# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Vietnam Re-Visioned

## EyeManFla

What a strange turn of events we are witness to during this years election run.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that what 'W' did was any better than the hoards of draft dodgers who went to Canada, but.....

I have a really big problem  deciding if I want to vote  for Kerry the war hero or Kerry the anti-war activist.

As far as I am concerned, well intentioned or not, anyone that supported Jane Fonda 
forfits their right to sit as leader of this country. Had she not been the daughter of an American Icon, the C.I.A. would have taken her out when she was in North Vietman. At the very least, she would have stood trial as a traitor.

More over, the same crowd that cries that they support the troops are the same crowd that did noting to help our returning Vets in the 60's & 70's. And that includes Kerry and Kennedy.

----------


## Texas Ranger

I was watching a replay of a '71 interview with John Kerry and a USN Lt O'Neil on with dick Cavett, discussing their war experiences.  Kerry came across as pretty rude. Kerry was saying that the country's policy was to deliberately commit war crimes, that he'd seen. O'neil, who was there 3 years said he didn't see the war crimes that Kerry said he saw, and asked if he saw them, why didn't he do anything, like reporting them; his response was that he did do something, he got out of the service and into politics...he seems to be someone with almost no regard for our military...

----------


## keithbenjamin

John Kerry the "war hero", got 3 purple hearts in only 4 months of combat duty for injuries not severe enough to remove him from duty and he refuses to make his medical records regarding his injuries public. He also apparently submitted himself for his purple hearts, and after receiving 3 was able to successfully request a transfer, abandoning his crew before completing his tour of duty.

----------


## EyeManFla

Three Purple Hearts in four months.....hummmmmmm

Your either very brave or you just don't know when to duck!

----------


## Judy Canty

http://www.motherjones.com/news/upda...02/02_400.html


If my memory serves me from a few years ago when my husband was awarded the Navy Air Medal, his input was necessary to the process.  It may have been called an after-action report.  I'll check when he gets home.  

For those of you unfamiliar with US Navy Swift Boats, I suggest a Google search.  There are pages and pages of references and photos to give you an idea of the size of the boat and the conditions under which the officers and crew served.  They were as up close and personal as a Navy vessel could get.

----------


## rbaker

John Kerry was probably one of those who did serve in country to enhance his resume. Not at all uncommon. In any case, he sure was in and out real quick. 

Here is some stuff from his own local Democrat newspaper.

John Kerry's Purple Hearts 
Purple Heart Number One:
The Boston Globe - June 6, 2003 -- Kerry experienced his first intense combat action on Dec. 2, 1968, when he "semi-volunteered for, was semi-drafted" for a risky covert mission in which he essentially was supposed to "flush out" the enemy, using a little Boston Whaler named "Batman." A larger backup craft was called "Robin." 
Unfortunately, Robin had engine trouble, and Batman's exit was delayed until the boats could depart in unison. The Batman crew encountered some Viet Cong, engaged in a firefight, and Kerry was slightly wounded on his arm, earning his first Purple Heart on his first day of serious action.
"It was not a very serious wound at all," recalled William Schachte, who oversaw the mission and went on to become a rear admiral.
Purple Heart Number Two:
The Boston Globe - June 6, 2003 -- On Feb. 20, 1969, Kerry earned his second Purple Heart after sustaining a shrapnel wound in his left thigh. According to a previously unreported Navy report on the battle, a two-boat patrol spotted three men on a riverbank who were wearing black pajamas and running and engaged them in a firefight. While not criticizing this engagement, the Navy report did challenge the decision of unnamed skippers to fire at other "targets of opportunity" in the area. 
"Area seemed extremely prosperous and open to psyops action, minimum number of defensive and no offensive bunkers detected," the report said. The naval official who wrote the report concluded: "Future missions in this area should be oriented toward psyops rather than destruction."
The destruction included 40 sampans, 10 hut-style hootches, three bunkers, and 5,000 pounds of rice. The crews from two swift boats had expended more than 14,000 rounds of.50-caliber ammunition. No enemy casualties were reported.
Purple Heart Number Three
The Boston Globe June 6, 2003 --. . . On March 13, 1969, a mine detonated near Kerry's boat, wounding Kerry in the right arm, according to the citation written by [Navy Admiral Elmo "Bud"] Zumwalt. Guerrillas started firing on the boats from the shoreline. Kerry then realized that he had lost overboard a Green Beret who is identified only as "Rassman."
"The man was receiving sniper fire from both banks," according to Kerry's Bronze Star citation from that day. "Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged craft and towed the boat to safety. Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the US Naval Service," Zumwalt's citation said. 
Home Free:
The Boston Globe June 6, 2003 -- Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. A shrapnel wound in his left arm gave Kerry pain for years. Kerry declined a request from the Globe to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds. 
"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts -- from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said [George] Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."
The Boston Globe - June 6, 2003 -- . . . The National Archives provided the Globe with a Navy "instruction" document that formed the basis for Kerry's request. The instruction, titled 1300.39, says that a Naval officer who requires hospitalization on two separate occasions, or who receives three wounds "regardless of the nature of the wounds," can ask a superior officer to request a reassignment. The instruction makes clear the reassignment is not automatic. It says that the reassignment "will be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis."
Because Kerry's wounds were not considered serious, his reassignment appears to have been made on an individual basis.
Moreover, the instruction makes clear that Kerry could have asked that any reassignment be waived.
The bottom line is that Kerry could have remained but he chose to seek an early transfer . . .

