Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

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...

Well first I am sick of both side on the whole Vietnam issue...it is a purely academic study for my generation of warriors. I agree the Vietnam War was largely a nationalist civil war but do not kid yourself into thinking the communists were peace-loving peasants. After all, they were the aggressors.

Now as to the issue of Senator Kerry’s statements to Congress, yes he was articulate. However, a few fine points that make is statements fallacious. A free fire zone or what is now called a free fire area (FFA). Is a coordination measure established by a higher headquarters in order to prevent fratricide, it not a license to kill everything you see. In fact, you are still required to establish that you are engaging enemy combatants. This coordination measure simply allows you to aggressively engage enemy targets without asking permission first.

He also commented about seek and destroy missions, which is now known as close with and engage. Moreover, he presented it in a way that would have you think it was something that willfully involves the killing of non-combatants. The truth is that the primary mission of most combat units is to close with and engage the enemy at a time a place where you have the advantage. This defines the very essence of warfare from ancient warfare to the present.

If John Kerry went around killing civilians and non-combatants then he is a truly a war criminal. However, he can't blame his superiors for those crimes. The Nuremberg Trial clearly establishes that every warrior is responsible for his or her own actions. Further, he was a company grade officer his moral obligation is to prevent war crimes by his men at the time when they are occurring.

Look the Senator made statement that fit the ethos of a young man of his time. Let’s face it being an establishment supporter in the late 60’s early 70’s was not very sexy and not likely to help him get elected to any office in Massachusetts during that period.

[pHaestus]

Relevant (to this thread) polling results:

http://www.supermasterpiece.com/feat...lection01.html

lol

[Guderian]

I realize this is a bit late for me to post this but:

Who gives a shit what the rest of the world thinks?

Im not an isolationist, but you can't make your choices by listening to what the rest of the world has to say on our domestic issues. I have a hard time believing that our media is biased towards the incumbent (reguardless of party affiliation) and an even harder time believing that the foriegn media outlets can have a better understanding of events than the local outlets

My choice in president may make me the minority here, but there's nothing worse than a candidate, who, when pandering fails, attempts to talk over the heads of his electors.

That high and mighty approach may be the lesser of two evils to alot of you, but to me, thats a sure sign of overarching ambition and a general preference for "his record" rather than for the goals of the nation as a whole.

On a side note, did anyone else watch Frontline last night?

[BillA]

I am 'fortunate' enough to not own a tv

and if we are not to care what foreign pundits think (and I agree), why give a shit about the local ones ?

[Guderian]

why give a shit about the local ones ?

The only reason I can think of, is that (usually) they can vote.

Theres something about having a say in the process that seems to give credibility. I hadn't really thought about it in that way.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I agree the Vietnam War was largely a nationalist civil war but do not kid yourself into thinking the communists were peace-loving peasants. After all, they were the aggressors.

So... they were in our country? Or we were in theirs? Oh, wait, we were peacekeepers protecting the legitimate government, right?
You realize that going into Iraq with no exit strategy is going to make about as much sense, thirty years from now, when it's purely academic to that generation?

As far as free fire zones, based on what I got from friends who had been there, in a zone like that, not only was anyone considered to be hostile, but recon was done through firepower - for instance, if there was a bush and you couldn't tell if anyone was hiding in it (and that "anyone" was, by definition a hostile) then the best way to find out was to put a few rounds through the bush. Sorry - they had a specific phrase for this tactic and I can't remember it.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Guderian

Who gives a shit what the rest of the world thinks?

Location: Texas

How come I am not surprised?

[BillA]

hey Joe, I live in San Pedro (and I'm from San Francisco)

[Joe]

Yep, my point exactly

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

So... they were in our country? Or we were in theirs? Oh, wait, we were peacekeepers protecting the legitimate government, right?
You realize that going into Iraq with no exit strategy is going to make about as much sense, thirty years from now, when it's purely academic to that generation?.

Look nether where the Germans in ether world war. No doubt, that Vietnam means something to those who served in it, beyond academics. I come from a long line of Vets some of them Vietnam Vets. However, we have had three wars and +5 interventions since.

