NationStates Jolt Archive

Nobody cares about Vietnam anymore.

It's not pertinent to this election. All that matters is what both candidates are going to do in the future, not what they did in the past, to bring America into the next stages of its life.

Both sides to this are going to battle to the death over something that neither side either has all the facts for or knows what truly went on every second in every place of Vietnam during the war.

So, just get off it, move on, and focus on the future, rather than the past. Just spead the word to vote this election instead of trying convince each side that the other is wrong.

This advertisement has been endorsed by my dad on behalf of my request to the question: What is your stance on Kerry and Vietnam?

I have a simple reply.. not being a Vietnam veteran but was a child during that war and remember it well

"Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it."

There are plenty of lessons to learn from that war, and that time, so in a large sense, what happened then, and how those who run for office now dealt with it, does matter.

I have a simple reply.. not being a Vietnam veteran but was a child during that war and remember it well

"Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it."

There are plenty of lessons to learn from that war, and that time, so in a large sense, what happened then, and how those who run for office now dealt with it, does matter.

Well, Bush obviously didn't learn much from it, as he's gotten us into a very similar situation. He has even used the same rhetoric to get us here.

I think the "doomed to repeat it" part applies in this case

There are plenty of lessons to learn from that war, and that time, so in a large sense, what happened then, and how those who run for office now dealt with it, does matter.

I can agree with that we can learn from the war, but it should not be a political tool at disposal for political parties to gain or lose favor.

Nobody cares about Vietnam anymore.

It's not pertinent to this election. All that matters is what both candidates are going to do in the future, not what they did in the past, to bring America into the next stages of its life.

Both sides to this are going to battle to the death over something that neither side either has all the facts for or knows what truly went on every second in every place of Vietnam during the war.

So, just get off it, move on, and focus on the future, rather than the past. Just spead the word to vote this election instead of trying convince each side that the other is wrong.

This advertisement has been endorsed by my dad on behalf of my request to the question: What is your stance on Kerry and Vietnam?

"The past gives birth to the future, where we all will have to live." What Kerry has done and said in the past is indicative of what he will do and say in the future. He opened himself up to a detailed examination of all of this when he made his "service" in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign.

Regardless of what many would have us believe, a man's character is important when he's lusting after political power. What happened in Vietnam and after is relevant to John Kerry's character, or his lack of it.

It's highly unlikely that many will be convinced of this, especially since the Dems are hungry to own the Presidency to the point where they have selected an amoral opportunist as their candidate. But the truth is the truth regardless of whether it's what the far left wants to hear or not.

Tell your father "Welcome home." It's a mark of how deeply wounded Vietnam veterans are by the antics of Kerry and his like that the only ones who have ever said that to us are other Vietnam veterans.

"The past gives birth to the future, where we all will have to live." What Kerry has done and said in the past is indicative of what he will do and say in the future. He opened himself up to a detailed examination of all of this when he made his "service" in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign.

The only people I have seen mention Kerry's Vietnam service in more than a passing way are people opposed to Kerry. Kerry simply mentions it when asked about his views on war. Is it not natural that someone who has been in war would have their views on war shaped by that experience?

Regardless of what many would have us believe, a man's character is important when he's lusting after political power. What happened in Vietnam and after is relevant to John Kerry's character, or his lack of it.

A person's character can change. The past four years are an indication of Bush's lack of character (or intelligence, one or the other) and neither is likely to change between election day and inaugeration.

Tell your father "Welcome home." It's a mark of how deeply wounded Vietnam veterans are by the antics of Kerry and his like that the only ones who have ever said that to us are other Vietnam veterans.

Yes, and I'm sure those who reported the abuses of prisoners in Iraq are responsible for any enmity the current soldiers may feel too.

It is unfortunate that Vietnam vets were treated the way they were. However, that is not the fault of a man who tried to do everything he could to get the soldiers he had fought with out of a conflict they did not need to be in and home where they could be safe. I have seen no footage of Kerry spitting on soldiers, and even McCain - a man who was a POW there for years - has shown no enmity towards Kerry.

You guys are missing the point here.

