• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I'm sick and tired of Vietnam, or any service records regarding any war, being discussed with regards to an election. Why is it even a consideration for anyone when deciding who to vote for? I am thoroughly mystified by this.

In my opinion, being an officer in the army doesn't make you any more qualified to be the next president than does being a manager at a grocery store. Anyone that can offer useful insight as to why this is so important to so many people in lieu of debating other issues, I'm all ears.
 

yankeesfan

Diamond Member
Aug 6, 2004
5,922
1
71
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm sick and tired of Vietnam, or any service records regarding any war, being discussed with regards to an election. Why is it even a consideration for anyone when deciding who to vote for? I am thoroughly mystified by this.

In my opinion, being an officer in the army doesn't make you any more qualified to be the next president than does being a manager at a grocery store. Anyone that can offer useful insight as to why this is so important to so many people in lieu of debating other issues, I'm all ears.

Agreed, but Kerry is making it the basis of his campaign. He should be talking about his senate record. But, he doesn't have a good one is he doesn't make a big deal about it. Bob Dole speaks the truth.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Bush, Rove and the Shrimpboat vets are using it to draw attention away from real issues. They do it every election cycle; 2000 with McCain, 2002 with Cleland.

Kerry was simply showing he was in combat and was a leader of his boat and men.

It's not rocket science, but I suspect you are just fishing for something...

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Actually, Kerry brought up the fact that he's a war hero and used that as the entire platform for the DNC. Why? I honestly want to know why people think it's important.
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
It is an issue because once Senator Kerry won the nomination it was going to be an issue whether Senator Kerry and his election committee brought it up or not.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: PELarson
It is an issue because once Senator Kerry won the nomination it was going to be an issue whether Senator Kerry and his election committee brought it up or not.

Well while you are trying to pin stuff on Bush/Rove, it was Camp Kerry that fired the first Vietnam salvo. One of their first press releases was about Bush's National Guard service.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,785
6,345
126
Kerry was trying to Counter-Act the "War President, Bush = Security, Bush's huge gonads" Dog and Pony show. It was a No-Brainer that actual Leadership in Actual Combat situations does just that.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
The smear campaign is not a result of the DNC. O'Neill has been doing this for years and the book started far before the DNC. Kerry's sevice is part of Kerry's speech and Bio because it's part of who he is.

He is a man who volenteered for combat while the current adminstration is a bunch of hawks who avoided duty. I think it's important when you have almost 1000 dead in Iraq.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Kerry's actions are basically a response to Bush's militarism*. Have you noticed that nearly all of Bush's major speeches have been staged in front of uniformed people or taken place in military colleges or in other military settings not to mention the "Mission Accomplished" debacle or the "Operation Plastic Turkey" photo op in Iraq. Also the Vietnam War was such a complete disaster that the US still hasn't recovered from it. The fact that the current President of the US went to war for no other reason than out of political expediency and in so doing has created a situation similar to the Vietnam war does have a bearing on the election. Bush should be impeached for the Iraq war nevermind stand for reelection. The US hardly needs another trauma like the Vietnam war.

Winter Soldier Investigation

"Finally the general put Pleiku off limits because of the inflation, because we were driving the women to prostitution so they could feed their kids. We were driving all the [Vietnamese] people to corrupt activities just to keep alive. We were driving these people.And this is racism. We were the supreme race. These people were nothing."

And:

"In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We are probably much more angry than that and I don't want to go into the foreign policy aspects because I am outclassed here. I know that all of you talk about every possible alternative of getting out of Vietnam. We understand that. We know you have considered the seriousness of the aspects to the utmost level and I am not going to try to dwell on that, but I want to relate to you the feeling that many of the men who have returned to this country express because we are probably angriest about all that we were told about Vietnam and about the mystical war against communism. "

John Kerry testifying before the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1971. link

*Militarism: political orientation of a people or a government to maintain a strong military force and to be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.
 

Taggart

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2001
4,384
0
0
I think Kerry in the Vietnam era is most important because of his testimony before Congress. Either he perjured himself when he said war crimes were being committed, or is a war criminal himself. He should have been brought up on charges then.

Either one disqualifies you from the presidency.