There is an exit strategy for Iraq. Establish as stable democracy the reduce troop strength. 30 years from now, you will eat crow when Iraq is the regional leader politically and economically. You fail to consider that to this day thousands of troops still occupy Japan and Germany.

Originally Posted by bobkoure

As far as free fire zones, based on what I got from friends who had been there, in a zone like that, not only was anyone considered to be hostile, but recon was done through firepower - for instance, if there was a bush and you couldn't tell if anyone was hiding in it (and that "anyone" was, by definition a hostile) then the best way to find out was to put a few rounds through the bush. Sorry - they had a specific phrase for this tactic and I can't remember it.

Look you want to tell me my business. I am an expert at the application and coordination of fires from the air, ground and from the sea. What ever you thought you heard from your friends is incorrect.

The specific term you are looking for is "I fired my weapon and the bad guys now know where I am"

Joe- Bill has dropped out in discussed...but I'm working on turning him back into a believer.

[killernoodle]

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by killernoodle

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gcharter/iq.txt

Interesting, California is the largest economy in the nation and fifth in the World but the IQ is only 101...we can't spell but we know how to make a dollar.

[killernoodle]

Beverly Hills is full of actors and sports people.

Nuff Said.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by killernoodle

Beverly Hills is full of actors and sports people.

Nuff Said.

That is funny, I was thinking that the actors drive down the average IQ but they are only a small part of the economy.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

30 years from now, you will eat crow when Iraq is the regional leader politically and economically. You fail to consider that to this day thousands of troops still occupy Japan and Germany.

Before the A-bombs and the firestorms, those countries were regional leaders, politically and economically. No wonder they are again today and nobody's eating crow. Before our coalition bombing inspired Saddam to write "Good God!" on Iraq's flag, Iraq too was the regional leader politically and economically. It (the Iraqi nation I mean) defended the Gulf States from the fanatical and triply populous Iranians. It began to rebuild. Now despite what's been done to Iraq, it will rebuild. Historians will mark a dark chapter in the life of that nation "US intervention".

Isn't it insulting to discount the former strength of the secular Iraqi nation, as though the people's natural state is this anarchy and the key to their development is continued American operations? This just strikes me as a very mean opinion of those people.

[Joe]

Well looks like its time to scratch plans for going over seas in the next 4 years, I am sure we will be at war with where ever I was going to go.

Maybe in 4 years we can emerge from this dark age of the republic, and actually talk to people in other parts of the world. It would have been nice to see pH move back to the US in the coming years, guessing that isnt happening now either.

Only question now, will Bush have the Imperial Anthem playing when they come on stage, and will Cheney be dressed up as Darth now? (Bush being Tarkin of course).

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

...Isn't it insulting to discount the former strength of the secular Iraqi nation, as though the people's natural state is this anarchy and the key to their development is continued American operations?...

It's the same thinking that got us / kept us in Vietnam for so long. As Lothar5150 says, that war is purely of academic interest at this point - which means we're free to repeat the mistake, I guess.
FWIW, the parallels between 1968 and now are a bit scary - including the "support our troops" bit - as though putting our brave folks in harm's way in a place they didn't need to be was "supporting" them. Given this morning's election results, it looks like a majority here thinks this is a good way to go - just glad I don't have any draft-age children.
Of course, I live in New England, and we're very out of step with the rest of the nation (except maybe the Pacific NW). I do think we should'a left the CSA go its own way, back when they wanted to (that war wasn't originally about slavery but about money and control of it).

[pHaestus]

You can look at this election as a big **** you to fiscal conservatives of the GOP I think. They know they can win without even paying lip service to balanced budgets and small govt and fiscal responsibility. As long as they're "the Jesus Party" then it doesn't matter.

My mother in law refers to Iraq as a "war for peace" and says Bush is "doing God's work". She had always voted Democrat until this election. She knew nothing of Halliburton and doesn't care about corporate ties to politicians. She always checks that they have never been divorced though. She also feels that law enforcement should have the right to search your car, house, or person at any time for any reason. "If you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't have any reason do be against this". This is the majority opinion in Louisiana as far as I can tell.

