If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Kerry... what is hidden.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
Since you all pride yourselves upon your awareness of politics in the US, thought I would give you a taste of what does not get air time on your little island...
Doubt that Kerry's history of working FOR Hanoi will be as widely spread as the canard of his Vietnam "heroism"... :rolleyes:
Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S.
The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.
In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.
That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face."
"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.
"The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.
"John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
Sen. Kerry, the "noble statesman" and "highly decorated Vietnam vet" of today, is a far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in the early 1970s.
Soon after Kerry, as a Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam, was awarded the Silver Star, he used an obscure Navy regulation to leave Vietnam and his crew before completing his tour of duty.
After returing home, he quit the Navy early and changed the color of his politics to become a leader of VVAW. Kerry wasted no time organizing opposition in the United States against the efforts of his former buddies still ducking communist bullets back in Vietnam.
Kerry participated in the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation where his fellow protesters accused his fellow GIs of war crimes.
Kerry's betrayal of American prisoners of war, his blatant disrespect for the families of our missing in action, Vietnam veterans, the military, his support for communist Vietnam and his waffling over the issue of use of force in Iraq proves he is a self promoting Chameleon Senatorwho cannot be relied on to protect the best interests of the United States.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Since you all pride yourselves upon your awareness of politics in the US, thought I would give you a taste of what does not get air time on your little island...
Doubt that Kerry's history of working FOR Hanoi will be as widely spread as the canard of his Vietnam "heroism"... :rolleyes:
0
Comments
YOU DID LOSE THE VIETNAM WAR.
jeez.
And so what if he was opposed to the war, somebody who fought in it has every right to be.
You yanks seem to think the Vietnam war was the be all and end all of wars, but you always convieniently forget you didn't win it.
That one man and his compadres can be accused of being responsible for our defeat is so transparently agenda laden as to be laughable to any thinking person.
To cite Fox News, which argued and won the the right to misinform and lie to the public in a Florida court, is to admit one's inability to discern truth from fabrication.
News for those who consider Jerry Springer to be the epitome of quality programming.
Welcome back, Thanny, thought you were spending more time with your book? Yeah, 'cos interventionist wars are soooo popular right now
Like I said elsewhere Thanatos, a kid-molesting, kitten strangling, hybrid clone of Hitler and Satan would get my vote over Bush any day. I cannot think of a single person alive who would be a worse choice than that lunatic, illiterate, lying, murdering, unelected war criminal piece of shit you've got at the White House today.
And for the sake of your dead comrades- men and women who were sent to their deaths for no good reason whatsoever- you and anyone else who claims to love the military and its members would be extremely stupid to vote for the Republicans.
But then again, I'm not surprised that many will...
I think Thanatos would make a good contender for "that" post, don't you?
Still, in 2020, we may see President Greenhat. Yon Spec Oppy hath a lean and hungry look
Now there are two key things to point out with this.
1) Fox news! Come on, no-one should take that seriously.
2) Oliver North, that isnt who I think it is is it? THE Oliver North!
Think of any other democratic country, be Britain or anyone else. Other than in times of war, how often do military issues or military people cross our paths? Other than towns situated near bases I don't think many people know a member of the military or even see one on the streets very often.
Yet you go to the States and there seem to be more soldiers than lamp posts in the streets. Military life is spoken about everywhere; the military is mentioned in the news every day, and not only in times of conflict.
I find the whole thing rather suffocating to be honest.
Kerry is Vietnam War veteran. True.
Kerry was one of leaders of anti-war movement. True.
Anti-war movement stoped Vietnam War. True.
Kerry supported Iraq War. True.
Who is lying? Nobody. If North thinks Kerry is a traitor it just reflects his personal tastes and is not bigger lie than if he said he hates ice-cream.
is a bit whiffy. Bearing in mind that our own Alastair Campbell liked to change passive verbs to active in the WMD dossier, I ask: did Kerry actually use this 'obscure navy regulation' (so obscure they can't even tell us what it was), or was it used on him? In short, what's his explanation for not completing his tour of duty? Enquiring minds...
Actually, enquiring minds might learn something from this review of 'Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War'. It's also an opinion, but as the reviewer was himself a founder of VVAW, it may have some bearing.
Its become such a playground for the military industrial complex to simply get everyone's dander up, throw in some fear and paranoia, some wounded pride and you got a steady stream of unquestioning souls ready to sign up to fight whatever enemy you claim is threatening us. Then its just a matter of yanking the nation's strings against one or another side whilst herding the "opposition" into thinking it has to beat the leadership at all cost and you've forced them to sell out to the status quo they wish to change. Finally, it's just a matter of packaging a few cosmetic changes here and there whilst keeping your machinery running and the dollars flowing the arms-a-shipping and the tensions fermenting for future wars where you can plunder as you wish.
Round and round it goes always coming back to the same scandals, the same lies, the same invasions, the same collusions, the same betrayals, etc...
Without a comprehensive progressive awakening we can expect more of the same to come. I couldn't care less about Kerry's war record pro or con, Im not electing an officer nor a soldier, Im electing a civilian president and i want to know what his policy and voting record is and whom he is beholden to. If the corporations and the big money, then what benefit the nation from his presidency any more than Dubyah's, aside from less direct warfare. A sell out is a sell out and one or the other makes no difference.
