Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[dr_mabeuse]

I suppose it would be important too, to note that even the definitions of the words are malleable. I noted I would never vote for Kerry because of his anti-war protesting, but Min, Doc M, Sher and others immidiatly opined that protest was patriotic. It has never been something I remotely assocciate with partiotism nor would I ever do so.

This is something I'd really like to understand, because I really don't see how blind obedience has anything to do with patriotism, nor how it can be seen as anything other than a vice.

I'm guessing that when you picture Kerry throwing his medals away, you see someone insulting the Armed Forces and everyone who's ever worn the uniform. So you look at it in terms of his loyalty to the service. Is that right?

Because when I look at it, I see Kerry acting on principals that go beyond service loyalty. I see him acting on his conscious and his own ideas of right and wrong, and standing up against what at the time was governmental tyrrany and coercion in an immoral war. It seems to me that there are loyalties that go beyond loyalties to the service, and that there are times when keeping quiet and doing nothing are immoral in themselves.

Or are you of the opinion that it's our duty as citizens to implicitly follow whatever orders our government gives us? Given Kerry's opposition to the war, what should he have done in your view?

---dr.M.

 

[KarenAM]

Karen,

My assessment of Solid, if possibly misguided was directed only at his actions against terrorism. While not ignoring the failings of the Iraq war, I didn't take the whole of that issue into consideration, just its impact in fighting terrorism. In that context, and only that context it has removed a substantial finanacial supporter of terrorism in the Middle East. By doing so it is possible, not probable, but possible, that it may help bring a softening of the PAL's position in the conflict that seems to be the most contentious in that region. If that comes to pass, then I would say his performance has been better than solid. If the result is even more terrorism directed at americans then his performance may have been less than solid. Since those repercussions are too far in the future to see, one way or another, It would be mere speculation, so I concentrated only on the immediate tangible effects.

I am not championing Bush, the Neo-cons, or their agenda. It was a simple assessment of his performance in fighting terrorism. It has been neither spectacularly effective, nor spectacularly ineffective. It has been, in my opinion, solid. Significantly better than his predesscessors, but probably less effective than it could have been had a more adroit statesman been in charge.

The hatred of the Arab world is not something I would factor into his actions. For as long as I can remember the majority of the Arab world has hated the U.S. Since my memory does not extend back to a time before Israel was formed that is perhaps understandable. Also, since my memory does not extend back to the Vietnam war, I don't have the instant shock and horror of its paralles to the Iraq war that many who do remember seem to have. All are of course free to disagree with my asessment, but it is an assessment I think I can defend fairly well. objectively, this administration has scored some success and recorded some failures, chief among them getting Bin Ladin. Still, his successes are more than his failures in the strict context of fighting terrorism since 9/11. Chief among his successes is the fact that there has been no other devestating terrorist attack in the U.S.

I am of course not taking into consideration other political events, fall out and actions that are linked to his presidency. My original statement was directed at what he was offering me as a voter.

-Colly

Colly--

Thanks for the reasoned response; it's always good to get your view.

I'd like to be so optimistic about the Israel Palestinian thing, but for all the world it looks to me like a vicious family blood feud and I don't see it improving until Sharon and Arafat both die in their sleep. Cutting off Iraqi support might slow down Palestinian terrorism in the short run, but since the radicals on both sides are running things, it won't help much in the long run. Hopefully I'm wrong about that.

The Arabs haven't hated us for that long, and Israel is only one part of the picture. What angers them about Israel is the way the USA is so one-sided in its support; they see Israel as having American carte-blanche to do as it likes, and they view the Israelis as dangerous imperialists and a vestige of colonialism. What angers them more is American support for corrupt Arab dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as I noted.

But many Arabs are also very fond of the United States. They are impressed with our achievements and successes, and it is not lost on them that American Muslims are able to practice their religion freely and openly here. In my travels in Egypt and Syria in the early 1990s I never met anyone who had a problem with my being an American; many in fact wanted to talk about American literature or simply practice their English. They did have problems with the American government, but were able to draw a distinction between the government and its people. So I don't regard the hatred of America being expressed there now as long-standing, though as frustration builds on both sides it is more likely to become a permanent fixture, which will only encourage terrorism and other violence on both sides.

I'm glad you don't have to remember Vietnam. I was young in the 1960s but I remember it well. It was a terrible, tragic waste for no good purpose; I'll never forget my mother's shock when news of My Lai came out. A lot of people saw that it was pointless and destructive then, including, I think, John Kerry, and they did what they could to try and end the madness. It can be hard for folks raised in military households to understand or forgive his response, since respect for the military runs deep in those families. But is the institution more important than the men and women in it? I can't help but wonder if Kerry did what he did in the hopes that he would be saving the lives of his fellow soldiers by ending the war as quickly as possible in the face of a government that was more concerned with saving its own face than for the lives of the young men it was sending off to die (many of whom were conscripts). If so, it tells me that his love for the military ran deeper than the medals and ribbons, that it was love for the real military, the men and women who fought and died for their country.

Just my thoughts, anyway.

 

[KenJames]

I'm glad you don't have to remember Vietnam. I was young in the 1960s but I remember it well. It was a terrible, tragic waste for no good purpose; I'll never forget my mother's shock when news of My Lai came out. A lot of people saw that it was pointless and destructive then, including, I think, John Kerry, and they did what they could to try and end the madness. It can be hard for folks raised in military households to understand or forgive his response, since respect for the military runs deep in those families. But is the institution more important than the men and women in it? I can't help but wonder if Kerry did what he did in the hopes that he would be saving the lives of his fellow soldiers by ending the war as quickly as possible in the face of a government that was more concerned with saving its own face than for the lives of the young men it was sending off to die (many of whom were conscripts). If so, it tells me that his love for the military ran deeper than the medals and ribbons, that it was love for the the real military, the men and women who fought and died for their country.

I grew up in the Vietnam era and was in my last year of college when we finally withdrew. Perhaps this is generational arrogance on my part, but I don't think it's possible for someone who didn't experience the era to fully understand it.

