If You're Voting for Kerry/Edwards...

Bush's dad got him into the National Guard, flying a plane that was obsolete and would never be flown in vietnam. And he didn't even stick around to do that during his entire service. So he might as well have just "dodged the draft".

Kerry was in harm's way in vietnam, serving our country. After being wounded three times, can you expect more from him? What does it take? The loss of a limb? He received his purple hearts while he was a soldier, before becoming a politician. It was up to the government to decide whether or not he earned those purple hearts, and they chose to award him. Kerry didn't award those to himself.
 
[quote name='Supernothing'][quote name='fireball343']against abortion (except if rape), [/quote]

Let me guess, you're against it because it's murder? If it's concepted during rape is the abortion no longer murder?

note: My views on abortion will not be expressed during this or any other online debate in the near future.[/quote]

Why are ou trying to mix religion and logic, they are mortal enemies!
 
EZB their were two missions the USAF was charged with in the late 1960's. Combat missions in Vietnam and protecting the U.S. mainlaind from the perceived threat of Soviet bombers. You do realize that when we go to war not every single plane, soldier, tank, ariman, sailor and ship is sent to fight.... right?

You look at the article I just posted about Kerry's purple hearts and determine for yourself the veracity of their worth.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']EZB their were two missions the USAF was charged with in the late 1960's. Combat missions in Vietnam and protecting the U.S. mainlaind from the perceived threat of Soviet bombers. You do realize that when we go to war not every single plane, soldier, tank, ariman, sailor and ship is sent to fight.... right?

You look at the article I just posted about Kerry's purple hearts and determine for yourself the veracity of their worth.[/quote]

I was just about to post that article myself. Also it must be noted that his second purple heart does have some controversy behind it. Kerry fired a mortar onto the shore thinking that there were Viet Cong there. No one else saw them, and reports state that the injury he received was shrapnel from the mortar he fired.

Also in regards to committing war atrocities.
Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

-- Crosby Noyes, Washington Evening Star

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.
 
[quote name='Squirms']I've seen plenty of Kerry approved Anti-Bush ads. I've also seen tons of Anti-Bush ads run by many of these Kerry supporting groups such as Moveon. Good way to circumvent campaign finance reform by having these special groups that don't have to follow the law. If the Bushites tried something like this, the left would be screaming how it's unfair.
Regardless, even during all these attacks against the current administration from all sides, thier approval rating is actually rising according to Zogby's.[/quote]

I haven't seen many outside groups run anti-bush ads - yet. I figured they'd wait until September during the new fall line-up.

And here's bush's approval rating record:

disapproval is around 50%:

pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_9432_image001.gif


With approval in the mid 40's:

pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif
 
I think Bush should make a documentary on just how similar MIchael Moore is to him, only Moore much fatter, more influential but just as egotistical and deceitful. Anyhow, I have no idea who I'll be voting for. I'm giving it four months.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']
Religious beliefs? Bush??? Oh, I forgot about the secret book of the Bible where it tells us to wage war and to support the dealth penalty. And to legalize AK-47's. Yeah. That's why my religious beliefs fall in line with Bush's too. [/quote]

War and Death eh??? :twisted:

Genesis 6:7
"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. "

Exodus 12:29
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']EZB their were two missions the USAF was charged with in the late 1960's. Combat missions in Vietnam and protecting the U.S. mainlaind from the perceived threat of Soviet bombers. You do realize that when we go to war not every single plane, soldier, tank, ariman, sailor and ship is sent to fight.... right?

You look at the article I just posted about Kerry's purple hearts and determine for yourself the veracity of their worth.[/quote]

It doesn't matter about the purple hearts. The military AND our own U.S. Government decided to award them to him. John Kerry didn't decide to award John Kerry Purple Hearts. If you want to question why they were awarded to him, then contact the military. Get it? No, I didn't think so.

And if there was a draft going around, I hope that my daddy has connections to get me into the national guard too. I'd rather stay here than go to some country like Vietnam, North Korea, or Iraq. Good thing our president had those connections to save his sorry ass.
 
