportionately represented in the nation's military, while affluent families were underrepresented.
"For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance," Mr. Rangel said.
Mr. Rangel opposes the Bush administration's push for a war to disarm Iraq and wants Congress to pass a draft law to create what he regards as a more-representative military force.
The Defense Department report said today's professional military is not manned mostly by poor and uneducated troops.
"Today, black recruits closely parallel their representation among the youth population," the report said. "As with all [volunteer force] recruits, these young men and women are high school graduates with above-average aptitude; they are not the 'poor and uneducated.'"
The report said that 32 percent of recruits come from homes where the father is a high school graduate, compared with 31 percent of the general population in the same age group.
Also, 21 percent of the recruits have fathers who have at least a college education, compared with 30 percent of the general population for the same age group.
The report praised the benefits of an all-volunteer military force over a conscripted force.
"The all-volunteer force has served the nation for more than a quarter-century, providing a military that is experienced, smart, disciplined and representative of America," the report said.
The volunteer force lets the military build more advanced weapons because the service members are smarter and better-trained. Draftees quit the service early, requiring larger numbers and more training.
"With a conscripted force comes higher personnel turnover, which results in substantial costs," the report said. "Shorter enlistment terms, characteristic of a draft, result in high personnel turnover and a degradation in unit stability and performance."
Training costs are higher with a draftee military, thus reducing warfighting preparedness, the report said.
"With a volunteer military comes a more motivated force," the report said. "Data show that people perform better if they are true volunteers than if they are coerced into military service."
Many of today's military leaders are veterans of the Vietnam War and oppose the draft because of problems with draftees during the conflict.
A senior defense official who briefed reporters said the military leadership was "horrified" by congressional proposals to reinstate the draft.
"No one wants to go back to a situation where the people didn't want to serve; in fact, might have been hostile to the purposes to which they were put," the official said.
Click to expand...

According to the article, whites are actually overrepresented, especially in combat duties, blacks are slightly overrepresented, and hispanics are heavily underrepresented. The contention that an all volunteer army leads to blacks and browns being sent to die on the front line is a race-baiting lie.

SamFisher · Nov 2, 2006

StupidMoniker said:

This was originally posted by MadMax almost four years ago, in response to a similar argument that a draft would make the demographics of the military more representative of the population:

According to the article, whites are actually overrepresented, especially in combat duties, blacks are slightly overrepresented, and hispanics are heavily underrepresented. The contention that an all volunteer army leads to blacks and browns being sent to die on the front line is a race-baiting lie.
Click to expand...

Wait....wait....wait, are you saying that Kerry back in the 1970's was actually trying to discuss policy rather than insult the troops?

I thought this example was being cited as a history of elitist serial troop insulting by Kerry by FOAS.

FOAS would you respond?

Were you intending to discuss the ethnic and socioeconomic background of an all volunteer military vs. a partially conscripted military, or was this an attack on Kerry?

thegary · Nov 2, 2006

Faos said:

...you and others elitists...
Click to expand...

you know what's funny? elitism is baaaaad. it's soooooo much better to be just one of the sheep. baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

GladiatoRowdy · Nov 2, 2006

Trader_Jorge said:

zero cred ... absurd.
Click to expand...

Perfect adjectives to describe t_j.

FranchiseBlade · Nov 2, 2006

Trader_Jorge said:

By "he" do you mean John Forbes Kerry, who voted for, and openly campaigned for the use of force (even unilateral force) in Iraq?

OOPS

Guess 'ol John forgot about that one. Or more likely flip-flopped. At least the Republicans have tried to win the War on Terror. The libs have done nothing but try to ensure America's defeat. It's been their strategy for 35 years, and remains the reason they have zero cred when it comes to military policy. The fact that John Forbes Kerry and so many members of LibQaeda are trying to use Iraq as a political weapon, after voting for the war, is absurd.
Click to expand...

If only you knew what you were talking about you might have a point. But the facts and actual context of Kerry's statements show that he did not campaign for any of what you suggest.

NEWS ANALYSIS
Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts
Kerry always pushed global cooperation, war as last resort
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Thursday, September 23, 2004

Printable Version
Email This Article
Politics
National
Fallout from 'botched joke' (11/02)
Nevius: Politicians mouthing off (11/02)
State
Support wanes for oil tax measure (11/02)
Businessman weighs stances on taxes, loans (11/02)
Bay Area
Clinton stumps for candidates at Warfield (11/02)
Eminent domain rarely invoked (11/02)
Results in S.F. supes' races might lag (11/02)
More Stories
Politics Page

(09-23) 04:00 PST Washington -- No argument is more central to the Republican attack on Sen. John Kerry than the assertion that the Democrat has flip-flopped on Iraq.

