Posted on 02/06/2008 6:38:07 AM PST by shrinkermd
On January 30, 1968, more than a quarter million North Vietnamese soldiers and 100,000 Viet Cong irregulars launched a massive attack on South Vietnam. But the public didn't hear about who had won this most decisive battle of the Vietnam War, the so-called Tet offensive, until much too late.
Media misreporting of Tet passed into our collective memory. That picture gave antiwar activism an unwarranted credibility that persists today in Congress, and in the media reaction to the war in Iraq. The Tet experience provides a narrative model for those who wish to see all U.S. military successes -- such as the Petraeus surge -- minimized and glossed over.
In truth, the war in Vietnam was lost on the propaganda front, in great measure due to the press's pervasive misreporting of the clear U.S. victory at Tet as a defeat. Forty years is long past time to set the historical record straight.
The Tet offensive came at the end of a long string of communist setbacks. By 1967 their insurgent army in the South, the Viet Cong, had proved increasingly ineffective, both as a military and political force. Once American combat troops began arriving in the summer of 1965, the communists were mauled in one battle after another, despite massive Hanoi support for the southern insurgency with soldiers and arms. By 1967 the VC had lost control over areas like the Mekong Delta -- ironically, the very place where reporters David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan had first diagnosed a Vietnam "quagmire" that never existed.
The Tet offensive was Hanoi's desperate throw of the dice to seize South Vietnam's northern provinces using conventional armies, while simultaneously triggering a popular uprising in support of the Viet Cong. Both failed.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The blood on Kerry’s hands
By Jim Bancroft, Sep 1, 2004
Every action has a reaction. We sometimes refer to Newton’s Third Law in ways that do not refer to physical science, but to social and emotional constructs, events we see or hear of, events we perceive of happening or events that we experience ourselves.
In my life time, I have seen my country and our politics change in many ways. As a child, I watched the Vietnam War on television; I saw the body counts, I saw the nation fixated on the war shown on the TV screen, I cheered on the troops, and I felt sorrow when I saw the caskets and heard of our losses.
I also saw the anti-war protests on TV. I had to have my Dad explain some words and terms used by the Police in Detroit in 1968 after the riots in how they described the actions of the anti-war people who claimed to be for peace, but seemed to only come to fight and disrupt.
Their actions had consequences. The American people started to see our media play over and again the masses of people who looked normal sometimes, and some that were the Hippie looking type people. We saw abnormal behavior portrayed on television and in the news as being common.
We saw our nation change.
One of the people who most affected us, was John Kerry. John Kerry’s association with these anti-war groups changed our nation forever. I am 45, and even in my age, I see it. But, I wonder how many others do.
John Kerry’s actions, and the actions of those who openly protested against our country during the Vietnam War, made it socially acceptable to hate the US while living here, and to falsely claim what they are doing is Patriotism. The actions of the Vietnam protester was to make the call for Socialist or Communist type changes in our government system an accepted thing.
But that is not all. By their actions, a war was ended earlier than expected. Not in a way that was in our favor, but in a way that embarrassed our country even though we were winning the war militarily.
The actions of the anti-war groups affected national policy. We had anti-war groups start up earlier than 1968 when John Kerry entered Vietnam, true, but their acceptance and liveliness was not noticeable. It wasn’t until after John Kerry got home and started a group called Vietnam Veteran’s Against the War, VVAW, with his friend Jane Fonda that the openly socially acceptable participation in American anti-war activity took place in common American thought.
This was a significant group, in that, for the first time in our nation’s history that I can find, a group of veteran’s who had fought in a war, founded a group that was against national policy in calling for the war to end; not with a victory by our armed forces, but with a defeat of our armed forces. This group was calling for our own nation, THEIR own nation, to remove all troops from Vietnam, admit that our actions there were morally wrong.
They were calling for their nation to lose against the enemy, to give up the fight against the Communist system which genuinely threatened the nation of Vietnam since the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. And because of Vietnam’s geographic location, the seaways of South-East Asia would be threatened with a puppet government run by either China or the Soviet Union in direct opposition to the United States as a nation in order to spread their communist philosophy through the end of a gun.
