[Rictor]

Oh almost forgter about your 20,000 troops comment. Over here, what with having only basic cable, only bits and pieces of the convention were broadcast. I only saw a few minutes, during which time Kerry, in perfect photo-op, political image conscious style said "Reporting for duty". I then got pissed off/sick and changed channels.

Did he really say that the 40k addition troops would bot be going to Iraq? Becuase he mentioned many times before that he would bolster the Iraq contigent by just that amount. We'll see, though I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw India. (to borrow someone's phrase, I don't remember who's). Boosting the military in general by 40k is not an admirable goal to me, even if they're not going to Iraq. More troops means more invasions/occupations/military bases in foreign nations.

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Kerry actually voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war if the proper rationale were provided. Naive? Yes. But it's not the same thing as voting to go to war.

Look, every 13 year old could see that Bush was gearing for war. Giving him the authority to do so is voting for the war. Thats like giving Hitler the authority to invade Poland. I'm not ready to believe that John Kerry, or anyone else for that matter, was not really wise to the fact that Bush would jump at the frst opportunity to invade, since he was basically pushing for it for several months. Giving Dubya the authority amounts to an endorsement of invasion.

[Ford Prefect]

Yeah, yeah, it was a stupid move and I don't condone it.

Boosting the military in general by 40k is not an admirable goal to me, even if they're not going to Iraq. More troops means more invasions/occupations/military bases in foreign nations.

Agreed, but it does still make a difference that he's not sending them to Iraq. And yes, he did say that very directly during his speech.

[Bobboau]

what if more troops means we get done doing what ever it is that we're doing over there?
would you suport that?
assumeing that leaveing before we're done is not an option.

[Ford Prefect]

what if more troops means we get done doing what ever it is that we're doing over there?
would you suport that?

Yes I would, but I'm convinced that's not the case.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Bobboau
what if more troops means we get done doing what ever it is that we're doing over there?
would you suport that?
assumeing that leaveing before we're done is not an option.

under those circumstances, yes

But you should realize that as long as US troops are on Iraqi soil, there will be an insurgency to fight them. No one has any intention of leaving. Tne troops are there for a while, as are the bases. They fought this hard to gain a military base of operation in the Middle-East (I mean a better one than exisiting bases ala Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) and they're not going to give them up. There is no goal to accomplish and after that, oh well, we're done, lets leave.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
That would be rather odd, as Kerry is a Catholic, and Catholicism and Freemasonry have been at odds for centuries. That's the entire reason for the Knights of Columbus. Also, the origin is highly debated. As you can read in the Wiki, these are all suggested origins:

Aye, but the ban on excommunication for joining them has been lifted a long time. Theres nothing to stop catholics from joining freemasonry, I guess it all depends on how catholic you really are, and judging from Kerrys views on various issues hes willing to ignore his beliefs if it gets him votes. Besides he a member of the skull and bones, which is almost certainly a masonic lodge.

As for their origins, they arent really that important in regards to what I was saying, its more their aims that are relevant. The Knights Templar are relevant though and if you read up on them you'll sse why.

Zarax, Masonic lodges have little influence? Whats all that masonic symbolism on the dollar bill doing there then, the pyrimid with the eye, the six-pointed star?