----------


## Judy Canty

http://www.vietnamwar.com/JohnKerrySilverStar.htm

This is a bit wordy, but interesting.  BTW a Swift Boat looks like a 50' Boston Whaler.  I had to look it up.

----------


## EyeManFla

Understand, I am NOT making light of Senator Kerry's war record.  If you served and put yourself in harms way, you are a war hero in my book.

It's what he did after the war that bothers me. You see, all these guys talk a good fight when it come to our veterans and most especially our combat veterans. But when you get right to it, it's all talk.

When a wounded vet comes home, he or she should have good quality medical care for the rest of their lives.  Most  welfare receipants get better health care. Organizations like the DAV and PVA shouldn't even exist.

Service men and women should not have to go to a check cashing store to get a pay advance at 200% interest because military pay can not support their families. If a garbage man in NYC can make $80,000 a year, should not our service men and women and their families be given a decent amount of pay with decent housing and quality medical care.

But instead of fighting for that and making it happen, lets speak out against the war and hang with Jane Fonda and push our own political adgenda.

Unfortunately, the fact that he is a combat vet has many of his brothers and sisters in arms turning a blind eye towards what he HASN'T done for them while he has been in Congress.

----------


## chm2023

Let me get this straight.  If a person goes to war, and based on what they see in that war, they decide to speak out against it, this is a serious character flaw.  If a person ducks their responsibility to save their butt and then speaks out on the merits of that war, this is not a serious character flaw.  Perhaps you need to add some fish to your diets.

I am (as the widow of a decorated military man) offended more than I can say by the implication that somehow because Kerry survived his wounds and they were not terribly serious, his patriotism is suspect.  By this logic, if he had had a leg shot off he would be much more of a patriot, 2 legs better yet.  Putting yourself is harm's way is an act of courage and deserves better than this.  My husband had a name for civilians who talk like this, it's another name for a kitten.

----------


## Darris Chambless

"If a person goes to war, and based on what they see in that war, they decide to speak out against it, this is a serious character flaw."

Hmmm. Only if what they are speaking out against cannot and is not corroborated by anyone else that was there. It tends to make one suspect as to their character.

I too will say that John Kerry undisputedly served his country and sustained injury in the line of duty. That is admireable as well as honorable and by the grace of God the man lived to come home. I don't deny Kerry any of that. What I think is sad is that people are trying to scrutinize Kerry's war record when the real issue isn't what he did in the distance past but what he did and has done while in office in the not so distant past as well as present. One need look no farther than Kerry's congressional voting record to she where he stands on these issues. What he did as a younger man is immaterial. I believe his medals were valid regardless of whether he submitted for them himself or not. Wounded in action is wounded in action. 

And chm I don't think Kerry's patriotism is in question because of his mild wounding. It's in question because he would rather aid the enemy by not protecting this country based on his voting record while in office. When one begins to undermine the safety of this country is when your patriotism comes into question.

"If a person ducks their responsibility to save their butt and then speaks out on the merits of that war, this is not a serious character flaw."

I have to ask; what does Bill Clinton have to do with any of this??? :D

Eyeman???

"Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that what 'W' did was any better than the hoards of draft dodgers who went to Canada, but....."

Que? I must have missed something somewhere. What are you talking about?