And they did all this with the backing of our national media, and with all the backing of the political party that was against the President who was in power. . . who had absolutely nothing to do with starting the war in the first place.
These peace groups, led by John Kerry and Jane Fonda and Bill Clinton and their sort, caused our government to step back away from a national commitment to our allies in the South-East Asia peninsula, abandon our war against Communism in Vietnam, and in general, stop our pro-active response to the Communist threat that was a definite reality in the world then.
I titled this paper, “THE BLOOD ON KERRY’S HANDS” for a reason, and that reason all goes back to Vietnam and the effect that his participation in leading a group like VVAW had on the United States and the world.
The connection between VVAW and the peace groups and the early end of the Vietnam War without a US victory against the Communist forces fighting in South Vietnam has not been explored in depth by anyone that I am aware of. There are some things that are important to remember from this time period that can only be examined in hindsight; namely, What happened to the US and it’s policy in foreign affairs immediately following the Vietnam War, and why?
At the time John Kerry left Vietnam, it was early 1969. According to records kept by the US government, by the end of 1968, the US losses in personnel were 36,152 persons killed in action from service in Vietnam from all causes.
This is important for one significant reason: 1968 was the TET offensive, the last gasp of the North Vietnamese, a large offensive where the American people were told by a media that the war was un-winnable. But was this the case?
General Vo Nguyen Giap, the leader of the North Vietnamese Army during the war, had these comments to make concerning the efforts of anti-war protesters like John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and VVAW, which Jane Fonda was the co-founder with John Kerry; this article is reprinted from NEWSMAX:
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/1/110432.shtml
Gen. Giap Thanks Kerry & Co. for Anti-war Protests
Celebrating the 29th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the North Vietnamese general who led his forces to victory said Friday he was grateful to leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, one of whom was presidential candidate John Kerry.
“I would like to thank them,” said Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, now 93, without mentioning Kerry by name. “Any forces that wish to impose their will on other nations will surely fail,” he added.
Reuters, which first reported Giap’s comments, suggested that the former enemy general was mindful of Kerry’s role in leading some of the highest-profile anti-war protests of the entire Vietnam War. Before the British wire service quoted Gen. Giap, it noted:
“The Vietnam War, known in Vietnam as the American War, has become a hot issue in the U.S. presidential race with Democrat John Kerry drawing attention to his service and President Bush’s Republicans disparaging Kerry’s later anti-war stand.”
North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin, who served under Gen. Giap on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam’s unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, Col. Tin explicitly credited leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, saying they were “essential to our strategy.”
“Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement,” Col. Tin told the Journal. Visits to Hanoi by Kerry anti-war allies Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others, he said, “gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.”
“We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war,” the North Vietnamese military man explained.
Kerry did much the same thing in widely covered speeches such as the one he delivered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971. “Through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win,” Col. Tin concluded.
These are not insignificant statements. These North Vietnamese military men are crediting the American Anti-War movement with being the reason they held out in time of war. The obvious conflict in this statement of theirs is, if there was NO ANTI-WAR movement in the US, these North Vietnamese military men would have NOT been optimistic about the outcome of the war. They would have been approaching the US in an attitude of military weakness, not military strength.
This is undeniable. In fact, there are some more direct quotes from General Giap on this very subject.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml
Gen. Giap: Kerry’s Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S.
The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.
In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren’t for organizations like Kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.
That’s why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue “is going to blow up in Kerry’s face.”
“People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren’t for these guys [Kerry’s group], we would have lost,” North told radio host Sean Hannity.
“The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers,” noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.
“John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands,” North said.
The TET offensive of 1968 has been claimed to be a disaster for American forces, but is this the case?
Here is a short synopsis of just what happened during the TET Offensive of 1968:
Myth: The Tet Offensive Was a Communist Victory The 1968 Tet offensive was a total and complete miltary disaster for the North Vietnamese Communists no matter how you look at it. If you measure victory by territory gained or enemy killed, the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong failed dismally in their attacks.
The NVA and VC had counted on a “People’s Uprising” to carry them to victory, however there was no such uprising. They did exactly what the American military wanted them to do. They massed in large formations that were incredibly vulnerable to the awesome fire support the U.S. Military was able to bring to bear on them in a coordinated and devastating manner.
