Will Bush get re-elected?

cdbern · Mar 10, 2004

Error, I'm not talking about opposition as far as WHO we are fighting, I'm talking about opposition to the war in general. The debates and heated arguements today can't compare to the Viet Nam era.

I was absolutley opposed to the war. Friends took their sons to Canada to avoid the draft. A cousin walked across the border and never came back. Up to a point I helped with the anti war movement. But what Kerry did went over the line. It was a war we should never have gotten into in the first place.

As for the Vets in the mountains. While it may seem like a small number, I don't consider 18,000 small. Another cousin counsels vets in that region daily. The number I just gave you is their best estimate.

Well not quite ALL were draftees. I do know of some who volunteered and lived to regret their decision.

Yes the guys coming back were opposed to the war. So why did Americans spit on them, call them names and beat them?? Where is the justification for that??

Error 404 · Mar 10, 2004

Quote from MackieMesser:

starting in Viet Nam our troops have been far better prepared for combat. And that is in the willingness to kill.

......................

in Viet Nam were MUCH more willing to shoot to kill than soldiers in previous wars.

........................

I forget the exact statistics, but it was something like 15% of frontline troops in WWII that actually fired effectively to kill the enemy.

When you are being shot AT it is more likely to shoot.

I bet the percentage of guys that fired their weapons ("to kill the enemy") who landed on the beach at Normandy on D-Day is right around 100%.

Peace,
RS

Error 404 · Mar 10, 2004

Quote from cdbern:

Yes the guys coming back were opposed to the war. So why did Americans spit on them, call them names and beat them?? Where is the justification for that??

No justification at all. NONE!!!!

Unfortunately, what I think happened (just a guess) is that there was SO MUCH and such passionate opposition to the war that in some people's minds they could not seperate the war itself from the soldiers. A very sad situation. A very sad reality.

Peace,
RS

AAAintheBeltway · Mar 10, 2004

Quote from Error 404:

When you are being shot AT it is more likely to shoot.

I bet the percentage of guys that fired their weapons ("to kill the enemy") who landed on the beach at Normandy on D-Day is right around 100%.

Peace,
RS

For once, mackie's right about something. They did studies on Korea and a high percentage of troops just fired blindly without effective target acquisition or sighting. I know they tried to improve it in Nam, but I'm not all that confident they made much of a difference. Most ground troops are killed or injured by artillery anyway, not rifle fire.

AAAintheBeltway · Mar 10, 2004

Quote from Error 404:

No justification at all. NONE!!!!

Unfortunately, what I think happened (just a guess) is that there was SO MUCH and such passionate opposition to the war that in some people's minds they could not seperate the war itself from the soldiers. A very sad situation. A very sad reality.

Peace,
RS

And what cd and I are saying is that Kerry and his pals had a lot to do with that perception. They instilled in the public's mind that the troops were "babykillers" and monsters. Of course, that also had the benefit of conferring the high moral ground to rich college kids who let some poor black guy go in their place and earn a place on the Wall.

We can debate whether the war was a good idea or not. I think most would agree it was not conducted in a rational fashion, with sanctuaries allowed for the enemy, no bombing of his main cities or harbors, etc, but of course a lot of that was brought about by the anti-war crowd.

The one issue I don't see how anyone can disagree with is that Kerry and his crowd encouraged the enemy, gave them hope if they held out, we would fold. Why do you think they dicked around endlessly in the so-called peace negotiations? They knew if they stalled, Kerry and his fellow anti-war activists would continue to erode support for the war.

Now people can say, well, that's his constitutional right. Maybe so, but what about the troops that are in the line of fire when he's doing this? What about the POW's that were being tortured? Anyone care about their rights? I firmly believe that the actions of the anti-war movement put thousands of additional names on the Wall. I don't want that kind of person leading our country.

cdbern · Mar 10, 2004

Quote from Error 404:

No justification at all. NONE!!!!

Unfortunately, what I think happened (just a guess) is that there was SO MUCH and such passionate opposition to the war that in some people's minds they could not seperate the war itself from the soldiers. A very sad situation. A very sad reality.

Peace,
RS

And this is the point. Kerry and Hanoi Jane went TO FAR. It went beyond opposition, to inciting the public. Testimony given to Congress led people to believe such criminal acts were common. I'm not opposed to people objecting to wars we get into. But for crying out loud, be honest about it. Don't use war or opposition to it as a means for personal gain. Don't get so carried away that the men coming home are treated with such contempt. Keep a level head, honestly ask yourself if you're doing more harm than good in taking the approach you're taking.

I'd like to see Kerry be man enough to say "the war was wrong, I was opposed to it. But I went too far in my opposition. Innocent men were hurt by an overzealous reaction I helped to create. I'm sorry"

Error, why did he bow to the cover up of unaccounted for POW's and MIA's? If he had been so opposed to the war, wouldn't it seem logical that HE would want to bring home all those who wanted to come home? But that isn't what happened. We left a lot of guys behind.

