Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lothar5150
Kerry is not a bad guy because he decide that Vietnam was bad policy, he is a bad guy because of the way he went about it and because he claimed that his peers where war criminals.
|
He claimed that
he and his peers were war criminals - and that they had no choice but to be, given things like "free fire zones".
Kerry also claimed that both the Vietnamese peasants and the GIs we sent there were victims. As far as I can tell, he was trying to reduce the number of future victims (which I would have been one of - was in high school during the famous "war soldiers" gatherings) and there very definitely was a draft.)
He was a
very angry guy - and I don't blame him. He was also pretty eloquent about the war (heard him once in '67 or '68). It was very clear that he felt
used. He and his buddies gave
everything and they got used - and were
pissed (those that lived, anyway).
So... what part of the "way he went about it" makes him a bad guy? And how could he have gone about speaking out about what was going on in 'Nam and
not been a bad guy in your eyes? Wait for Nixon to complete "Vietnamization"? How was
that a solution? If you believe (as I think Kerry did) that both sides of the war there were victims, then that would just make for more victims.
My own personal take at the time (which hasn't changed much over 30+ years) was that not only were we involved in a civil war, but we were on the side of the "bad guys". Read John Paul Vann's book as it pretty much sums up my thinking in '68 - and now.
From another angle, you have to figure that JWB agreed with him at the time - at least about 'Nam being a bulls**t war - why else would he have gone to so much trouble to avoid it? And you have to ask - what is the best way to "go about" a bulls**t war:
1) go, fight, come home, protest
2) avoid (dad's in congress, so get a Guard pilot slot)
Of course, picking a president based on something he did or didn't do 30+ years ago is pretty dumb.
Yes, Kerry was the first one to bring it up, but the Bush camp, by responding as they have, made it a perfectly legitimate place to examine both candidates. You
really think what GWB did was the right way to deal with a war like that? Make use of place and wealth to not be inconvenienced? Let the lower class guys go and maybe die? And Kerry's approach was wrong? His family wasn't rich but they had enough connections that he probably could have gotten a place in the guard...
Sorry - you got me started - guess
I'm still pissed about 'Nam, too - thought I'd let that one go...