The WhiteBlaze in Wartime

[squirrel bait]

The draft ended in 1973 my one and only time in it. When college deferments were cancelled in 1972 the draft ended the very next year. Alot of people fought long and hard to get the right to have a beer at 18, if you can be trusted to go fight you can be trusted to have a beer. How that got lost in the following years has always troubled me. It all seems so long ago.....

[hacksaw]

.....and on and on and on ad nauseum.

I hereby retire from this site.

Hacksaw

[bunbun]

I could file over seven hundred fifty civil suits and start no less than one hundred criminal investigations based on information contained herein, and that's only the "sure things".

BTW, the staffer is using this thread for a Masters thesis.(With permission of the webmaster, requested under separate cover)

She spent over THREE HUNDRED HOURS in her research for which I paid her salary.

Surely you have better things to do with your time.

Hacksaw - What's new? Some years ago on Trailplace the cell phone argument drew something like 5000 posts a month for several months. After the last election at-l drew up to 4000 posts per month for what seemed like forever.

Anyway - re: your staffers numbers -I have a question - has she broken her numbers down by individual poster? I've been trying real hard to avoid personal attacks, libel, general nastiness, etc but I'm not sure how well I'm doin' here. I do know it's been better than I used to be - but ............... I'd like to find out just how "bad" I've been, so I can work on improving some more.

Oh - yeah - I do have better things to do - which is why it sometimes takes me a couple days to respond to this crap.

[sloetoe]

... How many times did Saddam use proscribed weapons against not only the Iranians, but his own people?

Answer: "Never."

You knowwwwww, like others recently, I'm really just a spectator in the destructive silliness that is this thread, but in bopping through the crap, I saw this sentence jump out at me like it was in bold.

C'mon, Jim. That was no miscue from your keyboard. You deliberately wrote, AS PUTATIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR ILLEGAL INVASION, that Saddam Hussien used SCUDS and poison gas AFTER the proscription passed down via the Gulf War surrender. Just to set the tilted record back straight again, the use of weapons PRECEEDED the proscription by a decade, at which time, and just to rub it in, our CURRENT SITTING VICE PRESIDENT was cutting deals with Bagdad (in person -- woo-hoo!) to funnel "lawyers, guns, and money"* (oh, and missle technology) to anyone fighting those bad bad bad Iranians (those folx who were PREVIOUSLY our friends-for-life).

... How many times did Saddam use proscribed weapons against not only the Iranians, but his own people?

Answer: "Never."
The use of such weapons occured AFTER the US stepped in to arm Saddam Hussien's Iraq for profit (and revenge against the Iranians), and occured BEFORE the Gulf War surrender that occured YEARS later.

Phew. I'm getting out of this privy-pit.

[Blue Jay]

.....and on and on and on ad nauseum.

I hereby retire from this site.

Hacksaw

Oh the drama, oh the pathos. We're so sorry we wounded you, our Hamlet.

[bunbun]

Bun Bun. We are talking about libel and whether this discussion has libeled a president seeking reelection. Remember, Bun Bun. It's a question you raised.

I deleted your personal attack stuff - so ---- the definition of libel - "Libel - is a published or broadcast false and defamatory statement which damages the reputation of an individual." Or, from another souce " a written, printed or pictorial statement that defames ones character or reputation or exposes one to public ridicule."

And I believe that's specifically what your words were intended to do - don't you? Now - there are situations in which either custom or common law prohibits legal action - but that does NOT make those statements any less libelous. Nor does it make those statements more honest, ethical, reasonable - or true.

Uh - let's get the "process" straight for this stuff - first, you get the evidence (like NON-FORGED documents) - THEN, you hang the bastard. It's kinda like the old Viking joke - "rape and pillage FIRST - THEN burn." Ya gotta get the sequence right - otherwise it's a Ratherism and leads to great consternatioin and constipation.

Well. the mortality rate of military police who ended up going to Korea approached 50%.

It's not "mortality rate" you're talking about - that would be "casualty rate." There is a difference. And if memory serves - some of the MP units did well, but others were among the first to do the bugout-boogie. But that has nothing to do with you cause you weren't there. Be happy you weren't Infantry - as I recall, some of those units caught 150-200% casualties in the few first months.