President Bush, seated beside Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, said Tuesday: "My opponent has taken so many different positions on Iraq that his statements are hardly credible at all.''

The allegation is the basis of a new Bush campaign TV ad that shows the Democratic senator from Massachusetts windsurfing to the strains of a Strauss waltz as a narrator intones: "Kerry voted for the Iraq war, opposed it, supported it and now opposes it again.''

Yet an examination of Kerry's words in more than 200 speeches and statements, comments during candidate forums and answers to reporters' questions does not support the accusation.

As foreign policy emerged as a dominant issue in the Democratic primaries and later in the general election, Kerry clung to a nuanced, middle-of-the road -- yet largely consistent -- approach to Iraq. Over and over, Kerry enthusiastically supported a confrontation with Saddam Hussein even as he aggressively criticized Bush for the manner in which he did so.

Kerry repeatedly described Hussein as a dangerous menace who must be disarmed or eliminated, demanded that the U.S. build broad international support for any action in Iraq and insisted that the nation had better plan for the post-war peace.

There were times when Kerry's emphasis shifted for what appear to be political reasons. In the fall of 2003, for example, when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean surged to the top of Democratic polls based on an anti-war platform, Kerry's criticism of the president grew stronger. There are many instances in which clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations make Kerry difficult to follow. And there are periods, such as last week, when the sharpness of Kerry's words restating old positions seem to suggest a change.

Yet taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago.

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Hussein) by force, if we ever exhaust ... other options,'' Kerry said 23 months ago on the Senate floor before voting to authorize the force, imploring Bush to take the matter to the United Nations.

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community," Kerry said, insisting that Bush work with the United Nations. "If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out,'' Kerry said.

Republicans have hit the flip-flop charge hard. The Republican National Committee produced an 11-minute video, widely distributed on the Internet, which features dozens of seemingly inconsistent Kerry statements and the soundtrack to the 1960s television show "Flipper.'' Bush supporters distributed Kerry flip-flop sandals to delegates at the GOP convention last month, the Bush campaign produced a Kerry flip-flop game for its Web site, and the president brings it up almost every day on the campaign trail.

The crux of the flip-flopping charge is based on pitting Kerry's pointed criticism of the war against his October 2002 vote to authorize the use of force, a vote the Democratic senator defends to this day.

Republicans are not the only ones who characterize the vote as an endorsement of war. Many Democrats, including Dean, warned that a vote in favor of the resolution would be tantamount to giving Bush a blank check to go to war. Even today, many Democrats are aghast at Kerry's insistence that, knowing everything he knows now, he would cast the same vote.

Kerry, who was one of 29 Democratic senators to support the resolution, said the vote was appropriate to strengthen the president's hand in negotiations, and he draws a distinction between his vote and an endorsement of the March 2003 attack.

"Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq,'' Kerry said on the eve of the vote. "Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal.''

Republicans ridicule such distinctions and use Kerry's vote as the basis for their assertion that Kerry once favored the war.

"He voted for it,'' said Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie when asked Wednesday to back the charge that Kerry supported the war. "Look at the coverage at the time, it was pretty clear what was going on.''

Yet in the fall of 2002, several months before the air strikes on Baghdad began, Bush himself insisted the vote was not the same as a declaration of war but instead gave him the hand he needed to negotiate the peace.

"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,'' Bush said in September 2002. "It's a chance for Congress to say, 'we support the administration's ability to keep the peace.' That's what this is all about.''

The Bush campaign frequently cites Kerry's seemingly incongruous statement at a West Virginia rally in March as another example of his inconsistency.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,'' Kerry said regarding the Bush administration's request for more funding for the Iraq operation.

The line has been used in Bush campaign commercials, and the campaign distributed a memo Tuesday suggesting the vote raises doubts about Kerry's commitment to U.S. troops.

The White House is aware that the statement does not reflect a contradiction but an inelegant way of defending a pair of Senate votes. Kerry voted for a measure that paid for the $87 billion by reducing tax cuts for those who earn more than $300,000. He voted against a measure that paid for the $87 billion by adding to the deficit.

The biggest shifts in Kerry's language seem to appear at the high-water marks of the war -- shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 and after the capture of Hussein the following December -- when he seems less critical of the Bush policy.

Two days after Bush stood before the "Mission Accomplished'' sign and declared major combat over, Kerry participated in a forum with rival Democratic presidential candidates.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates if the war was the right decision at the right time.

"I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity,'' Kerry said, "but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I support him and I support the fact that we did disarm him.''

By contrast, Dean in response to the same question called it the "wrong war at the wrong time,'' using language very similar to what Kerry has said recently.

Perhaps the words that Kerry will have the hardest time explaining today are those he uttered three days after Hussein was captured. Dean, who had emerged as Kerry's strongest challenger for the Democratic nomination, said that while Hussein's capture was good news, it had not "made America any safer. ''

Kerry seized on the statement, telling students at Drake University, "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.''