The NVA and VC attacked only ARVN installations with the exception of the US Embassy in Saigon. Despite reports to the contrary by all major television news networks and the print media, the VC sapper team of 15 men never entered the chancery building and all 15 VC were dead within 6 hours of the attack. They caused no damage to any property and managed to kill 4 US Army MPs, and one Marine guard. The South Vietnamese Police tasked with guarding the Embassy fled at the first sound of gunfire.
The NVA/VC launched major attacks on Saigon, Hue, Quang Tri City, Da Nang, Nha Trang, Qui Nhon, Kontum City, Ban Me Thout, My Tho, Can Tho, and Ben Tre. With the exception of the old imperial city of Hue, the NVA/VC were forced to retreat within 24 hours of the beginning of the offensive. In the process they suffered devastating losses among the southern VC cadres. Using the southern VC as the spearhead of these attacks was an intentional device on the part of the North Vietnamese politcal leadership. They did not want to share power with the southerners after the war, so they sent them out to what was inevitable slaughter. The NVA mainforce battalions were held in “reserve” according to Vo Nguyen Giap, in order to “exploit any breakthroughs”.
In the first week of the attack the NVA/VC lost 32,204 confirmed killed, and 5,803 captured. US losses were 1,015 KHA, while ARVN losses were 2,819 killed. ARVN losses were higher because the NVA/VC, reluctant to enter into a set-piece battle with US forces, attacked targets defended almost exclusively by South Vietnamese troops.
Casualties among the people whom the NVA/VC claimed to be “liberating” were in excess of 7,000, with an additional 5,000 tortured and murdered by the NVA/VC in Hue and elsewhere. In Hue alone, allied forces discovered over 2,800 burial sites containing the mutilated bodies of local Vietnamese teachers, doctors, and political leaders.
http://www.11thcavnam.com/education/myth_the_tet_offensive_was_a_com.htm
And that is the point of this letter. The actions of John Kerry and the anti-war protesters caused American men and women to be killed in war time in Vietnam, the very war where they insisted we withdraw and claim we were at fault and it was all our fault; where Americans were all war criminals and “baby-killers”. And it was a war we were winning.
According to American records, a total of 58,193 American personnel died in Vietnam from all causes, with 36,152 having died by the end of 1968 when John Kerry entered Vietnam. Kerry entered the Swift Boat Service in December of 1968 and served only 4 months before being sent home after his third Purple Heart.
In 1969, 11,616 American personnel died, and that is the year Kerry started protesting against the Vietnam war after his service. He had already made public statements against the war at the speech he gave at his Yale graduation:
“What was an excess of isolationism has become an excess of interventionism. And this Vietnam War has found our policy makers forcing Americans into a strange corner . . . that if victory escapes us, it would not be the fault of those who lead, but of the doubters who stabbed them in the back — notions all too typical of an America that had to find Americans to blame for the takeover in China by the communists, and then for the takeover in Cuba.
“The United States must, I think, bring itself to understand that the policy of intervention that was right for Western Europe does not and cannot find the same application to the rest of the world. “We have not really lost the desire to serve. We question the very roots of what we are serving.’’
Kerry’s actions after the war began as early as 1969 while an Admiral’s aide:
In October 1969, while Kerry was still on active duty assigned to Admiral Schlech, Kerry was flying Adam Walinsky (Robert F. Kennedy’s former speech writer), around New York state to deliver anti-war speeches. BY Jan. 3, 1970, Kerry had become so inspired by Walinsky’s anti-war beliefs that he petitioned Admiral Schlech, “to tell his boss that his conscientious dictated that he protest the war, that he wanted out of the Navy immediately so that he could run for congress.”
Admiral Schlech consented and Kerry received an honorable discharge from the Navy six months early.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html
Kerry was full force into the VVAW by early 1970. The anti-war movement was well known by then and many protests were held including the ill fated Kent State incident.
John Kerry did not just protest in the US because of his beliefs, he also traveled to meet the Communist leaders of North Vietnam in Paris.
“ John Kerry, in sworn testimony before the Senate in April 1971, said he met with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong delegations in Paris in May 1970. He said they discussed their peace proposals — especially the eight points of Madam Binh. Kerry strongly recommended that the Senate accept those proposals.
