Suddenly Bill Clinton doesnt look so bad!

Ps104_33, I think people would still like to hear about it.

You do have something to show us, right?

 

Actually, Clinton doesn't look too bad after four years of Bush. Clinton was far more conservative.

 

1. Some of the practices of US forces in Vietnam were later thought to be violations of the Geneva Accords (partially as the result of Kerry's statements)

2. The Policies were changed.

3. Do you think that those who complied with the practices were war criminals?

No.

Don't know.

Not in the universe we occupy. Even many of the Swifties for Smear who attack him now, wrote glowing reports of his courage and effectiveness.

That fraud was also shot down, when the doctor who said he treated Kerry turned out to be lying about it. The Navy keeps records, and it wasn't him.

If so, it would be the first time it was done under the RIF code. We know he was RIFed, which has no less than honorable provisions.

My guess is that there's something that we aren't supposed to know about those "we were/weren't in Cambodia" situations.

 

Why not? Liberals can elect liberals. Conservatives could elect conservatives, if they wanted to.

He is a prostitute fot the Republican Party.

No, they have some pretty good stuff, IMO.

No, I'm serious. Bush has him beaten in the areas of socialization of education, increases in leftist social programs, increases in spending, deficits, and debts, homosexual appointees, and has not put a dent in abortion. If you consider bloody unnecessary wars to be "conservative", maybe Bush has him there. But I put them in the category of runaway government.

 

Where'd you find a picture of Galatian?

 

Actually, I have a larger nose than that.

 

I'm appreciative of the fact that because of the courage of men like John Kerry. He saw the senseless loss of life in a wasteland called Vietnam, and had the courage to come back and help lead protests against an unjust war. Because of that bravery, the public was made aware of the senseless loss of life and the troops came home, instead of staying there for years and years and losing more of America's finest.

 

And lets remember the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese lives that were lost after the US government backstabbed them and abandoned them to the North Vietnamese.

 

IMO, it is not the responsibility of the US Government to protect every citizen of the world. No one's life in my family would be worth 100,000 South Vietnamese to me....just my honest opinion on how I feel. (I have two sons in the USMC, and a son in-law in the Army)

We had no interest in Vietnam, we would pulled back and the war was lost, it did not effect the lives of US citizens.

We won the Cold War, despite our adventure in Vietnam.

 

I agree, RockRambler. If someone has a desire to fight, or send their children to fight for some other nation, they are free to fly there and volunteer. But government force should not be used to force someone else to fight or pay for a war that is not in defense of American soil.

 

But when the US Government makes a deal with a country to aid them militarily I expect our country to honor that agreement, whether you or I agree with it or not.

And you are entitled to your opinion and if it is your two sons and son-in-laws opinion then they shouldn’t have joined the military. Because like it or not, that’s what they do, that is defend a 100,000 worthless souls, if you agree with it or not.

Would you say the war in Vietnam was lost because of our military or because of the anti-war movement and the likes of John Kerry and Jane Fonda propagating lies?

Study your history, we won the cold war in part by in spite of Vietnam.

 

PJ

I thank the LORD! that YOU weren't the president during WWI or WWII. I'd be speaking German or maybe Japanese.

 

WWII and Vietnam were not the same type of war. WWII directly affected the lives and governement of the United States. Vietnam did not. If it did, how come we lost it and still don't speak Vietnamese?

And how does losing in Vietnam help us win the Cold War? It didn't.

The protestors saved lives by forcing the government to listen to the will of the people. If the war doesn't have the support of the American people, the USA should not be there.

One of my sons was in the initial invasion in Iraq, and both are scheduled to go back in January 2005. They are grown and make their own decisions. Both joined after 9/11, so they knew full well what they were getting into.

 

But war nonetheless. Soldiers went to another country and lost their lives protecting some 100,000 useless lives.

Pearl Harbor most certainly did, but prior to that the Germans were marching across Europe and Japan was taking over islands in the S. Pacific while the US just watched from afar. It took Pearl Harbor to thrush the US into the War, just as it took 9/11 to thrush the US into the war on terror to keep that from happening again.

Don’t forget Russia, still a major world power during that time. Between Russia and Communist China funding N. Vietnam, it was in the US’s interest to protect the area from being infested with communist rule. President John F. Kennedy thought so enough to send troops and do what the French couldn’t do. That was protecting the South from being overrun by communism. We couldn’t at that time turn a blind eye to communism, if we had, the next thing we’d have in communism knocking on our backdoor. Oh, speaking of our back door, don’t forget the Cuban Missile Crisis either.

If anything our involvement slowed down the aggressiveness of the communist, by participating in Vietnam and by not being bullied by the Russian’s during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then President Reagan dealt the final blow.

And what’s your reasoning that it didn’t?

You bleeding heart liberals are all the same. Some hippie who burned his draft card or ran to Canada like a scared hen knew what was best for our country, because John Kerry and Jane Fonda said so?

Furthermore, IF the protestors were SO concerned about saving lives, then WHY did they SPIT on my dad who VOLUNTEERED instead of running like a pansy hippie and call him “baby killer”, when we abandoned the South to the North 100,000 were slaughtered, so much for “protecting” lives huh?

Now, would you say the war in Vietnam was lost because of our military or because of the anti-war movement and the likes of John Kerry and Jane Fonda propagating lies?

 

Was an answer ever posted to this question?

What things alledged in Kerry's bogus testimony before Congress are further alledged to have been stopped afterwards?

I don't remember any condoned practices that were in violation of Geneva convention rules during my two tours in Viet Nam.

By the way, Bill Clinton still looks bad to me!

Exactly what practices are you referring to that the pentagon later decided were in violation of Geneva? Given the unpopularity of the war at the time you dont suppose that the pentagon was politically motivated do you? I dont think Kerry is a war criminal. Just a coward and a liar. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Viet Nam was and is hardly a wasteland!

The public was presented a pack of bogus lies through Kerry's testimony as well as that of other VVAW members many of whom weren't even real veterans.

 

Are you really Karl Malden?? LOL