Stolen Honor -by Carlton Sherwood

[_BiB_]

So, I take that to be a no?

 

Thank you for clearing that up. You CAN rationalize Mr. Kerrys comments being used to coerce American POWs. Just wanted to know where you stood.

 

This one isn't grey, RCow. This one is pretty black and white.

[RCow]

Why do you care so much about the candidate I choose?  There are a litany of other candidates out there and KRC has posted the website they are listed at.  Surely your lack of respect for me and my afformentioned cowardice would preclude you from paying any mind to my recommendation anyway.

 

Did you miss the 100 or so instances of me NOT CARING about your opinion?  Why would it matter at all that you are willing to change your signature?  You don't blow me, you ain't watching my six, and you ain't signing my paycheck, hence you just don't matter all that much.

 

I've backed plenty of things and given my position on numerous topics on this board over the years.  You can continue to say otherwise but that just makes you a liar.  No surprise there, given the political ideology you identify with.

84854[/snapback]

 

I care about the candidate you choose because it would put you on a level playing field with everyone else. Your MO is to attack everyone for their choice without ever once offering your alternative. It's easy to take shots, it takes real courage to stand by your candidate -- but you won't -- it would ruin your one-sided debates. We'll never have a chance to compare our choice to yours because that would spoil your game.

 

But you won't say because of me? How flattering -- and childish. But, then again, trying to change the subject by attacking me is very typical of your M.O. You know it's not about me, its about you and your unwillingness to stand up for your choice for President. It's amazing you get away with your transparency.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

OK, give us an alternative.  Just this once stop the insults and offer one.  Stop telling me how dumb we all are and give us another choice.  Who should we vote for?  What should we do to make things better? 

 

We're all ears (or in this case, eyes).  Come on, this is your chance.  No joke, I promise I will change my signature for the whole week whatever you seriously suggest.  "Vote for _______ " or whatever.  There has to be someone or something that you can back.

84833[/snapback]

 

Vote libertarian.

[KRC]

Vote libertarian.

85016[/snapback]

 

Vote KRC!!

[erynthered]

Vote KRC!! 

85037[/snapback]

 

 

I would, but I cant spell it

 

 

 

 

 

[RCow]

So, I take that to be a no?

 

Thank you for clearing that up. You CAN rationalize Mr. Kerrys comments being used to coerce American POWs. Just wanted to know where you stood.

 

This one isn't grey, RCow. This one is pretty black and white.

84939[/snapback]

 

You'll have to tell me to which question I've replied "no."

 

It is not a rationalization. If the world is so black and white by your rationalization the POWs were tortured BECAUSE of Kerry's comments and for no other reason. By your logic, if Kerry never existed or no Vet or US citizen ever spoke out against the war the POWs would never have been tortured. It's absurd. Why? Because the world is not pretty black and white.

 

By your rationalization the world, the soliders and the POWs would have been better off if US citizens did not oppose the Vietnam War; we would have been better off if they had kept their mouths closed and soliders like Kerry did not step up and say "enough is enough."

 

I don't think you believe that no more do I rationalize Kerry's statements.

[RCow]

Vote libertarian.

85016[/snapback]

 

JSP, you already disqualified yourself by saying why you're voting for Bush. Plus, I knew where you stood before pledging your support (albiet reluctantly) for the incumbent.

[RCow]

Vote KRC!! 

85037[/snapback]

 

Are you on the ballot anywhere? Don't suppose you qualified for matching funds, because I could be monetarily persuaded.

[KRC]

Are you on the ballot anywhere?  Don't suppose you qualified for matching funds, because I could be monetarily persuaded.

85070[/snapback]

 

Nope. I am not on the ballot anywhere. I decided to strictly stay as a write-in candidate.

 

I kept costs down so that reporting would not be an issue. Once you start getting up to the matching funds/reporting threshold, you are saddled with a bunch of paperwork. I found other alternatives, which kept costs down and kept me from spending a bunch of my time filling out paperwork and dealing with the red tape. I wanted to spend my time campaigning.

[_BiB_]

You'll have to tell me to which question I've replied "no."

 

It is not a rationalization.  If the world is so black and white by your rationalization the POWs were tortured BECAUSE of Kerry's comments and for no other reason.  By your logic, if Kerry never existed or no Vet or US citizen ever spoke out against the war the POWs would never have been tortured.  It's absurd.  Why?  Because the world is not pretty black and white.

 

By your rationalization the world, the soliders and the POWs would have been better off if US citizens did not oppose the Vietnam War; we would have been better off if they had kept their mouths closed and soliders like Kerry did not step up and say "enough is enough." 

 

I don't think you believe that no more do I rationalize Kerry's statements.