Error 404 · Mar 10, 2004

Quote from cdbern:

Error, why did he bow to the cover up of unaccounted for POW's and MIA's? If he had been so opposed to the war, wouldn't it seem logical that HE would want to bring home all those who wanted to come home? But that isn't what happened. We left a lot of guys behind.

You are asking the wrong person. I don't know anything about it. Except what I hear from those who are latching onto this issue as an "anti-Kerry" cause.

The good news for you and me both is this: the issue will certainly become part of the campaign. It will be addressed and resolved to the public's satisfaction one way or the other.

Keep in mind; Kerry is not yet the nominee. If he is "guilty" of anything in the way you and AAA perceive him to be, then he will NOT be the Democrat's nominee in November. It is far too important not just for the Democratic Party, but for America itself to have an honest, and capable and responsible man in the Whitehouse. Therefore, GWB HAS to be un-seated.

If Kerry has issues in his past that are at all serious, if Kerry has anything that is REAL that would hurt his chances to be elected, someone else will be drafted to run. There is still a lot of time between now and the convention.

I am amazed that the Republican Party does not have some opponents campaigning for the nomination of their party.

Isn't is rather obvious that as of right now, if Kerry comes through with a "clean bill of health" that Bush will lose? This "Hanoi John" nonsense seems to be a big issue. THE big issue. (Yeah, AAA, I know about the special interest stuff....not a good can of worms for the Bush people to open any wider).

This Vietnam protest issue remains the centerpiece....the photo of Kerry and Jane Fonda at a podium together was proven to be a fake? LOL!!!!

Seems to me that the Republicans...(I correct myself...the Bushies) have been grasping at straws. Calling the kettle black. Kerry was given preferential treatment so some poor kid from the ghetto could take his place on "The Wall"? Come on! GWB didn't use his family's influence to go into the reserves?

Cdbern, you sound like you are around my age. You should know that the three years between Kerry's age and Dubya's age was HUGE. In 1965, virtually ANYONE could have gone into the reserves and stayed out of Vietnam. But Kerry went.

By 1968, there were huge waiting lists to get into the reserves. I tried VERY HARD to get into a reserve unit. I was on "the list" when I got called. But somehow, Dubya just waltzed right into OCS as a reservist. Now certainly it may have been easier to get into the reserves in Texas than it was on Long Island. But nonetheless, I NEVER KNEW OF ONE SINGLE GUY who was able to go to OCS and then get assigned to a reserve guard unit. NOT ONE!!!! I guess I should have registered in Texas when I turned 18!

Peace,
RS

Error 404 · Mar 10, 2004

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

with sanctuaries allowed for the enemy, no bombing of his main cities or harbors, etc, but of course a lot of that was brought about by the anti-war crowd.

AAA, I have no idea how old you are. I guess not as old as I am. Because I remember people wearing "BOMB HANOI" buttons in 1963 or so. And there was no "anti-war crowd" then.

Maybe you should think about Dresden and places like that to understand WHY there were some "rules of decency" in the battle plan. Too bad McNamara, and old Maxwell Taylor, and the rest didn't have just a little more "decency" and been able to say "Domino Theory? Fuck That...Joe McCarthy is dead, and our system works and theirs doesn't. Let them work it out themselves".

But no, now we have the same asinine kind of mentality making us the "policeman of the free world" again.

"When will we ever learn?" (Bob Dylan - "Blowin' in the Wind")

Peace,
RS

Madison · Mar 10, 2004

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The one issue I don't see how anyone can disagree with is that Kerry and his crowd encouraged the enemy, gave them hope if they held out, we would fold. Why do you think they dicked around endlessly in the so-called peace negotiations? They knew if they stalled, Kerry and his fellow anti-war activists would continue to erode support for the war.

Now people can say, well, that's his constitutional right. Maybe so, but what about the troops that are in the line of fire when he's doing this? What about the POW's that were being tortured? Anyone care about their rights? I firmly believe that the actions of the anti-war movement put thousands of additional names on the Wall. I don't want that kind of person leading our country.

even accepting your unproven assertion as true - what other course of action was available? secret messages and discreet whispers so as not to encourage the enemy?

the US gov't had been feeding cannon fodder into viet nam since 1963 (?), conscripting kids, murdering thousands and wasting billions of dollars in a pointless slaughter, and showing no signs of slowing down despite wide opposition. apparently mild-mannered suggestions were not enough to convince the morons in washington that the whole thing was a very bad idea.

ARogueTrader · Mar 10, 2004

Sort of reminds me of this mother:

Quote from MackieMesser:

hehehe, now THERE is the nurturing instinct. What a sweetheart.

m