Kerry's a war hero....
- Thread starter 4thHorseman
- Start date
Fred Hansen
New member
John Kerry helped North Vietnam and the Vietcong win their war against America.
Truer words are seldom spoken.
Truer words are seldom spoken.
Fred Hansen
New member
Amen.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
I'm no Kerry fan, but is it really news to reveal that they think people in the US and elsewhere around the world who actively protested the war, helped their cause in winning it? Kerry helped them win the war - yap, he sure did - as a protester he would be the first to acknowledge this too, proudly. It was after all, his goal in protesting, to get the US out of the war, which in turn would lead inevitably to the North's victory as it did. In other words, do they have a point? Kerry makes no bones about his philosophical opposition to the war. Personally, I think that the charges against him by the Swift boats group ring true (fradulent Purple heart, etc), and for that I think he's major scum. But no real news in this museum photo. Did his actions result in Americans being killed en route to said victory by the North? Perhaps, yes, but he would argue, correctly, that this saved American lives in the intermediate run. I won't say long run because the whole point wass to stop the spread of communism which it was believed by the hawks that if it didn't happen, would lead to WWIII and all manner of strife and pain, longterm. But they didn't have the benefit of hindsight as we do in knowing communism has failed for the most part. But, "intermediate run", Kerry believed he was saving net lives by the fruits of his protests. As it turns out, net lives saved in the long run too by withdrawing, but I can't ascribe Kerry and other protestors being able to "foresee" this fall of communism, since it was a real, profound, philosophical difference of opinion in how important it was going to be to our long-term well-being to stop the spread of communism. Now, it's a WHOLE nuther issue as to whether or not he LIED in carrying out his protests, before the congressional committee etc. If he did, then he's lower than whale $hit for that, but I don't know that that has been proven, because Kerrry's defenders point out (apparently correctly), that if you read his entire testimony, that what he actually said was not false; rather that, in describing the atrocities that Americans had supposedly done, were only hearsay accounts. Kerry was repeating, and stated as much, that "this is what so and so said happened here, and this is what so and so said happened there". No, they were not first-hand accounts, but they were not purported to be as such. Did they happen? Who knows. Was he wrong in repeating hearsay? Possibly. Did he LIE in what he actually said - hmm, dunno, but it doesn't appear so - not unless so and so didn't actually tell him that THEY saw x, y, and z happen.
I think it's oversimplifying to talk in mere terms of 'winning' or 'losing' the war. Yes, we "lost", to be sure, in our efforts to defend the south from the commies. But as a result of losing earlier rather than losing later, then it's probably net lived saved with the information they had then, and definitely net lived saved with the information we have now. Now could we have won? Maybe, maybe not. But probably not the way Johnson was conducting that war - he wasn't trying to win - not ever with the half-assed way the war was being prosecuted. It's that POS Johnson's fault for not having the cahones to defecate or get off the pot entirely. Since he (Johnson) didn't bother to wait for a declartion of war from the CONGRESS, as the constitution requires, the HE (johnson) as the commander in chief (and Kennedy too for that matter) is responsible for using the troops' lives responsibly, and that means WINNING the war, or not fighting to begin with, which he utterly failed to do, violating his duty as commander in chief (Kennedy too - at least Nixon only de-escalated in an effort to leave , not escalated as the other two prez's did, as I understand it). Now, can you argue that had it not been for people like Kerry protesting, Johnson wouldn't have had the political pressure to walk the tightrope like he did? Yeah, possibly, but IMO, that dirtbag Johnson would have done the same thing because (a) he cared about NOTHING save his own political future, and (b) the political climate was already the way it was with or without Kerry, so given that fact, Kerry probably helped saved net lives in the long run, believe it or not, seems to me, with his testimony. (that doesn't absolve him from being scum *IF* he lied to accomplish this end, but that hasn't been proven, IMO). If you can tell me that without Kerry saying what he had said, then Johnson, McNamara et al would have invaded the North, and brought them to their knees in a relative heartbeat, then I'd agree that Kerry is a anus-wipe for doing what he did. But I don't think the powers that be would have actually taken the steps needed to WIN the war, with or without Kerry. If you were there, tell me different, cuz I wasn't, but that's my take on it at this point (I was in my mama's womb in 69).
I think it's oversimplifying to talk in mere terms of 'winning' or 'losing' the war. Yes, we "lost", to be sure, in our efforts to defend the south from the commies. But as a result of losing earlier rather than losing later, then it's probably net lived saved with the information they had then, and definitely net lived saved with the information we have now. Now could we have won? Maybe, maybe not. But probably not the way Johnson was conducting that war - he wasn't trying to win - not ever with the half-assed way the war was being prosecuted. It's that POS Johnson's fault for not having the cahones to defecate or get off the pot entirely. Since he (Johnson) didn't bother to wait for a declartion of war from the CONGRESS, as the constitution requires, the HE (johnson) as the commander in chief (and Kennedy too for that matter) is responsible for using the troops' lives responsibly, and that means WINNING the war, or not fighting to begin with, which he utterly failed to do, violating his duty as commander in chief (Kennedy too - at least Nixon only de-escalated in an effort to leave , not escalated as the other two prez's did, as I understand it). Now, can you argue that had it not been for people like Kerry protesting, Johnson wouldn't have had the political pressure to walk the tightrope like he did? Yeah, possibly, but IMO, that dirtbag Johnson would have done the same thing because (a) he cared about NOTHING save his own political future, and (b) the political climate was already the way it was with or without Kerry, so given that fact, Kerry probably helped saved net lives in the long run, believe it or not, seems to me, with his testimony. (that doesn't absolve him from being scum *IF* he lied to accomplish this end, but that hasn't been proven, IMO). If you can tell me that without Kerry saying what he had said, then Johnson, McNamara et al would have invaded the North, and brought them to their knees in a relative heartbeat, then I'd agree that Kerry is a anus-wipe for doing what he did. But I don't think the powers that be would have actually taken the steps needed to WIN the war, with or without Kerry. If you were there, tell me different, cuz I wasn't, but that's my take on it at this point (I was in my mama's womb in 69).
Fred Hansen
New member
No offense, but we had essentially won the war after the Tet Offensive. The North Vietnamese got stomped. General Giap mentions in his memoirs that after the Tet Offensive of 1968 the Viet Cong were all but anihilated. The North Vietnamese Army was reeling, but thanks to the leftists in the American media (read that Walter Cronkite) the N.V.A. were spared from defeat. The media reported Tet as a great victory for North Viet Nam, when in fact it was more a last hurrah.
When John Kerry first returned to the United States, he did not voice his opposition to the war. In fact, he ran for public office in my home state of Massachusetts using his home movies from the war, and his medals as credentials to try to get elected. When he lost (because the media had been so successful in skewing American's perception of the war) he decided to co-found Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. Subsequently his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1971), and his antics of throwing away medals/protesting/hanging out with Hanoi Jane - American Traitor Bitch/etc... vaulted him into office in Mass. which by that time had become a pestilent hole swarming with anti-Amercanism; which remains so to this day.
Worst of all, the propaganda that Kerry and others spewed was used to torture and demoralize our P.O.W.s held in N. Viet Nam.
Just read what General Giap has to say about the situation.
General Giap was there. Take his word for it.