One of the things that you need to understand regarding the military is that they are often times political pawns. Under another Presidents watch they become lesser people to the next Commander in Chief, in some cases, depending on where the political winds blow. The sad part is that they can be praised by one administration and then be view with disdain by the next even though the faces and situations of the military haven't changed. It's wrong and it's a disgrace to the men and women of the military but unfortunately it is a reality. How do you change that? Put people like Bush in office. How do you keep it the same? Put people like Kerry in office. 

Take care folks. Kerry was a war hero (emphasis on "was") but he sure has little use for the military today. That's what has people up in arms.

Darris C.

----------


## keithbenjamin

Maybe one thing you should get straight CHM, is that speaking out against a war while you are AT war is not all love, flowers, and peace symbols. In doing so, you might as well be pointing a gun to the heads of young men and women involved in the war and pulling the trigger, as your actions are giving the enemy hope and reason to continue fighting. 

Point in case, Iraq. The thugs (those who profited from Saddam's rule) in Iraq began fighting our troops with Mogadishu in mind, thinking "send a few body bags home and the US will leave." Don't think for a second the current political climate in the US doesn't give those same thugs hope to carry on.

----------


## chm2023

> *Darris Chambless said:* 
> "If a person goes to war, and based on what they see in that war, they decide to speak out against it, this is a serious character flaw."
> 
> Hmmm. Only if what they are speaking out against cannot and is not corroborated by anyone else that was there. It tends to make one suspect as to their character.
> 
> I too will say that John Kerry undisputedly served his country and sustained injury in the line of duty. That is admireable as well as honorable and by the grace of God the man lived to come home. I don't deny Kerry any of that. What I think is sad is that people are trying to scrutinize Kerry's war record when the real issue isn't what he did in the distance past but what he did and has done while in office in the not so distant past as well as present. One need look no farther than Kerry's congressional voting record to she where he stands on these issues. What he did as a younger man is immaterial. I believe his medals were valid regardless of whether he submitted for them himself or not. Wounded in action is wounded in action. 
> 
> And chm I don't think Kerry's patriotism is in question because of his mild wounding. It's in question because he would rather aid the enemy by not protecting this country based on his voting record while in office. When one begins to undermine the safety of this country is when your patriotism comes into question.
> 
> ...

----------


## Darris Chambless

I'm flattered chm :D

Darris C.

----------


## chm2023

First, many people, including people I know personally, saw atrocities in Vietnam, so Kerry's accounts are collaborated;  second, Bill Clinton did not speak our on the merits of the war, he was vocally anti-war;  thirdly, if one believes a war is unjust, one is not only permitted, but required to speak up.  Go read the Nuremburg Trials.  And no I am not comparing the US to the Nazis, but the principle stands, you are accountable to your conscience and before God, before you are accountable to the likes of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

There's a real danger of excessively wrapping oneself in the flag, oxygen deprivation leading to brain damage.  Shame on you for seeking to undermine a man's military career.  If you disagree with him on issues, argue those issues, but this kind of attack is disgraceful and cowardly.

----------


## chm2023

Oh bite me.

This kind of thing really hits a nerve with me, people have no respect.  I do agree with your implication that war heroism is a past tense thing, one thing I hate are "professional veterans", but that door swings both ways.

----------


## JRS

Nicely done CHM

----------


## keithbenjamin

> Shame on you for seeking to undermine a man's military career. If you disagree with him on issues, argue those issues, but this kind of attack is disgraceful and cowardly.


Are we talking about President Bush?  ;) The difference is Kerry is yelling about his military career from the roof tops. If you are going to widely use your heroism as a campaign issue, then you are leaving it open to scrutiny. I am sorry, but looking at his actual record (since he has brought it up) (on countless occasions) is neither disgraceful, nor cowardly. 

Furthermore, Kerry's campaign says, he was in Viet Nam therefore he is strong on defense. Since we're simplifying things, then it also seems logical to draw the conclusion that after he abandoned his crew he thought of the US military as a war criminals and baby-killers therefore he cannot be strong on defense. (let's not even talk about his voting record)

----------


## chm2023

> *keithbenjamin said:* 
> 
> Furthermore, Kerry's campaign says, he was in Viet Nam therefore he is strong on defense. Since we're simplifying things, then it also seems logical to draw the conclusion that after he abandoned his crew he thought of the US military as a war criminals and baby-killers therefore he cannot be strong on defense. (let's not even talk about his voting record)



No Kerry's campaign says he was in Vietnam, you infer this means he is strong on defense.  As to the rest of the above, I don't even know what this means.