Well Joe if things don't turn around I may be asked to return to US. The rest of the world certainly has no love for Americans nowadays. At least my CAD is worth something (0.85USD approacheth). I hear that it's one of DC's most poorly kept secrets that Bush will soon ask congress for another $70B for Iraq. For some reason he wanted to wait until after the electon to do so. Go figure.

[BillA]

yes bk, like '68 the same small minds will increase the stridency of their anti Bush activities
- labeled as anti war for convenience

Mass = Kennedy + Kerry
yes, you people are different - why complain ?
that others do not share your values ?
get ****ed, why should I believe that your political position has some moral superiority over anyone and/or everyone else's ?

agreed pH, the deficit is the problem with the present GOP (religious) party control

[Joe]

Only thing missing is Riots to complete the 1968/69 appearance.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by unregistered

yes, you people are different - why complain ?

Not complaining, putting my views in perspective.
As far as being "small minded" for being against the invasion of Iraq, well, OK, you're certainly entitled to your opinion (Patriot act hasn't gone that far, at least not yet).
FWIW, I did feel that the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary - although I don't think we're now giving it the attention it needs - and making that country a successful region-leader in thirty years would be the sort of thing Lothar could give me a hard time about. I would love to be wrong on this one...

Also - I have plenty of problems with Cheney/Bush without the war (although that was plenty bad) - including lack of fiscal conservatism (so maybe we agree on this one). Looks like another 70 or 80 billion for Iraq as soon as the election gets over. Maybe a draft, too (although long term, I'm not so sure that's such a bad idea, given the way it motivated youth to get involved when the administration made stupid decisions and their a**es were on the line. Also good for things like integration and national cohesiveness).
I think Ph is right about the Republican party having become the party of Jesus - maybe it's time to re-name it officially - at which time I'd be glad to support a third party - the "real" GOP (Eisenhower style republicans).

[cybrsamurai]

<rant>

I don't mean to sound like a paranoid freak buy honestly how do the American people really know who won the election? With the lack in transparency in many of the states, seems that it could be manipulated easily enough. Not that it mattered much in this election both our candidates are the poorest examples of politicians this country has seen in years. I hope for the sake of the world that next time there are a couple of guys with a little more brain power and a little less god power.

It's the same mentality that made terrorists smash airplanes into the world trade center. When people say that Bush is doing gods work by attempting to catalyze positive change with force, it is exactly what the terrorists are doing! The terrorists of course don't have the same resources as our government so they are doing it the only way they can (killing innocents in order to impose fear on a populace in hopes there agenda will be heard and understood).

</rant>

I'm just trying to figure out which country I want to move to. I really don't want my family (in the future) to have to deal with this authoritarian religious garbage. Both candidates were campaigning as "religious leaders". This is really not what I want, I prefer my leader to use some form of logic. Canada is a choice but seems like it’s probably fairly cold. There is always Mexico but I'm not too thrilled with the economy there. Any ideas?

[BillA]

well, your first error was to have children, now you are hostage to the future
accept therefor that you will be compromising all decisions 'for the children'
there are many European countries in which the 'quality' of life is better than the US,
but this cannot be viewed in a vacuum; do you have the skills to maintain your family there ?
(I would LOVE to return to Tuscany, but have no means of making a living there)

if you want a leader with logic -> look elsewhere than politics, it is the process itself that is corrupting
only pragmatism can survive modern politics (i.e. they are all whores for the vote)

I think you are naive, read "The History of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russel (whose inane observations are unfortunately included)

the US has economic (and military) supremacy for a reason, it too shall pass - but not so quickly I suspect
momentum cannot be dispelled even by 8 yrs of anyone - and Bush is not totally wrong even if for the 'wrong' reasons

[pHaestus]

Just be aware that if you move to Canada or Europe that you're replacing belief that God's word will provide the answer with belief that government will provide the answer. Canada weather isn't bad if you move to Vancouver or southern Ontario. Also be aware that the system of government is a lot more lopsided here and that unless you live in Ontario then you don't really see any benefit for the tax money that you put into the federal coffers. Representation of provinces is a LOT more lopsided than that of states in the USA, in other words.

[Nightfall]

Kerry just admitted his loss.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137486,00.html

One more 4 year term left...