[quote name='legion_stxds'][quote name='E-Z-B']
Religious beliefs? Bush??? Oh, I forgot about the secret book of the Bible where it tells us to wage war and to support the dealth penalty. And to legalize AK-47's. Yeah. That's why my religious beliefs fall in line with Bush's too. [/quote]

War and Death eh??? :twisted:

Genesis 6:7
"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. "

Exodus 12:29
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."[/quote]

That's the OLD covenant. Assuming you're a christian man like our Great Leader, then you would be following the NEW covenant. The jews couldn't follow the old one, so it became obsolete, and a new one was put in place.

Besides, the bible also says "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

So you're saying that you're alright with slavery too since it's in the old testament?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='legion_stxds'][quote name='E-Z-B']
Religious beliefs? Bush??? Oh, I forgot about the secret book of the Bible where it tells us to wage war and to support the dealth penalty. And to legalize AK-47's. Yeah. That's why my religious beliefs fall in line with Bush's too. [/quote]

War and Death eh??? :twisted:

Genesis 6:7
"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. "

Exodus 12:29
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."[/quote]

That's the OLD covenant. Assuming you're a christian man like our Great Leader, then you would be following the NEW covenant. The jews couldn't follow the old one, so it became obsolete, and a new one was put in place.

Besides, the bible also says "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

So you're saying that you're alright with slavery too since it's in the old testament?[/quote]

Nope, though I am answering your original post as to were the bible notes violence and destruction.

Edit: Plus... the new testament is not to be taken without considerations from the old. We are not to add nor take away from the bible.
 
[quote name='legion_stxds'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='legion_stxds'][quote name='E-Z-B']
Religious beliefs? Bush??? Oh, I forgot about the secret book of the Bible where it tells us to wage war and to support the dealth penalty. And to legalize AK-47's. Yeah. That's why my religious beliefs fall in line with Bush's too. [/quote]

War and Death eh??? :twisted:

Genesis 6:7
"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. "

Exodus 12:29
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."[/quote]

That's the OLD covenant. Assuming you're a christian man like our Great Leader, then you would be following the NEW covenant. The jews couldn't follow the old one, so it became obsolete, and a new one was put in place.

Besides, the bible also says "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

So you're saying that you're alright with slavery too since it's in the old testament?[/quote]

Nope, though I am answering your original post as to were the bible notes violence and destruction.

Edit: Plus... the new testament is not to be taken without considerations from the old. We are not to add nor take away from the bible.[/quote]

Keep in mind that the old testament teaches about destroying your enemies, while the new testament teaches to love your enemies. Apparently, bush isn't following the christian teachings in the bible, but that nonetheless doesn't stop him from convincing you that he's a christian man. Unless the new testament teaches somewhere about the righteousness of war and the death penalty that I must've missed. Maybe it's in the Gospel according to Dubya chapter.
 
Dude, don't forget the shrimp. I can't stand the fact that no one ever boycots Red Lobster or Long John Silver. Those two places are dens of Immorality.
 
[quote name='Pezdro']Dude, don't forget the shrimp. I can't stand the fact that no one ever boycots Red Lobster or Long John Silver. Those two places are dens of Immorality.[/quote]

LOL :p
 
[quote name='Squirms'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']EZB their were two missions the USAF was charged with in the late 1960's. Combat missions in Vietnam and protecting the U.S. mainlaind from the perceived threat of Soviet bombers. You do realize that when we go to war not every single plane, soldier, tank, ariman, sailor and ship is sent to fight.... right?

You look at the article I just posted about Kerry's purple hearts and determine for yourself the veracity of their worth.[/quote]

I was just about to post that article myself. Also it must be noted that his second purple heart does have some controversy behind it. Kerry fired a mortar onto the shore thinking that there were Viet Cong there. No one else saw them, and reports state that the injury he received was shrapnel from the mortar he fired.

