I was not sure that this belongs here because this is supposed to be a place where we honor our soldiers. I decided to put it here anyway even though the words contained within "The New Soldier" do EVERYTHING but honor our soldiers. It boggles my mind that a man that could say and do such things could then think he was worthy of leading our soldiers. If anyone takes the time to read it just perform a little exercise...every time you see the word Vietnam replace it with Iraq and every time you see the word Communism replace it with Terrorism.
The New Soldier
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
How does a book written in 1971 convey in anyway Kerry's view on the war in Iraq today? I think it's ridiculous that so many people try to dig up so much from Kerry's past, particularly in the 70's, to criticize what he may or may not do if elected. It has as much bearing on the issues at hand as bringing up Bush's record when he was in the ANG... none at all.
In my opinion, what Kerry did back in the late 60's and 70's WAS to honor our soldiers back then. He gave many of them a voice. Sure, he didn't speak for all of them, because there were many that did not share his views on Vietnam, but there were also many that did. Many went in to the war with either a positive or nuetral view on why we were there, and most that came back did so with mostly negative views. I'd be pissed off too if I was forced into a war and upon returning I was viewed by a mojority of the American public as anything but a hero.
That was over 30 years ago. Times change. People change. Kerry still get's my vote.
As for this being in the "In Their Honor" forum, I don't think it belongs. All this is is political propaganda, not honor for our fallen heros. To quote a line from Black Hawk Down... "Once that first bullet flys by your head, all politics are out the window." So, let's not bring this stuff into this forum.
In my opinion, what Kerry did back in the late 60's and 70's WAS to honor our soldiers back then. He gave many of them a voice. Sure, he didn't speak for all of them, because there were many that did not share his views on Vietnam, but there were also many that did. Many went in to the war with either a positive or nuetral view on why we were there, and most that came back did so with mostly negative views. I'd be pissed off too if I was forced into a war and upon returning I was viewed by a mojority of the American public as anything but a hero.
That was over 30 years ago. Times change. People change. Kerry still get's my vote.
As for this being in the "In Their Honor" forum, I don't think it belongs. All this is is political propaganda, not honor for our fallen heros. To quote a line from Black Hawk Down... "Once that first bullet flys by your head, all politics are out the window." So, let's not bring this stuff into this forum.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I had addressed why something that occurred over 30 years ago would or should have any bearing on TODAY...I took it out because that is always the first defense that anyone makes when they try to explain away what Kerry did and said. The second defense is to say, “What about Bush?” Don’t get me wrong, I can beat up on Bush just as much as the next guy - this is where you would expect me say “but” and make some excuse for him…I’m not going to do it. You can deflect a Kerry criticism by making a Bush criticism or vice versa but what have you accomplished by doing so?
IMO what Kerry did in the 70’s has EVERYTHING to do with what he would do today. I can’t go by what he says in debates and speeches because he takes both sides of every issue. I can only go by what he has actually accomplished…or not accomplished. I don’t know what you got out of the debates but I actually watched all of them and then went back and read the transcripts. What I came away with wasn’t provided to me by the television or radio or news articles. My opinions are my very own opinions that I formed by dissecting all of the information.
During the debates he said that he has always been consistent in his position on Iraq and acknowledged that Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with and in the same debate he criticized the president for going into Iraq - which posed no threat. He is criticized the president for his tax cuts to the rich who don't need it and not 5 minutes later he's talking about how he's going to close loop holes and give the money that is saved to corporations. He insisted that his health care plan was not a government plan and not 5 minutes later he says that people are free to choose between his government plan or stay with what they've got. I don’t point this out to try and change anyone’s mind; I do it because it lends itself to my next point.
I believe that John Kerry is a very smart man because his words can appeal to people on both sides of the fence. The magic of it is that once a person hears that he believes what they believe and that he's on their side they tune everything else out and don't realize that he just told the guy on the other side of the aisle that he believes in what he believes in too and is also on his side. My point? He has never changed his stance on Vietnam and I believe that this reveals who he really is.
As far as propaganda goes.
pro•pa•gan•da http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=propaganda
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
I don’t see that the definition of propaganda includes anything about holding a person to account for his own actions. Remember, the link I posted was to a book written by John Kerry. It isn’t a collection of quotes that have been put together by an anti-Kerry goon to make him look bad, this is his own work. I acknowledge that people can change but by making that statement you imply that he has changed. And by making that statement you imply that it is a change for the better. Show me an example by actions or words that would indicate that John Kerry has changed. And show me an example by his actions or voting record that would indicate that he is the man to lead the war against terror.
And if you think that putting a link to John Kerry's book dishonors our soldiers then you must not have a very high opinion of him. And, what role do you think Mr. Kerry's actions played in our soldiers coming back to negative views? Do you think that his actions caused people to support our soldiers or do you think his actions caused people to spit on them?
IMO what Kerry did in the 70’s has EVERYTHING to do with what he would do today. I can’t go by what he says in debates and speeches because he takes both sides of every issue. I can only go by what he has actually accomplished…or not accomplished. I don’t know what you got out of the debates but I actually watched all of them and then went back and read the transcripts. What I came away with wasn’t provided to me by the television or radio or news articles. My opinions are my very own opinions that I formed by dissecting all of the information.
During the debates he said that he has always been consistent in his position on Iraq and acknowledged that Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with and in the same debate he criticized the president for going into Iraq - which posed no threat. He is criticized the president for his tax cuts to the rich who don't need it and not 5 minutes later he's talking about how he's going to close loop holes and give the money that is saved to corporations. He insisted that his health care plan was not a government plan and not 5 minutes later he says that people are free to choose between his government plan or stay with what they've got. I don’t point this out to try and change anyone’s mind; I do it because it lends itself to my next point.
I believe that John Kerry is a very smart man because his words can appeal to people on both sides of the fence. The magic of it is that once a person hears that he believes what they believe and that he's on their side they tune everything else out and don't realize that he just told the guy on the other side of the aisle that he believes in what he believes in too and is also on his side. My point? He has never changed his stance on Vietnam and I believe that this reveals who he really is.
As far as propaganda goes.
pro•pa•gan•da http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=propaganda
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
I don’t see that the definition of propaganda includes anything about holding a person to account for his own actions. Remember, the link I posted was to a book written by John Kerry. It isn’t a collection of quotes that have been put together by an anti-Kerry goon to make him look bad, this is his own work. I acknowledge that people can change but by making that statement you imply that he has changed. And by making that statement you imply that it is a change for the better. Show me an example by actions or words that would indicate that John Kerry has changed. And show me an example by his actions or voting record that would indicate that he is the man to lead the war against terror.
And if you think that putting a link to John Kerry's book dishonors our soldiers then you must not have a very high opinion of him. And, what role do you think Mr. Kerry's actions played in our soldiers coming back to negative views? Do you think that his actions caused people to support our soldiers or do you think his actions caused people to spit on them?