This may sound like I'm a Bush hack, but I'm not. I look at Kerry independently from any political process. There is plenty I dislike about Bush, but Kerry has many more problems.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Kerry was trying to Counter-Act the "War President, Bush = Security, Bush's huge gonads" Dog and Pony show. It was a No-Brainer that actual Leadership in Actual Combat situations does just that.
So you're saying that being a boat commander qualifies you to be Commander in Chief? I don't even think being a general makes you qualified. It's an administrative position, not an active command in the military.


Originally posted by: Todd33
The smear campaign is not a result of the DNC. O'Neill has been doing this for years and the book started far before the DNC. Kerry's sevice is part of Kerry's speech and Bio because it's part of who he is.

He is a man who volenteered for combat while the current adminstration is a bunch of hawks who avoided duty. I think it's important when you have almost 1000 dead in Iraq.
How does him having served make him a better presidential candidate? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I don't care about the smear campaigns... I guess the real question I should ask is will anyone here vote for Kerry because he served or not vote for Bush because he didn't, and why or why not?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>sandorski</b></i>
Kerry was trying to Counter-Act the "War President, Bush = Security, Bush's huge gonads" Dog and Pony show. It was a No-Brainer that actual Leadership in Actual Combat situations does just that.<hr></blockquote>
So you're saying that being a boat commander qualifies you to be Commander in Chief? I don't even think being a general makes you qualified. It's an administrative position, not an active command in the military.


<blockquote>quote:
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Todd33</b></i>
The smear campaign is not a result of the DNC. O'Neill has been doing this for years and the book started far before the DNC. Kerry's sevice is part of Kerry's speech and Bio because it's part of who he is.

He is a man who volenteered for combat while the current adminstration is a bunch of hawks who avoided duty. I think it's important when you have almost 1000 dead in Iraq.<hr></blockquote>
How does him having served make him a better presidential candidate? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I don't care about the smear campaigns... I guess the real question I should ask is will anyone here vote for Kerry because he served or not vote for Bush because he didn't, and why or why not?


I won't vote for Kerry because of his record. He is better than Bush, so that's enough. There may be some merit in his serving in combat because he knows how it sucks, and think more before going off half-cocked. Bush has no clue it seems.

As far as anything else though, no I really don't care.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I won't vote for Kerry because of his record. He is better than Bush, so that's enough. There may be some merit in his serving in combat because he knows how it sucks, and think more before going off half-cocked. Bush has no clue it seems.

As far as anything else though, no I really don't care.
That's about what I was looking for. Thanks!
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
It's really quite simple - Viet Nam is the first war that the U.S. was not a decisive 'Winner'.

Our politians first involved our 'Advisors' into this conflict under the Eisenhower Administration,
while we were in the act of assisting France hold onto their fiscal investments in the area - the
Lipton Tea Plantations in the Central Highlands, and the Michelan Rubber Plantations in the rest of
the country, the South was the agricultural area of Viet Nam, the North was the Insustrial region,
and whoever controled the production of food (rice) controled that part of the world.

Somewhere along the line we had been supporting Ho Chi Mihn in his countries quest to escape
from the colonialism of France and their domination of Viet Nam, and the extended control of
French Indo-China - which included Siam (Thailand), Laos, Cambodia, Burma, and influence in
the politics and economy of Malaysia.

As we supported Ho &amp; his fighters, we were also burning thd candle at both ends - by supporting
France directly with military advisors in their set peice batles against an enemy that had taken
to the underground, and was fighting the French by using their place in the citizenry to resist.

After a huge defeat of the French in Dien Bien Phu in 1954 - and when the Mobile Group 100
was wiped out to the man at the Yang Mai Pass between Pleiku &amp; An Khe (no survivors) then the
subsequent failure to do what the political agreement with Ho &amp; Co had been, we - the U.S.,
tried to place a puppet government under Diem to stabilize the countey and secure the financial
assets that France had, as they were now in our corporate benefactors best intrest.

When Diem, a corrupt dictator that no longer was as co-operative as our polititians thought he
should be, failed to tow the line that we wanted, a covert assassination by the CIA replace him
with another puppet more to our liking, Ngyuen Kao Ky, he knew which hoop to jump through.