Also in regards to committing war atrocities.
Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

-- Crosby Noyes, Washington Evening Star

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.[/quote]

It really disturbs and offends me that Republicans are so willing to trash the war record of a distinguished veteran who saved lives, got shot at, got into the thick of things in Vietnam. He didn't get a deferral, didn't run to daddy to get him into the National Guard. He was there and he was on the line and he served bravely. You don't get a Silver Star and a Bronze Star for covering your ass at the expense of all around you. You get those medals for exhibiting bravery and leadership.

I'm particularly disappointed you follow this argument, PAD. You know what it takes to serve, and you know the difference between being in a situation where you are exposed to hostile gunfire versus a situation where you fly around Texas just in case the Soviets attack. And you know that people don't win medals like those unless they have what it takes. You are properly proud of your military service, but you run it through the mud when you don't acknowledge the bravery of other veterans.

As far as Kerry leaving early -- at least he went, and served bravely while there. You mean to tell me you wouldn't try to get out ASAP after being in as many firefights as he was in? And just to compare records, Bush couldn't serve out his full service, and he wasn't in a single firefight.

If you don't like Kerry, fine. But christ, veterans have given us so much, why trash their service with crap like this? It turns my stomach.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Kerry was in harm's way in vietnam, serving our country. After being wounded three times, can you expect more from him? What does it take? The loss of a limb? [/quote]

The loss of three limbs didn't stop the Republican attack machine from going after Max Cleland in Georgia. After McCain in S.C., that was a new low for the party and they should be ashamed and disassociate from the people responsible.
 
[quote name='Kevtones']I think Bush should make a documentary on just how similar MIchael Moore is to him, only Moore much fatter, more influential but just as egotistical and deceitful. Anyhow, I have no idea who I'll be voting for. I'm giving it four months.[/quote]

That's a great idea...

Bush: Michael Moore is just as bad as me. Vote for me!
 
There are hundreds of thousands of veterans, if not millions, that have stood up against John Kerry. I would question anyone under my command that put himself in for thePurple Heart from an injury that didn't take them off the line. Now understand, the Purple Heart's only criteria is basically to require you recieve a wound from enemy action. Let's say one guy comes at 20 with a grenade, he's dropped by automatic fire the grenade goes off 25 yards away and a metal splinter lands in someone's arm.

The corpsman gets out tweezers, removes the splinter, puts a bandaid or bandage on the arm and medically the problem is open and shut. This soldier by letter of regulations has been wounded in combat by enemy action that required medical attention. He is eligible for the Purple Heart. I'm not going to dispute that and neither would most members of the military. However 98% of combat troops I've ever met would never put in for the award in that situation.

From the Boston newspaper article I posted I would say what they listed as Kerry's third Purple Heart summary is the only one the majority of service people wouldn't dispute as valid. To describe yourself as "walking wounded" when you have a band aid wound is disingenuous. But you have to realize soldiering is like real life, you get every kind of person under the sun, espeically in a draft environment.

I have never really questioned John Kerry's military service, yeah, he went. Yeah, he got 3 Purple Hearts that he put himself in for and then got the hell out of dodge came home. If that had been the end of it I'd say he did his time honroably and the matter was open and shut with me. However when he came home he then said he commited illegal attrocities along with every other soldier in Vietnam in extremely public forums, not privately. His words and his speeches were played for POW's in the Hanoi Hilton in an attempt to show them their country had abandoned them and even American soldiers thought they were criminals..... ahhhhh, I think that's a little different than saying mockingly that someone was keeping the skies of Texas free of Soviet bombers or didn't even show up.

EDIT:
You mean to tell me you wouldn't try to get out ASAP after being in as many firefights as he was in?
Click to expand...

I don't know how to really convey this and have you accurately understand. However my mission, as I saw it, was to do two things. Complete assigined missions and get everyone in our outfit home safe. You don't have many officers that think in the way you're thinking. The majority of them, the good ones, don't put their safety above that of their men. I am also not saying John Kerry didn't do that when he was in combat.

However when we deployed as a unit we were all going to come home as a unit. If men were killed we all knew that was a reality of life. However I had the good fortune of never having that happen. Everyone came home. I could not imagine, in any situation, of thinking "OMG combat is horrible. I've been wounded three times, I need to get out of here and leave the fighting to the rest of the team. According to regulations, I can." I just could not imagine leaving 3 othter M1A2 commanders, 4 loaders, 4 gunners and 4 drivers because.... I could.

