John Kerry: Unfit For Command

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
To be honest with you, MtG, I cringe when I think of turning a hot war over to a Democrat, especially an Vietnam anti-war type like Kerry. I think back to the way Johnson handled Vietnam: More and more troops and no strategy for victory.

yeah Roosevelt really botched WW2... those damn Democrats can't fight a war worth a damn!

[Imran Siddiqui]

It would be very difficult for Bush to now endorse the charges given McCain public condemnation. Bush needs McCain more than he needs the Swiftboat Veterans.

And also, it'd seem VERY petty and put people off, especially since Bush has no combat experience.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
To be honest with you, MtG, I cringe when I think of turning a hot war over to a Democrat, especially an Vietnam anti-war type like Kerry. I think back to the way Johnson handled Vietnam: More and more troops and no strategy for victory.

As opposed to not enough troops, denying the need for more, and no strategy for victory or stabilization?

[Sava]

btw, good to see you ned, I had forgotten what a crazy place the Nedaverse is.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
To be honest with you, MtG, I cringe when I think of turning a hot war over to a Democrat, especially an Vietnam anti-war type like Kerry. I think back to the way Johnson handled Vietnam: More and more troops and no strategy for victory.

And what would such a strategy have been? We were trying to keep the corrupt south vietnamese regime in power without starting world war three with a full scale invasion of North Vietnam and so forth.

Vietnam was an unwinnable war from day 1.

Of course, if you look at this century and last, Republicans have not gotten involved in any wars with anyone but small powers (Grenada, Panama, Iraq) while it was dems, over republicans opposition, who got involved in 2 world wars. After the cold war, with republican backing, into two ground wars in Asia. Both which were then left to Republicans- one was left a cease-fire, the other we left and eventually our ally was swallowed.

So yes, republicans have such a sterling military record for you to be proud off... OH, WAIT, NO.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
yeah Roosevelt really botched WW2... those damn Democrats can't fight a war worth a damn!

Think also about Korea.

Roosevelt was great, no doubt. But think back to the civil war. The Dems were in favor of a negotiated settlement with the South. They wanted to end the war even then short of victory.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It would be very difficult for Bush to now endorse the charges given McCain public condemnation. Bush needs McCain more than he needs the Swiftboat Veterans.

And also, it'd seem VERY petty and put people off, especially since Bush has no combat experience.

Well, Kerry now will have to drop the Bush-deserter charges. If he raises that issue during the rest of the campaign, Bush can retaliate now with the SwiftVets charges.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
btw, good to see you ned, I had forgotten what a crazy place the Nedaverse is.

Thanks Sava.

Good to hear from you too.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, Kerry now will have to drop the Bush-deserter charges. If he raises that issue during the rest of the campaign, Bush can retaliate now with the SwiftVets charges.

Not really, since as was stated before, McCain, who carries heavy political heft, has come all out against these bozos. Specially since members of this group in the past called McCain a collaborator with the North Vietnamese.

[Pekka]

Yeah welcome back Ned.. good to see familiar faces again. It was getting kind of boring.

[Ned]

GePap, think also of Lincoln who refused to surrender the South vs. McClellan who wanted to let them go.

Also think of Kuwait. Bush drove Saddam out while Kerry voted against the war.

I am not so sure our involvement in WWI was helpful.

As I said before and will say it again, FDR was a great, great president.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah welcome back Ned.. good to see familiar faces again. It was getting kind of boring.

Good to see you too, Pekka.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


As opposed to not enough troops, denying the need for more, and no strategy for victory or stabilization?

Actually, Bush is pursuing "Vietnamization" as did Nixon 30 years ago.

Kerry kept calling for some sort of UN High Commissioner to run Iraq, even days before the transfer of sovernity. I am sure Kerry is gravely disappointed in the success of the Bush "Vietnamization" plan.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


Actually, Bush is pursuing "Vietnamization" as did Nixon 30 years ago.

Kerry kept calling for some sort of UN High Commissioner to run Iraq, even days before the transfer of sovernity. I am sure Kerry is gravely disappointed in the success of the Bush "Vietnamization" plan.

Uh, what success? Besides, what was the result of Nixon's "Vietnamization?" Our lackeys folded and our enemies won. Are you sure that's the sort of formula we should try to emulate?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Vietnam was an unwinnable war from day 1.

I doubt that the Iraqis want more troops. More troops initially wouldn't have been as bad as less, but I really don't think more troops is going to help much. It depends on if Kerry does a better job with the Iraqi economy, but I don't that he will.