It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Admiral speaks out, Disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Hey, Grady, I'll have to agree with you on that note, but my point is more that this country cares too much about magnifying the dirt brought home on the candidate's childhood play-clothes. I'm not speaking out for or against Senator Kerry or President Bush. (Although, I have to say: we sure need a Ron Reagan in this country right now).

[edit on 08/19/2004 by Jack Martin]




posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Martin
Hey, Grady, I'll have to agree with you on that note, but my point is more that this country cares too much about magnifying the dirt brought home on the candidate's childhood play-clothes. I'm not speaking out for or against Senator Kerry or President Bush. (Although, I have to say: we sure need a Ron Reagan in this country right now).


We do need a "Ronald Reagan" right now, and we're not going to get him, nor does “he” ( and no, Hillary Clinton is no Ronald Reagan) loom on the political horizon. The perversion of the American electoral process has left us with a series of “also ran’s”, not the best and brightest who were willing to forgo other callings for the greater good of the Republic. That being said, we do need to dissect these candidates with the utmost attention to detail, for the differences between the two “species” is blurring.

John Kerry has brought this particular scrutiny squarely upon himself, his decision to hang his hat on his service in Viet Nam, vice his achievements over the last twenty years in the U.S. Senate…Errrr… okay, Viet Nam it is…



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
On New Year's Eve I named myself on Coast To Coast AM, informing Art Bell, "The president will be reelected." Let's not twitter, republicans, democrats neither.

Now, I do not attend this forum by order of internal politics; my vote is my secret. We all have strong patriotic disposition toward one or the other, yet cannot sway the neighborhood to our comfort. If I were to play my hand (or should I say "lip") to the service of either candidate, I might be telling you I am desperate for approval, that I feel in the shadowy reaches of my inward persona I am only one voter.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I don't know about another Reagan. I don't think our economy could stand it. Another John F. Kennedy, IMHO, would be the ticket.

” Kerry is a shameless self-promoter …”

Grady, what politician isn’t? They call it “ambition”. It goes with the territory.

Now, as far as Kerry speaking out against the war when he came back to the states is concerned, there’s another way to look at it. The Vietnam war was a nightmare in US history. Not many people back in that era viewed it as a just war, including soldiers. The fact is, there were indeed a lot of atrocities and war crimes commited during that war. It was an ugly, grueling war that the US was not prepared to fight, and had not the will to win. The government tied the hands of the military and sent many soldiers over there for slaughter. The frustration and stress the soldiers endured was almost too much for a human to bear. Consequently, pushed to the edge, many villages with innocent people were burned, blasted and napalmed.



“Vietnamese children fleeing an American-ordered
napalm attack on the village of Trang Bang, 1972.”

Many innocent people lost there lives to US military personnel who picked them off as target practice. This is a known fact. Another fact is that John Kerry volunteered for service there, rather than ducking it. Whether you think he deserved his medals or not, that’s an issue that should be taken up with the United Staes military, not Kerry. The military awarded him those medals. If he didn’t deserve them, then they shouldn't have awarded them.

If Kerry truly felt that the Vietnam War was a mistake, then he had every reason and right to let it be known. After all, he served over there and witnessed it first hand. He put himself in the line of fire. As far as I know, Kerry has always supported the Vietnam vets; it’s the war he didn’t agree with. And if other vets resent him for that, then I think they misunderstand the message.

It’s not that I’m a big fan of Kerry, but I do think he deserves to be heard and not ridiculed over his war record. At least he has a war record.

Like I said at the outset, IMO we need another John Kennedy. Either way you go, our choices are pretty limited this year ...



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   
This is a great post, brother, I'd like to invite you to have a drink. I've been looking for people who make sense in a world of morons.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Thanks, Jack Martin. Cheers!!



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by netbound
I don't know about another Reagan. I don't think our economy could stand it. Another John F. Kennedy, IMHO, would be the ticket.

” Kerry is a shameless self-promoter …”

Grady, what politician isn’t? They call it “ambition”. It goes with the territory.

Now, as far as Kerry speaking out against the war when he came back to the states is concerned, there’s another way to look at it. The Vietnam war was a nightmare in US history. Not many people back in that era viewed it as a just war, including soldiers. The fact is, there were indeed a lot of atrocities and war crimes commited during that war. It was an ugly, grueling war that the US was not prepared to fight, and had not the will to win. The government tied the hands of the military and sent many soldiers over there for slaughter. The frustration and stress the soldiers endured was almost too much for a human to bear. Consequently, pushed to the edge, many villages with innocent people were burned, blasted and napalmed.



“Vietnamese children fleeing an American-ordered
napalm attack on the village of Trang Bang, 1972.”

Many innocent people lost there lives to US military personnel who picked them off as target practice. This is a known fact. Another fact is that John Kerry volunteered for service there, rather than ducking it. Whether you think he deserved his medals or not, that’s an issue that should be taken up with the United Staes military, not Kerry. The military awarded him those medals. If he didn’t deserve them, then they shouldn't have awarded them.

If Kerry truly felt that the Vietnam War was a mistake, then he had every reason and right to let it be known. After all, he served over there and witnessed it first hand. He put himself in the line of fire. As far as I know, Kerry has always supported the Vietnam vets; it’s the war he didn’t agree with. And if other vets resent him for that, then I think they misunderstand the message.

It’s not that I’m a big fan of Kerry, but I do think he deserves to be heard and not ridiculed over his war record. At least he has a war record.