If you want to take something as widespread in culture about how men feel in combat watch the documentary about the real men of Easy Company that Band of Brothers was based on. They describe men who were apologizing for being wounded and not being able to fight. There were men in that outfit that went AWOL from the hospitals to rejoin their unit at the front. That's a sharp contrast from a nameless political candidate's record.
 
I just find it interesting that the Republican party is the first to start whipping out yellow ribbons and waving flags when our troops go to war, yet in the last few years they have viciously attacked the service of John McCain, John Kerry and Max Cleland.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']There are hundreds of thousands of veterans, if not millions, that have stood up against John Kerry. I would question anyone under my command that put himself in for thePurple Heart from an injury that didn't take them off the line. Now understand, the Purple Heart's only criteria is basically to require you recieve a wound from enemy action. Let's say one guy comes at 20 with a grenade, he's dropped by automatic fire the grenade goes off 25 yards away and a metal splinter lands in someone's arm.

The corpsman gets out tweezers, removes the splinter, puts a bandaid or bandage on the arm and medically the problem is open and shut. This soldier by letter of regulations has been wounded in combat by enemy action that required medical attention. He is eligible for the Purple Heart. I'm not going to dispute that and neither would most members of the military. However 98% of combat troops I've ever met would never put in for the award in that situation.

From the Boston newspaper article I posted I would say what they listed as Kerry's third Purple Heart summary is the only one the majority of service people wouldn't dispute as valid. To describe yourself as "walking wounded" when you have a band aid wound is disingenuous. But you have to realize soldiering is like real life, you get every kind of person under the sun, espeically in a draft environment.

I have never really questioned John Kerry's military service, yeah, he went. Yeah, he got 3 Purple Hearts that he put himself in for and then got the hell out of dodge came home. If that had been the end of it I'd say he did his time honroably and the matter was open and shut with me. However when he came home he then said he commited illegal attrocities along with every other soldier in Vietnam in extremely public forums, not privately. His words and his speeches were played for POW's in the Hanoi Hilton in an attempt to show them their country had abandoned them and even American soldiers thought they were criminals..... ahhhhh, I think that's a little different than saying mockingly that someone was keeping the skies of Texas free of Soviet bombers or didn't even show up.[/quote]

First, I notice that in your discussions you never mention Kerry's Silver Star and Bronze Star, which are not normally the hallmarks of someone who "got the hell out of dodge." Very few people get these awards, and those who do get them have definitely done their country a service and don't deserve smears against their record. As a veteran, I would think that you would agree.

Second, I think a person who actually went to Vietnam, served bravely, and saw what went on over there had more of a moral right than anyone to come back and publicly object to the war. He paid his dues, he got shot at, he saved lives, he saw people die and he saw things that disturbed him. When he came home, he could either keep quiet and let the whole dirty business continue, or he could speak up and save more lives by helping to end the war as quickly as possible. I think history supports the moral decision he made.

Thus, I believe Kerry showed both physical and moral bravery in his conduct through the Vietnam War. I don't think you can argue the same point for Bush, who couldn't even be bothered to finish out his service for the Texas Air National Guard.
 
Check out my lengthy edit to my previous post.

I am not singly dismissive of Kerry's service. However for much of the honorable service he had it was offset by what POW McCain was subjected to. The silver and bronze star are not given out lightly, I didn't feel the need to challenge them so take that tacit ommission that I think they were earned. The Purple Heart though can put in for by a soldier and they are almost NEVER brought up for review or questioned by any review process.

We're going to have to agree to disagree over the value of Kerry's actions once he returned to public life. I think he was as traitorous as the come. There are plenty of ways to make those opinions known in official channels and with Congressmen behind closed doors. He chose the public route that put soldiers at additional risk and gave aid and comfort to then enemy IMHO.