Kerry's enthusiastic words seem to conflict with his statement Monday at New York University.

"Saddam Husein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But ... the satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure, '' Kerry said.

For a candidate who has been in elected office nearly a quarter of a century, Kerry has at times shown a remarkable inability to explain the nuances of his position.

Asked by radio host Don Imus last week to explain how he could be so critical of the war yet stand by his vote to authorize the use of force, Kerry responded with a 324-word answer, including a discussion of no-fly zones and Iraqi tribal separatism.

The response left Imus -- a self-described Kerry supporter -- perplexed.

"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox,'' Imus told listeners when the interview was over. "This is my candidate, and ... I don't know what he's talking about.''

Editor's note
An examination of President Bush's stance on the war in Iraq will be published next week.

Kerry on Iraq
Oct. 9, 2002

Senate floor speech on Iraq resolution:

"In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -- to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.''

Sept. 9, 2003

Speech announcing presidential campaign, Patriot's Point, S.C.:

"I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. I believe that was right -- but it was wrong to rush to war without building a true international coalition -- and with no plan to win the peace.''

March 18, 2003

Statement on the eve of the attack on Baghdad:

"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. ... Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. ... My strong personal preference would have been for the administration ... to have given diplomacy more time.''

Dec. 3, 2003

Speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City:

"Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history.''

Sept. 20, 2004

New York University:

"President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq?''
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/MNGQK8TI8O1.DTL
Click to expand...

mc mark · Nov 2, 2006

Blade quit confusing TJ with facts!

It is obvious that TJ has nothing left. Hence the desperate attempt to keep this strawman alive and kicking.

Tell me Jorge. Any thoughts on BOEHNER's insult of the troops that the mess in Iraq is their fault?

rimbaud · Nov 2, 2006

thegary said:

you know what's funny? elitism is baaaaad. it's soooooo much better to be just one of the sheep. baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends. Being elitist with regards to money is good. Being elitist with regards to intelligence is bad.

Bush is a regular guy despite the fact that his father didn't know what a grocery scanner was, he went to super rich boarding school in the NE, elite universities, and never had a real job (until, what, 40?) because he has a Texas accent and talks folky and derides intellectualism.

Kerry with a very similar background is bad because he speaks French and makes (stupid) "jokes" about Bush/perhaps others being dumb...oh yeah, he lives in the NE!

What do I know, though, T_J and others have called me elitist and I cried a lot.

El_Conquistador · Nov 2, 2006

FranchiseBlade said:

If only you knew what you were talking about you might have a point. But the facts and actual context of Kerry's statements show that he did not campaign for any of what you suggest.
Click to expand...

You are 100% wrong, which makes you a liberal.

VIEW IT AND WEEP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXwCrpMHkYc

underoverup · Nov 2, 2006

this thread is swaying alot of votes............

SamFisher · Nov 2, 2006

This thread is so dumb that everybody who posts in it should get stuck in Iraq.

FranchiseBlade · Nov 2, 2006

Trader_Jorge said:

You are 100% wrong, which makes you a liberal.

VIEW IT AND WEEP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXwCrpMHkYc
Click to expand...

Sorry but it was explained in the article I posted. First (pretending that you have been serious) you have shown your ignorance by not understanding who the target of kerry's joke was. Then you insulted the troops by showing some soldiers who didn't understand.

Then you posted something about Kerry based on half truth. When the whole truth was presented in the article I posted, it showed that you were wrong again.

Now you come back with this which doesn't change anything.

Not one of your better efforts.

StupidMoniker · Nov 2, 2006

SamFisher said:

Wait....wait....wait, are you saying that Kerry back in the 1970's was actually trying to discuss policy rather than insult the troops?

Were you intending to discuss the ethnic and socioeconomic background of an all volunteer military vs. a partially conscripted military, or was this an attack on Kerry?
Click to expand...

I wasn't contending that Kerry was trying to insult the troops in the '70s or now. I was only adressing the point that the all volunteer military leads to disproportionate fataltiies falling on minorities.

Forums

JFK: troops are dumb

Faos Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

vlaurelio Member

SamFisher Member

SamFisher Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

halfbreed Member

SamFisher Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

SamFisher Member

thegary Member

GladiatoRowdy Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

mc mark Member

rimbaud Member
Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

underoverup Member

SamFisher Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

JFK: troops are dumb

Faos Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

vlaurelio Member

SamFisher Member

SamFisher Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

halfbreed Member

SamFisher Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

SamFisher Member

thegary Member

GladiatoRowdy Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

mc mark Member

rimbaud Member Supporting Member

El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

underoverup Member

SamFisher Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

Share This Page

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

rimbaud Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member