The post is this: We are the ones furthering this image of Vietnam, if we all just the shut the hell up, go on with life, and vote in this election based on facts instead of speculation, it'll be a much more honest race than ever imaginable.

Nobody cares about Vietnam anymore.



I bet the Vietnamese do ...

Nobody cares about Vietnam anymore.

It's not pertinent to this election. All that matters is what both candidates are going to do in the future, not what they did in the past, to bring America into the next stages of its life.

Both sides to this are going to battle to the death over something that neither side either has all the facts for or knows what truly went on every second in every place of Vietnam during the war.

So, just get off it, move on, and focus on the future, rather than the past. Just spead the word to vote this election instead of trying convince each side that the other is wrong.

This advertisement has been endorsed by my dad on behalf of my request to the question: What is your stance on Kerry and Vietnam?

You can't put whiteout over history. But anyhow, I think that Kerry is not telling the truth. He had minimal injuries, and one of them was self inflicted. One man lost an eye and a leg, and he won only one purple heart. If he was a realy hero, then he would not have been so eager to go home. He would have stayed and fought.

I got this metal ass in 'nam defending you ignorant little kids, so you give me some respect and lets go shoot some commys :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5:

I can agree with that we can learn from the war, but it should not be a political tool at disposal for political parties to gain or lose favor.
Ideality vs Reality is the problem you face.

You can't put whiteout over history. But anyhow, I think that Kerry is not telling the truth. He had minimal injuries, and one of them was self inflicted. One man lost an eye and a leg, and he won only one purple heart. If he was a realy hero, then he would not have been so eager to go home. He would have stayed and fought.
How long were you over there?

The only people I have seen mention Kerry's Vietnam service in more than a passing way are people opposed to Kerry. Kerry simply mentions it when asked about his views on war. Is it not natural that someone who has been in war would have their views on war shaped by that experience?

Yes, it is natural. Mine have been, but then again, I completed 24 months in Vietnam, compared to Kerry's four, so by your standards my views should have been "shaped" more by my experience than Kerry's, yes? And your statements about Kerry not mentioning his Vietnam "service" are incorrect. Did you not see his "salute" and hear his comment about "reporting for duty" during the DNC convention? The man made Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign, until the Swiftvets took exception to his delusions about it.


A person's character can change. The past four years are an indication of Bush's lack of character (or intelligence, one or the other) and neither is likely to change between election day and inaugeration.

Unlikely. The best indication of future performance is past performance.


Yes, and I'm sure those who reported the abuses of prisoners in Iraq are responsible for any enmity the current soldiers may feel too.

It was their responsibility to report any abuses, just as it's the responsibility of all military personnel. The only "enmity" I have ever heard of any of those who have served in Iraq mention is the hostility from the extreme left. This comes as no surprise, since the extreme left has always hated it when the US exercises its responsibility through use of military force.


It is unfortunate that Vietnam vets were treated the way they were. However, that is not the fault of a man who tried to do everything he could to get the soldiers he had fought with out of a conflict they did not need to be in and home where they could be safe. I have seen no footage of Kerry spitting on soldiers, and even McCain - a man who was a POW there for years - has shown no enmity towards Kerry.

As I've stated before, John McCain has his own political agenda to care for.

As for Kerry wanting anything except fortune and fame for Kerry regardless of the cost ... ever heard the expression "when hell freezes over?" If Kerry had truly wanted the American soldiers in Vietnam to come home safely, he would have done the same thing every soldier who cares about his comrades has done in all the wars in which we have been involved: go back and do his best to help them survive.

You can't put whiteout over history. But anyhow, I think that Kerry is not telling the truth. He had minimal injuries, and one of them was self inflicted. One man lost an eye and a leg, and he won only one purple heart. If he was a realy hero, then he would not have been so eager to go home. He would have stayed and fought.

Stayed and fought in a war he saw as a waste of human life? An interesting viewpoint you have there.

You can't put whiteout over history. But anyhow, I think that Kerry is not telling the truth. He had minimal injuries, and one of them was self inflicted. One man lost an eye and a leg, and he won only one purple heart. If he was a realy hero, then he would not have been so eager to go home. He would have stayed and fought.
Prove it.