I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh’s points...
…I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera.
In the ensuing months, Kerry became even more strident in his insistence that the US accept Madam Binh’s (and the NVM and VC’s) peace proposals.
Meanwhile, other representatives of Kerry’s group, the Vietnam Veterans Against The War (VVAW ), met with the NVM and VC delegations in Paris, in March 1971. They were even photographed sitting at a table with them, as in a photo displayed in Winter Soldiers, by Richard Stacewicz, page 284.
Subsequently, VVAW representatives met with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong delegations on numerous occasions, both in Paris and even in Hanoi.
The VVAW even signed a treaty with the North Vietnamese which included all of Madam Binh’s points, as noted by the historian of the anti-war movement, Gerald Nicosia, his book Home To War: “
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3778
The FBI has recently released the files on VVAW and can be found here, documenting the knowledge of Kerry’s visit to Paris to speak with the North Vietnamese:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=VVAWFBI
These actions in meeting with foreign leaders who are directly engaged in treaty negotiations with the United States Government border on treason.
Did Navy Lt. Kerry violate The UCMJ?
August 23rd, 2004
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a federal law, enacted by Congress. Its provisions are contained in United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 47. Article 36 of the UCMJ allows the President to prescribe rules and procedures to implement the provisions of the UCMJ. The President does this via the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) which is an executive order that contains detailed instructions for implementing military law for the United States Armed Forces.
The UCMJ states:
ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or (2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3778
John Kerry’s meeting with the North Vietnamese, the very people who are killing Americans in the war, borders precariously close to treason, enough to be investigated.
What must be reinforced here, however, is the effect of these actions concerning the point of this paper: How many men died at this point, and what did the North Vietnamese say about why they prolonged the war?
It was the American Anti-War movement.
John Kerry was a part of that movement, a major leader of that movement.
The North Vietnamese publicly stated that the American anti-war movement encouraged them to continue to fight.
The next connection is impossible to avoid: John Kerry’s actions directly lead to American servicemen and women to be killed in combat because of the encouragement his actions gave to the enemy, the North Vietnamese.
From 1970 until the end of American involvement in 1975, 9,586 Americans were killed in Vietnam. Killed because American anti-war protests encouraged the North Vietnamese to continue fighting the war.
It is not a stretch to see that the actions of John Kerry and Jane Fonda directly lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans in the Vietnam War.
Is this the only list of failures or deaths caused by the American Anti-war movement? Sadly, no.
American foreign policy was changed dramatically after the Vietnam War. American military dominance was questioned, new weapons programs were held back, American intelligence operations were ended and our CIA was attacked and almost shut down, efforts to remain technologically superior were thwarted at times, and material replacement of military hardware was slowed or refused after 1975.
American prestige was shattered globally. The newspapers of the world all spoke of the American loss in Vietnam, the movie industry put out movies showing Vietnam veterans as psychotic drug abusers or wife beaters and social misfits.
But most importantly, it shattered American resolve to fight when necessary. It caused American public opinion to sway and support a political party over another, even though the party portrayed in a negative light had nothing to do with causing the war and never received the respect it deserved with ending it without a total disaster for the American public had we followed the advice of the anti-war protesters.
This lack of resolve showed in 1975 when the North Vietnamese invaded the South and began a slaughter, killing as many as 1 Million people, causing over 1.5 Million to 2 Million people to flee in small boats to save their very lives.
This lack of resolve showed later that year when the Khymer Rouge began their systematic genocide in Cambodia, leaving the US powerless to intervene to stop the killing, and over 1 Million people were slaughtered.
This lack of resolve showed even in 1979 when the American Embassy was overrun in Tehran, Iran, and then President Jimmy Carter failed to respond with forceful effort with our military in response to the new world threat: Islamic Terrorism.
This lack of resolve showed when then President Ronald Reagan failed to fully make a military effort in Lebanon because of a lack of backing in the House and Senate.
This lack of resolve showed when the Contras were supported for a year or two, only to have the Democrat Senate and House remove the means to provide for their actions against a Communist dictatorship in Nicaragua.