I was one of the war protesters and was proud to associate with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, although I didn't feel worthy to be in their company.

The motivations of the Vietnam War protesters were as varied as the individuals involved. For me, it was definitely "saving the lives of soldiers by ending the war as quickly as possible in the face of a government that was more concerned with saving its own face than for the lives of the young men it was sending off to die (many of whom were conscripts)," as Karen so eloquently put it.

Protesting the war was not easy for me. In its own way, Wyoming was just as conservative as any Southern state and I had (and still have) those Wyoming values.

I considered protesting the war to be my patriotic duty and felt I was acting in the best interests of the United States and its citizens. I've reflected on this a lot in later years and still feel the same way.

 

[Ms_Kat]

I have to admit that I didn't read everything in this thread. It got really long and boring and repetative.

Here, however, are a few of my favorite quotes:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Teddy Roosevelt

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot, so well do, for themselves--in their separate, and individual capacities. - Abraham Lincoln

"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind." - Lincoln again

"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency." - Teddy Roosevelt

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - ML King

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - King again

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and ontrolled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." - Marcus Tillius Cicero (55 BC)

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." John Stuart Mill

"Not all conservatives are stupid, but every stupid person I've met has been conservative." Mill again

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion." Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

"First they came for the fourth amendment, and I did not speak out, because I didn't deal drugs.
Then they came for the fifth amendment, and I was silent because I owned no property involved in crimes.
Then they came for the sixth amendment, and I did not protest because I was innocent.
Then they came for the second amendment, and I said nothing because I didn't like guns.
And then they at last came for the first amendment, and I could say nothing at all. " Unknown

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, remember, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzsche

"Whenever we take away the liberties of those whom we hate we are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love." Wendell Wilke - former Republican nominee for President

Hugs,


Kat

 

[shereads]

I have to admit that I didn't read everything in this thread. It got really long and boring and repetative.

Here, however, are a few of my favorite quotes:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Teddy Roosevelt

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot, so well do, for themselves--in their separate, and individual capacities. - Abraham Lincoln

"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind." - Lincoln again

"No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency." - Teddy Roosevelt

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - ML King

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - King again

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and ontrolled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." - Marcus Tillius Cicero (55 BC)

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." John Stuart Mill

"Not all conservatives are stupid, but every stupid person I've met has been conservative." Mill again

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion." Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

"First they came for the fourth amendment, and I did not speak out, because I didn't deal drugs.
Then they came for the fifth amendment, and I was silent because I owned no property involved in crimes.
Then they came for the sixth amendment, and I did not protest because I was innocent.
Then they came for the second amendment, and I said nothing because I didn't like guns.
And then they at last came for the first amendment, and I could say nothing at all. " Unknown

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, remember, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzsche

"Whenever we take away the liberties of those whom we hate we are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love." Wendell Wilke - former Republican nominee for President

Hugs,


Kat

Thanks, Kat.

 

[shereads]

I'm still waiting to see some evidence that there has been any success in reducing terrorism.

All we know for sure is that the body count since 9/11 is at least doubled. They aren't all ours, for what that's worth. But at 700+ and counting, we may yet end up with more dead as a result of the War on Terror than would have been killed by terrorists if we had responded quietly, stealthily and effectively against the responsible individuals and those who funded them.

The Saudis.

Oops. Nevermind. We don't investigate the Saudis in connection with 9/ll, do we.

 

[shereads]

Expecting Republicans to turn on their President for his transgressions is a little ridiculous.

His transgressions. Honestly, I'm amazed to hear a deception whose cost has been hundreds of lives dismissed as "his transgressions." That's what makes me think Republicans are another species altogether. We're talking at best about 700 cases of manslaughter.

 

[shereads]

BTW, if you're looking for a reason why Democrats "are always against defense spending," take a look at our annual military budget versus everyone else's:

Let's assume that the entire world decides to join forces and take on the United States militarily. Combine the annual defense budgets of Russia, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, Israel, Spain, Australia and Canada, and you still will not match the U.S. dollar-for-dollar.

What's wrong with us that we can't somehow make do with $399.1 billion? Could it be that there's a little fat in the budget, and that maybe it could use a little reality check instead of a constant influx of fresh cash? Shouldn't someone in the Pentagon be asked to find some efficiencies, like every other government agency?

Saying that the Democrats always vote against military spending and then looking at these figures ought to make you thank them. If we aren't getting enough for our money, it's not because we don't spend enough. It's because we waste it, with pork-barrel giveaways to bloated industries. It sure isn't going to widows and orphans and veterans and enlisted men's families.

($Billions)
United States 399.1
Russia*_ 65.0
China*_ 47.0
Japan_ 42.6
United Kingdom_ 38.4
France_ 29.5
Germany_ 24.9
Saudi Arabia_ 21.3
Italy_ 19.4
India_ 15.6
South Korea_ 14.1
Brazil*_ 10.7
Taiwan*_ 10.7
Israel_ 10.6
Spain_ 8.4
Australia_ 7.6
Canada_ 7.6
Netherlands_ 6.6
Turkey_ 5.8
Mexico_ 5.9
Kuwait*_ 3.9
Ukraine_ 5.0
Iran*_ 4.8
Singapore_ 4.8
Sweden_ 4.5
Egypt*_ 4.4
Norway_ 3.8
Greece_ 3.5
Poland_ 3.5
Argentina*_ 3.3
United Arab Emirates*_ 3.1
Colombia*_ 2.9
Belgium_ 2.7
Pakistan*_ 2.6
Denmark_ 2.4
Vietnam_ 2.4
North Korea*_ 2.1
Czech Republic_ 1.6
Iraq*_ 1.4
Philippines_ 1.4
Portugal_ 1.3
Libya*_ 1.2
Hungary_ 1.1
Syria_ 1.0
Cuba*_ 0.8
Sudan*_ 0.6
Yugoslavia_ 0.7
Luxembourg_ 0.2

Figures are for latest year available, usually 2002. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending. The figure for the United States is from the annual budget request for Fiscal Year 2004.

