BS: Kerry's War Record...

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 03:07 PM

Straight answer. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: Frankham
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 04:30 PM

The deal is this. Bush says that he is more qualified to
conduct military security. He didn't serve in Vietnam. Kerry
did and distinguised himself. How can Bush be more qualified?

Kerry served on military intelligence committees.

As far as I'm concerned, was is not the answer and never was.

But on this issue of military security, Kerry is more consistent and more qualifed than Bush because he knows more about it.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,Rove are what Al Franken, who did serve,
calls "chickenhawks".

As far as I'm concerned, the real candidate is Kucinich who
opposed Vietnam, the Gulf War and the Iraq War from the beginning.
But for Bush to call Kerry soft on security when he and Max
Cleland damn near lost their lives is audacious hypocrisy from
one who dodged Vietnam.

Finally Bush discovered that he couldn't do a foreign policy
without the UN. But look at the cost for his mistake.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: Strick
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 04:55 PM

I can't completely agree. Serving doesn't automatically make someone better equipted to be a commander in chief. Lyndon Johnson's Navy experience didn't prevent his escalation of Viet Nam. Richard Nixon's Navy experience didn't help him make better decisions in Viet Nam, either. Jimmy Carter's Navy experience didn't prevent him from ordering one of the worst minor military actions in US history. (Before anyone starts to see a Navy pattern, remember JFK.) Most of the ex-generals who've served as presidents were abysmal failures. You certainly don't want the US to follow the path of certain "republics" where any colonel can take over in a coup. What does military service actually tell you about anyone, I mean really?

Kerry's 4-5 months in combat show he's a man to be respected but it doesn't make this a freebie. I'm embarrassed for anyone who trys to find fault with his military record and he should complain when someone attacks it. That said, why was he so sensitive about his voting record on military issues? He seemed to jump pretty high when that came up.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: Strick
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 05:50 PM

"Finally Bush discovered that he couldn't do a foreign policy without the UN. But look at the cost for his mistake."

BTW, does anyone remember that Bush was not the first president to take this option? Seems like it was NATO that went into Bosnia because the UN wouldn't do anything about it. Besides being a clear violation of the NATO charter (Bosnia neither being a NATO member nor having attacked one and Lord knows it didn't asked to be attacked), this was just a arbitrary decision by some former colonial powers who think they're entitled to tell other countries what to do. Pure international vigilantism. Imagine marginalizing the UN that way. Next thing you know and any alliance or coalition, even if they don't have the requisite former colonial powers, will think they can depose dictators in any country they want. What happens if we run out of dictators?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 08:31 PM

"...this was just a arbitrary decision by some former colonial powers who think they're entitled to tell other countries what to do. Pure international vigilantism. Imagine marginalizing the UN that way. Next thing you know and any alliance or coalition, even if they don't have the requisite former colonial powers, will think they can depose dictators in any country they want. What happens if we run out of dictators?"

Amazing how well this describes Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: Strick
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 08:54 PM

Exactly. So why was Bosnia different from the way so many people feel about Iraq? There's not a hair's bit of difference between the two wars except that we didn't put ground troops at risk in Bosnia. So war's OK so long as our side kills but are not seen to be killed?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 09:38 PM

War is never okay. But, let's not pretend that NATO's actions in Bosnia are the proper precedent for "the USA can invade whoever the hell they want, and damn the opinion of the rest of the world - including the UN whose charter we have signed".

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: Strick
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:34 PM

No. What I meant was that NATO's decision to go into Bosnia was one of the things that made the UN irrelevant.

The US has pretty much attacked whoever it wanted most of it's history. Let me quote what I said in another thread this evening:

"I know it's commonly held that the US never started a war. It's a lovely myth that originated to help vilify the Japanese after the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. Sadly it's not true. The US has been the aggressor or attacked other nations with the flimsiest of provocations numerous times. What did the Mexicans do to start the war of 1845, own land we wanted? The Spanish-American War started even though many in government knew the Maine was an accident. Think of the thousands of transgressions against Native Americans or the way the US invades Carribean and South American republics at the drop of a hat. FDR waited to enter WWII but did not only because he had to politically. It's a bald faced lie to say that 'no one ever advocated attacking countries that hadn't attacked us.'"

Bosnia was following those precedents. But is it any wonder the UN is only used when it's convenient? Even Clinton ignored them.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: LadyJean
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 12:01 AM

Swing by snopes.com. tar heel's post on Kerry's war record is well, truly, and properly debunked there.
Long may snopes wave.

PS. This has nothing to do with the thread, but Snopes has some pictures of an enormous Maine Coon cat. As I love cats, especially big fluffy cats, I was enchanted witht he pictures.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:50 AM

Snopes on Kerry

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:54 AM

"When [Kerry] came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, 'John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post,'" Elliott recalled in an interview."


This has the complete ring of truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: Nerd
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 12:03 PM

Strick, why take remarks like that out of context? Elloitt immediately followed it up with:

"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that," Elliott said. A Silver Star, which the Navy said is its fifth-highest medal, commends distinctive gallantry in action.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 12:08 PM

I wasn't trying to quote out of context and even thought about amending what I meant in a second post (you can't edit a post here, right?).

All I meant was what was perfectly obvious. He got the medal instead. That's a person could have either been court marshalled or given a medal is very often the case and it's not detrimental to the person in question at all. The military expects people to take risks and their officers to decide when to throw out the book.

I quoted what I found to make Kerry's record perfectly believable.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Record...
From: Nerd
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:58 AM

OK Strick. Sorry!