By then, it was almost too late. American resolve was a joke. It took the efforts of Ronald Reagan to rebuild our military out of the shambles that Jimmy Carter left it. It took the efforts of George H. W. Bush in defending the nation of Kuwait in the first Gulf War.
But, once again, an anti-war person came to the forefront, Bill Clinton, who during the 1990’s, ignored the obvious threat of radical Islam that the world was facing.
And again, in 2001, with a lot of words, people like John Kerry started blaming someone else instead of the bad guys for 9/11. John Kerry voted for war against the Taliban, and then again voted for war against Saddam Hussein.
But what happened next? The Anti-War movement came out of hiding, and in a war where the enemy directly provided aide and support for terrorists who exploded bombs on American soil, anti-war activists have once again divided the American people, and John Kerry is one of their leaders . . .again.
It is not that much of a stretch to see what happened from John Kerry’s actions in the 1960’s to today, and how people like him affected our national government policy through their activism and actions.
By leading and organizing protests against the war, John Kerry encouraged the North Vietnamese to continue the war, and thousands of Americans died...
Over a Million South Vietnamese died...
Over a Million Cambodians died . . .
American prestige was tarnished. . .
Islamic terrorism was born and not stopped because of American reluctance to engage in combat after Vietnam, reluctance which was called the “Vietnam Syndrome” . . .
Communism attempted to overthrow more countries in our own hemisphere . . .
An anti-war leader, Bill Clinton, carrying on the same traditions as John Kerry, failed to stop the obvious growing threat of Islamic Fundamentalist sponsored terrorism . . .
And now, we are engaged in a world wide terror war. The United States appears to be alone in it, too. All because of the pacifism of the American Anti-War movement of the 1960’s.
That’s when it started in our generation.
John Kerry has blood on his hands.
Jim Bancroft is a former Marine who served in the United States Marine Corps from 1977 to 1981, and served off the coast of Iran for the Hostage Rescue Attempt of April 24-25, 1980.
Asymmetrical warfare doesn’t follow the same metrics of success that conventional warfare produce. It’s not judged by body counts, by land controlled or buildings destroyed it’s about getting the other guy to quit.
And when you are fighting for your home, you ain’t going to quit. If we didn’t quit, we’d still be fighting in Vietnam today. Just look at the history of Vietnam, it’s fighting off one large, powerful, nation after another. We didn’t stand a chance.
While we lost the battle, we won the war. Our stand in Vietnam sent a message to the Soviets and Chinese that we’d fight their expansion every step of the way.
Ping and Bump
Close your eyes, and imagine the reaction to today’s MEDIA to the 1944 Nazi attack through the Ardennes Forest into Belgium.
The “headlong” retreat of American forces would be said to give lie to the military’s claims of success on the field of battle. The grounding due to bad weather of our air power, would merely prove to be a misdirected reliance on “New Technology” and a grand waster of the taxpayers dollars.
The media would demand a congressional investigation of the absolute “failure or intelligence” on the part of the military, a failure that is a “continuation of military intelligence failures that began at Pearl Harbor.”
The heroic stand at Bastogne would merely be evidence of the “quagmire” our government had allowed to get worse.
The media, on learning of the over 40,000 casualties the US Army suffered, would demand at once “ a timetable for withdrawing from the swamp that is Europe.”
And of course, on the many colleges campuses across the nation, Student protesters would raise the demand for “Peace Now”.
In the 30’s, the Nazi’s falsely claimed the German Army was “stabbed in the back” and thusly lost WW I.
In the 60’s, the American military was TRULY ‘stabbed in the back’ and a war being succesfully waged was lost “back home”.
The media is at it again. Sad, isn’t it?
Here is the naivety of the Drive by media thinking that somehow a victory is cheapened by the fact the enemy did not throw up the white flag and embrace the Americans with open arms (noticed I said enemy, not population). I must quote General Patton who was rumored to say, "No poor dumb B*stard every won a war by dieing for his country, he won it, by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country".
There you have it: the leftist press project their own cowardice, ignorance, and lack of preparedness onto everybody else. They do so when "reporting" on almost any topic.
101st Airborne Division surrounded at Bastogne. War lost!Why are we still in this European quagmire?
FWIW, today, nearly every American has a PC available to them to surf the net, compared to nearly every American having a firearm in the late 30’s/early 40’s.