85057[/snapback]

 

If the world is so black and white by your rationalization the POWs were tortured BECAUSE of Kerry's comments and for no other reason.

 

I said nothing of the kind. You jumped into this thing with both feet, with a foaming mouth. Someone posted a link to a place where it could be watched for those who wanted to do so, as the viewing area was limited. Nothing more. Someone thanked him. Nothing more. The pile on began.

 

No, it is black and white because aiding and abetting the enemy, whether you agree or disagree with the policy and process is wrong. It is not strictly a first ammendment issue. Believe it or not RCow, there are many, many situations where one can't and/or shouldn't say what they want.

 

I will try to amass a reading list for you, from both sides of view, of the reasons the war went on as long as it did. "The people speaking out" probably did more to prolong the conflict than it did to end it. Militarily, the US could have won the war pretty easily by 1969. Public opinion so swayed the politicians that the Pentagon was hamstrung to prosecute the war in an effective manner. "Negotiations" further limited the military commanders ability to wage an effective campaign. This is what resulted in the Viet Nam "Quagmire". Many Americans would prefer that we go there again. Not directly, but by inserting their "feelings" where feelings are a detriment, not a help.

[Alaska Darin]

I care about the candidate you choose because it would put you on a level playing field with everyone else.  Your MO is to attack everyone for their choice without ever once offering your alternative.  It's easy to take shots, it takes real courage to stand by your candidate -- but you won't -- it would ruin your one-sided debates.  We'll never have a chance to compare our choice to yours because that would spoil your game. 

 

But you won't say because of me?  How flattering -- and childish.  But, then again, trying to change the subject by attacking me is very typical of your M.O.  You know it's not about me, its about you and your unwillingness to stand up for your choice for President.  It's amazing you get away with your transparency.

84990[/snapback]

It doesn't take any courage to lemming along with the status quo, unless your definition of courage is the antithesis of the dictionary.

 

I'm glad you think it's childish, as your chasing me around on one issue has shown that is one thing you actually understand.

[RCow]

I said nothing of the kind. You jumped into this thing with both feet, with a foaming mouth. Someone posted a link to a place where it could be watched for those who wanted to do so, as the viewing area was limited. Nothing more. Someone thanked him. Nothing more. The pile on began.

 

No, it is black and white because aiding and abetting the enemy, whether you agree or disagree with the policy and process is wrong. It is not strictly a first ammendment issue. Believe it or not RCow, there are many, many situations where one can't and/or shouldn't say what they want.

 

I will try to amass a reading list for you, from both sides of view, of the reasons the war went on as long as it did. "The people speaking out" probably did more to prolong the conflict than it did to end it. Militarily, the US could have won the war pretty easily by 1969. Public opinion so swayed the politicians that the Pentagon was hamstrung to prosecute the war in an effective manner. "Negotiations" further limited the military commanders ability to wage an effective campaign. This is what resulted in the Viet Nam "Quagmire". Many Americans would prefer that we go there again. Not directly, but by inserting their "feelings" where feelings are a detriment, not a help.

85090[/snapback]

 

 

So, in a democracy, we are to say nothing that "could" "aid and abett" the enemy? Who is to make those decisions? You? The government? The military? Should we have a "Minister of Things Not Say?" Do you really think the country is that weak that we can't tell the truth? Anyone could say almost anything that could be construde as aiding and abetting, it's called propoganda. Just turn on right wing radio for a few minutes. The NVA did not need an excuse to torture the POWs, they could have used anything for propoganda and get away with it -- they were the antithesis of the US democracy.

 

Kerry's comments were powerful because they were true; things could not have gotten much worse by that time and he said what nearly everyone knew was the truth.

 

Save your reading list, I've read plenty to believe that public opinion reflected the true state of affairs. We didn't win because to win because to do what was necessary to win the on the ground battles wouldn't secure the objective: keep South Vietnam non-communist.

 

Half the time we were fighting the very people we were sent to protect, while the other half was pretty indifferent. There wasn't a democracy in place and most SVN believed we were there to preserve the current corrupt, incompetent and vicious dictatorship. How could we win such a war? There was no clamor for democracy, no founding fathers, no George Washington, no call to arms from the people. What were they fighting for? The whole country was constructed with rubber bands and glue because it did not stand on a democratic foundation.

 

To help a stablize and assist a nation the US has to be on the same page as the people we proport to help. You can't talk a country's citizenry into something they don't necessarily want or believe will ever happen. If we don't have the same goal and convince them that once we all achieve it we'll leave.

 

So, yes, I agree it may have been militarily possible to drive most of the NVA out of South Vietnam -- for a time, and at what cost? What was the objective? Just to be non-communist? To estabilish a Democracy? What did the people of SVN want? What did they expect? What were they "fighting" for?