Answer the question Bun Bun, you who are so fond of demanding answers from everyone else.

The inspectors had been allowed back into Iraq. They left after Bush said he was about to bomb hell out of the country. Yet three months later Bush claimed he went to war because Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors in!

Nitpickin', are we? The inspectors were in the country and accomplishing nothing - or don't you remember that? Saddam let them in - but not IN. Hey - if Clinton can do the "what's the definition of is" and you have no problem with it, how come you have different standards for others?

Never mind - I know the answer to the "double standard" question. So - if Bush misspoke, you think that's cause to impeach him? Really? Then maybe you'd better pay attention to what Kerry's doing out there cause his "misspeaking" is causing a lot of nightmares for his own advisors. His speech yesterday was a bloody disaster for anyone who was actually paying attention.

Bush, as you may remember if you were paying attention, Bun Bun, took us into war with the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and because of alleged Iraqian ties to terrorists. Three months later after no weapons had been found and the ties to terrorism were found to be nebulous at best, he claimed it was because Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors in.

How many times do you want to go through this idiotic argument?
1/ Saddam used WMD's 3 times - once on the Iranians and twice on his own people. Did he have WMD's - and the capability for manufacturing them? Any denial of his ability to do so is nothing but willful ignorance - and that's my personal definiton for stupidity.
2/ The intelligence agencies of over 100 countries stated categorically that he DID possess WMD's and those countries closest to Iraq believed he had the ability and the willingness to use them.
3/ In the last couple days, Powell stated that while WMD's were not found, Saddam retained the capability and the intent to manufacture such things - and he was only waiting until the sanctions were lifted to start production. You should read the Washington Post sometime.
4/ The 9/11 Commission report stated that Saddam was not directly connected to the 9/11 attacks on the US. The same report made it very clear that Saddam DID have ties to various international terrorist organizations. Abu Nidal died in Baghdad a couple years ago - do you think his presence was unknown to Saddam? Ansar al Islam had their main base in northeastern Iraq - maybe you think that was an accident? Abu Musab Zarqawi is still in Baghdad decapitating people - or didn't you know that he was given asylum and support by Saddam? Nebulous ties? I don't think so.

Bun Bun, you who take great pleasure in calling Kerry a liar because he has refined his views of the Vietnam War after 30 years of reflection, can't bring yourself to even discuss Bush's incredible distortions and contradictions.

Oh Bob - you REALLY should pay attention to what Kerry says - his speech yesterday was almost the exact same speech he gave 30 years ago. He hasn't changed at all. "Refined his view"? Go peddle that to someone who'll believe it.

Since you are fond of recommending books for us to read, let me make a recommendation. Read "The President of Good and Evil, The ethics of George W. Bush" by Peter Singer. Published by Dutton. I'm still reading my copy, but so far it is by far the best analysis of the Bush presidency and the truth behind the President's noble rhetoric that I've seen.

Next time I go to the library I'll look for it.

[bunbun]

Answer: "Never."

You knowwwwww, like others recently, I'm really just a spectator in the destructive silliness that is this thread, but in bopping through the crap, I saw this sentence jump out at me like it was in bold.

Toey - Those "weapons" have been proscribed since World War ONE. It was NOT a miscue on my part - nor was it at all false. For reference, try the Geneva Accords.

[bunbun]

Even if every last thing you (Bunbun) have said in this thread is true I would still vote for Kerry or almost anyone else on the planet for several reasons.

Yeah - I know. Weary and Sloetoe will be there with you.

[sloetoe]

Toey - Those "weapons" have been proscribed since World War ONE. It was NOT a miscue on my part - nor was it at all false. For reference, try the Geneva Accords.

Geneva. You mean the things the USofA refused to be a part of for most of the last century? Ahhhhh. "Geneva." Those inconvenient little thoughts suspended by Rumsfeld,Ashcroft,&Bush incorporated, despite the F-ing NASTY implications for our troops who might similarly become guests or "detainees" of some other self-rightious gommint. Yeah. "Ass-Grab" Prison, here we come.