 

[raphy]

This is something I'd really like to understand, because I really don't see how blind obedience has anything to do with patriotism, nor how it can be seen as anything other than a vice.

I'm guessing that when you picture Kerry throwing his medals away, you see someone insulting the Armed Forces and everyone who's ever worn the uniform. So you look at it in terms of his loyalty to the service. Is that right?

Because when I look at it, I see Kerry acting on principals that go beyond service loyalty. I see him acting on his conscious and his own ideas of right and wrong, and standing up against what at the time was governmental tyrrany and coercion in an immoral war. It seems to me that there are loyalties that go beyond loyalties to the service, and that there are times when keeping quiet and doing nothing are immoral in themselves.

Or are you of the opinion that it's our duty as citizens to implicitly follow whatever orders our government gives us? Given Kerry's opposition to the war, what should he have done in your view?

---dr.M.

You guys may have to agree to disagree on the 'protesting' issue, but I'd be interested to hear Colly's response to this, too.

I don't necessarily see protesting as unpatriotic, but the issues are slightly more complex than that, I think.

For me, there is a very fine line to tread when protesting against a war.

It is possible to protest a war and still support the troops who are fighting that war, and in my admittedly uneducated opinion, that is the only form of protest that is morally justified.

If you're going to spit on soldiers that come home from the war you're protesting against, you deserve neither their respect, nor the protection they afford.

I'm reminded of a scene from the excellent movie A Few Good Men.

Galloway: Why do you hate them so much?
Weinberg: They beat up on a weakling, that's all they did. [...] They tortured and tormented a weaker kid. Why? Because he couldn't run fast.

..

Weinberg: Why do you like them so much?
Galloway: Because they stand upon a wall and say, "Nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch."

If you haven't seen the movie, that probably won't mean much to you out of context. But if you have, I'm sure you'll be reminded of the scene.

Who's right? They're both right. And that's the problem.

 

[KarenAM]

I don't necessarily see protesting as unpatriotic, but the issues are slightly more complex than that, I think.

For me, there is a very fine line to tread when protesting against a war.

It is possible to protest a war and still support the troops who are fighting that war, and in my admittedly uneducated opinion, that is the only form of protest that is morally justified.

If you're going to spit on soldiers that come home from the war you're protesting against, you deserve neither their respect, nor the protection they afford.

Well put, raphy. I've said elsewhere, and it bears repeating, that one of the big mistakes the left made in the country was the way the peace movement blamed the soldiers for the Vietnam War. It's a shameful chapter in history, and it still haunts the left, so much so that the right has been able to argue that it has a monopoly on patriotism (it doesn't), which is one reason that Bush and his self-proclaimed conservative friends (they aren't really that conservative, when you think about it) have been able to both take power and abuse it.

 

[raphy]

Well put, raphy. I've said elsewhere, and it bears repeating, that one of the big mistakes the left made in the country was the way the peace movement blamed the soldiers for the Vietnam War. It's a shameful chapter in history, and it still haunts the left, so much so that the right has been able to argue that it has a monopoly on patriotism (it doesn't), which is one reason that Bush and his self-proclaimed conservative friends (they aren't really that conservative, when you think about it) have been able to both take power and abuse it.

I agree, Karen.

I've been against this war from the start. I think it's a stupid war for stupid reasons and has wasted entirely too many lives and done nothing but make the middle east hate the west even more than they did before.

But, I will salute every single soldier who's gone out to fight it on the orders of the 'people in power' who, coincidentally don't have to fight it.

What happened to leaders leading their men into battle?

 

[KenJames]

Well put, raphy. I've said elsewhere, and it bears repeating, that one of the big mistakes the left made in the country was the way the peace movement blamed the soldiers for the Vietnam War. It's a shameful chapter in history, and it still haunts the left, so much so that the right has been able to argue that it has a monopoly on patriotism (it doesn't), which is one reason that Bush and his self-proclaimed conservative friends (they aren't really that conservative, when you think about it) have been able to both take power and abuse it.

I agree with most of your statement, but disagree with a couple of your blanket remarks.

The members of the peace movement were not all leftists. As the Vietnam War went on, it became more and more a centrist movement.

It's also incorrect to say that all members of the peace movement blamed the soldiers.

The peace movement wasn't reported on fairly at the time and the revisionist historians have distorted the picture even more in the years following Vietnam.

 

[KarenAM]

But Ken, blankets are so warm!

You're right; I was overgeneralizing. The movement did move from the left to the center (which was when it began to be effective). The trouble is that for my vet friends, one image of Hanoi Jane celebrating in a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft emplacement is all it has taken to brand everyone left of center as a traitor and an enemy.

I think that few anti-war folks agreed with her, but she's the thing remembered today. That's the unfortunate thing about human memory (including my own): we remember the memorable, and one memorable spitting hippy stays with us far longer than a thousand quiet "welcome homes".

I stand corrected for my overgeneralizations, but I think those same generalizations, multiplied several million times in people's minds, are a perception of the left that pacifists need to consider and respond to, lest they continue to be painted with an unfair taint.

 

[shereads]

Al Gore was...the self proclaimed inventor of the internet? GWB was... a failed bussiness man? Owner of a loosing baseball team? John Kerry is...Not GWB?

Al Gore is and was a man of intelligence and compassion, who came into the presidential race without a documented desire to start a war. A big plus, in my book; I liked not being in a war and I would have loved to see an intelligent solution to breaking up Al Queda. There were terrorist bombings that were thwarted by the Clinton adminstration, btw. Things that don't happen don't get much press.

FYI, he was the person in Congress who pushed to help fund internet technologies at a critical time; it's unfortunate that a misstatement of having "invented" the internet is the only thing people remember. He was in fact a key person in the process that provided us with access.

GWB was and is a man with a record of failures that somehow resulted in enormous wealth. He was a small-time Kenneth Lay whose father pulled strings at the SEC to get him off the hook after Harken, just as he somehow got to the head of a waiting list, thousands long, to get into the National Guard so that he could "honorably" avoid service in a war he vocally favored.

