|
Post by MorningStar on May 6, 2004 9:58:13 GMT -5
I agree. Kerry is a traitor and deserves to be treated like one, not elected president. His record is in the forefront now because he put it there and the truth is coming out. "Kerry isn't fit to be commander-in-chief" A quote from his superiors. [/color][/quote] Man - where do you get traitor from???
|
|
|
Post by genesda on May 6, 2004 10:04:07 GMT -5
Man - where do you get traitor from??? What do you call it when someone causes the enemy to fight on rather than giving up? Kerry did just that, along with Hanoi Jane with their war protests, and then he berated the military with his accusations of atrocities that he said he himself committed, but was never tried for. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on May 6, 2004 12:54:51 GMT -5
Man - where do you get traitor from??? What do you call it when someone causes the enemy to fight on rather than giving up? Kerry did just that, along with Hanoi Jane with their war protests, and then he berated the military with his accusations of atrocities that he said he himself committed, but was never tried for. [/color][/quote] Kerry was exercising his power of protest, one of the greatest American rights.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on May 6, 2004 17:16:39 GMT -5
Marysia, why don't you ever quote Jesus? His words are much better. [/color][/quote] How about these words from our Lord: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Note, He does not say kill, wound, maim or humiliate.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on May 6, 2004 17:22:56 GMT -5
Man - where do you get traitor from??? What do you call it when someone causes the enemy to fight on rather than giving up?[/color][/quote] This is a false statement. There is absolutely no proof that the peace movement prolonged the war. [/color][/quote] And you still have no clue what constitutes traitorous acts under the US law.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on May 6, 2004 17:27:13 GMT -5
Why not change your mind? He was younger than and has probably learned a bit and grew up a little since. Where's the evidence of a change? He is still an antiwar protestor regardless of what he says. His voting record is what's in his heart, not his empty words. [/color][/quote] Was he anti-war protestor or an activist for peace? What was the ultimate goal of those who protested against a war that even Robert McNamara later admitted was un-winnable. You should take the following words to heart: Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on May 7, 2004 6:50:23 GMT -5
Kerry was exercising his power of protest, one of the greatest American rights. Even if it meant prolonging the war which caused more american soldiers to die, right?
He was giving "aid and comfort to the enemy". that's what defines a traitor. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on May 7, 2004 6:52:25 GMT -5
How about these words from our Lord: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Note, He does not say kill, wound, maim or humiliate. Why don't you set the example. Go to Iraq and bring flowers and candy to the taliban holdovers and the terrorists and see how much "love" you get in return. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on May 7, 2004 6:56:25 GMT -5
This is a false statement. There is absolutely no proof that the peace movement prolonged the war. There was no way the NVA could defeat the american army on the battlefield. They only had politics to depend on. Kerry was on the news. The war protestors were on the news. All N. Vietnam had to do was wait. They saw the politics working in their favor thanks to those like Kerry, Hanoi Jane and her communist husband. [/color] And you still have no clue what constitutes traitorous acts under the US law. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is not what defines a traitor? [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on May 7, 2004 7:02:37 GMT -5
Was he anti-war protestor or an activist for peace? Put whatever label on him you wish. He helped the NVA hang on and that caused more american deaths than would have occured. [/color] What was the ultimate goal of those who protested against a war that even Robert McNamara later admitted was un-winnable. Un-winable? By Democratic standards, that would be right. Democrats don't understood the correct use of military power. [/color] You should take the following words to heart: Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Sometimes "just" violence is the only way to peace. Without victory, there can be no peace. Just look at Israel. They will never have peace there until Israel wins it on the battlefield. Police actions only prolong the inevitable. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on May 7, 2004 7:55:24 GMT -5
Even if it meant prolonging the war which caused more american soldiers to die, right?
He was giving "aid and comfort to the enemy". that's what defines a traitor. [/color][/quote] While you see it as prolonging the war, others believe the peace movement helped end the war. Either way, it was his right as an American citizen. And you need to check your definition of traitor. By your definition, the Red Cross could be considered traitors. WordNet Dictionary [n] a person who says one thing and does another [n] someone who betrays his country by committing treason Webster's 1913 Dictionary One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on May 7, 2004 10:04:10 GMT -5
While you see it as prolonging the war, others believe the peace movement helped end the war. Either way, it was his right as an American citizen. It's funny that the average soldier in the field dodging bullets don't agree with you. [/color] And you need to check your definition of traitor. By your definition, the Red Cross could be considered traitors. WordNet Dictionary [n] a person who says one thing and does another [n] someone who betrays his country by committing treason Webster's 1913 Dictionary One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country. I believe some of the above can apply to Kerry. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on May 7, 2004 14:26:05 GMT -5
Kerry was exercising his power of protest, one of the greatest American rights. Even if it meant prolonging the war which caused more american soldiers to die, right?
He was giving "aid and comfort to the enemy". that's what defines a traitor. [/color][/quote] This is absolutely false. The protests had nothing to due with prolonging the war. And there is no historical record that would indicate otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on May 7, 2004 14:27:15 GMT -5
How about these words from our Lord: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Note, He does not say kill, wound, maim or humiliate. Why don't you set the example. Go to Iraq and bring flowers and candy to the taliban holdovers and the terrorists and see how much "love" you get in return. [/color][/quote] As I've said, I've done my time. Better yet, what would Jesus do?
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on May 7, 2004 14:29:33 GMT -5
This is a false statement. There is absolutely no proof that the peace movement prolonged the war. There was no way the NVA could defeat the american army on the battlefield. They only had politics to depend on. Kerry was on the news. The war protestors were on the news. All N. Vietnam had to do was wait. They saw the politics working in their favor thanks to those like Kerry, Hanoi Jane and her communist husband. [/color][/quote] Absolutely incorrect and just some revisionist history on your part. [/color][/quote] Not in the context you are presenting.
|
|