You guys are missing the point here.

The post is this: We are the ones furthering this image of Vietnam, if we all just the shut the hell up, go on with life, and vote in this election based on facts instead of speculation, it'll be a much more honest race than ever imaginable.

I understand what you are trying to say but they only give one purple heart per incident.

People can argue Kerry abused the system. But they should ask why the system allowed Kerry to abuse it.

Kerry is not the first and will not be last glory hunter in war.

Yes, it is natural. Mine have been, but then again, I completed 24 months in Vietnam, compared to Kerry's four, so by your standards my views should have been "shaped" more by my experience than Kerry's, yes?

Possibly. A lot can happen in four months, especially in wartime. Hell, for someone in Kerry's position, average lifespan in Vietnam was only a few minutes, much less four months.

But yes, you have probably been very much shaped by your experiences in Vietnam, and regardless of whether or not I agree with the fact that we were in that particular war, I thank you for your service to your country. If you ever run for president, I am sure you will cite your Vietnam service as part of the basis for your knowledge of foreign affairs and how to conduct a war.

And your statements about Kerry not mentioning his Vietnam "service" are incorrect. Did you not see his "salute" and hear his comment about "reporting for duty" during the DNC convention? The man made Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign, until the Swiftvets took exception to his delusions about it.

The DNC was long after other people had repeatedly brought it up. At that point, he was on the defense - not bringing it up out of the blue.

Unlikely. The best indication of future performance is past performance.

And Bush's past performance as a president is abysmal. Thus, he is unlikely to do well in a second term.

It was their responsibility to report any abuses, just as it's the responsibility of all military personnel.

And it was not Kerry's responsibility to report any abuses he had seen/heard about? Even when Congress specifically asked him to do so?

The only "enmity" I have ever heard of any of those who have served in Iraq mention is the hostility from the extreme left. This comes as no surprise, since the extreme left has always hated it when the US exercises its responsibility through use of military force.

But is it the fault of those who reported the abuses?

As I've stated before, John McCain has his own political agenda to care for.

And this has what to do with the price of eggs in China? Many of the other Republicans have chosen not to show any restraint in attacking Kerry's wartime service. If Kerry's actions were really such a disservice, don't you think a POW from Vietnam would have more stake in pointing them out?

As for Kerry wanting anything except fortune and fame for Kerry regardless of the cost ... ever heard the expression "when hell freezes over?" If Kerry had truly wanted the American soldiers in Vietnam to come home safely, he would have done the same thing every soldier who cares about his comrades has done in all the wars in which we have been involved: go back and do his best to help them survive.

If you die yourself, you can't do much to help others, now can you? He thought the war was unjust and unreasonable. Thus, he felt that his place to help was to try and stop the war from continuing. We can argue that he was wrong, we can argue that his actions may have harmed his cause, but we cannot assume that his intentions were not good. That is completely an assumption on your case.

Prove it.

Simple statistical reasoning will indicate that, particularly during Vietnam, to "win" three purple hearts ( without spending ONE day in the hospital ), two Bronze Stars ( with "V" device, for "Valor" ), and one Silver Star ( strangely, also with "V" device, which is redundant since any Silver Star is for valor ), within a FOUR MONTH period, was statistically impossible. Kerry is no "war hero," just a sad, pathetic wannabe who desired nothing more than to put in enough time to be able to claim he was one.

I understand what you are trying to say but they only give one purple heart per incident.

People can argue Kerry abused the system. But they should ask why the system allowed Kerry to abuse it.

Kerry is not the first and will not be last glory hunter in war.

Very true.

Simple statistical reasoning will indicate that, particularly during Vietnam, to "win" three purple hearts ( without spending ONE day in the hospital ), two Bronze Stars ( with "V" device, for "Valor" ), and one Silver Star ( strangely, also with "V" device, which is redundant since any Silver Star is for valor ), within a FOUR MONTH period, was statistically impossible. Kerry is no "war hero," just a sad, pathetic wannabe who desired nothing more than to put in enough time to be able to claim he was one.
Nothing is impossable. Statistics mean nothing. Give proof.