Speaking of campaign ads, interesting that none of Bush's ads mentions Iraq.

----------


## BobV

I feel no shame in Kerry undermining his own military existence to further his political future.  HE is the one who is making this a joke.

Bob V.

----------


## Darris Chambless

"First, many people, including people I know personally, saw atrocities in Vietnam, so Kerry's accounts are collaborated;..."

No actually I'm talking literally. People that were there with Kerry and no they don't corroborate his telling of the story.

"...second, Bill Clinton did not speak our on the merits of the war, he was vocally anti-war;..."

No again. Clinton was vocally anti-war when he was due to be drafted. He had no problem with war when the impeachment trials started.

"...thirdly, if one believes a war is unjust, one is not only permitted, but required to speak up."

Clinton was trying to save his own skin and nothing more. He was not being a "good citizen" by any stretch of the imagination. 

"you are accountable to your conscience and before God, before you are accountable to the likes of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon."

And don't forget Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy.

"There's a real danger of excessively wrapping oneself in the flag, oxygen deprivation leading to brain damage."

So what is brain damage like exactly? ;)

"Shame on you for seeking to undermine a man's military career."

Are you talking to me? I thought...and...yup, I just looked at my post, and I actually defended Kerry's military service. Amazing how you can take even the simplest things that I didn't even write and blame them on me. :)

"If you disagree with him on issues, argue those issues, but this kind of attack is disgraceful and cowardly."

Like I said "Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks for repeating me; it shows character as well as wisdom. ;)

"This kind of thing really hits a nerve with me, people have no respect."

This from the woman that said, and I quote:

"Oh bite me."

Very well done dear. No disrespect in that I can tell you. :D

Take care,

Darris C.

----------


## karen

Because I am somewhat uniformed on what exactly Kerry's issues with Vietnam were, can someone tell me where to get information on that? (unbiased as possible)  My dad fought over there and refuses to speak about it-I was born in Guam while he was stationed there.  I submit for your approval that a person who had fought and decided to disagree holds a higher place in my mind than someone who had no idea what was going on and felt it was OK to treat returning soldiers like dirt.

----------


## Judy Canty

This is a transcript of John Kerry's statement as a spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/histo...Testimony.html

----------


## chm2023

Thanks Judy, interesting to read.  Those were hard times for thoughtful people.

----------


## Judy Canty

Indeed they were then and continue to be for far too many.

----------


## Texas Ranger

I forgot to mention that I was a hospital corpsman with a Navy Seabee battalion in DaNang and Hue in 1968...I also worked in the 1st Marine Div. casualty recieving unit in DaNang. I turned 22 there and was one of the "old guys". most of the guys in our unit were construction workers who were just out of high school and were called up for 1 year actice duty as reservists. most of the Marines and Army guys I knew were just young. but in '68, I think we were committed to what we were supposedly there for, but it was scary, and i'm sure that if I were wounded 3 times in four months, I'd have thought I was a target, and been on the first plane back, too. in his commentary, Kerry says that the participants of the anti-war vets were the very vets that did some awful things, but I spent a lot of time in "free fire zones", and never saw anything like what was described. sure, there was i'm sure a lot of anger directed at a people that destroyed friends in your unit, etc.  the military taught people how to kill, put them in a situation where you didn't quite know who the "enemy" was, and asked you to survive. most of those kids were poor, undereducated, and very green. being there, you swore an oath to your country, you had orders to be there, and the laws of military justice to keep it that way.  but I can't help but put Kerry in the same boat as Jane Fonda. They weren't on our side....a lot of courageous young men died there, many were wounded, and many of us carry around a lot with us every day. as a corpsman, I saw as much horror as you can imagine, and i'm glad that Sen. Kerry was not critically wounded.  it is one of the things that makes this country so great, that we have the freedom to express our opinions, that Mr. Kerry can contend for the presidency. ironically, the dermatologist I go to is a nice Vietnamese man who left Saigon when he was a boy in '78. At least he is free....the question about politicians military records ia amazing; and i'm still trying to understand how Bill Clinton got elected, at all much less twice!

----------


## shanbaum

> *keithbenjamin said:* 
> Maybe one thing you should get straight CHM, is that speaking out against a war while you are AT war is not all love, flowers, and peace symbols. In doing so, you might as well be pointing a gun to the heads of young men and women involved in the war and pulling the trigger, as your actions are giving the enemy hope and reason to continue fighting. 
> 
> Point in case, Iraq. The thugs (those who profited from Saddam's rule) in Iraq began fighting our troops with Mogadishu in mind, thinking "send a few body bags home and the US will leave." Don't think for a second the current political climate in the US doesn't give those same thugs hope to carry on.



