Posted on 09/15/2004 6:54:54 PM PDT by CBull
He's actually an anti-war hero, and due to his efforts probably saved thousands of American lives by contributing to the wise decisions to disengage from a completely useless involvement in a futile war. It will be Iraqi war veterans that will do the same in the next few years.
Many thanks for the clarification. It's one big mystery how this wise guy seems to be able to wheedle out of the heavy lifting. While his shipmates are left behind to sweat and dodge bullets
(Yes he did display some valor in Vietnam in his four months but K has done nothing positive since then)
>> Some war hero.
> He's actually an anti-war hero, ...
He's trying to be both, and that's one of his problems.
As I consider the history, he wasn't even an anti-war
hero. He was and still is a pure opportunist with a
leftist tendency. His "testimony" was largely KGB
talking points (later admitted by them).
> ... and due to his efforts probably saved thousands
> of American lives by contributing to the wise
> decisions to disengage from a completely useless
> involvement in a futile war.
You are apparently unaware of the NVA general who
admitted that, absent the KGB-inspired AW movement,
North V. would have surrendered?
In any event, the war was a tragedy, and lacked clear
political will to either win or get out.
> It will be Iraqi war veterans that will do the
> same in the next few years.
The lessons of Vietnam were applied to both Gulf wars.
Clear objectives. All necessary assets to win.
The "war" was won and is over.
Winning the peace, as in Germany after WW2, is another
matter, but let's have some perspective:
The casualty rate is already approaching the peacetime
accident rate.
It makes vastly more sense to attract the cutthroat
cultists to face our top warriors in Iraq, than in
Abilene Public School #3.
We are ideally positioned to deal with Iran, and if
we don't, kiss Miami goodbye.
Kerry and his treacherous friends in the press are
pulling the same $#!+ now as they did then. The biggest
problems our troops in Iraq face are the New York Times,
CBS, CNN, Time, and co-conspirators advising the
Baathist dead-enders and imported islamofacists on
just when to launch their Tet Offensive.
> It's one big mystery how this wise guy seems to be able
> to wheedle out of the heavy lifting. While his shipmates
> are left behind to sweat and dodge bullets
The Swifties are presently sifting through 4 cartoons
of Kerry stuff from the USN Archives, some new, all
found just last week.
Although they are operating quietly, one thing has
emerged from studying the traffic - there are signs
Kerry has some powerful friends greasing skids where
needed. Wasn't his dad a diplomat?
Thanks for the Swiftie info. His dad was a diplomat but an outsider kind. He had some pull and friends but ./......
He's trying to be both, and that's one of his problems. As I consider the history, he wasn't even an anti-war hero. He was and still is a pure opportunist with a leftist tendency. His "testimony" was largely KGB talking points (later admitted by them).
Mr. Kerry has a lot of problems, to be sure, and I agree that he is an opportunist, but he was right to oppose the war upon his return whether the KGB takes credit or not.
In any event, the war was a tragedy, and lacked clear political will to either win or get out.
I agree that the political will was unclear, but let's not forget that in a democracy the leadership's will, it's strengths and weaknesses, is dependent on the people's satisfaction.
You are apparently unaware of the NVA general who admitted that, absent the KGB-inspired AW movement, North V. would have surrendered?
I'm unaware that the KGB was necessary to inspire an anti-war movement. Let's not forget that Viet Nam did not become a Soviet satellite. It was always first and foremost a nationalist war against western colonizers, something we would do well to think about when considering the Iraqi insurgency.
The lessons of Vietnam were applied to both Gulf wars. Clear objectives. All necessary assets to win. The "war" was won and is over.
The first Gulf War had a clear objective. Get the Iraqis out of Kuwait. The current imbroglio, had an ever-shifting goal, and is based currently on creating a democracy, as if a Shiite dominated government was somehow in the American people's best interest. Phttt. ( That's how I spell the sound of air being expelled from one's mouth with the tongue protruding between one's lips ).
The casualty rate is already approaching the peacetime accident rate.
The attacks on U.S. servicemen are rising exponentially. A hundred a day now from fifteen a year ago. The country is a disaster. Kidnapping is a major industry. Turn off FOX and listen to some news.
It makes vastly more sense to attract the cutthroat cultists to face our top warriors in Iraq, than in Abilene Public School #3.
Yes. I call this the King Kong defense. As long as we toss our young virgins over the fence Kong will stay on his side. Except we call them soldiers. But they did volunteer. Oh well.
We are ideally positioned to deal with Iran, and if we don't, kiss Miami goodbye.
LOL. Right now Iran is ideally dealing with us. Who do you think is behind a lot of the chaos going down in Iraq. We are in no position to deal with Iran. We don't even have enough troops to make Iraq safe for democracy let alone do anything worthwhile in Iran.
Kerry and his treacherous friends in the press are pulling the same $#!+ now as they did then. The biggest problems our troops in Iraq face are the New York Times, CBS, CNN, Time, and co-conspirators advising the Baathist dead-enders and imported islamofacists on just when to launch their Tet Offensive.
Fact is the mainstream media is just as culpable as the government for entering this debaucle for not reporting the facts. The biggest problem our troops face is the lack of prudence and forsight on the part of our leaders. There is a case to be made for their replacement, though Mr. Kerry has yet to make it. However, his expectation to bring in more international troops, while a good idea, might not be doable.
> ... but he was right to oppose the war upon his return ...
I don't agree with "right", but I agree he had the right
to voice his opposition, but he crossed the line with:
- pretending to be a war hero
- hearsay testimony
- false hearsay testimony
- consorting with the enemy
> ... as if a Shiite dominated government was somehow
> in the American people's best interest.
We may end up with a balkanized Iraq, something we
promised the Coalition partners to not seek. It may
be unavoidable. It didn't bother Clinton when it
happened in the Balkans, and it won't bother me in Iraq.
> The attacks on U.S. servicemen are rising exponentially.
Yep, it's Tet Offensive all over again, and for the
same reasons (and with the encouragement of Madrid and
Kerry). In time of war, it is crucial for a contender
to send a clear message to the enemy that whether the
incumbent wins or loses, the enemy loses. Kerry is
ignoring the Dewey precedent, and encouraging these
attacks with his vacant "I'd do everything differently".
> Turn off FOX and listen to some news.
You are making a reaching assumption here. I watch
almost no TV. TV "news" from any network is close to
useless, except in those rare cases of live events
where they leave the mic open, shut up and just let
us watch.
> ... and listen to some news.
Such as? There is definitely a market for a news source
such as the NYT pretends to be (but hasn't been for
over half a century). Absent that, I have to rely on
varied internet feeds, and cross-check the dubious ones.
> Right now Iran is ideally dealing with us. Who do you
> think is behind a lot of the chaos going down in Iraq.
That's where the "insurgents" are getting much of their
lawyers, guns and money from. Well, maybe not lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.