Then Kennedy was assassinated (posible revenge killing by the family of Diem) - and Lyndon
Johnson became the President. Well Mr. Johnson had a pack of liars and manipulators for a
cabinet that he had inherited from Kennedy, and with their internal power struggle to be the most
important people in the world, they never actually told him the truth of the matter, but they manufactured
convenient details such as the 'Domino Theory' - that if Viet Nam went under
Communist Influence, all the other countries in the area would immediately - if not sooner,
fall under Communism - and the world as we know it would come to an end, and everybody in
the United States would become a Russian speaking pawn of the Soviet Union. They went so far
as to fabricate 'The Gulf of Tonkin Incident' where a U.S. ship was attacked by North Viet Nam.
(Never Happened) but Johnson was told by McNamera &amp; his Cabinet that it did happen.
Johnson ordered an escallation of support and commited troops to Viet Nam and the run-away
snow-ball was on the way, more money more troops, but no truth to support what we were doing.

When Johnson found out that what he had been feed as 'The Gospel' was a pack of lies, he refused
to run for re-election, and in effect conceded the Presidency to Nixon. Nixon inherited this mess,
and half-heartedly attempted to disengage us from the war, within ia timefram that would prop
up his presidency so as th give him a second term - but Kissinger brokered a deal that was less
that he could have gotten 4 years - and many GI's lives earlier. Nixon became paranoid, and started
to undermine and plot against the 'Other' party, anyone who might be a threat to his Power Trip.
That brought us to Watergate, and the Executive Office supporting illegal corupt operations against
it's own citizens - and all this looks like the same stuff that Bush is doing today.

There are people that fught in Viet Nam 30 - 35 years ago, and when they go to sleep at night, they -
in their minds - are right back in those rice paddies, seeing their friends and fellow soldiers fighting
and dying again and again - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. They relive thier personal horror each
and every night, and will until the day that their death sets them free from the memories of war.

It's that simple - and that complicated. Mental and emotional wounds that they cannot forget, mental
trauma and disgust of what they did - and cannot justify or face up to, and get on with in their lives.
They are unwilling to admit to themselves that our forces lost - because the polititians kept meddeling,
and would not allow them to actually fight a fight that they could win - the goals kept being changed by
the asshole pollititians back home that didn't have to die - they sent others to do thier bidding.

And now Iraq is even less justifiable - and again we cover these polititains asses so they don't look bad.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: Taggart
I think Kerry in the Vietnam era is most important because of his testimony before Congress. Either he perjured himself when he said war crimes were being committed, or is a war criminal himself. He should have been brought up on charges then.

Either one disqualifies you from the presidency.

This may sound like I'm a Bush hack, but I'm not. I look at Kerry independently from any political process. There is plenty I dislike about Bush, but Kerry has many more problems.

Maybe you should read the transcripts and not get your mis-information from Hannity. He was spoeaking on behalf of 150 soldier that he had met with. Everything he said was true, but the USA was charging anyone with war crimes, so why would they charge Kerry? The stuff Kerry did do was all standard orders (free fire zones, etc.).

How does him having served make him a better presidential candidate? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I don't care about the smear campaigns... I guess the real question I should ask is will anyone here vote for Kerry because he served or not vote for Bush because he didn't, and why or why not?

You know the answer. There are troops dying daily, do you want a guy who has been in combat or a guy who dodged it? It's not a sole reason to decide your vote, but it's one of many.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
You know the answer. There are troops dying daily, do you want a guy who has been in combat or a guy who dodged it? It's not a sole reason to decide your vote, but it's one of many.
Is he going to literally go in there and take fire? No. The president is an administrator, not a soldier, nor a field commander. WinstonSmith is the one that gave me the information that I was looking for: Kerry would be considered preferable to those who think Bush goes to war willy nilly, whereas Kerry won't because he knows the horrors of war on a first name basis. That's what I was looking for, and whether or not that would affect peoples' decisions, which it apparently does. Fair enough?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: PELarson
It is an issue because once Senator Kerry won the nomination it was going to be an issue whether Senator Kerry and his election committee brought it up or not.

It would have ben brought up irregardless of what the Dem's did or didn't do. It was brought up before when he was running for office.

It is time to mobe to the issues, like TAXES FOR THE RICH!! hehe
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Why is it even a consideration for anyone when deciding who to vote for?
it isn't, war is hell and i don't blame anyone for anything they do to get out of it, dodge it, get back early from it, or make themselves look better than they where in it.

but i also don't think you should be running on those things either.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
<blockquote>quote:
<hr>Why is it even a consideration for anyone when deciding who to vote for?<hr></blockquote> it isn't, war is hell and i don't blame anyone for anything they do to get out of it, dodge it, get back early from it, or make themselves look better than they where in it.

but i also don't think you should be running on those things either.