 

Like almost every war it usually starts when we know what we fighting AGAINST, it only ends when we know what were fighting FOR.

[_BiB_]

So, in a democracy, we are to say nothing that "could" "aid and abett" the enemy?  No, there is a different standard when you are under obligation to the military. Things are said every single day on TV that I wouldn't say if it were me. The whole slant of the reporting is aiding and abetting. You think the bad guys don't watch TV and don't know about American Public reaction? Can't do anything about it, but they are manipulating it.Who is to make those decisions?  You?  The government?  The military?  Bingo.Should we have a "Minister of Things Not Say?" Stupid.Do you really think the country is that weak that we can't tell the truth? What does that have to do with the subject, and what is the truth? I've told you the truth and it doesn't count because I'm not the media. Anyone could say almost anything that could be construde as aiding and abetting, it's called propoganda.  No, it's not. Propoganda is the careful selection of information up to and including outright lies for the sake of bending opinion.Just turn on right wing radio for a few minutes.  Whatever. Turn on ABC or CBS. The NVA did not need an excuse to torture the POWs, they could have used anything for propoganda and get away with it -- they were the antithesis of the US democracy. Once again, and with emphasis, this is true and you are using it to rationalize Kerrys contributions. Since it was going on anyway, anything Kerry said or did makes no difference. Do you really think the Vietnamese were that stupid? They won, didn't they?

 

Kerry's comments were powerful because they were true; so what? Bundy was a serial killer, that's true too. We all serial killers?things could not have gotten much worse by that time things can always get worse.and he said what nearly everyone knew was the truth. Define everyone.

 

Save your reading list, OK, I offered, and specifically mentioned views from both sides.I've read plenty to believe that public opinion reflected the true state of affairs.  We didn't win because to win because to do what was necessary to win the on the ground battles wouldn't secure the objective: keep South Vietnam non-communist. Grammar check? We could have done anything we wanted had we done it right, as now. The whole stupid thing started out because of our buddies the French. Those behind the original rid VN of French colonialism came to us first, for help. They could have easily been a democracy by 1960. Wouldn't have cared. We stuck up for DeGaulle. Sure paid off.

 

Half the time we were fighting the very people we were sent to protect, while the other half was pretty indifferent.  There wasn't a democracy in place and most SVN believed we were there to preserve the current corrupt, incompetent and vicious dictatorship.  I'll give you that one, see the above for why. Throw in the Truman doctrine as well.How could we win such a war? Not back up the French in the name of anti-communism. But by 1950 something, cat was out of the bag.There was no clamor for democracy, no founding fathers, no George Washington, no call to arms from the people. Mostly because they didn't care. What were they fighting for?  The whole country was constructed with rubber bands and glue because it did not stand on a democratic foundation. No, it was constructed on French Rubber Plantations.

To help a stablize and assist a nation the US has to be on the same page as the people we proport to help.  You can't talk a country's citizenry into something they don't necessarily want or believe will ever happen.  If we don't have the same goal and convince them that once we all achieve it we'll leave. Joe rice farmer could care less. Much less sophisticated population than present Iraq at the time. Xenophobia as well. We are big noses. They were used to French big noses immediately after being brutalized by the Japanese.Look at a pre-war map. The region is referred to as "French Indochina.

So, yes, I agree it may have been militarily possible to drive most of the NVA out of South Vietnam -- for a time, and at what cost?  What was the objective?  Just to be non-communist?  To estabilish a Democracy?  What did the people of SVN want?  To be left alone. What did they expect?  Nothing.What were they "fighting" for? Once again, both nothing and to be left alone.

Like almost every war it usually starts when we know what we fighting AGAINST, it only ends when we know what were fighting FOR. Is that a pep talk?

85227[/snapback]

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Yes, my allegience is to the United States. Yours is to the United Nations. Also, nothing in this answer is related to my point. You guys just can not answer the question.

 

"Is it acceptable to you, that J. Kerry's testimony was used as a tool by N. Vietnamese interrogators to help extract confessions from American POW's?"

 

Yes or no?

84224[/snapback]

 

That is a wrong assessment. NOT TO TAKE WORLD OPINION into consideration when making decisions is the road to ruin! We cannot afford to go it alone or mostly alone with wars that prove costly in lives and resources WHEN THEY SERVE LITTLE PURPOSE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS AT HAND. That has NOTHING to do with the United Nations!

 

Diplomacy and alliances have been around FAR BEFORE any such United Nations, and let me tell you, history SHOWS that if a nation continues a policy of go-it-alone, and opinion is rebuffed, THEN that said nation makes so many enemies that it ceases to be an effective and strong nation. Because of that fact, empires have fallen due to their arrogance and self-righteousness. I, AS AN AMERICAN, REFUSE to let that happen to my country because some crazed wackos want to lead us down that path. No sir, I REFUSE to be a part of the Decline of the American Empire. NOT ON MY WATCH.