John Kerry, by virtue of his voluntary service in Vietnam including a return to service after he knew the dangers, and again by virtue of protesting the war and going public with some of the unspeakable atrocities it had spawned, was once a man who followed his conscience. Whatever you think of his war protest, he is the one of two candidates who did follow his conscience at that time. I have no way to know whether he still does or will again.

I do know that the difficulty any senator faces in becoming president is that they have a voting record. The daily compromises and contradictions that are a fact of political life are evident among senators and congressmen as they are not with a governor. Governors, like presidents, sign or veto what comes before them and that's the one record of their service that can't be disputed or muddied by spin-doctors. Like presidents, governors so most of their work behind the scenes, directing and negotiating an agenda in ways that aren't subject to public scrutiny - until someone like Paul O'Neil or Ambassador Wilson or Richard Clark goes public with his own experiences on the inside of that process. I've lost count of the number who have come forward to contradict this White House's version of how it brought us to war, but I know it's extraordinary to have so many insiders speaking out while a president is still in office, and all of their stories pretty much coraborating each other.

So we have choices: one man who followed his conscience during and after the Vietnam war, and one man who said one thing back then, and did another, and had the unmitigated gall to criticize Bill Clinton as a draft dodger. Those facts are indisputable.

We also have Kerry's record on military spending votes, which Colly thinks make him anti-military, and which I think demonstrate a sense of fiscal responsibility and an ability to stand up to the most bloated of our government bureaucracies. How many billions of dollars does it take to be bigger and tougher than everyone else on the planet? Kerry and a lot of other Democrats think the $399 billion ought to be more than enough, considering how little our combined enemies spend, if only the Pentagon spent its budget more efficiently.

Kerry's waffling on issues doesn't please me. But it's infinitely less dangerous than Bush's determination to stay the course no matter where the course appears to be leading. There's not much to be said for persistence when things just keep getting worse.

This is the most critical election of my lifetime, with one exception: the 2000 election, when we had a chance to stop the invasion of Iraq that anybody who read a newspaper knew Dick Cheney wanted; to find some reasonable use for the budget surplus that is now a dim memory; to protect the separation of church and state from Bush's rather twisted vision of What Would Jesus Do; to protect the environment from his known contempt for the EPA and Interior; to protect the rights of women and gays; the list goes on. That was an important election, the most important I can recall, and we blew it. It's doubly unfortunate that 9/ll coincided with the presence, in the highest seats of power, of people who were willing to twist that tragedy to their own ends.

I have a feeling we're in for more of the same.

 

[Pure]

because he speaks French.

can we suffer a camembert chomping president?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

An explanation of why I find protesting to be unpatriotic would be as much a trip through my psyche as a reasoned and rational response. As much a refelection of my parent's and grandfather's values as my own.

My grandfather was a decorated world war II veteran. I spent a large portion of my childhood summers with him on his farm. I absorbed a lot of his values and the values of the very small southern community he resided in. I spent most Friday nights playing with the other kids at he VFW building or sitting qiuetly in my grandfather's lap and listening to the men congregated there talk about the war, their experiences, politics etc.

My father was ex navy, and both of my folks were children of the fifties. I grew up with a lot of those old fashioned values as well as a good dose of southern baptist old time religion.

Vietnam era protestors were vile. Protesting not the government, it's policy or actions, but carrying their rancor to the very men on the field. Calling men baby killers, spitting on them, in every way imaginible villifying them. I have heard too many stories, from too many guys, who never shot a child, or a woman, in fact several told me they aren't sure they ever shot anyone. Soldiers who ended up in semi-conventional toe to toe contests with the NVA at least felt like soldiers. To a lot of these guys, at least those I have spoken too. They remember more the nights, sweating out mortar attacks, fireing randomly into the darkness and just being scared plain to death. And they all remeber their homecomings. And they all remember the protestors gathered there. And after the many stories I have heard of those homecomings, I hate. I hate them with same deep revulsion my grandfather and my father hated them.

For most of my life I have been fortunate. The military actions taken by my country have been short affiars, relatively bloodless and over very quickly. I never actually had to deal with my feelings about protestors until the lead up to the war in Iraq. So then I saw them, holding rallies, carrying signs with slogans and enjoying the freedom this country and its military affords them. But I didn't hate. Not when there was no war.

When the guns began to speak, when men were risking their lives and the protestors remained, that's when I felt all the revulsion & anger towards them that I have carried around since those nights at the VFW. And yes, I hate them. Patriotism, to me is a deep love of your country. Our electoral process put the men at the top there.

If you don't like the policys of the current administration make up a big sign that says Bush is a goon and start doing all you can to get a new leader in, I am fine with that. Your protest isn't aimed at soldiers in the field, it's aimed at what you percieve to be the man who put them there for the wrong reasons. That's well within the bounds of patriotism and well with in the bounds of what I consider right. When you protest the men, the military or run around with signs about enemy civilian dead then you are outside what I find acceptable.

This country asks damned little of you for the many things it offers. Pay your taxes, obey the law and service in the military in time of war. If war comes and you cannot serve, for what ever reason, the very least you can do is support the poor kids who are serveing. Standing around waving signs, decrying civilian casualties etc. dosen't sound like support to me. It sounds uncomfortably close to blaming the men there for the simple realities of war. It is too damned close to greeting them at the airport on return with spit, and undeserved epitahs.

As I said at the start of this, my feelings on protestors are as much a part of me as they are a rationed & reasoned response. That does not make the conviction one iota less real, nor does it make it any less immidiate. For those of you who are pulling for John Kerry, you need to feverently hope that my view is simply mine and not shared by a lot of others, because I could never vote for him. Rationally, I could be convinced perhaps that he is a great candidate, has much to offer, and if anything is better than Bush. I might even walk in intent of voting for him, but when the curtain closes and I am alone in that small space, a vote for him would feel to me like I was commiting treason, treason against my country and against every man who ever wore the uniform of and defended that country. I would also feel like I was letting down my grandfather, who passed away long ago, and I won't do that.

