Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Capmeister, Aug 24, 2004.
I think Kerry is out of control and ruining his chances.
This article was written by one of our students. Are any of the people in this story "lying"? I don't think so.
"From then on, though, the stories get convoluted. The commanding officer insisted the mortar round was incoming; so did the sergeant who was outside operating the howitzer for their battery that morning and said he heard the round come in.
But my father's gunner has always insisted that the round came from friendly fire. According to him, the sergeant was conducting routine harassing and interdictory fire that morning. One of the shells misfired and exploded in camp, near my father's tent. This version is supported by several of the men who were in the battery that day.
Rather than clarify matters, the autopsy report created more confusion. It stated that my father had a "possible GSW from back to abdomen." In others words, one former Army mortician explained, "Your father was shot in the back with an M-16." A small wound like that, the mortician insisted, could not have been mistaken for mortar shrapnel. It had to have come from a gunshot at close range. The commanding officer, however, maintained that the wound was the result of flying shrapnel.
So, then, what about John Kerry and the Swift boat crew? Enough already. There are some things we'll never know. But there are also some things that are beyond dispute - even in the chaos of war. Mr. Kerry went. He served. Lucky for him, he got to come home and raise his daughters. "
The thing is, Kerry is not making Vietnam the "cornerstone", it is the opposition who continues to fan that flame. Kerry is simply on the defensive end of the issue. As long as the Bushies can keep that going, they don't have to talk about the REAL issues that Bush should be addressing, like the debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sour economy, education, jobs, the environment, etc.
I finally got a tape of Kerry's speech when he was here in Oregon. He did not say one word about his vietnam tour. What he did talk about was tax relief for the middle clase, deductions for college tuition, health care, and a better way to implement prescription drugs for seniors. He touched briefly on teh Iraq war and then only as a comparison as to what it is costing comapred to domestic programs.
You guys are mad at kerry for allegedly "fudging" his record. I am mad at Bush for fudging the reason to invade Iraq and kill over 900 of our troops
He CAN'T anymore. If he were not planning to make it his "cornerstone" he wouldn't have spent 90% of his convention acceptance speech on the subject. This was his ONE chance to speak to the whole country and get his ideas across, uninterrupted. Instead he decided to speak about his 4 months in Vietnam. He blew it. If he hadn't done so much self promoting even I would have continued to believe his Vietnam "legacy" and the Swiftboat guys probably would have continued on with their lives. When you build your image around one period in time and then it is found that much of what you have said about that period in time is "questionable" at best, the problems are not going to go away. I doubt very much that I would have voted for him (mostly because I was aware of what he did when he returned from Vietnam), but I certainly would have retained a slight bit of respect for him.
To be honest, I really don't want a veteran to be the President. Irregardless of thier political leaning, rarely has a soldier come back without any mental health issues. Do you really want an unstable vet having access to the button?
Let's see here.... We would have kept the following recent presidents:
We would have lost:
Nah, I think we should allow vets to be president.
:lol: That's not a word.
Clinton never made it to the military, he kept going AWOL.
All of the above people have brought this country to the brink of destruction. Truman actually used the button. So my point stands.
I might be if he had, but he hasn't. He has used it as an illustration at times, like his acceptance speech, but that is different. Pay attention to what he is actually saying, and not what you think he is saying. Kerry has been criticized by members of his own party for not responding personally to the SVV's, because he has been trying to deal with issues, and not attacks made by guys who used to campaign for him.
Surely you're not suggesting that Truman ordered the dropping of the bomb while in the fugue of a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder episode?
Who knows? All I know is that if the President hadn't had the military training perhaps he would have thought twice about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
Then I take it that you will be voting for Nader this year. Since Bush may not have been in Viet Nam, but he did receive military training?
Actually, FYI, I am seriously considering voting for Superman :lol:
I don't think we should allow vets to become President either. After all, all they know is how to take care of dogs, cats, cows, horses, and the like!
I could swear I just heard a rimshot.
By all historical accounts, Truman thought much more than twice about dropping the bomb, and it haunted him for the rest of his days.
And Richard was correct - Clinton would not have been DQ'd from being President - Clinton was not a vet. You should pay more attention.
"By all historical accounts, Truman thought much more than twice about dropping the bomb, and it haunted him for the rest of his days."
Yes. In fact there was a third bomb ready to go because even after the second one, the Emporer refused unconditional surrender. Truman basically changed the terms of the "unconditional surrender" -namely promising to preserve the structure of the Imperial State - and made it palatable for Japan to give up. Thus this compromise on Truman's part prevented a third bomb.
Now THAT's news to me. I always thought there was only the two available at that time and that it would take some weeks or months to get a 3rd one together.
Years ago I attened a veterans convnetion where one of the speakers was with the 509th group that dropped the two bombs. Preceding each bombing run, a trainng exercise took place using "pumpkin bombs" - conventional explosives. A training run took place in mid-August after the first two A-bombs were dropped. If surender hadn't come shortly thereafter at least one more bomb would be dropped on a major city.
That's reasonable logic, but far from conclusive.
The training run could've simply been a bluff. They did a lot of that back then, as I'm sure you know. OR it could've been an "early" run in anticipation of another A-bomb being built.