 

I ANSWERED the question after that post, BTW. To sum it up:

 

You are putting the cart before the horse. It was the NORTH VIETNAMESE who used the testimony WRONGLY to further their own ends, **NOT** the other way around (Kerry testifying to extract confessions)!!!

 

YES, it was wrong, but are we to blame GUN MANUFACTURERS because someone blew a child apart, or do we blame the PERP? It is SILLY to make Kerry out to be the bad guy when all he did was tell the truth as to what was going on over there.

 

IS THAT SO BAD, the truth??? We're a Democracy, NOT Stalin's USSR.

[Alaska Darin]

That is a wrong assessment. NOT TO TAKE WORLD OPINION into consideration when making decisions is the road to ruin! We cannot afford to go it alone or mostly alone with wars that prove costly in lives and resources WHEN THEY SERVE LITTLE PURPOSE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS AT HAND. That has NOTHING to do with the United Nations!

 

Diplomacy and alliances have been around FAR BEFORE any such United Nations, and let me tell you, history SHOWS that if a nation continues a policy of go-it-alone, and opinion is rebuffed, THEN that said nation makes so many enemies that it ceases to be an effective and strong nation. Because of that fact, empires have fallen due to their arrogance and self-righteousness. I, AS AN AMERICAN, REFUSE to let that happen to my country because some crazed wackos want to lead us down that path. No sir, I REFUSE to be a part of the Decline of the American Empire. NOT ON MY WATCH.

 

I ANSWERED the question after that post, BTW. To sum it up:

 

You are putting the cart before the horse. It was the NORTH VIETNAMESE who used the testimony WRONGLY to further their own ends, **NOT** the other way around (Kerry testifying to extract confessions)!!!

 

YES, it was wrong, but are we to blame GUN MANUFACTURERS because someone blew a child apart, or do we blame the PERP? It is SILLY to make Kerry out to be the bad guy when all he did was tell the truth as to what was going on over there.

 

IS THAT SO BAD, the truth??? We're a Democracy, NOT Stalin's USSR.

85776[/snapback]

Except he didn't tell the truth. Had he told the truth, that'd be another story. He also probably wouldn't have a star in their War Museum, which means alot more to me than his three Purple Hearts.

[_BiB_]

That is a wrong assessment. NOT TO TAKE WORLD OPINION into consideration when making decisions is the road to ruin! We cannot afford to go it alone or mostly alone with wars that prove costly in lives and resources WHEN THEY SERVE LITTLE PURPOSE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS AT HAND. That has NOTHING to do with the United Nations!

 

Diplomacy and alliances have been around FAR BEFORE any such United Nations, and let me tell you, history SHOWS that if a nation continues a policy of go-it-alone, and opinion is rebuffed, THEN that said nation makes so many enemies that it ceases to be an effective and strong nation. Because of that fact, empires have fallen due to their arrogance and self-righteousness. I, AS AN AMERICAN, REFUSE to let that happen to my country because some crazed wackos want to lead us down that path. No sir, I REFUSE to be a part of the Decline of the American Empire. NOT ON MY WATCH.

 

I ANSWERED the question after that post, BTW. To sum it up:

 

You are putting the cart before the horse. It was the NORTH VIETNAMESE who used the testimony WRONGLY to further their own ends, **NOT** the other way around (Kerry testifying to extract confessions)!!!

 

YES, it was wrong, but are we to blame GUN MANUFACTURERS because someone blew a child apart, or do we blame the PERP? It is SILLY to make Kerry out to be the bad guy when all he did was tell the truth as to what was going on over there.

 

IS THAT SO BAD, the truth??? We're a Democracy, NOT Stalin's USSR.

85776[/snapback]

 

Getting excited Pierre?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Getting excited Pierre?

85934[/snapback]

 

I'm just tired of all the action with little results. This is supposed to be about the War on Terror, not the War in Iraq... we got massively sidetracked, and it personally hurts me that we still are stuck there with no end in sight...

 

There never would have been a Vietnam War or an Iraqi War if things were done correctly. I find it ironic that both were started due to false pretenses, and YES I blame Kerry for that YEA vote in 2003... I am still puzzled as to how you can vote YEA for Iraq II and NAY for Iraq I. To me, it's reversed. I was fully in support of the Gulf War, 100%.

 

What's the matter with just wanting a sound foreign policy based on a TRUE coalition though? When Blair goes, we won't have ANY major nation on our side, and we are going to bear the brunt of 99% of this war. To me, that is a shame, and it just means more death. In the end, the insurgents/terrorists will pull a coup d'etat ANYWAY. It's very sad...