My feelings about protestors are deeply ingrained, difficult to vocalize and even more difficult to examine. I have been here an hour and a half writing this and it still isn't really close, but it's the best I can do.

-Colly

 

[raphy]

Thank you for baring your soul like that to us, Colly.

You're gonna hate me though, because your post begs another question:

Was Kerry one of the protestors that you acknowledge as "legitemate", or was he one of the ones who carried the 'baby-killer' signs and spat on his own brothers-in-arms as they flew home?

If you don't like the policys of the current administration make up a big sign that says Bush is a goon and start doing all you can to get a new leader in, I am fine with that. Your protest isn't aimed at soldiers in the field, it's aimed at what you percieve to be the man who put them there for the wrong reasons. That's well within the bounds of patriotism and well with in the bounds of what I consider right. When you protest the men, the military or run around with signs about enemy civilian dead then you are outside what I find acceptable.

Now, you see, we're in agreement here - But as you say, there *are* acceptable reasons for a protest (and ways to do it).. But I don't know *how* John Kerry exercised his right to protest back in the 70s. I'd appreciate being educated by someone here. I think it's important, don't you?

 

[shereads]

You guys may have to agree to disagree on the 'protesting' issue, but I'd be interested to hear Colly's response to this, too.

I don't necessarily see protesting as unpatriotic, but the issues are slightly more complex than that, I think.

For me, there is a very fine line to tread when protesting against a war.

It is possible to protest a war and still support the troops who are fighting that war, and in my admittedly uneducated opinion, that is the only form of protest that is morally justified.

If you're going to spit on soldiers that come home from the war you're protesting against, you deserve neither their respect, nor the protection they afford

Raphy, I dated a Vietnam veteran for years, who still has the newspaper clipping of his picture in his hometown paper when he returned from Vietnam, with "baby killer" inked in red over his face.

He's going to vote for Kerry. Not because he didn't suffer when that picture was mailed to him, but because he knows Kerry was right, and how hard it must have been to alienate himself from his brothers in arms. He also knows how few of the millions who protested Vietnam ever spit on a soldier, or wrote them hate mail. As Karen said, the images we remember are the ones that stand out. Most Vietnam protesters, myself included when I was in high school and old enough to understand the futility and waste, just wanted our friends and family to come home, to stop killing and being killed for no good reason. I didn't speak out enough; I lived in a conservative community where protesting would have required more courage than I had at that age. I did wear a POW bracelet for four years. There were tens of thousands of people wearing bracelets with the name of a POW or an MIA, as a show of support for the families of the missing. The progam was not started by someone who favored the war, as you can imagine - They don't like to see public reminders of the human losses.

When you say there are appropriate ways to protest a way, I'm not sure what you mean. Not spitting or insulting soldiers? I agree, and there was very little of that crap, relative to the enormous number who marched or demonstrated in protest. But if you mean we should not be visible and not be loud in our protests, I disagree. Letters and calls to Congressmen are an important political tool, but when that route has proven futile and the death toll mounts over a period of years, staging marches and demonstrations and boycotts that make the news overseas become the next option, because there is no other.

If you know your Richard M. Nixon, you know we weren't going to get out of Vietnam if he hadn't finally caved to the pressure of the war protesters. That we might have won if there hadn't been any opposition assumes that the population of Southeast Asia would have not only supported us in the effort - they could barely bring themselves to fight at our sides against their own people - and that they would have applauded a government as corrupt as the first one we created for them. All these years later, with John McCain and others beginning to warm toward the idea of normalized relations with Vietnam, wishing that Nixon had defied the protesters and "won" the war seems absurd.

I'm proud of America most of all when we stand up to corrupt leaders.

When we sway the course.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

BTW, if you're looking for a reason why Democrats "are always against defense spending," take a look at our annual military budget versus everyone else's:

Let's assume that the entire world decides to join forces and take on the United States militarily. Combine the annual defense budgets of Russia, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, Israel, Spain, Australia and Canada, and you still will not match the U.S. dollar-for-dollar.

What's wrong with us that we can't somehow make do with $399.1 billion? Could it be that there's a little fat in the budget, and that maybe it could use a little reality check instead of a constant influx of fresh cash? Shouldn't someone in the Pentagon be asked to find some efficiencies, like every other government agency?

Saying that the Democrats always vote against military spending and then looking at these figures ought to make you thank them. If we aren't getting enough for our money, it's not because we don't spend enough. It's because we waste it, with pork-barrel giveaways to bloated industries. It sure isn't going to widows and orphans and veterans and enlisted men's families.

($Billions)
United States 399.1
Russia*_ 65.0
China*_ 47.0
Japan_ 42.6
United Kingdom_ 38.4
France_ 29.5
Germany_ 24.9
Saudi Arabia_ 21.3
Italy_ 19.4
India_ 15.6
South Korea_ 14.1
Brazil*_ 10.7
Taiwan*_ 10.7
Israel_ 10.6
Spain_ 8.4
Australia_ 7.6
Canada_ 7.6
Netherlands_ 6.6
Turkey_ 5.8
Mexico_ 5.9
Kuwait*_ 3.9
Ukraine_ 5.0
Iran*_ 4.8
Singapore_ 4.8
Sweden_ 4.5
Egypt*_ 4.4
Norway_ 3.8
Greece_ 3.5
Poland_ 3.5
Argentina*_ 3.3
United Arab Emirates*_ 3.1
Colombia*_ 2.9
Belgium_ 2.7
Pakistan*_ 2.6
Denmark_ 2.4
Vietnam_ 2.4
North Korea*_ 2.1
Czech Republic_ 1.6
Iraq*_ 1.4
Philippines_ 1.4
Portugal_ 1.3
Libya*_ 1.2
Hungary_ 1.1
Syria_ 1.0
Cuba*_ 0.8
Sudan*_ 0.6
Yugoslavia_ 0.7
Luxembourg_ 0.2

Figures are for latest year available, usually 2002. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending. The figure for the United States is from the annual budget request for Fiscal Year 2004.

