Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chowder who wrote (21291)	8/28/2004 8:14:11 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Dabum, let's take a look at some implications of your post: Whether true or not, it was disloyal to the men fighting in Vietnam for Kerry to point out that atrocities were an integral part of that conflict. Loyalty requires that you follow the lead of your government, right or wrong. Love it or leave it means you don't criticize our policies because our enemies might take heart from that criticism. It was a good thing to keep the public ignorant of the fact that Vietnam was a bad war and that it wasn't getting any better. We should have relied upon the leaders of our country to do the right thing with respect to continuing the war and we should have relied upon them to tell us what we needed to know. And, finally, if Kerry had kept quiet while more and more men got chewed up in the meat grinder, while more and more Vietnamese civilian women and children suffered and died and while we continued to spend money in that war while domestic needs went unmet, he would then have been a leader we could count on. Maybe even the kind of leader that could have been a Marine leader. Think about what we've learned since. If the vets and others hadn't gone "public" there may well have been insufficient pressure on the politicians to stop the war. After all, we now know that the bastards had figured out that the war was unwinnable a long time before they finally stopped the slaughter. It wasn't until enough of US began to wise up that they sensed a change in the political winds and stopped. Why do you think the Nixon people were so adamant about trying to find some slime on Kerry? I thank Kerry, in part, for contributing to a quicker end of that silly and deadly war. I guess what I'm saying is that men like Kerry led in battle and then he led in the right direction when he came home. He opened the eyes of many to the "truth" of the war and raised again the central question; "why were we there and what did we hope/reasonably expect, to accomplish?" Of course that pissed off those that wanted to be thought of as part of a noble effort. Of course that pissed of those that cheered USA, USA at the time. BUT he says he cared more about the truth and the young men that were dying over there and he took a stance. Did you know that his best friend from Yale and his best friend in the Navy were both killed in Vietnam while he was there? I think he had a heart for the guys that were getting killed and, even if you disagree, you might consider giving him the benefit of the doubt instead of accepting every smear as "proven" and rejecting every defense that's offered. Of course if he was a "traitor, deserter, despicable person and flip flopper," I guess that's hardly human and we don't need to be fair to a subhuman like that.

To: chowder who wrote (21291)	8/28/2004 9:23:09 PM
From: Gator II	Respond to of 23153

Yep, Ole Abe Got It Right: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." -President Abraham Lincoln PS In my opinion, the above sentiment is doubly correct when the Congressman (by Congressman, I believe it's reasonable to assume that Ole Abe included elected representatives from both chambers of Congress) voted FOR the RESOLUTION that gave authority to the PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT WAR!! It is pathetic that both Kerry and Edwards are now seeking to have it both ways. No matter how they spin their voting record on Iraq, the stance they are taking in their quest for office is undoubtedly giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and placing the lives of our military in harms way. The term "saboteurs" in the above quote would make even more sense if it read traitors because that is exactly what I believe they both are...not for their voting records but for what they are saying on the campaign trail. G-2