Now contrast this with the POW footage we got from downed pilots in Desert Storm and last year. Every single person watching them read statement knew damn well whatever they said was not being said of their own free will. The guys in the Hanoi Hilton were tortured into saying whatever it was they were forced to say. They weren't sure if the folks back home would understand what it was had been done to them to get them to betray their country. John Kerry came home and basically said the same thing the NVA wanted POW's to say but wouldn't and did it of his own free will.

As it is now troops are told if they're ever put in front of a camera say what the enemy wants you to say regardless of what it is. Everyone back home will know its a lie. Meanwhile I would love to come up with a comparison of what POW's were forced to say versus what John Kerry said willingly and have people identify each.

John Kerry earned his right to say whatever he wants, I'm not going to dispute that. However you have to ask in any situation that just because you can say something does it mean you should. That's where the main issue of contention comes.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If you want to take something as widespread in culture about how men feel in combat watch the documentary about the real men of Easy Company that Band of Brothers was based on. They describe men who were apologizing for being wounded and not being able to fight. There were men in that outfit that went AWOL from the hospitals to rejoin their unit at the front. That's a sharp contrast from a nameless political candidate's record.[/quote]

But WWII and Vietnam are two different types of war - one more traditional and the other a guerilla war. I can't fault anyone for wanting to come home as soon as possible as long as they aren't deserting. If it's true that you learn a lot about someone's character in war, then I think it speaks volumes that the men who actually served on the boat with Kerry, support him. His most vocal opponent from the military served on his boat AFTER Kerry had transferred home. Bush can't even find anyone who served with him in the Guard to come forward and validate that he finished his service.
 
You are not going to trapse in here with that never have served line of horse manure and declare that Vietnam and WWII are two different types of war and get away with it. From a comabat point of view they were identical. You will find that the campaigns in the Pacific were nerely identical to combat situations in Vietnam. In WWII in South East Asia we were running a guerilla war against the Japanese in the CBI theater of operations. We were training, equipping and running nationalist guerilla forces in China, Burma and India. Do a google search on Merrill's Marauders and come back and tell me WWII wasn't a guerilla war.

Do you want me to outline the series of brutal Japanese POW stories? Contrast and compare the nature of captivity between those POW's and the Vetnamese? Do you think the soldiers in both conflicts weren't aware of what would happen to them if they were captured? So how does that fear make Vietnam a different war.

Quite frankly you don't know what you're talking aboout. You're completely ignorant of the reality of war. War is war. Vietnam had guerilla and regular army elements. So did our invasion of Germany in WW II. Ditto Okinawa. The reason for the atomic bombs was so we wouldn't have slaughtered millions of Japanese civillians forced to attack American troops with pitchforks.

Don't give me this line of liberal spew that they were different wars. Bullets, artillery, grenades, RPG's are just as real if wielded by regulars as rebels. The combat is the same and you're just as dead. When it comes down to small unit combat war is indistinguishable in what type of war is being fought.

Oh and last but not least there is someone that came forward about the time Bush supposedly didn't show up to his reassignment in Alabama. The press didn't want to make front page news of it as it would have ruined the story that Bush went AWOL. Here's your link.
 
The combat wasn't that similar even in the pacific. WW II had nothing like the transportation that we had in Vietnam, whcih totally altered combat. Beach and coastal landings were were a lot of the major fighting took place in WW II and in Vietnam troops were often transported inland to landing zones via helicopter. I wasn't there firsthand, but landing on the beach in a ship and being lifted into a canopy type jungle would've made for largely different combat I'm sure. The terrain was probably quite similar, but combat methods of the enemy and the technology would not have lent itself to similar experiences.
 
What do you think men did when they landed either by helicopter or Higgins boat? They fought with rifles, grenades and other small arms. If we take troops today into combat by Blackhawk, Bradley or LCAC once they're out the combat is no different than it was 50 years ago. When boots are on the ground the game remains relatively the same.

Hell, tank to tank combat is not that much different now than it was in WWII with the exception being that you can actually hit targets with accuracy when you're moving. Other than that the tactics haven't really changed since the time of Rommel and Patton.
 
