Will Bush get re-elected?
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
ART,
Since you and your pals seem to admire Kerry so much for his anti-war activities, I hope you encourage him to make that history the focus of his campaign. I can't imagine why he wouldn't, unless he is somehow ashamed of it. I hop ehe schedules some joint appearances with Jane Fonda as well, just to relive the good old days.
If we are supposed to be voting for "change", it's only fair we get a good long look at what we're changing to.
Since you and your pals seem to admire Kerry so much for his anti-war activities, I hope you encourage him to make that history the focus of his campaign. I can't imagine why he wouldn't, unless he is somehow ashamed of it. I hop ehe schedules some joint appearances with Jane Fonda as well, just to relive the good old days.
If we are supposed to be voting for "change", it's only fair we get a good long look at what we're changing to.
I do wish Kerry would come out of the closet and admit he is a liberal.
In contrast to the way Bush lied to the people when he ran in 2000 as a "moderate" and since then has betrayed moderation, it would be nice to see politicians stand up for what they really and honestly believe in.
Unfortunately, many democrats are afraid of the personal and inflammatory attacks from the RIGHT, so they have become closet liberals.
In contrast to the way Bush lied to the people when he ran in 2000 as a "moderate" and since then has betrayed moderation, it would be nice to see politicians stand up for what they really and honestly believe in.
Unfortunately, many democrats are afraid of the personal and inflammatory attacks from the RIGHT, so they have become closet liberals.
Yes, those are surely the words of a 'nice guy'. Very white of you mavvy.
m
Quote from cdbern:
hehehe, now THERE is the nurturing instinct. What a sweetheart.
m
Oh, Mav! You soooo remind me of all the right wing hate mongers that now infest our society like so many blood sucking parasites. Vicous, ugly, nasty.
m
Of course it was. There is NO comparison between the conflicts as far as WHO WAS DOING THE FIGHTING.
Both conflicts are seen as unjustified by those who oppose (opposed) them. But in Iraq, the soldiers are soldiers because they CHOSE to be. And even then, enlisting in the Army (or Marines, or any branch of the military) STILL does not make you a "ground soldier" unless you WANT TO BE ONE.
The people who are doing the front line fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, or for that matter places like Granada and Somalia are all volunteers. Volunteers for COMBAT. There are hundreds of "job" descriptions in each branch of the service. Most are NOT combat positions. They are support positions.
In Vietnam, it was very very different. Virtually ALL the combatants were drafted. Virtually NONE of these draftees wanted to fight. And only a miniscule number of foot soldiers were even properly prepared and trained to do what they were doing. They were generally led by Second Lieutenants that were just out of ROTC and OTC programs. Their leadership experience was nil. They went from a classroom to a real battlefield.
While this can be said of WW II as well, this doesn't make it any less tragic. At least in WW II, America HAD been attacked. Our Allies were under attack. In Vietnam, neither was the case.
The veterans that are hiding away in the hills and mountains you talked about are an insignificant percentage of the veterans who returned and turned their backs on America. Probably a comparable number of vets stayed in Asia. These guys for the most part just couldn't make it back in "the world". For reasons of insanity, drugs, whatever. These guys are not "political defectors" from America. They each have their own stories. Their own reasons for choosing not to re-enter "normal" American society.
Being called a "traitor" for protesting the war is ridiculous. There was plenty of reason to protest. Not the least of which is that American boys were dying every day in a war that had nothing to do with America. It was a civil war. Vietnamese against Vietnamese. Plain and simple. The Chinese supported the North. We supported the "democratic" South. But even the Chinese were smart enough to not shed their blood in another countries' civil war. Why did we?
Kerry getting out early. GWB being "AWOL". All of it means nothing. I was drafted and sent to fight. And I speak not just for myself, but for virtually everyone who was drafted, or eligible for the draft in the late 60's and early 70's in saying that any of us would do just about anything to get out early (if we could not get out entirely).
There was NO SENSE OF PURPOSE for dying in that war. And there was a good chance of dying in Vietnam once your tour of duty started. And the very worst survival rate was that of the Second Lieutenants. These were the guys that were leading the "grunts". They KNEW that they had an extremely short life expectancy in battle. (Less than ONE HOUR!).
Imagine being led by a guy that was (for good reason) scared shitless. A guy that was put in charge of a platoon who himself had NO BATTLE EXPERIENCE. More times than not, the draftees had to tell the Lieutenants what to do. (That still hasn't changed....sergeants still run the Army). But at least today EVERYONE is thoroughly trained. During Vietnam, it was Basic Training, then AIT (advanced infantry training) and "Welcome to Saigon". High School, College, a job or the streets, to Vietnam in 4 months.
"Put down your books and pick up a gun, we're gonna have a whole lotta fun" (Country Joe and the Fish - "Feelin' Like I'm Fixing to Die Rag").
Oh, and BTW, in AIT back then, they did NOT prepare infantry guys (or anyone to my knowledge) how to fight a guerilla war. You learned "on the job". Marines and Green Berets and other Special Forces had more training, but they were a minute fraction of the ground forces. The draftees were almost 100% army infantry. (It got bad enough for a while that they started drafting guys into the Marines.....Why? Too many killed, and not enough volunteers to replace them. And the number of reenlistments was down to almost none.
I know of NO combat veterans who came back and did NOT protest in one way or another. The war sucked. Everyone who was there had friends killed or maimed. No exceptions at all!!
We paid with 58,000 American lives for what? If North Vietnam had surrendered (which was NEVER going to happen), what would we have won?
Who can name ONE SINGLE THING that would have made ANY lives worth losing to "win" in Vietnam?
Today Vietnam is still a communist country. But you can go there as a tourist. We can trade with Vietnam. (Can't say the same for Cuba
)My feeling is that it was UN-American NOT to protest the war in Vietnam. By the time Kerry was back, and by the time GWB was supposedly AWOL, guys were dying every day while delegates to the "peace talks" were arguing over the SHAPE OF THE TABLE in Paris for God's sake!
Who would want to be the last guy to die in a "war" that was supposedly being negotiated to an end? The whole thing was sick beyond comprehension.
Peace,
RS
Kerry was right, of course, and God bless him for having the courage of his convictions. All but the most diehard revisionists know that Viet Nam was an incredible blunder. A blunder for which many young Americans gave their lives. What a waste.
m
Sure, and maybe Dubya will schedule some appearances with his old coke snorting buds or drinking pals.
m
Just a little side note per your comment above. In one way, starting in Viet Nam our troops have been far better prepared for combat. And that is in the willingness to kill.
There's an interesting book called "On Killing"....
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...8953621/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-6987061-7767834
By former Army Ranger and paratrooper, Dave Grossman.
He's done a lot of research that shows that our troops 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. In Viet Nam that was way up to something like 60%. Probably even higher now. We've learned how to teach killing much more effectively.
Grossman also argues that today's first-person shooter computer games accomplish the same kind of thing...turn killing into an abstraction... a game.
m