A number of New Left groups who vehemently opposed the Vietnam War, called vets "baby killers," etc., are now condemning President Bush for not going to Vietnam and boasting of Senator Kerry's "brave, courageous" service! These groups, who have for years advocated pulling American troops out of Europe and South Korea now condemn Bush for his proposals to do just that saying it compromises America's national security! During the French Revolution a number of political parties on the left moved right when their policies were implemented. Will America's New Left now become the New Right? I love politics!
First of all, there was nothing honorable about the Vietnam War. It was a mistaken venture fueled by mistaken policies and directed by ignorant leaders. However, there was an honorable and a dishonorable way to deal with the war and the draft at that time. John Kerry chose an honorable path, in that he volunteered and served. Others chose an equally honorable path and dissented, and were jailed. Still others chose a dishonorable path, and used family money and influence to pretend like they were serving while securing for themselves comfortable posts in the rear, or outright deferrments. Which path did George W. Bush take?
OH! SO THE SHOOTING IN THE BACK OF A TEENAGED, UNARMED, FLEEING, WOUNDED, ALLEGED "ENEMY" WEARING NOTHING BUT A LOINCLOTH IS NOW AN "HONORABLE PATH?" AND MURDERING A BABY AND ITS UNARMED FATHER IN A SAMPAN AND CONVENIENTLY LEAVING IT OUT OF THE AFTER-ACTION REPORT IS NOW AN "HONORABLE PATH?" AND SLAUGHTERING THE FARM ANIMALS OF AN ENTIRE PEASANT VILLAGE (WHERE NO EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OR COLLABORATION WAS EVER FOUND) WITH BELT-FED HEAVY MACHINE GUNS AND THEN BURNING THAT VILLAGE TO THE GROUND IS NOW AN "HONORABLE PATH?" YES, THAT IS WHAT HE VOLUNTEERED TO DO AND THAT IS HOW HE SERVED AND YOU CALL THAT AN "HONORABLE PATH?" OBVIOUSLY "Carl Reginstein" WILL NEVER LET SOMETHING AS SILLY, BORING OR IRRELEVANT AS THE TRUTH GET IN THE WAY OF WHAT HE CONSIDERS A GOOD STORY!
And who are these groups? Can you name them? Did they claim that everyone who went to Viet Nam was a "baby killer" as you say? Or are you conveniently assuming that these groups condemned everyone because it makes a nice contradiction? In fact, a very small minority did commit atrocities in Viet Nam. The vast majority, like Kerry, served honorably. It's quite possible for both to coexist. There's no scandal here - just hyperbole.
And, equally obviously, "Carl Reginstein" does not have to resort to loutish chat-room shouting capitalization in big bold type tactics to get his points across....
Okay buddy! Since you have admitted to being a liar, you can call me whatever names you want to! Sticks and stones baby! Sticks and stones........
Re: Re: Okay buddy! Your satement beginning with "And, equally obviously, ......." indicates your agreement with my statement. A loutish THANK YOU! to you!
Re: Re: A change of heart! Many members of Moveon.org are former members of ADA, SDS, WUO, YIP, and others. Kerry served honorably? If what he testified to before a Congressional hearing--murder, rape, and other atrocities committed by him and his men--then he DID NOT SERVE HONORABLY. He's a war criminal if what he said proves to be true.
You have absolutely no argument with me here. The whole Vietnam issue should not even be a part of this campaign. But, remember, it was Kerry who made it an issue. Personally, I don't care that Kerry protested the war or that Bush or anyone else (including Clinton) didn't go. What one did forty year's ago doesn't necessarily reflect his or her character, morals, ethics, or decisions today. Kerry and Bush should focus on the issues of the day, not a war that ended 32 year's ago.
To Jimmy... Jimmy, My point was, while there was nothing "honorable" about the Vietnam War, there were honorable ways to respond to it. One was to volunteer and serve, despite one's misgivings, out of a sense of patriotism. This is what John Kerry did. Another was to dissent and take the consequences - jail time, fleeing to Canada, etc. - this is what others did. Dishonorable ways to respond to the war included using family ties, money, and influence to secure a safe spot in the rear, which is what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did. Yes, Clinton did this too.... and many others. However, in retrospect, after all this time, I believe what was honorable becomes more clear than it was during those emotion-charged years. Thanks. - Carl
Re: Re: Re: Okay buddy! I see.... Well, I didn't exactly mean it that way, but I guess you win the battle of semantics. No hard feelings! I like the debate, and have enjoyed your humor and irony in countering my opinion.
Gunsmoke, Holey moley, man! Stop yelling. I agree with what you're saying 100%, but tone down a bit. I have a hangover from last night
Re: Re: A change of heart! I think it's more thany hyperbole when the same ones who called the Vietnam War criminal, corrupt, immoral, and ignoble have now plucked a hero out of that criminal, corrupt, immoral, and ignoble war. I find it more than hyperbole that Senator Kerry, who condemned his actions in the war and protested against the war, now wants us to vote for him because he is a war hero of a war he considered illegal, immoral, and criminal. So, is this war hero illegal, immoral, and criminal?
If I'm not mistaken, was it not mostly left wing Democrats who got us involved (stuck) in the dishonorable Vietnam war in the first place? Rich Hartel