I was contrasting the European combat theater (a la Band of Brothers) with Vietnam. I should have made that clearer but thanks for being such an ass while pointing it out.

And I didn't know it was liberal to say one war was fought differently from another.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Check out my lengthy edit to my previous post.

I am not singly dismissive of Kerry's service. However for much of the honorable service he had it was offset by what POW McCain was subjected to. The silver and bronze star are not given out lightly, I didn't feel the need to challenge them so take that tacit ommission that I think they were earned. The Purple Heart though can put in for by a soldier and they are almost NEVER brought up for review or questioned by any review process.

We're going to have to agree to disagree over the value of Kerry's actions once he returned to public life. I think he was as traitorous as the come. There are plenty of ways to make those opinions known in official channels and with Congressmen behind closed doors. He chose the public route that put soldiers at additional risk and gave aid and comfort to then enemy IMHO.

Now contrast this with the POW footage we got from downed pilots in Desert Storm and last year. Every single person watching them read statement knew damn well whatever they said was not being said of their own free will. The guys in the Hanoi Hilton were tortured into saying whatever it was they were forced to say. They weren't sure if the folks back home would understand what it was had been done to them to get them to betray their country. John Kerry came home and basically said the same thing the NVA wanted POW's to say but wouldn't and did it of his own free will.

As it is now troops are told if they're ever put in front of a camera say what the enemy wants you to say regardless of what it is. Everyone back home will know its a lie. Meanwhile I would love to come up with a comparison of what POW's were forced to say versus what John Kerry said willingly and have people identify each.

John Kerry earned his right to say whatever he wants, I'm not going to dispute that. However you have to ask in any situation that just because you can say something does it mean you should. That's where the main issue of contention comes.[/quote]

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think speaking publicly -- and taking the abuse that comes with it -- is a heck of a lot more morally courageous than making your complaints through non-public "back channels," where your voice can be easily ignored.

Further, I consider the whole morale issue to be a red herring. Who is to say some (or most) Vietnam troops didn't hear Kerry's words and feel glad someone was articulating their opinion to the American public? Who is to say he didn't give voice to a frustration that many of the men still in Vietnam were feeling? We know that Kerry wasn't the only soldier there who came to the conclusion that the Vietnam War was a horrible mistake full or brutality and horror. I belive that in America, you can support the troops as much by criticism as by blind patriotism.

Case in point: Harry Truman, when he was in Congress, spearheaded investigations into war profiteering that made the military very uncomfortable. But afterward, a general came up and thanked him for his efforts, saying that Truman saved lives by publicly questioning how things were done.
 
Who's being an ass MBE. You declared that they were different wars. That the experiences of soldiers therefore were not relatable. Is that not what you meant? Did you not mean to infer that the soldiers in WWII had a more noble puropse and sense of mission that those in Vietnam lacked? Did you not mean to infer that soldiers in Vietnam defied American military tradtion of wanting to protect the lives of their comrades less than those in World War II? Did you not mean to infer that John Kerry was typical in mindest of soldiers of that era in that "getting the hell out" was fine, noble and a proper thing to do regardless of what it meant to them men they left behind?

Were you not trying to state that John Kerry taking a questionable deferrment and exit from a war zone to come back to publicly denounce the men he served with, the men that were in harms way and the men that were helpless as POW's subjected to recordings of his words late at night in cells by themselves was indeed a true patriot for having done so? That's not what you meant when you said?
But WWII and Vietnam are two different types of war - one more traditional and the other a guerilla war. I can't fault anyone for wanting to come home as soon as possible as long as they aren't deserting.
Click to expand...

Is it liberal to say one war was fought differently from another? No. Are you now saying you weren't trying to compare and contrast eras and the men that served in them? Are you going to tell us that the purpose of this comparison was not to make John Kerry to be just another GI and his mindset of cutting and running 5 months into a one year TOD due to questionable circumstances the norm in Vietnam and the veterans that served there all would have done the same thing?

