John Kerry the Braggart: Unfit For Command, Part 4

[Drake Tungsten]

We were about as much of a legitimate ruler of Vietnam as Japan was the "legitimate ruler" of Korea

Japan was the legitimate ruler of Korea.

[Kropotkin]

Ned, do you find your similes and comparisons in the same box your breakfast cereal or what?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Hey, Berz, we rule Peuto Rico. Are we a brutal colonial power as well?

Also, ask the people of Samoa, another American colony, what they think.

And, what about Hawaii? Not that long ago, it was a colony. Now it is a state.

You might want to read Mark Twain on what he had to say about America's colonialism and imperialism in the 1898 war with Spain. Once you start down the road to empire building it would seem to be habit forming.


And yes, Ned, in the Philippines Americans were brutal murdering thugs. Ostensibly liberating the Philippines from the Spanish, in reality getting an offshore Asian colony and access to the resources that Henry Cabot Lodge waxed so lyrically over.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

We were about as much of a legitimate ruler of Vietnam as Japan was the "legitimate ruler" of Korea

Japan was the legitimate ruler of Korea.

If you consider forced conquest and annexation "legitimate" then sure.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
On Colmes show tonight, Colmes was defending Kerry against the Zell Miller charge that Kerry would only defend America with the consent of Paris. In doing so, he replayed the portion of Kerry's acceptance speech where he said he would not accept a foreign veto to defend America. But, I ask you, kind gentlemen, which is more consistent with Kerry's central criticism of Bush on Iraq, that he was right to proceed without Paris's UNSC vote or wrong to do so?

EVERYONE knows the answer to this question.

You mean the answer that the invasion of Iraq didn't have the slightest mother****ing thing to do with "defending America."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
gun, our role in combat ended in January '73.

There is no need to speculate about whether Kerry prolonged the war. We have the statement of the NV themselves in the negotiations where they cited Kerry and others in the "peace" movement as to why they didn't have to negotiate for America to leave, as the peace movement would force an unliteral withdrawal.

Now you say, what was wrong with that?

If you really have to ask THAT question, you are man without honor.

The men without honor are those who, with no possible risk to themselves, continued to have other Americans sent to die in a failed foreign policy endeavor in order to satisfy their egotistical delusions about national honor.

Yes, we should have all goose-stepped in unison behind Nixon, while another 10-15,000 American troops were KIA, in order to force the NV government to "negotiate" with us to withdraw from someplace we had no compelling interest in being.

Great logic, for all those who knew they would never be one of those KIA or WIA.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The NG in the Vietnam and prior eras was a bit different from the NG in the present day.

Quiet, you! You're ruining a perfectly serviceable troll...

And Bush is no more of a chicken**** than Kerry was. Kerry tried his best to stay out of combat in Vietnam, first by serving offshore on the Gridley and then by requesting to command a Swift Boat, which at the time of his decision operated solely in a coastal patrol role and hardly ever saw combat. Unfortunately for Kerry, the Swift Boat mission got changed after he had signed up and he had to actually fight the enemy on the rivers of Vietnam until he wrangled up enough Purple Hearts to go home.

Bush and Kerry tried the exact same ****. Only difference is that Bush was more successful.

Funny, now Kerry had a dual position as a personnel officer so he could cut his own orders to go where he wanted?

The only difference is that Kerry was there and served in combat, and Bush sat on his lily-white ass and sunned his yellow belly in Texas.

[Drake Tungsten]

If you consider forced conquest and annexation "legitimate" then sure.

I consider it "legitimate" if the international community accepts it. They did in the case of Korea. Doesn't make it right, but that's not what we're discussing.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yeah, France in 1946 sure behaved the same way as the US today.

Did you know we have " mankind's museum" in Paris, which was basically a human zoo displaying the "savages" of our colonies, prior to WW2. Did you know we forced the denizens of our colonies to pay taxes in Francs, and these Francs they could only get by working for the State (= forced labor).

Fact is, we treated our colonies like utter dirt. We went there to exploit and pillage their territory, their riches. We contributed very little to their development (actually, the Japanese did more for Vietnam's infrastructure during WW2 than we did during our entire colonial occupation).

We were about as much of a legitimate ruler of Vietnam as Japan was the "legitimate ruler" of Korea

I will accept that the French were different from the US in their colonialism. Perhaps, then, Berz will confine his anti-colonialism to the French variety.

So, Spiffor, since you have joined this thread, what would you have done differently if you were in charge of French Indochina in 1945?

[Ned]

Also, Spiffor, you made another point about the Japanese bringing a semblance of good government to IndoChina. I have heard the very same thing from "native" Taiwanese who remember Japanese rule in very favorable terms.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Ned, do you find your similes and comparisons in the same box your breakfast cereal or what?

Spiffor has handled this one better. He admits the French were not there to "help" the locals at all.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom
You might want to read Mark Twain on what he had to say about America's colonialism and imperialism in the 1898 war with Spain. Once you start down the road to empire building it would seem to be habit forming.


And yes, Ned, in the Philippines Americans were brutal murdering thugs. Ostensibly liberating the Philippines from the Spanish, in reality getting an offshore Asian colony and access to the resources that Henry Cabot Lodge waxed so lyrically over.

Thanks for the compliments. Even today most Phillipinos remember US rule in fond terms.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You mean the answer that the invasion of Iraq didn't have the slightest mother****ing thing to do with "defending America."

Is that your opinion, or Kerry's?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The men without honor are those who, with no possible risk to themselves, continued to have other Americans sent to die in a failed foreign policy endeavor in order to satisfy their egotistical delusions about national honor.

Yes, we should have all goose-stepped in unison behind Nixon, while another 10-15,000 American troops were KIA, in order to force the NV government to "negotiate" with us to withdraw from someplace we had no compelling interest in being.

Great logic, for all those who knew they would never be one of those KIA or WIA.

This "assumes" the failure. In 1972, when Kerry stabbed America in the back, South Vietnam was very much a going concern.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Funny, now Kerry had a dual position as a personnel officer so he could cut his own orders to go where he wanted?

The only difference is that Kerry was there and served in combat, and Bush sat on his lily-white ass and sunned his yellow belly in Texas.

There is one thing that Bush, you and I agree on, that Kerry's service in Vietnam was more honorable than Bush's service in the National Guard.

But, that is not the issue we are primarily discussing here. It is the lying Kerry did in connection with his medals. And it is what he did when he returned from Vietnam.

Btw, why was Kerry's so-called honorable discharge delayed until '78? Was there an earlier, buried, dishonorable discharge?