In which all but the most conservative polypeople have a stroke...

[Ned]

Ted, Kerry was opposed to the war before he joined up in '66. He was not just against Nixon.

Nixon was rapidly pulling out ground troops even at the time of Kerry's testimony in the summer of 1971. Nixon began pulling out the troops in the summer of 1969. Kerry's main argument was not that we should pull out the troops, because we were doing that already, but that we should instead abandon South Vietnam to its fate. Kerry believed we are actually fighting on the wrong side in that war as did the vast majority of antiwar protesters.

According to the memoirs of Giap, it was Kerry's testimony and the antiwar movement that kept the North Vietnamese from negotiating a peace deal. In other words, it was Kerry's testimony and Kerry's opposition to the war that actually cost many GIs their lives.

[Ted Striker]

I'd like to see the exact quote from Giap and not the "well traveled" adn far fetched interpretation by Carl Limbacher/NewsMax and Oliver North.


Secondly, I've heard a million, "if it wasn't for so and so, the US would have won."

There were a million reasons for losing and there were probably thousands of better reasons than Kerry's testimony.

Face it, we ****ed up. So let's leave it at that and don't let it happen again.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Face it, we ****ed up. So let's leave it at that and don't let it happen again.

Nah, Walter Cronkite screwed up.

[Ted Striker]

good point

[bipolarbear]

Is it still enforced? i haven't heard of it being enforced. Maybe its one of those really old laws, you know like the kind you find in those 100 hilarious laws books, that people are too lazy to get rid of, so they let them sit, until they make into one of those books.

[Ned]

Ted, I hope you for a minute do not contend that the antiwar movement had no effect on our ability to negotiate a peace treaty with North Vietnam. The antiwar movement and its effect on Congress was the single most decisive cause for the delay of a peace treaty until 1972.

I give you a few quotes from Kissinger's book "White House Years." In November of 1969, the secret negotiations between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho began. At page 444, the text reads,

"In the afternoon, it was Le Duc Tho's turned. He began by challenging my assessment that events had moved in our favor since August. "Onlywhen we have a correct assessment the balance of forces," said Le Duc Tho, in his role Leninist schoolmaster, "can we have correct solution." He revealed the importance Hanoi attached to our public opinion by giving it pride of place in his presentation. He denied Nixon's public standing had improved, citing a Gallup Poll which showed that the number of Americans favoring immediate withdrawal had risen from 21 to 35%. This, however, was "only" public opinion. "In addition, I have seen many statements by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by the Democratic Party, by Mr. Clifford, which have demanded the total withdrawal of American forces, the change of Thieu-Ky-Khiem., and the appointment of a successor to Ambassador Lodge."

All through Kissinger's book Kissinger illustrates just how the antiwar movement and the continuing resolutions by the Senate to unilaterally pull our troops out of Vietnam only hardened the North Vietnamese position. They stated that all they had to do was wait and Congress would force an unconditional withdrawal.

There is little doubt that the likes of Kerry and McGovern extended the war and caused severe damage to America.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

No, Ned, he wouldn't. Most Vietnam Vets respect him and his stances. He's drawing a great deal of support from them.

You should stop getting your ideas from Ted Sampley, a proven liar. You can repeat the same lies if you want, it doesn't make them true.

There are lots of vets who disagree with him too. So far I've seen no polls (believable or not) that address that issue. Personally, I think it'll be an albatross for him.

[SpencerH]

I'm a parent.

I was caned in school for the first time when I was 5; the last time was in grade 9 when I was 13. After 1974 9or so) corporal punishment was banned.

I'm 100% opposed to corporal punishment in school (and aside from a single swat on the behind, I'm also opposed to parents dealing it out but so long as its not in front of me, its their business). Schools are supposed to teach fundamental knowledge not behaviour. I do not abdicate my rights as a parent when school starts and anyone who strikes my children has to deal with me.

[The Mad Viking]

The function of corporal punishment is to make the person in authority feel better; to reduce their frustrations, and let them believe they are accomplishing something.