I mean I've given him huge passes for his service mainly due to the fact that he put on the uniform and didn't bolt to Canada or write to his draft board representatives and state how he "loathed the military" like Bill Clinton did. However if you absolutely insist on saying he was a brave and noble a soldier as Audie Murphy or Sergeant York I'm going to call bullshit on you and tell you why.

[ EDIT:
We know that Kerry wasn't the only soldier there who came to the conclusion that the Vietnam War was a horrible mistake full or brutality and horror.
Click to expand...

There isn't a professional soldier in the world that comes to the conclusion that war is a horrible mistake and full full of brutality and horror. They all know that without ever having seen combat. You train hard, you keep sharper than any knife in the drawer in hopes you will never bee used as a weapon of war.

I never wanted to fire a shot in anger. You keep a standing military precisely so other nations look at it, know what your capability is and don't mess with you. That's the role of a standing army. We are not trained to invade, occupy or engage in imperial conquest despite what the "loyal" opposition tells you about the American armed forces.

The idea of a Robert Duvall type colonel from Apocalypse Now or the George S Paton portrayed by George C. Scott as loving war are far removed from reality and in the latter case, historical reality.
 
Kerry was wounded three times so he was eligible to be transferred. He didn't have his daddy's friends wound him, or say he was wounded. He has Bronze and Silver Stars and this kind of nitpicking his record does a disservice to all veterans. Bush can't run on his own record in Vietnam so he has to denigerate Kerry's. It's disgusting. I can't wait for the debates.
 
Do you want to go back and read the article I already posted about his Purple Hearts? Did I not mention to you that Purple Hearts are not put in front of a review board? That a soldier and a doctor or corpsman signing the form is all that is necessary for it to be awarded and entered into the record? Did you not read that none of his wounds caused him admitted him into the hospital? Did you not read that his first wound was almost summarily dismissed as being Purple Heart worthy by a man that later became a Rear Admiral? Are you continuing to ignore the fact that the second claim was made after the boats Kerry was on expended 15,000 rounds of .50 calibur ammunition and didn't result in one enemy casualty?

Why is it these things are hard to addreess directly for you? I mean you stated no one was able to state they saw George W. Bush on an AFB in Alabama and therefore he was AWOL. I produced an AP article printed in the USA Today where a Colonel, and the flight safety officer of the base in question, recalls spending significant amounts of time with Bush. They had lunch together, they read manuals together and magazines. Bush was unable to fly in Alabama as it was not his assigned unit. Meanwhile he also had a six year tour of duty and did two years of that active duty in flight training. He completed 5 years and 4 months of a six year enlistment and was honroably discharged. Kerry did 5 months of a one year tour of duty and said his scratches qualified him to go home. I've provided proof for all my statments from credible sources including the Boston Herald and USA Today which are not Bush friendly publications.

I'm not nitpicking the issue, you're refusing to address what I've put fourth. You're maintaining that an objective look at a military record is doing a diservice to veterans while completely dismissing National Guard service as "daddy getting him out of Vietnam". George Bush has never, not once, nowhere in any quote you will find has ever disparaged the service of John Kerry.

Nor am I disparaging the service of John Kerry. I have gone out of my way to tell you that his military service with me IS NOT an issue. He put on the uniform, he fired shots in anger and was fired upon. Again, in sharp contrast to Bill Clinton's "loathing" of the military.

However if you want to tell me how bravely he served, how noble he is I will ask you politely to closely examine the record he runs on. I have stated, again, that his Silver and Bronze stars with me are honorably earned as the process for earning them cannot be as easily massaged as a Purple Heart citation.

The only reason you and Kerry supporters continue to beat the drum of "veteran, veteran, veteran" is that the Democratic party hasn't been able to put fourth a nomineee since Jimmy Carter that had a military record of note. You're running away from the historical 60's legacy of a Clinton type candidate as fast your party possibly can in a time of war.