After each war the U.S. fought, up until world War II, the minute the peace was signed the military got demobilized and the budget for it slashed. And each time a new war came up we were woefully unprepared to fight it. Starting over again each time, tehnologically years behind our enemies and everytime it cost us untold lives.

WW II provides some excellent examples.

Our main battle tank was bolted together. Have any idea what happens to bolts when they are hit by an anti tank gun? The men inside end up looking laike hamburger.

Our most advanced fighter was the avenger. Already obsolete by the standards of most modern armys, it was also avialable in such small quantitites that men went up against tha Japanese in Brewster Buffalos as late as Dec. 1942.

Marines waded ashore at Guadalcanal, armed not with the superb M1-gerand, but armed with the 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle.

The Germans outclassed us in every weapons category, except for heavy 4 engine long range bombers.

The Japanese outclassed us in most categories as well. Although they never did find a better light machine gun than the Browning .30 or a better squad level heavy weapon than the BAR.

By 1943 the F4F corsair was easily a match for, if not far superior to the Zero. The hellcat as well. The p-51-D Mustang and P-48 thunderbold were a fair match for the German Me-109s and Fw-190's.

We did not develope a tank that matched the Germans And untold thousands died in the Sherman tank, derisively known as the ronson lighter by troops, because it lit on the first time every time. That was in reference to it's propencity to catch fire on the first hit.

We never developed an artillery piece that was the equal of the German 88. But we got close with the 105 howitzer.

Where might we have stood, in arming and equiping our men, if congress hadn't slashed military funding to the bone? How many might have lived? How much shorter might the war have been? It is a question that haunted enough people to keep us from doing the wholesale junking of the military and considering how soon Korea came along after the war to end all wars, it's a dammned good thing we finally learned.

Now you are discussing technological edges that we have, that saved the lives of unconuted service men, and uncounted Iraqi civilians. A smart bomb may screw up occasionally, but if we didn't have them and the option was 2000lbs Iorn bombs droped from flights of B-52's the carange would have been on a grand scale.

All it takes is one innovation Sher. Just one. And your military edge can be gone like an illusion. The British fleet was the pride of the empire and the most dominant force on earth. Then, in a civil war, across an ocean, at hampton Rhodes Va. the C.S.A. Virginia squared off in a batle with U.S.S. Monitor. The battle was a draw, but in that one afternoon of fighting the british Navy became obsolete. The age of sail and wooden warships was over. And every country who wanted Naval supremacy began building Iron clads & steam driven ships in a hurry.

In WWI, another innovation nearly spelled doom for the U.K. it was the german U-boat. It was defeated in WWI, just baerly, but no one learned and in WWII it came within a hair's breadth of knocking England out of the war.

A huge huge military budget? Damned Skippy. That money is spent in part to insure that when the next hot war comes our service men go into battle with the best our inginuity and technology can afford them. From keeping the edge on possible enemy fighters, to smart munitions, to a tank that is second to none. History teaches that military complacency will earn you nothing but an extra heaping helping of body bags while you play catch up.

Democrats, who I might add are just as likely to use the military solution as republicans, refuse to ackowledge that simple truth. They do so not at their own peril, but at the peril of the men & women who they send into combat.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

I try not to be so arrogant as to think that my actions or lines of thought are perfect.

Then what are you doing here? Imperfect thoughts are for the Sexual Roleplay forum.

 

[KarenAM]

Thanks, Colly. I can respect that, and this:

If you don't like the policys of the current administration make up a big sign that says Bush is a goon and start doing all you can to get a new leader in, I am fine with that.

Because this war is one of his policies. I oppose the war in Iraq (and support the one in Afghanistan as tragic but necessary), but it's important for those who disagree with me about it to realize that the soldiers are not the war. They are victims of it, and must survive it and deal with it in ways that I, having never been in war, cannot even begin to imagine. For this they both deserve and will always have my respect, admiration, and support, even when they might call me "un-American" or a "traitor" because I disagree with them about a war. This is as true of your family members as it is of my friend who used to tell me about how he collected "gook ears" in 'Nam.

I get physically upset when I see the casualty reports coming in from Iraq, when I see how young they are, when I read about spouses and children left behind. And I get enraged when Bush says "bring 'em on" when it isn't his children dying in Baghdad. The soldiers are not the war, and their lives are too valuable to spend on foolish policy. I oppose the Iraq war precisely because I support the troops, and I will oppose it until either I can be convinced that they are dying for something meaningful, or until the shooting stops.

It isn't easy opposing war when passions are inflamed. It isn't easy being called a "communist" or a "traitor" when you love your country as much as I do. It isn't easy being told that you support Saddam because you oppose George Bush, being defined as supporting torture and genocide and the murder of children by people who refuse to listen to anything you have to say, who simply brand you according to their own beliefs about what you are. It isn't easy being told that in this amazing, free country of ours, patriotism gets to be defined by the other guy. All of which has happened to me.

I understand your feelings, Colly, and I understand that they are deep, and I respect them. They are your right, earned through the blood of your family members and mine who fought for this country. But please remember that if you hate those who protest the war, if you cast harsh accusations against them without at the least asking them what they actually believe and why, you run the risk of making the same misjudgment that you accuse them of making.

I've never spit on a soldier, and I've never disrespected a soldier for their service. And I never will, though I may oppose a war, before, during and after it occurs. It shouldn't be so much for me to ask for a measure of respect in return.

 

[shereads]

If the rest of you are all so happy to pony up more of your checks for taxes and don't resent it. I did. My freinds still do. As do my family members. So perhaps I am just warped and everyone loves paying taxes. I suppose I just didn't get the memo that having my hard earned money taken from me was supposed to bring joy not resentment.