Wow.  I can't believe I missed that.  You know, you're right.  To suggest that one's country's going to war might be wrong while the war is underway is tantamount to treason.

I am _so_ embarrassed.  How could I not have seen this?  How could my priorities get so screwed up?

Now that you've opened my eyes, shouldn't we make sure that everyone understands that to dissent from war, or to criticize our Leader, gives comfort to The Enemy?  In fact, shouldn't it be _illegal_?  

Come to think of it, this upcoming election is bound to elicit all kinds of criticism of our Leader, so, we really ought to at least _postpone_ it, don't you think, until the war is over?  

I mean, the War on Terror can't last forever... can it?

----------


## chm2023

We are fighting in Iraq to bring them liberty and democracy (thus sayeth Bushie);  liberty and democracy mean that citizens have the right to speak out against government actions;  BUT, we should not speak out against our government's actions.  HUH????

I can say a lot about the right-wing but their lack of any sense of irony is the very worst.

----------


## keithbenjamin

Oh, both of you grow up. I never said you didn't have the right to speak. I was suggesting perhaps you might think of the possible consequences before speaking (and I know you do, albeit a different set of consequences, but not all of your brethren on the left do). There is a very fine line between speaking out in a time of war and treason. For example people at these anti-war ralies speaking against the occupation of Iraq and calling on others to provide support to those in Iraq fighting the US. The FBI should unquestionably be on these folks doorsteps. 

I also belive that many on the left publicly rail against the policy on Iraq and hope to see things go sour simply because the see political advantage in it.

----------


## chm2023

You said that speaking out against the war is tantamount to "pulling the trigger" of a gun against our military personnel.  That was a very, very foolish thing to say.  I suspect that having realized that it was foolish--all that tiresome Bill of Rights stuff, you're now adding the twist of: "and calling on others to provide support for those in Iraq fighting the US", as if these were the same things, or meant the same thing.

----------


## shanbaum

> *keithbenjamin said:* 
> Oh, both of you grow up. I never said you didn't have the right to speak. I was suggesting perhaps you might think of the possible consequences before speaking (and I know you do, albeit a different set of consequences, but not all of your brethren on the left do). There is a very fine line between speaking out in a time of war and treason. For example people at these anti-war ralies speaking against the occupation of Iraq and calling on others to provide support to those in Iraq fighting the US. The FBI should unquestionably be on these folks doorsteps. 
> 
> I also belive that many on the left publicly rail against the policy on Iraq and hope to see things go sour simply because the see political advantage in it.


Well, now, you _do_ take a dim view of those on the left, don't you?

I'm having a little trouble reconciling "I never said you didn't have the right to speak" with  '[T]here is a very fine line between speaking out in a time of war and treason."

There's certainly a difference between "speaking against the occupation of Iraq" and "calling on others to provide support to those in Iraq fighting the US."   _Lots_ of people may be doing the former (though I'm not one of them), without doing the latter, which I have never heard any actual American do.  

Of course, I don't listen to Rush very often, and I suspect he has played recordings of liberals at drug orgies doing exactly that.

And no, I do not want to see things "go sour" in Iraq - I wish they weren't as sour as they are today.

If the president's giddy vision of postwar Iraq had been realized (or if it is realized sometime in the not-too-distant future) - well, that would have been a Godsend.

A miracle, in fact.

----------


## keithbenjamin

> Well, now, you do take a dim view of those on the left, don't you?


Why Robert, wherever did you get that impression? :D 




> I'm having a little trouble reconciling "I never said you didn't have the right to speak" with '[T]here is a very fine line between speaking out in a time of war and treason."


Sorry you're having difficulty there. 




> Of course, I don't listen to Rush very often, and I suspect he has played recordings of liberals at drug orgies doing exactly that.


Very good. Actually it was Roger Hedgecock. You wouldn't expect the left-wing press to cover this would you? And it wasn't a drug orgie as I said it was an anti-war rally and these were the kooks that were speaking after the press left. You can bet your bottom dollar that if we were talking about kooks at a conservative oriented meeting of some sort, it'd be plastered on every front page in America.