Meanwhile you bleat like sheep on this aspect of his public life while running away from the fact that he voted against 27 major weapons systems that now make up the bulk of our major weapons sytems on active duty and front line defenses. You conviently neglect to remember that John Kerry wanted to shrink the intelligence budget more than 15% before 9/11 beyond even the scope of what Ted Kennedy was willing to support. You forget that this war that your candidate is now questioning very publicly was voted on by him in the affirmative. You ignore that he then voted against funding troops in harm way when he "Voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.". Meanwhile you claim that troops in Iraq were sent unprepared, underequipped while your candidate would have put them in harms way and then voted to stop supplying them leaving them withering on the vine.

It's not the debates I'm looking forward to MBE, its the Democratic convention next week. There will be no bounce. There will be no jubilation over rising poll numbers. We're going to get another Gore shriekfest and the loons will come out and prove that the democratsunderground.com and moveon.org wing of the Democratic party are setting the agenda and the tone of the argument. At that point public support for Kerry will begin to wither like plum becoming a prune.

But the good news is that you'll be able to come here and tell me with great pride and certainty that John Kerry has an admirable record from his service in Vietnam.
 
My breakdown

Bush in a nutshell:

~ He is a douche
~ His VP is crazy
~ He has an ego
~ He doesn't care about being hypocritical or active, he does what he wants
~ He is a puppet
~ He is probably a great partyer
~ Lacks fluidity
PRO:
~ He is helping the economy now
~ You know what to expect

Kerry in a nutshell:
~ He is a douche
~ His VP is the biggest douche ever
~ He is a "teeter-totter"
~ He has negative charisma
~ He is a douche, seriously
~ He gives you NO security on any issues and you don't know what to expect

PROs:
~ He's not George Bush
~ He is a war hero kind of
 
One? One guy says he saw Bush serve out his duty in the Guard? That's all? One guy? It seems like someone else would remember him. I can't prove that he wasn't there, but the evidence that he was is pretty flimsy as well.

Bush is smart enough to not disparage kerry directly. That's what the GOP flunkies are for.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Meanwhile you bleat like sheep on this aspect of his public life while running away from the fact that he voted against 27 major weapons systems that now make up the bulk of our major weapons sytems on active duty and front line defenses. You conviently neglect to remember that John Kerry wanted to shrink the intelligence budget more than 15% before 9/11 beyond even the scope of what Ted Kennedy was willing to support. You forget that this war that your candidate is now questioning very publicly was voted on by him in the affirmative. You ignore that he then voted against funding troops in harm way when he "Voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.". Meanwhile you claim that troops in Iraq were sent unprepared, underequipped while your candidate would have put them in harms way and then voted to stop supplying them leaving them withering on the vine.
[/quote]
Okay, PAD, point-by-point:
(1) Republicans, including your man Cheney, also voted against most of those weapons systems and also voted to shrink the intelligence budget. To single Kerry's votes out without placing them in that context is a smear. He wasn't some wacky radical out to ruin the military, he was part of a process that was taking a hard look at what military and intelligence expenditures were needed and which weren't. This GOP talking point sounds great until you look at the facts back of it.
(2)Kerry, like all congressmen, voted for the war on the basis of intelligence that has now been found to be faulty and inaccurate. Had congressmen been given accurate information about WMDs and Saddam's threat level to America, there's a good chance they would not have supported the war.
(3)The reason he voted against the $87 million was because he wanted part of it financed by repealing a portion of the tax cuts implemented during the Bush administration -- a reasonable stance, given our country's increasing debt. It was not done out of any lack of interest in the security of the troops, and to say otherwise is another GOP talking-point smear.
Additionally, Bush himself threatened to veto the $87 billion bill if it included money to pay for health care for reservists and required Iraq to pay back some of the money set aside for its reconstruction. Does that make him a flip-flopper and a hater of the military?
(4)Finally, I don't think Kerry would have sent our troops in and left them to die on the vine. I think he would have held off action, let the weapons inspectors do their job and, if necessary, went in with an international coalition so we wouldn't be left holding the bag alone in Iraq. There wouldn't have been a vote on $87 million because we wouldn't be footing the whole bill. But Bush couldn't wait to get his war on, so we all are stuck with the bill.
 
well looking at the poll results, i guess we're lucky some psycho Hilter-like person isnt running against Bush, cause he'd have half of your votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top