Yet the $399 billion military budget isn't big enough? Colly, it comes from my hard-earned money as well as yours. Nobody likes having money taken away. If human beings had it in our nature to drop off a few grand in a donation box every year, we could have highways and sewage plants and homeless shelters and schools and air traffic control towers and toxic waste cleanup crews and the Centers for Disease Control and what's left of the inspectors who used to guard against contaminated meat, until GWB's people ordered them not to stop a processing line because of the presence of fecal material unless it had a "fibrous structure."

It's beyond dispute that rolling back regulations on industries like that is done for the benefit of the industries, which is only a short-term benefit to their employees. There have been more cases of food poisoning deaths in the U.S. since GWB quietly removed most of the regulatory power of his own inspectors than in any two year period in decades. Of course Republicans serve big business.

But that's not why my dad, God bless him, was a Republican, or why most of the people I went to high school with were vocal haters of the Democratic party. Pure has forgotten the other side of the liberal coin, the side that a lot of folks in the "heartland" despise to such an extent that they are willing to put up with corporate welfare: we were the party of Civil Rights. You would have to be old enough to remember Vietnam to remember the other issue that divided the U.S. back then. The Civil Rights movement split us along party lines just as Vietnam did. I didn't know a single Republican in the place where I grew up who wasn't bitterly angry over school integration and who didn't think Gloria Steinhem was trying to stir up women to help the communists.

Civil Rights was a blue-collar hot button in the South, and still is for a lot of people. Confederate flags aren't still flying just because lots of people remember the Confederacy with fondness. And I can almost promise you'll never see a John Kerry for President bumper sticker on the same car that's displaying a Confederate flag.

I went to school with people who applauded Martin Luther King's assassination. Some of them grew out of it. Some did not. They vote Republican because George Wallace is dead.

 

[shereads]

It seems silly to determine who will be President on the basis of one missed vote. What about all the work he has done for the unemployed over his entire career?

He has done that, yes. And it's been an uphill battle. Both Bush presidents objected strongly to any increase in unemployment benefits.

But impeaching a President for lying about a blowjob seems a bit petty to me.

This is a cue for someone to say, "It wasn't the sex; it was because he lied under oath." An oath lie is the kind Bush/Cheney can never be accused of by the 9/ll commission, since they agreed to testify only if they didn't have to take an oath. Testimony under oath is now reserved for underlings like Condi Rice.

As far as the current Administration is concerned, I've yet to see any evidence that they can govern effectively.

Got to disagree with you there. I think everybody who invested got a good return. It's been an extraordinarily effective few years for the meat-packing and poultry-packiing industries (major Bush supporters) to the point that the inspectors you and I pay to provide us with some assurance that manure isn't mixed with our hamburger meat are all but powerless now.

It's been a great few years for the mining and drilling industries (we see the benefit at the pump, though, right?) and an eye-opening time for some conservative ranchers in Wyoming whose water supply and grazing land has been poisoned by contamination from the gas drilling that Clinton's people were accused of over-studying.

The pharmaceutical industry could not have asked for a better year. Same with the heatlh insurance industry.

Things are going extremely well for the military industrial complex. Cheney has apparently changed his mind about some weapons systems he opposed during the first Bush administration, because he recently used Kerry's opposition to those same weapons to illustrate the point that Kerry is weak on defense.

Even the Star Wars program is still supported. After 9/ll I thought that would bite the dust. The likelihood of having to shoot down an ICBM with lasers seems less than having to shoot down a plane, and we have that technology.

Above all, it's been a surprisingly good year for Ahmad Chalabi, the primary source of all that WMD info. I thought he'd lose his $340,000/month from the Defense Department. What I hadn't anticipated was that once Chalabi became an embarassment, his stipend would just be put under another part of the budget. He works for the Pentagon now, still supplying intelligence about the situation in Iraq. He's right on top of it now, because we appointed him to the governing board that wrote the new Iraq constitution. I envision a political future for Mr. Chalabi, maybe with military support by the U.S. since the country is so dangerous and all.

Which brings us to another point of Karen's: Was the White House deceived by Chalabi, or did they deceive Congress with his help? If he did lie to the president and the president thought he was telling the truth, GWB must be awfully forgiving. I guess that's God's positive influence.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank you for baring your soul like that to us, Colly.

You're gonna hate me though, because your post begs another question:

Was Kerry one of the protestors that you acknowledge as "legitemate", or was he one of the ones who carried the 'baby-killer' signs and spat on his own brothers-in-arms as they flew home?



Now, you see, we're in agreement here - But as you say, there *are* acceptable reasons for a protest (and ways to do it).. But I don't know *how* John Kerry exercised his right to protest back in the 70s. I'd appreciate being educated by someone here. I think it's important, don't you?

What kind of protestor was Kerry? Gee raphy, you really have to make that call yourself. Was he man of great principal as Doc thinks? His susequent choice in career argues against that About as eloquently as I could. Did he have his eye on politics at that time and use his prtest activities to gain himself some time in te spotlight and face recognition? If so I have to say he was at least an extremely shrewd man, being anti-military plays well in the NE.

For me, he wasn't protesting against LBJ or Nixxon, his accusations and actions were aimed at the military and the men in the fields. For me he was the bad kind.

I still have my Grandfather's medals. He almost never took them out to show people and only showed me when I asked. Thus he gave them to me shortly before he died, because I was the only one who seemed interested in them. Like Mr. Kerry, my grandfather didn't show off his medals. Unlike Kerry, his reluctance wasn't because he wasn't proud of his service or his military or his country. He didn't show them because he felt like it was bragging. Ostentious display of things that held a much deeper and more personal meaning. I have one picture of him, in his dress blues, with his salad board & medals displayed. I am the only one in the family who has that photo. In fact he dug out his old uniform, went down to Olan Mills and had it taken, just for me, for my sweet sixteen.

I have a purple heart sitting in my room. Awarded to the son of an elderly lady who passed away with no living relatives in the nursing home. Her son flew B-17's and was killed in a raid over schweinfort. It was awarded posthumously. How did I end up with this? A mother's most prized memento of a son she lost before he saw his 20th birthday? Because when I visted the Nursing home on occasion to try and make things better for folks I was the only one who sat and listened to her tell me about her brave son. It is sort of ironic that the people who visit old folks homes, are predominantly liberals and don't want to hear about it. I did. It came in the mail, about two weeks after she passed away with a touching note.