> And no, I do not want to see things "go sour" in Iraq - I wish they weren't as sour as they are today.


I don't remember saying you did. 




> If the president's giddy vision of postwar Iraq had been realized (or if it is realized sometime in the not-too-distant future) - well, that would have been a Godsend.


I think you folks on the left are the only one with the giddy vision, demanding anything short of an overnight utopia (or one in the not-too-distant-future) is a failure. 

Again...
Children learning in schools, improved electrical production and distributrion, improved communication infratructure, better wages, an interim constitution, Libya surrendering their WMD programs, 71% of Iraqis anticipating a better life a year from now. ...utter failure.

----------


## Darris Chambless

"If the president's giddy vision of postwar Iraq had been realized (or if it is realized sometime in the not-too-distant future) - well, that would have been a Godsend.

A miracle, in fact."

He was "giddy" about all this??? As I recall he seemed angry and saddened that this had happened in the beginning and then perhaps hopeful about the final outcome, but "giddy"??? I think not.

As to "Godsend" and "miracle" you believe in neither so what are we to make of your final statement???

Take care,

Darris C.

----------


## karen

Keith, did you read that link that Judy posted and if so, what did you think???

Sure am glad we are all friends here!  :Eek:

----------


## keithbenjamin

"We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies..."

Utterly insulting that a people are somehow incapable of understanding the difference between freedom and oppresion but, it sounds remarkably similar to claims made about the Iraqis. That being said, we obviously, weren't going about things in the best possible way to bring those people their freedom. As to specific atrocities, I can't very well speak about those because I wasn't there. I have heard from number of vets though that said they never witnessed any such atrocities, for whatever that's worth.

He certainly displayed his vast ignorance regarding communism. 

"I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands. [Laughter.]..."

Funny, ha ha. Yet that was the very aim of the Soviet Union.

"...we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now...."

Mr. Reagan would beg to differ. Also sounds remarkably similar to "we can't fight terrorism all over the world."

"...but right now we are reacting with paranoia to this question of peace and the people [communists] taking over the world. I think if were are ever going to get down to the question of dropping those bombs most of us in my generation simply don't want to be alive afterwards because of the kind of world that it would be with mutations and the genetic probabilities of freaks and everything else."

Funny, how it was the proliferation of those same bombs, that lead to defeat communism. Peace through strength. If we had stopped building those bombs as Kerry would have had us do, imagine where the world might be today. Likewise, I shudder to think where we might end up by continuing President Clinton's policy of doing nothing, after the bombing of the Cole, the bombing of US embassies, Saddam defying UN resolution after resolution and firing at US planes, etc., etc.

I think Kerry's attitude and ignorance regarding communism speaks volumes about how he might handle the threat of terrorism, excuse me Robert ...Islamic fundamentalists.

----------


## keithbenjamin

> Sure am glad we are all friends here!


Me too! :D

----------


## shanbaum

Funny, ha ha. Yet that was the very aim of the Soviet Union.


The aim of the Soviet Union was to keep its ruling elite in power.  If taking over McDonald's would aid that, they'd probably want to do it.  If not, they wouldn't.  Though, I understand (from eyewitnesses) that the food in the Soviet Union was awful.


Funny, how it was the proliferation of those same bombs, that lead to defeat communism. Peace through strength. If we had stopped building those bombs as Kerry would have had us do, imagine where the world might be today. 


I'm not sure what _lead_ had to do with it, but about as much as bombs, I suspect.  The notion that the Soviet Union was driven into bankruptcy by Reagan's arms buildup is fallacious - a closed, command economy can't really go bankrupt.  So long as it has sufficient natural resources, it can create "capital" by fiat. Such an economy works, to the extent that it does, because of force - the state forces its citizens to follow its instructions: build this, consume that.  "Solvency" just doesn't matter - so long as the economy remains closed.

In fact, the Soviet Union itself persisted only by the willingness of its government to use force to hold it together.  When Gorbachev acceeded to power, and was unwilling to use force to keep it together, it flew apart. Gorby's concomitant policy of "openness" hastened it by allowing Soviets to begin to compare the performance of their economy (and society generally) to those in the West, against which its inferiority was unmistakable.

At least, that's my take on it.  I don't really expect that sort of logic to dislodge you from your emotional attachment to a partisan fantasy. 


Likewise, I shudder to think where we might end up by continuing President Clinton's policy of doing nothing, after the bombing of the Cole, the bombing of US embassies, Saddam defying UN resolution after resolution and firing at US planes, etc., etc.