It is very cruel of people like SpencerH, molly bloom, and Laz to suggest that the feelings of these people should be violated by prohibting them from the blatant misuse of raw physical force against the most helpless members of our society.

Seriously, JohnT- I am a parent, and I am strongly opposed to corporal punishment.

Why? Because it makes no sense whatsoever.

If the use of power against others is wrong, how is it right to use it against the small, weak and fragile?

If they are not wise enough to understand, THEN YOU BEAT THEM FOR THAT??? WTF!!!

If you cannot make them understand, THAT IS YOUR FAILURE. GO BEAT YOURSELF!!!

All you are teaching a kid by beating them, is that you are stronger than them, so you can.

You then spend many years trying to teach them that it is wrong to beat someone just because they disagree with their behgaviour.

And you wonder why it is so hard for them to understand?

My older son is 17 and a hell raiser. My younger son is 14 and well-behaved. My older son, naturally, has friends of a similar nature. Some of these were corporally punished. It did not change their nature, but the mother of one of his friends has been hit back by her son. She then phoned the police. Stupid ****.

Facilities with corporal punishment often do exhibit better behaviour. But only as long as the threat of punishment exists. The moment you remove the threat, all hell breaks loose. Because no-one ever taught the REASON for the RULES.

If you want your kids to frow up to be human beings who can think, evaluate, choose, in short to LIVE, you need get them started now.

If you want them to be dogs, then go ahead and beat them.

[GePap]

My parents used corporal punishment, though infrequently- my grandmother did as well. It may have its uses but they are very limited, and certainly not in school.

As The Mad Viking said, trully behaving well is based on the idea of trusting your parents or the authorities, and believing they do have your best interests at mind, they know what they are talking about even when you don't, and thinking they have love you OR they whish you best, and thus give you the right advice in any situation, even if you do not understand it- at some point you get to understanding, but it begins with trust and respect- and I question how much trust and respect can be built solely from fear of pain.

[Ned]

Should parents have an option to corporally punish their kids and authorize the schools to do so as well, or should we ban it entirely?

[Drogue]

Re: In which all but the most conservative polypeople have a stroke...

I'm against this, though I'm not sure how strongly against it. I'm glad we don't have it, but I can understand the arguments for.

Originally posted by Elok
(the V.P. had resigned after being told to paddle a little girl for talking back).

I'm more concerned that a teacher felt the need to resign to avoid paddling a student. Surely, if it exists, the teacher should be allowed to choose another punishment?

Originally posted by Elok
But the idea that there's some kind of "arse-beating regulatory commission" to approve paddle thickness is even more depressing to me.

Considering the number of "find me a job" threads I've seen lately, this could come in handy...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Should parents have an option to corporally punish their kids and authorize the schools to do so as well, or should we ban it entirely?

Option a) providing that children can beat their parents when they misbehave; dad gets tipsy at the office works Christmas party and makes a pass at a co-worker, mum accidentally forgets to pay for an item at the greengrocers, uncle bob leaves the petrol station without paying for various services, and so on.

Then when they arrive home, a moderate amount of birching should ensure they never repeat offend.

All that corporal punishment teaches us, is the lesson that bullies teach everywhere- if you have power over someone else you can abuse it, the more power the greater the abuse. The bully's power comes from physical or mental intimidation- so can your parents' power, and your teacher's power.

'Do as I say, not do as I do' is the refrain of the powerful.

I suspect if your dad or mother had hit each other every time there was a parental/marital 'infraction' then Ned you would have been a ward of court long ago.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by JohnT
It is something that cannot be taught from a book, it is something that cannot be reasoned, it MUST be experienced, or else you truly have no clue.

I agree completely. We all experience it as a child. You say you are better qualified because you are a parent, others could say they are better qualified because they are closer to childhood, so remember it better. Considering how many parents haven't a clue how to raise kids, the fact they might have experience wouldn't necessarily make them any better.

And talking of experience, you wouldn't have experience (IIRC) of parenting a school aged kid, which this thread is about. Sure, corporal punishment may be needed at an early age, but later on it may not be.

[Ned]

Molly, I fundamentally do not disagree. I think you have convinced me that we need to ban it.