Like I said at the outset, IMO we need another John Kennedy. Either way you go, our choices are pretty limited this year ...



Another John F. Kennedy? No Thanks! A little history lesson, JFK was the Democrat President that got the U.S. involved in Viet Nam in the first place (a war that was expanded upon by another Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson), it was a Republican President Richard M. Nixon who extricated the U.S. from Viet Nam. Not to mention Viet Nam facts, but the President that John Kerry “went to Cambodia on a Secret Squirrel mission on 25 December 1968” was LBJ, not Nixon; funny how a perception can make an embarrassing “fact” on a candidates website (Kerry’s website has since corrected this error, but how many still always associate Viet Nam with Nixon?).

Nice touch with the Kim Phuc picture as well, John Kerry must have been right, American soldiers must have committed atrocities, just look at the picture… except in 1972 most U.S. ground forces were not in combat, and the action at Trang Bang was an ARVN fought battle, including the air strike in which Kim was injured. The photo was used by the media to portray the U.S. in a negative light... pioneers of today's liberal media.

The myth of the Kim Phuc photo debunked.

A second account by Nick Ut, who was there.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I don't have much to say about any of the John Kerry War "Hero" stuff, but when I heard John Kerry talking about it one time, it sounded like he was describing the whoole Forrest Gump scene.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
” Another John F. Kennedy? No Thanks! A little history lesson, JFK was the Democrat President that got the U.S. involved in Viet Nam in the first place (a war that was expanded upon by another Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson), it was a Republican President Richard M. Nixon who extricated the U.S. from Viet Nam.”

FYI, Mirthful Me, we were VERY involved in Vietnam dating back to the early 50’s. The U.S. had advisors in Vietnam at that time.

Back then The U.S. saw Ho Chi Minh's Vietminh group as a threat to Asia. Vietminh’s infiltration into South Vietnam and the spreading of communist doctrine led to our further involvement there. A vital part of U.S. foreign policy at the time, created by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, dictated that if one country fell to communism, it's neighbors would fall as well. This led the U.S. to try very hard to prevent Vietnam from becoming communist.

At a peace conference in Geneva, In April 1954, the U.S. tried to prevent the spread of communism into Vietnam, and Vietnam was split into North Vietnam and South Vietnam, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the northern half, and the U.S. and France in charge the southern half. In the south they set up a government under Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem was a weak and unpopular leader, though, and before long the communists gained a foothold in South Vietnam, forming a group called the Vietcong back in 1956. By 1961, there were 1,500 special advisors in the country. They were American Special Forces placed there to train the South Vietnamese Army in how to fight the Viet Cong. By 1963, there were 16,000 special advisors in South Vietnam The pieces had fallen into place before Kennedy came onboard. Kennedy simply inherited the problem.

Then in 1963, Diem was assassinated. The U.S. felt it had no option at this point except to step up it’s presence in the region. Since U.S. advisors had been in Vietnam from the early 1950's, the number of advisors/military presence was then increased.

In August 1964, the North Vietnamese attacked two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. Due to this action, Congress gave the president authority to send more troops into Vietnam.

Unfortunately the US was not prepared to fight a guerilla war in the jungle. Throughout the 60’s our presence continued to escalate and the war raged on, with many American lives lost, while the American public became increasingly enraged over our continued presence in Vietnam fighting a war we couldn’t win.

In 1969 Nixon started to withdraw troops from Vietnam. In January 1973, all sides agreed to a cease fire, and America's involvement in Vietnam ended. Subsequently the U.S. tried to help South Vietnam by sending weapons, but it wasn’t enough. In the spring of 1975 the North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnam and Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, fell under communist control. It was re-named Ho Chi Minh City.

End of history lesson …

” Nice touch with the Kim Phuc picture as well”

This photo is used to illustrate a point. This sort of thing happened all the time, and US forces were often behind it. This photo is simply a good illustration of a scene played out all too often in Vietnam, and graphically depicts who the real victims were. It’s not this particular incident that is being addressed. At least that wasn't my intent. If the caption for the pic is inaccurate, then I apologize. To be honest, I wasn't really sure of it myself. But, like I said, the pic was intended to make a point, not to address a particular event.

I’m in no way attempting to show the American forces in a bad light. They were under intense pressure and stress and were only following orders. That’s just how it is in war. I’m trying to get across the tragic consequences that war always brings with it. I have never before, and never will, harbor bad feelings toward the soldiers who put their lives on the line when called to duty. I feel deeply for them. They are placed in unbearable conditions and are compelled to do life’s dirty work. And I salute them for it. However, that doesn’t mean I must support the “leaders” who sometimes place them in harm’s way for illegitimate and self-serving purposes.

This illustrates how the message can be misconstrued when emotions are involved. It’s the war and those who wage it, not the soldiers, that was the focus of my dialogue. The soldiers have my utmost respect, gratitude and empathy.

As far as Kennedy is concerned, I'd take him any day over what we have to choose from now. He had vision, which is something lacking from our current choices. He compelled this country to do positive things, like go to the moon. He was a positive thinker, not a negative, fire 'n brimstone, fear mongering lunatic on a religous crusade. Yeah, I'll take Kennedy any time. That's a no-brainer ...

Now, I think I'll have that drink. Cheers!!




[edit on 8/30/2004 by netbound]

[edit on 8/30/2004 by netbound]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join