Even with this much technology available, how much effort has been made in a PR campaign to unify the American people behind a War on Terror?
You say, “John Kerry has blood on his hands...”
I agree, but do not fail to include the bloodiest hands of them all - the US media and the peace movement.
The NVA General wrote in his book years later that they realized they were defeated, that the might of the USA was too much for them...but then, after hearing Walter Cronkite talk about ‘the defeat’ at Tet, he detected a weakening in the fighting spirit of the US public.
He told his underlings that if they could only hang on, the US press would turn public opinion against the war.
At this time, there was less than 15,000 US deaths...after the VC was able to ‘hang on’ thru the withdrawal, there was over 58,000...
Do the math and attribute the majority of that to the US media and the peace movement.
And history is trying to repeat itself today with Cindy Sheehan, Pelosi, Reid, et al...
God Bless our Troops and their families
Yes, that was clear at the time -- and guess who was writing much of the lies.
I'll never get it.
How can Senator McCain continue to hate the Communist criminals who tortured him and his fellow POWs yet embrace and ally with the Americans who cheered his captors, lied about his fellow servicemen, lied about Viet Cong "victories" and thus prolonged the war and the POW's captivity?
I have no doubt that those allies would have cheered the Communists' public executions of McCain and his fellow POWs. Seriously.
It don't make a lick of sense.
Chief Cheer Leader in the media for the anti-American crowd was Walter Cronkite. If I’m still drawing breath when the old communist dies I will find where he is buried and piss on his grave.
““We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war,” the North Vietnamese military man explained”
Jane Fonda is responsible for more American casualties than the 9-11 attackers.
Carolyn
You better re-read my paper, it is not just against John Kerry! :)
However, this one is more close to your point:
On a few website bulletin boards, I have used the term PEACE NAZI to describe the peace movement in general, and one person asked me for an explanation as to what the term means and why I say it. Here is my answer:
It is intentionally derogatory, and I use it because I believe it has to be said.
It has to do with the foundation of the PEACE movement in the US and abroad and their Communist foundation, and how the majority of the signs held and slogans chanted are not about peace or genuine concern for the people of two warring countries, it is about the anti-American attitudes and the violence-inducing signs and slogans calling for violence against American Troops and President Bush.
Carrying signs calling on troops to kill their officers, to bomb Texas, for Bush to choke on a pretzel and die, for troops to shoot their officers, signs that call for communist revolution, starting fights with people who disagree with you while carrying a peace sign, trying to steal my money in Boston while carrying a peace sign and then telling me because you were shamed into giving back the money that means you are ok after all...
Things like that.
I will NOT stop using it. It is intended to make the peace protestor think.
After all the horrors we found in Iraq, you should all be thankful we went in and invaded to remove that madman. Yet, the mantra has changed, it is now against occupation and most recently a call for early withdrawl without any victory!
Repeatedly, information comes out of Iraq proving the terrorist connections of Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.
Still, not one PEACE NAZI has apologized and admitted we were right. All they did is complain that a people that were under slavery for 30 years were looting after Saddam was overthrown, and who do they blame? Why the US!! We did nothing to stop it! Maybe because we stayed out of the crowd because the PEACE NAZIS would have complained we didn’t let them vent their anger??
(As a side note, people who are now called PEACE NAZIS didn’t call on the LAPD or Federal Troops to stop the LA riots after the Rodney King riots, did they? They told us all to step back and let them vent their anger, yet all of a sudden, we were supposed to go in and use force to stop rioters in Iraq?)
And to top it off, we are flushing out the terrorists in places like Fallujah, the places where the Murderous Mullahs all take refuge, and the PEACE NAZIS have not ONCE held a rally to decry the beheadings of Americans or Iraqi CARE workers! Not one PEACE NAZI rally held to call for justice for the Killers of Daniel Pearl or any foreigner killed in Iraq!
We never intended to occupy a country like SYRIA had the last 20 years, and where were the PEACE NAZIS and their signs calling on SYRIA to leave Lebanon? They are non existent. The Syrians killed tens of thousands, chasing little children into bedrooms and shooting them point blank.