I have seen what medals for valor mean to man who deeply loves his country. I have seen what they mean to a grieving mother. I have seen what John Kerry's medals meant to him.

-Colly

I am going to bow out of this thread for a bit. I have touched on things of a deeply personal and emotional nature in these responses and am a little overwhelmed right now.

 

[shereads]

After each war the U.S. fought, up until world War II, the minute the peace was signed the military got demobilized and the budget for it slashed. And each time a new war came up we were woefully unprepared to fight it. Starting over again each time, tehnologically years behind our enemies and everytime it cost us untold lives.

WW II provides some excellent examples.

Our main battle tank was bolted together. Have any idea what happens to bolts when they are hit by an anti tank gun? The men inside end up looking laike hamburger.

Our most advanced fighter was the avenger. Already obsolete by the standards of most modern armys, it was also avialable in such small quantitites that men went up against tha Japanese in Brewster Buffalos as late as Dec. 1942.

Marines waded ashore at Guadalcanal, armed not with the superb M1-gerand, but armed with the 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle.

The Germans outclassed us in every weapons category, except for heavy 4 engine long range bombers.

The Japanese outclassed us in most categories as well. Although they never did find a better light machine gun than the Browning .30 or a better squad level heavy weapon than the BAR.

By 1943 the F4F corsair was easily a match for, if not far superior to the Zero. The hellcat as well. The p-51-D Mustang and P-48 thunderbold were a fair match for the German Me-109s and Fw-190's.

We did not develope a tank that matched the Germans And untold thousands died in the Sherman tank, derisively known as the ronson lighter by troops, because it lit on the first time every time. That was in reference to it's propencity to catch fire on the first hit.

We never developed an artillery piece that was the equal of the German 88. But we got close with the 105 howitzer.

Where might we have stood, in arming and equiping our men, if congress hadn't slashed military funding to the bone? How many might have lived? How much shorter might the war have been? It is a question that haunted enough people to keep us from doing the wholesale junking of the military and considering how soon Korea came along after the war to end all wars, it's a dammned good thing we finally learned.

Now you are discussing technological edges that we have, that saved the lives of unconuted service men, and uncounted Iraqi civilians. A smart bomb may screw up occasionally, but if we didn't have them and the option was 2000lbs Iorn bombs droped from flights of B-52's the carange would have been on a grand scale.

All it takes is one innovation Sher. Just one. And your military edge can be gone like an illusion. The British fleet was the pride of the empire and the most dominant force on earth. Then, in a civil war, across an ocean, at hampton Rhodes Va. the C.S.A. Virginia squared off in a batle with U.S.S. Monitor. The battle was a draw, but in that one afternoon of fighting the british Navy became obsolete. The age of sail and wooden warships was over. And every country who wanted Naval supremacy began building Iron clads & steam driven ships in a hurry.

In WWI, another innovation nearly spelled doom for the U.K. it was the german U-boat. It was defeated in WWI, just baerly, but no one learned and in WWII it came within a hair's breadth of knocking England out of the war.

A huge huge military budget? Damned Skippy. That money is spent in part to insure that when the next hot war comes our service men go into battle with the best our inginuity and technology can afford them. From keeping the edge on possible enemy fighters, to smart munitions, to a tank that is second to none. History teaches that military complacency will earn you nothing but an extra heaping helping of body bags while you play catch up.

Democrats, who I might add are just as likely to use the military solution as republicans, refuse to ackowledge that simple truth. They do so not at their own peril, but at the peril of the men & women who they send into combat.

-Colly

Colly, you sound as if there can be no middle ground between zero military spending and giving the Pentagon everything it asks for; and that there can be no meaningful war protest without spitting on soldiers. Maybe that's what they taught you at the VFW, and maybe it seemed that way to some of them, but if every one of the millions of Americans who hated that war had spit on someone, we'd have all drowned.

The spitters and abusers of soldiers were a small minority. The ones carrying the signs - the ones who made Nixon stop an insane corrupt war - were a minority too; most of us lacked the courage of our convictions. We hated the war and grieved for its dead and we argued with our parents and school mates, but we didn't do much else, because we were lazy or afraid. We didn't want to be arrested or embarrassing our families. And when we saw unarmed students shot at Kent State, we began to see what was really at stake, and we got even quieter. The Veterans who protested the war were a remarkably brave group of people, in that they separated themselves from the people they felt closest to, and whose respect mattered most to them. They risked being vilified in later years like Kerry.

All you care about regarding his war medals is that he rejected the war later and threw some of them away. What he endured to win them is meaningless.

As for acknowledging civilian casualties, those are human lives no different than Nick Berg. Wouldn't you love to think that some student group in the middle east had enough concern about the lives of their enemy's civilians that they would carry protest signs with Nick Berg's picture and demand a stop to the carnage?

You'd admire them, I imagine. They would change the world.

You'll never make me understsand the difference between collateral damage and dead children, when it comes to imagining what it's like under the rubble at the World Trade Center or an apartment in Fellujah. I make no apology for the fact that I see innocent people as worthy of grief whether they are murdered in my name by George Bush, or in Bin Laden's name by a suicide bomber. I don't reject the idea that there may be times when it's necessary to risk civilian deaths, or to invade a country where thousands of such deaths are inevitable. But I won't simply accept on faith that what looks, sounds and smells like a trumped-up reason is really for my own good. To stay silent if you believe your country is killing people for no good reason is not unlike murder. If waving a sign with some dead civilian's picture on it saves a life that should never have been risked, it's worth hurting some feelings. Even soldiers' feelings. Even your grandfather's, or mine. Nobody's pride, not even the people we most love and admire, is worth one life.

If you hate the people who protested the Vietnam war, you hate millions upon milions of people in the country you say you love. It becomes a rather small group of people to love when you discount everyone outside our borders, and half of the people within.