Ohhh, but you say (now) that the weapons (gas agents) had been proscribed "since WWI" -- yet all of your references in this thread were to recent events, and the weapons proscribed post-Gulf War. Owwww, forgive my mistake of taking your statements in their own context. You see, I get captured by nasty little facts like, as I mentioned first off, we the USofA KNOWINGLY armed the sucker to begin with (thanx to people like dick changey), and then blocked out noise agi'n him til he went off the reservation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...784314,00.html

Dang, Jim, get a clue.
(Yeah, right.)

Alright, enough toxins for me.
Y'all have a day.

[sloetoe]

Yeah - I know. Weary and Sloetoe will be there with you.

What? We have a clue?

donthitsenddonthitsenddonthitDOTE!

[smokymtnsteve]

Oh the drama, oh the pathos. We're so sorry we wounded you, our Hamlet.

I;ll miss HACKSAW, I know him, but the fact of the matter is if you don't want to read and be a part of this thread...we'll lets just say I'm RO_CHOICE..you have the choice to read this thread or not...

FREEDOM...CHOICE,,it's an AMERICAN THANG.

ANTI-CHOICE is ANTI-AMERICAN !!!!

[weary]

I deleted your personal attack stuff - so ---- the definition of libel - "Libel - is a published or broadcast false and defamatory statement which damages the reputation of an individual." Or, from another souce " a written, printed or pictorial statement that defames ones character or reputation or exposes one to public ridicule." And I believe that's specifically what your words were intended to do - don't you? Now - there are situations in which either custom or common law prohibits legal action - but that does NOT make those statements any less libelous. Nor does it make those statements more honest, ethical, reasonable - or true.

No Bun Bun. We are talking about Freedom of Speech, which is a part of the American Constitution. Those of us who know history and Constitutional Law 101, know that there is virtually no such thing as libel against an elected official. Why? Because both common sense and our earliest and most consistent court decisions decreed that the right of politicians to defend against libel has to be balanced against the right of citizens to debate the background and beliefs of those seeking public office.

Name just one elected official who has ever collected a dime for libel and I'll revisit this argument. Until then I'll conclude as I did several posts ago that you have no understanding of libel and should therefore stop pretending that you do.

Uh - let's get the "process" straight for this stuff - first, you get the evidence (like NON-FORGED documents) - THEN, you hang the bastard. It's kinda like the old Viking joke - "rape and pillage FIRST - THEN burn." Ya gotta get the sequence right - otherwise it's a Ratherism and leads to great consternatioin and constipation.

No, Bun Bun. You look at the totality of the evidence over many years. And ignore forged documents from a self-confessed sick man that have no bearing one way or the other on the total evidence. Though if you are a cynic like me, you suspect that Bush may have had a hand in pretending that the forged documents were real in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of real documents

It's not "mortality rate" you're talking about - that would be "casualty rate." There is a difference. And if memory serves - some of the MP units did well, but others were among the first to do the bugout-boogie. But that has nothing to do with you cause you weren't there. Be happy you weren't Infantry - as I recall, some of those units caught 150-200% casualties in the few first months.

I'm not going to debate relative casualty rates. All I know is that when I was assigned to MP duties at Fort Devens scores of Master Sargeants came back from Korea knowing nothing about police work. On many patrols I was partnered with people who outranked me by many grades. The roster always said, Private E-2 Cummings in charge. I was told these were all battlefield promotions, given to people who volunteered or had been assigned the most dangerous MP duties.

BTW, being a curious type I researched the regs and discovered that Private e-2s were required to be discharged had they not achieved e-3 status after a year or 14 months. Everyone promptly got promoted, except that nuicance Cummings.

I didn't press the matter, because I still hoped to go overseas. I almost made it. Had I succeeded, Bun Bun, there's a good chance you wouldn't have had weary to push around.

Nitpickin', are we? The inspectors were in the country and accomplishing nothing - or don't you remember that?

Well they didn't find weapons of mass destruction, nor have we after winning the war and then managing to be losing control under Bush and his team of incompetents.

... So - if Bush misspoke, you think that's cause to impeach him?

No. But it is enough to scare the hell out of me. A President -- three months after the fact, who can't remember why he took us into a war that killed more than a thousand Americans, injured many, many thousands, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and increased 100 fold the numbers of those willing to die to kill Americans.

Weary