Just a thought

[JeffV]

I am not old enough to have experienced Vietnam. So I ask those who have knowledge about that time.

The whole world, as well as the political climate in the US was far different than it is today.

The biased comments regarding what John Kerry did 30 years ago, is a pet peeve of mine. Too many of those "opinions" come from people who were not yet born, or too young to really understand what was going on.

If you were not old enough to be subjected to military conscription your "opinion" is only hearsay.

53,000 + American lives were lost in Viet Nam. Some would say they died in vain because we "lost" the war. I say the only way they died in vain is if we didn't learn a lesson from that war.

During that time a college deferment was the "politically correct" way of avoiding the Draft. Politicians developed that "system" to protect "their own." The military at that time was "by design" made up largely of under privileged and poor. The not so politically correct solution was to move to Canada.

Rather than face the dirty & cold hard facts of the times, it’s easier to call a dissenter a traitor. Countless war “atrocities” were committed by US soldiers. Given the circumstances of that war, I’m not sure I wouldn’t be guilty of the same. If telling the truth is treason, Kerry is guilty.

Unlike today, during that time illicit drugs were cheap & or free, and easy to come by. Some claim that the US government was behind the distribution of those drugs to "sedate" and otherwise preoccupy the younger generation of that time. The assumed goal was to reduce the growing participation in the numerous anti-war protests. As a participant and survivor of the 60's drug culture, I tend to believe that either the government or the "corporate war machine" was somewhere behind it.

May 4, 1970 at Kent State is one example of how our government responded to war protestors of the time. Granted, a riot is a riot, and some of the participants overstepped the constitutional right to assembly, but the reaction was..... you decide. Today things would likely be dealt with differently. Today, bigger riots follow major sports events, but people don't suffer the same result. I suspect that if military conscription were in effect today, this political race wouldn't be as close as it is.
In my not so humble opinion the greatest travesty today is how innuendos and conjecture are used to cloud difference between anti-war, anti-military, anti-corporate war machine, and anti troops. To believe, and infer that ANYONE running for political office is anti-troops is ludicrous. The question we face in choosing our next leader is in how he prioritizes the importance of:

1.) The troops
2.) The military
3.) The war
4.) The corporate war machine
I think Kerry’s priorities are how I have them listed. I’ don’t believe Mr. Bush has his priorities in the same order.

With all that said, I'm throwing my vote away on a 3rd party candidate for one reason, and one reason only, I'm voting against the 2 party system.

 

[ladywolf]

just a thought, but somewhere isnt there a reg stating that if you are an officer, you arent sposed to be saying stuff like that? glenn, ecksjay, rich? i dont remember specifically if thats what it says or not, but IIRC, there was a reg. I dunno, it was just one of those off the wall thoughts

 

[Glenn B]

If you were not old enough to be subjected to military conscription your "opinion" is only hearsay.

Negative. My opinion is just that, an opinion. I formed it based on the words Kerry said, both from transcripts and video.

I was too young at the time to really care about politics and war back then. But that does not make my opinion of the words he spoke and allegations he made, any less valid.

 

[Z22_Z33]

What did he say?

 

[Jeepin_rebel]

You better look closer at that "Honorable Discharge" - Page 1 is a discharge after 3 months to go to Officers Indoc Training, dated 15Dec66. Page 2 is more interesting; dated 03Jan70 it shows two big discrepancies:

• He was under Reserve obligation until 17Feb72, but during that time he met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives in Paris...against Naval Regulations and the UCMJ, as well as putting him in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the office he is seeking and the office he now holds.
• It lists a "Silver Star w/Combat V" as one of his awards, although that is NEVER the method of award for the Silver Star.

The one thing missing is the fact that he's a self-serving asshat and doesn't deserve to be in office anywhere in the United States.

I knew something smelled fishy,

 

[ECKSJAY]

<snip>An excellent read.</snip>

With all that said, I'm throwing my vote away on a 3rd party candidate for one reason, and one reason only, I'm voting against the 2 party system.

Nicely put, Jeff. Thank you.

 

[Sarge]

You may be able to technically charge him with treason but it wont carry. Fonda was/is legally guilty of that crime and there is plenty of proof but nothing ever happened. It would not be a pretty trial either. Hell, you could most likely charge a few who went and served multiple terms with it in some cases.

And as others have stated that aint his final DD214. Little late to worry tho. Use his record of action within his career to decide.

I'll most likely vote third party myself and do not see it as a throw-away. Not with third party canidates starting to win other levels of the elections.

Sarge