Kerry’s hypocrisy

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker
Even if that's true, can you complain about us trying to keep Saddam from gassing more Kurds?

I didn't say the no-fly zones were a bad idea... plus, we wouldn't have had to stop Saddam from gassing the Kurds if we didn't give him chemical and bio-weapons (and the helicopters we used when he gassed the Kurds) to begin with.

[Sava]

We had no business there except if we wanted to help them fight for freedom. Our support of our friends the french proved we had no concern for freedom.

you are absolutely right... and this is why going to Vietnam was wrong... (besides the fact we couldn't win).

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
Oh, and those planes over Iraq were enforcing a UN no-fly zone... we weren't "exploiting" a UN resolution. IIRC the no-fly zone was over the Kurdish area of Iraq, and so it was self-determinition we were SUPPORTING...

Funny, though, how quick you were to end this support when you needed Turkey's help.

[Pax]

I'm sorry. my views have little to do with whether or not Kerry is a hypocrite. Let me state this.

People who have went off to war in defense of country. Who have risk their lives and killed in the name of their country have proved that they are patriots and good citizens. Baring kerry coming back from vietnam and going on a killing spree I feel it's not only his right but his duty too stand up and speak out when he feels we are doing something wrong. That's what makes this country great freedom of speech. If we shut down opposing views then we limit our own potential. I support Kerry in his stance on vietnam the same reason I support Ned. If our mission in vietnam was just and right it can stand questioning. The more questions the more truth, the stronger the support should become if the cause is a just and right one. If it can't stand scrutiny there's something wrong with it.

[Sava]

If our mission in vietnam was just and right it can stand questioning. The more questions the more truth, the stronger the support should become if the cause is a just and right one. If it can't stand scrutiny there's something wrong with it.

wow you are really smart

[Ned]

Pax, there is no doubt our strategy in Vietnam was flawed as it depended critically on convincing the North Vietnamese to negotiate seriously. Whoever embarked on the strategy, and I believe it might have been Kennedy, underestimated the will of the North Vietnamese and the politics of a significant portion of the American people who did not oppose communism and therefore did not see any reason for us to be in Vietnam and all. We had this debate in the election of 1964 as to what our objective in Vietnam really was and how we would achieve "victory." Johnson never really answered that question but simply continued to ridicule Goldwater as being a warmonger and a person who would get us into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

That debate ended with the election of Johnson. He chose the course that he did because he thought it would result in a stable peace in Southeast Asia. The Republican Party held its nose and supported Johnson during those years even as the Communists and the even more radical Students for a Democratic Society began to mount antiwar demonstrations based upon their thinking that we were supporting the wrong side in Vietnam and Indochina as a whole.

When Kerry returned from Vietnam, he did not call for a revision of US policy designed to win the war in Vietnam in some fashion or to reduce American casualties as it was the Nixon policy at that time to reduce casualties by withdrawing our troops. He instead called for a unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam, in essence, surrender. While he had a right to express his opinion, he is not shielded from the wrath of most Americans who know that it was because of the likes of John Kerry that Kennedy's and Johnson's original strategy was defeated and whose demands for our surrender prevented Nixon from negotiating a peace treaty until his landslide reelection.

[Sava]

He instead called for a unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam, in essence, surrender.

which was the smartest thing to do... oh wait... we need to show those Vietamese how big our balls are! Letting tens of thousands more Americans die for NOTHING is certainly patriotic!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Well you should...

I note, Sava, that you have hard feelings about Serbia. Will you ever get over that?

My Dad fought in WWII against the Japanese. To his dying day, he had nothing whatever good to say about them. Nothing. He remained their bitter enemy to the end.

Ask any Asian who was alive prior to the end of WWII and they will say the same thing about the Japanese.

People who lived the horror do not forget.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
which was the smartest thing to do... oh wait... we need to show those Vietamese how big our balls are! Letting tens of thousands more Americans die for NOTHING is certainly patriotic!

Democracy is nothing?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
It disgusts me that the champions of democracy only support it when it's convenient. The lesson of vietnam should be that you can't defeat the will of a people.

we only support it when it'll STAY. We aren't going to overthrough a dictatorship simply to let it come right back. If we're going to exert the effort to get rid of dictatorship, we're going to make sure it stays gone.

Germany and Japan were both countries that had declared war on us and when we won we demanded and unconditional surrender Vietnam was a country that had been oppressed by the French and who had fought for their independance. We had no business there except if we wanted to help them fight for freedom. Our support of our friends the french proved we had no concern for freedom.

Or if we wanted to get rid of a US-hostile regime

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Funny, though, how quick you were to end this support when you needed Turkey's help.

So because we stopped doing a good thing, it's a bad thing that we did it? Huh?

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
Pax, there is no doubt our strategy in Vietnam was flawed as it depended critically on convincing the North Vietnamese to negotiate seriously. Whoever embarked on the strategy, and I believe it might have been Kennedy, underestimated the will of the North Vietnamese and the politics of a significant portion of the American people who did not oppose communism and therefore did not see any reason for us to be in Vietnam and all. We had this debate in the election of 1964 as to what our objective in Vietnam really was and how we would achieve "victory."

Stop right there. I'm talking about 1956.

[Pax]

Kennedy was not President in 1956. Are you saying we're trying convince the Vietnamese to do what we say. Are you saying that if they did not go along with our game plan then they were not "serious"
Ned,
Please impress me and stand up for your principles on democracy.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
While he had a right to express his opinion, he is not shielded from the wrath of most Americans who know that it was because of the likes of John Kerry that Kennedy's and Johnson's original strategy was defeated and whose demands for our surrender prevented Nixon from negotiating a peace treaty until his landslide reelection.

Ned,
I'd liked you better when I thought you really believed in democracy. It's was'nt Kerry that screwed up. It was the government not keeping faith with the principles this country was founded on.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


Democracy is nothing?

Please don't say that the U.S. was fighting for democracy when we would not allow elections.