Did you know there was a Christian Community in Beirut before 1985? Now, they are almost either all killed or fled from the Syrian backed Junta, and not a peep from the PEACE NAZIS, only against American forces sent to Beirut to keep peace. Why aren’t the PEACE NAZIS arguing for the return of the Christian Community back to Beirut where they lived for 2 Millennium?
Where were the PEACE NAZIS when Israel was blockaded in 1967?
Where were the PEACE NAZIS when Israel was attacked on her Holy Day of Yom Kippur in 1973?
Where were the PEACE NAZIS when the PLO was shelling Katyusha rockets into Israel in 1982?
Oh, Yeah, I remember, they were telling Israel to stop defending themselves!
In fact, there is not a single country that we ever went to war with that we stayed as the governing power for more than 10 years! We always returned it to the people.
And that brings up another point: PEACE NAZIS are NOT against war, they are against wars that the US is engaged in to overthrow pro-Communist or PRO-radical Islamic regimes or PRO-Maoist/PRO-Stalinist regimes.
My point here, is simple: These COMMIES are not for peace. If they were, they would have been screaming about Clinton killing innocents to keep his sexual scandals off the tv;
they would have been screaming for the Palestinian Liberation Organization to stop killing Jews;
they would have been screaming for Hamas and Islamic Jihad to stop killing Jews;
they would have been screaming for the Hutus and Tutsis to make peace;
they would have been screaming for that madman Saddam to stop killing Kurds or Iranians;
they would have been screaming for the Turks to stop killing Kurds or Greeks;
they would have been screaming for the Chinese to stop killing Vietnamese in 1982;
they would have been screaming for the Angolan Army to stop killing with the help of the Cuban Army in the 1980’s;
they would have been screaming for the Muslims to stop killing and beheading school age children and other Christians in Indonesia, Malaysia, and China and North Korea;
They would have been screaming for the Sudanese to stop the torture and slave trade which continues today in Darfur;
They would have been screaming when the Syrians invaded Lebanon in 1985 and have continued an occupation of Lebanon since the 1980’s;
They would have been screaming when Pol Pot started a genocide in 1975;
They would be screaming now about Mugabe killing all the white farmers in Africa in Zimbabwe;
They would have been screaming at the murders caused by the African National Congress and their necklacing of prisoners and at Winnie Mandela who was convicted of murder, yet the communists are silent;
They would have been screaming about Tiananmen Square, but they are silent;
They would have been screaming about the repression in Cuba and why so many people have chosen to flee in rickety little boats, but instead they lionize that dictator, Castro;
They would have been screaming about the invasion of South Vietnam in 1975 where the north started a genocide campaign in direct violation of the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 and caused over 2 million Vietnamese to flee in little boats that got picked up by ships like the one I was on in 1981;
They would be screaming at the Palestinians for their suicide bombings that intentionally target innocent school age children;
They would be screaming at the Palestinians for their suicide bombings that intentionally target innocent people on buses, or pizza parlors, or weddings, or wheel-chair bound invalids on cruise ships, or Olympic hotels;
They would have been screaming at the rioters in France, except Peace-Nazis do not scream when Muslims kill people or destroy things.
Except, the only time they scream is when the US is at war against a tyrant who is support by Russia or France.
In much of the world, the antics and policies of these PEACE NAZIS would result in jail – or worse. Cuba, China and many socialist countries routinely eliminate protests – and protesters – against the government and its leaders. It seems ironic that the ultimate goal of these protesters is to transform America into the kind of government that tolerates no dissent.
And since NAZI is one of the most vile insults you can give someone in our last two generations, I call them PEACE NAZIS, for they are not for peace, they are for war, they are for the overthrow of my country and into communism and anarchy, and they are a violent bunch who base their foundation on lies and the telling of lies and the repeating of lies.
***Chief Cheer Leader in the media for the anti-American crowd was Walter Cronkite. If I’m still drawing breath when the old communist dies I will find where he is buried and piss on his grave.****
Same thoughts here!
“If you believe that we ‘lost’ the Vietnam War, as opposed to simply canceling it like a TV series that has dropped in the ratings, then you should know we did not lose it to Ho Chi Minh. We lost it to Walter Cronkite.” — Jim Morris
for later
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.