You might change your mind if you had been the one fighting the war because you couldn't get out of it.


It's different now with an "all volunteer" army, but back then you enlisted or got drafted. If you were lucky you went to college and hoped the war would be over before you graduated. I personally think we should go back to a draft system. If nothing else, it would slow down the ChickenHawks from starting a war so easily.
 

Taggart

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2001
4,384
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33

Maybe you should read the transcripts and not get your mis-information from Hannity. He was spoeaking on behalf of 150 soldier that he had met with. Everything he said was true, but the USA was charging anyone with war crimes, so why would they charge Kerry? The stuff Kerry did do was all standard orders (free fire zones, etc.).


I heard the 'either a perjurer or a war criminal' argument from a Vietnam veteran. I then read the transcripts and agreed with the conclusion.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Regardless of what Kerry did or did not do, Bush dodged his obligation to defend his country, and yet now paints himself as our knight in shining armor, come to save us from terror. The fact that Bush refused to fight for his country, yet expects our men and women in service to fight and die when he says so, disgusts me and I am simply astonished that it doesn't bother more people. Bush and Co. must distract people from looking at Bush in Vietnam, so they turn all eyes to Kerry in Vietnam. It seems to actually be working...which says something sad about our country.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How does him having served make him a better presidential candidate? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I don't care about the smear campaigns... I guess the real question I should ask is will anyone here vote for Kerry because he served or not vote for Bush because he didn't, and why or why not?

here's the way I look at it... the president is also the commander-in-chief. when he thinks about sending my friends off to war, I want him to be thinking about more than numbers on a page. by having experienced war himself, he knows what these soldiers will be going through. his experience as a soldier will helm him understand the full ramifications of his decision to take us to war -- not just in geopolitics, but also in terms of the friends and family of the soldiers and the soldiers themselves.

it's not that I'm pro or anti-war, but I don't want a president who thinks of American soldiers dying as simply numbers on a sheet of paper.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Regardless of what Kerry did or did not do, Bush dodged his obligation to defend his country, and yet now paints himself as our knight in shining armor, come to save us from terror. The fact that Bush refused to fight for his country, yet expects our men and women in service to fight and die when he says so, disgusts me and I am simply astonished that it doesn't bother more people. Bush and Co. must distract people from looking at Bush in Vietnam, so they turn all eyes to Kerry in Vietnam. It seems to actually be working...which says something sad about our country.

So you're saying you would never vote for anyone who hasn't served?

In my opinion, I would almost prefer someone who hasn't served for the very reason that a lot of you are saying that you would prefer that the president had. If someone has served in the military, active duty in a wartime deployment, they know what war is all about and will likely be hesitant to send troops somewhere. Someone who hasn't, on the other hand, can take a more objective look at the situation. I'm not saying that this is the case (Clinton didn't serve and still wouldn't send in troops, Bush didn't serve and he still will), but theoretically, it sounds good. :D
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I guess if Ceteris Paribus then Kerry gets my vote because he served in Vietnam. But, it ain't that simple.
We are in Iraq under a false predicate! Someone has to answer for that and to me it is Bush. Show me a picture of a WMD/Delivery System and show me Iraq intended to use them immanently and I may change my vote. We can take pictures of mice feet from 300 miles up and we can task our intel 'eyes', so where is the proof!
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I guess if Ceteris Paribus then Kerry gets my vote because he served in Vietnam. But, it ain't that simple.
We are in Iraq under a false predicate! Someone has to answer for that and to me it is Bush. Show me a picture of a WMD/Delivery System and show me Iraq intended to use them immanently and I may change my vote. We can take pictures of mice feet from 300 miles up and we can task our intel 'eyes', so where is the proof!

Your exactly right. They critize Kerry for flip flopping on his war stance. Based on what I was led to belive at the time, I was for going in and stopping his nuclear and rocket program. I remember thinking at the time, they they better find something, or else.

Well, it turns out that they told us a lie. Now it is "or else" time. To quote GWB "Remember, these are the guys who tried to kill my Daddy". To me that's not a good enough reason to sacrafice 1000 of our young men and women. The "terroism threat" is real, but it is has been blown out of proportion like the "Communist threat " of the McCarthy era.

Bush thought he was opening up a "can of whoop ass" but instead he opened up a "can of worms" that will take a very long time and cost a ton of money to pick up and get back in the can. Whether he did it on purpose, or just made a big mistake is immaterial. He is the one accountable.