That's why you don't hear the media giving much time to Dean anymore. He's the second highest candidate in terms of numbers of delegates with Clark out and Lieberman and Braun out and Edwards still behind Dean by a considerable distance.
Dean for his failings at least has a spark of change in him, though given the way the system is anything too drastic in change would likely cause an early retirement of said President (if you catch my drift) so even Dean wouldn't be able to necessarily do more than make a start. but it has to start somewhere, sometime.
The media simply are Manufacturing Consent in their inimitable style and by writing dean off they already cause a large percentage of those who don't make much effort to look into matters for themselves to write him off as well thinking that only the contender could get so much attention. Strangely Dean still is able to raise more money than Kerry and Kerry has a spending cap so what he gets from the news is like giving free publicity which is itself transparently manipulative and dishonest and actually quite anti-democratic (no pun intended). But that's our electoral system. Voyeuristic, easily distracted by non-issues, and highly susceptible to media influence (whether by ommission or commission).
And that bug is infecting Britain the closer Tony nuzzles up to his master.
October 21, 1971
1.) They get smarter.
2.) They get sillier.
3.) They get politicians.
Once again, you remain in denial of reality.
The Vietnam War was not "lost" by US forces; it was betrayed and given away by those such as Kerry, and even the Vietnamese admit it...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/15/142343.shtml
Kerry was incountry for 45 days. He benefitted from manufactured commendations, because of his political affiliations. He was given a wave and sent home from Vietnam with the three Purple Hearts awarded for scratches that he did not even miss time for.
And his Silver Star? Was awarded for terminating an enemy wounded by .50 caliber heavy machine gun fire, shooting him in the back, as he attempted to crawl away.
All of your collective whining about "war atrocity" over the video clip from Baghdad? And you give this a pass, because the political parasite espouses liberalist bullshit?
Classic... :rolleyes:
And 'scratches that he did not even miss time for'? Even his critics don't dispute that he missed two days for one of them. Of course, that doesn't begin to compare to Dubya's record for missed days...
Having said that, I have no doubt that medals were handed out like candy during 'Nam. Always looks good for the news reels. That Purple Hearts were awarded for flesh wounds? Really doesn't surprise me at all. I'm sure Republicans got their fair share, though.
America didn’t lose Vietnam War, it won it! Because of anti-war guys like Kerry. How many scientists, plumbers, businessmen, cabbies, real estate agents, waters, fitters, architects lie on Florida beaches instead of lying in Vietnam jungle. How many potential orphans have dads, haw many potential widows have husbands..
On the other hand how many medals weren’t hand, how many colonels weren’t get generals, how many funeral workers lost their job…horror!
'Benefitted from manufactured commendations,because of political affiliations'. Not the only one there then, can I draw your attention to the quote from Colin Powell about the sons of the privileged that managed to avoid service. Its been posted on mil.com a few times recently so I'm sure you've seen it.
As for the purple hearts, well you've confirmed what I've posted, the version of the circumstances surrounding them that you posted is something, I'm reading for the first time. I am aware of the controversy that was caused by cases of medals being handed out without merit and body counts falsified but is there confirmed proof that Kerry only got 'scratches', the American press seemed to be making a big issue of the fact that he had been a hero and rescued a colleague under fire while wounded.
As for 'collective whining' never saw the video so I am not whining over anything and you are the first to go into detail here about Kerry's war record so you can hardly say we are ignoring something before you've informed us.
BTW, out of interest, were you in Vietnam? and what branch of the military are/were you in? I'm guessing the marines by your name.
Also, feel free to add comments to my thread 'Question for the Americans on here', I would like to get views from people of different political persuasions.
Thousands of your troops dead, and you withdraw realising you can't win without resorting to nuclear weapons.
That's called losing you deadbeat.
58,000 combatants, compared to anywhere from 1.5 million to 4 million NVA and VC combatants, depending upon which Vietnamese source you prefer.
Continue to prefer your DELUSIONS and accept the lies you regurgitate, rather than the words of the NVn leaders, themselves?
Or do you prefer to ignore exactly who Gen Giap actually was? :rolleyes: Your ignorance truly is bliss, is it not?
We did not require nuclear weapons... we defeated them militarily WITHOUT such, and did it handicapped by a mission statement preventing us from prosecuting the war properly, AS A WAR. We did not use "nuclear weapons" at Khe Sanh, where 5600 Marines stood off and defeated 100,000 NVA. Nor did we require them at Hue, Con Thien, or any other battle where they outnumbered us 10 to 1.
We did not require "nuclear weapons" in Quang Tri, where we forced the NVA invasion BACK across the DMZ, and all the way to the Paris Peace tables, to sign an accord, rather than to be extinguished from the face of the earth. Prefer to avoid the knowledge of what REALLY transpired, in that era? Prefer to remain ignorant of what was within those Paris accords?
"Deadbeat"?
No... it is YOU who are the fool, refusing to accept that it was the SVn government and ARVN who "lost", after the withdrawal BY THE STRICTURES OF THE PARIS PEACE ACCORD, in the absense of continued US support.
"Deadbeat"? The appelation is more fittingly applied to willfully delusional YOU. You believe if you repeat the same lies often enough, you might make them become truth...