Island 911

I disagree with you. But, the point is your opinion and I can't tell you that your opinion is wrong.

However, what Politician doesn't love the camera or come from a well known family. Isn't that the way they get the exposure to be running in the first place?

Michael

SO its okay then, to sell-out your country, as long as it gets you "the exposure to be running in the first place?"

Just as okay to be contributing to the drug problem and then become president of the US.

Past is the past, let's move on.

Move on?

Hold on. .. Let me see if I've got this:

You suggest that my opinion, about kerry being an opportunistic, camera-whore sell-out, is wrong . ..

But then claim; all politicians love the camera need to do what they will to get the exposure to be running in the first place

?

Exactly right, if Kerry had seen war crimes, which he claims were rampant all over the country, he should have stood up THEN and demanded that it stop. Instead, he three-purple-hearted his way out in 4 months and then led an anti-war effort based on the experience. If, in fact, he saw war crimes, it would be a crime for him not to have reported them, as an officer.

Island 911

Let me try it again. I'm saying that I disagree with your opinion. But that I can't say that your opinion is wrong. It's your opinion. Sorry to confuse you with my writing.

And yes, I'm saying that politicians have to love the camera to win elections, or, have the name recognition. Forbes had no political experience but won as mayor of NY due to his name.

Michael

EDIT: I must be having a bad day. Everything I say gets interpreted as a slight. I guess I just don't know how to talk to a passionate conservative.

so now I'm confused, am I?

I could say that you're full of BS . . but no, I shouldn't tell you that.

I could say that you will pretend that your statements are not leading . . but I can't tell you that.

I could say that you're likely to pretend to back away from leading statements. . but I won't tell you that.

I could say that by now you've gotten my point by now . . but I can't tell you that.

:cool:

Military commander of the North Vietnamese forces, General Vo Nguyen Giap, in his 1985 memoir of the war. Giap wrote that

Steve Pitkin, Vietnam Veteran:

So we would have won the VN war if we had the resolve and stayed the course.

Then what? Here are a list of possibilities:

We chalk that up as another win and VN becomes "democratic" and "free"
We add to the body and casualty count on both sides
The war is officially over, but insurgents continue killing soldiers at the rate of 1000/year and civilians at unknown levels
We own Viet Nam, then send huge amounts of foreign aid and infrastructure to rebuild the country in exchange for their natural resources and cheap labor
We continue the war in China, Laos and Cambodia
The American diet now includes govt. subsidized rice with every meal

The Swift Boat vets aren't so pissed and avoid writing a book
Nixon does not resign. Instead he is re-elected; also becomes the president of VN
Henry Kissinger also becomes Secretary of State of VN primarily because he likes Chinese food; but VN cuisine is close enough until China surrenders
McDonalds and KFC are on every other street corner followed by Starbucks some years later

John Wayne produces follow up movies to Green Beret: Green Berets II, III and IV
Sylvester Stallone in "Rambo, First Blood" movie bombs at the box office (doesn't make sense); 2nd Blood is not in anybody's consciousness, but Stallone goes on to win an Academy Award for best actor and best screenplay in movie, "Driven".
Walmart conducts business as usual

Sherwood

Walmart:) . .now theres a change of subject.

back to China, Laos and Cambodia .. .

Vietnam was a battle; a battle in the war against the spread of communism.

Communism was swallowing up countries and walling them off. . ..Communist govt's shooting those who tried to escape.

Yet John Kerry, in that little-picture pee brain of his, didn't care to see the big picture. All he saw was that he could get some face-time by SELLING OUT his country, as a wolf under Doves feathers. . .viciously attacking the US military under the disguise of "ending the war".

Again, Vietnam was one battle-ground in the (big picture) war against Communism.

Kerry could not have done better for the communists.

. . .and now what's the meathead doing? "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"

This guy kerry has ONE TRICK. . . he is like a one-hit-wonder from 70's . . . so why not elect Janis Joplin And Bobby McGee for a stronger america -kerry is pathetic.

Yet John Kerry, in that little-picture pee brain of his, didn't care to see the big picture. All he saw was that he could get some face-time by SELLING OUT his country, as a wolf under Doves feathers. . .viciously attacking the US military under the disguise of "ending the war".

Again, Vietnam was one battle-ground in the (big picture) war against Communism.

Sorry Island, I'm gonna have to dispute that one too.

The US left Vietnam, and the war against Communism was still won. In fact, the war against communism was won by letting the fact that Communism is a poor allocator of resources push it over the edge. China survives because it is communism (very) lite.

My conclusion: there was no need to go to war in Vietnam in the first place. Mind you, I'm not old enough to know (full disclosure ;)).

The big picture is that pulling out of Vietnam asap was the right thing to do. Kerry, quite possibly, was RIGHT.

It seems to me, that under your rationale that, because Kerry was an activist over a controversial issue, he was a camera-whore sell-out? Would you also include actvists such as Ghandi, Princess Di, MLK, and others for speaking up and getting camera attention? What qualifies a person to disagree and speak out, in your opinion, or should we all just shut-up and take what they hand us?

According to the North Vietnamese leadership of the time...exactly the opposite is true. They were defeated and ready to quit until thir alliues, the Kerry/Fonda folks gave them the encouragement to continue. They decided then, that if they were willing to sacrifice enough lives of their people and ours...that our own people would demand that we withdraw....They were correct.

Although we eventually sacrificed a great deal of SE Asia along with South Vietnam....our efforts were still enough to halt the worldwise communist expansion.

Pulling out when we did resulted in the wholesale slaughter of noncommunist allies in the region.

It is different when a person lies and sacrifices his brothers in arms...just for the publicity. You insult the others with the comparison.

Kerry serving, or Bush serving? I liked Bush better when he drank like a fish and did coke.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1097589556.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1097589579.jpg

ditto

Flint wrote:
"our efforts were still enough to halt the worldwise communist expansion."

Did you see the movie, "The Fog of War"? This was Robert McNamara's view, then and now of the VN war (Secretary of Defense under Kennedy/Johnson).

http://blog.karzyn.com/archives/000078.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/02/28/morris/index_np.html

As is the case now in Iraq, the perceptions on both sides were driven by their own distorted view of the world. In VN, we thought it was communist expansion. They thought we were replacing the French as colonists.

In Iraq, we thought it was WMD. Hussein thought we knew Iraq didn't have any in the years after Desert Storm and we would keep the status quo in Iraq to continue offsetting Iran's threat in the region (no friend of Iraq).

In other words, one's truth is based on one's beliefs and perceptions. We should learn valuable lessons from history.

Sherwood