You mean, in contrast to all the powerful actions taken by the Bush administration prior to 9/11?  If we only had had missile defense...


I think Kerry's attitude and ignorance regarding communism speaks volumes about how he might handle the threat of terrorism, excuse me Robert ...Islamic fundamentalists. 


Well, I take that as a smidgen of progress... though I wouldn't lump all Islamic fundamentalists into one group; I suspect there are many Islamic fundamentalists who are no more harmful than Christian or Jewish fundamentalists.

The tipping point is violence.  "Violent religious fanatics" are the enemy in general, and al-Qaeda is the enemy in particular.

----------


## chm2023

All those bombs sure protected us on 9/11.

The "Reagan drove the commies into bankrupcy" myth is starting to fray a bit, but it sure has had holding power.  Anyone who was paying attention at the time, or spent any time in eastern europe, as I was able to do, could plainly see that this empire imploded onto itself.  The final stages saw the government lose legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens, and the corruption was so rife there was no longer any center to hold.  You want a hero for this story, look at Walesa and the Solidarity movement.  Read some of his writings and the history of Solidarity.  Also take a look at Robert Shrayer's book "The Collapse of the Soviet Union" I think it is called.  He provides a very comprehensive, rich history of Russia and the USSR.  This is not to say that the pressure from the West, including the US and the Vatican, did not have some affect, providing comfort and hope for the unionists.  And the leadership of Gorbachov (SP?)

And, here's a thought to hold you through the weekend:  in the recent election, Putin got 71% of the vote.  (Putin of course, despite his soul being read and given the big OK by Bush--now that was proud to be an American moment!!--is a throwback.)  So, did the Soviet Union really collapse, or is it morphing?

----------


## johca

[QUOTE=Texas Ranger] ... but I can't help but put Kerry in the same boat as Jane Fonda. They weren't on our side....a lot of courageous young men died there, many were wounded, and many of us carry around a lot with us every day. ... [QUOTE]

I agree although I was never in Vietnam myself. I enlisted at age 17, in March 1973 after The Agreement on Ending The War And Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam went in effect with a cease-fire on January 27, 1973. I spent the next 23 years maintaining combatant skills and qualifications in a job that required me to sustain readiness to go behind the lines and onto remote battlefields to rescue and recover our pilots and soldiers who found themselves isolated and in need of help.

Insight to the military job I did is found at these two web sites. http://www.pjsinnam.com/ and http://www.specialtactics.com/.

John Kerrys vision of what plan needs to be implemented or changed in Iraq is the least conflict I have in giving him my vote for any office he seeks. It is a certainly so character issue he demonstrated through his dishonorable service as commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve after his discharge from active duty in January 1970 to when the war ended in January 1973. The certainly so deceitful and dishonorable behaviors in fulfilling his role and duties as a commissioned officer have many similarities to mischief he instigated as a Senator to influence, compromise, and coerce foreign policy of several presidents. In my opinion Senator Kerry poses a greater risk of wrong decisions being made for the wrong reasons than President Bush.

For those who remain undecided on who to vote for, I humbly ask you watch the documentary Stolen Honor wounds that wont heal.

http://www.stolenhonor.com/

----------


## shanbaum

> The certainly so deceitful and dishonorable behaviors in fulfilling his role and duties as a commissioned officer have many similarities to mischief he instigated as a Senator to influence, compromise, and coerce foreign policy of several presidents.


Is it your opinion, then, that it is inappropriate for the U.S. Senate, or for individual U.S. Senators, to attempt to influence the foreign policy of the United States (noting that what one man calls "influence", another might call "compromise" or "coerce")?

----------


## johca

> Is it your opinion, then, that it is inappropriate for the U.S. Senate, or for individual U.S. Senators, to attempt to influence the foreign policy of the United States (noting that what one man calls "influence", another might call "compromise" or "coerce")?


U.S. Senators have a Constitutional role and responsibility for involving themselves with and to influence foreign policy. Senators do not have Constitutional approval to pursue policy change through deceitful means.

Here is a link to his the ends justify the means behavior as a freshman senator in 1985

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/...y-681125.shtml

Senator Kerry has gotten better at not getting caught; so subsequent examples fail to expose his mischief as clearly and distinctly. I believe, however, after reading the referenced article about Kerry you will understand I choose the appropriate language to describe Senator Kerry's conduct and behavior.

----------