Simple statistical reasoning will indicate that, particularly during Vietnam, to "win" three purple hearts ( without spending ONE day in the hospital ), two Bronze Stars ( with "V" device, for "Valor" ), and one Silver Star ( strangely, also with "V" device, which is redundant since any Silver Star is for valor ), within a FOUR MONTH period, was statistically impossible. Kerry is no "war hero," just a sad, pathetic wannabe who desired nothing more than to put in enough time to be able to claim he was one.

Statistics also show that, on average, Kerry never should have survived to four months. But he did.

Hell, for someone in Kerry's position, average lifespan in Vietnam was only a few minutes, much less four months.
I have no idea where you got your information on that, but it's 100% dead wrong.



But yes, you have probably been very much shaped by your experiences in Vietnam, and regardless of whether or not I agree with the fact that we were in that particular war, I thank you for your service to your country. If you ever run for president, I am sure you will cite your Vietnam service as part of the basis for your knowledge of foreign affairs and how to conduct a war.
LOL! Well, thank you. That was totally unexpected. :)

As to running for President, I wouldn't take that job if BOTH parties camped on my doorstep and begged me to take it!



The DNC was long after other people had repeatedly brought it up. At that point, he was on the defense - not bringing it up out of the blue.
Whatever you say.



And Bush's past performance as a president is abysmal. Thus, he is unlikely to do well in a second term.
According to you.

Sometimes it's "better the devil you know than the one you don't."



And it was not Kerry's responsibility to report any abuses he had seen/heard about? Even when Congress specifically asked him to do so?
You mean after the VVAW, which Kerry fronted, agitated for months to get them to do so?



But is it the fault of those who reported the abuses?
No, of course not. But they reported the abuses without agitating, protesting, making political hay out of their stance, or plotting to kill US Senators who opposed them.



If Kerry's actions were really such a disservice, don't you think a POW from Vietnam would have more stake in pointing them out?

As many of the POWs from Vietnam have done in re Kerry.



If you die yourself, you can't do much to help others, now can you? He thought the war was unjust and unreasonable. Thus, he felt that his place to help was to try and stop the war from continuing. We can argue that he was wrong, we can argue that his actions may have harmed his cause, but we cannot assume that his intentions were not good. That is completely an assumption on your case.

The sequence of events has been documented time and time again: Kerry enlists in the Navy, his unit is mobilized for Vietnam, Kerry indicates that he thinks the best path to political influence in the current climate is to go to Vietnam and then come back and be against the war, Kerry volunteers to serve on swift boats ( the reasons are in dispute as to why ), Kerry accumulates a statistically impossible number of awards in a four month period ( Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars, 3 Purple Hearts ) most of which were under questionable ( at best ) circumstances, Kerry requests early return to the US due to having received the requisite minimum number of Purple Hearts, Kerry requests early release from active duty to go into politics, Kerry joins the VVAW, Kerry accepts leadership of the VVAW, Kerry testifies before a House Subcomittee that American military personnel ( including himself ) engaged in "war crimes" "on a daily basis," Kerry visits both North Vietnam and the North Vietnamese delegation in France, Kerry then runs for political office in Mass.

Even the sequence of events presents at best a very strange picture.

Nothing is impossable. Statistics mean nothing. Give proof.
Statistically, if you were to bounce a rubber ball against a wall for a slightly shorter period of time than the universe will exist, you will eventually throw the ball through the wall without damaging the wall. This is due to quantum tunneling. What happens is that all the molecules of the ball and wall align up in such a way that they pass through each other on the subatomic level. If you think "anything is possible" start throwing that ball against the wall, and tell me how it works out for you.

Dumbya cuts your benefits. The VA won't help with prescriptions any more. No promised month of leave time. Poor medical care on base. lack of equipment. Its all his doing, cutting corners financially while committing to greater military presence overseas.

Forces re-ups. Thought they couldn't do that, huh?

Wake up. Kerry really fought; he faced hostile fire, he sympathizes with vets and their families.

Dumbya couldn't care less. He's just gotch hypnotized.

Take care of yourselves, use your brains, stop letting the spin doctors think for you.

I have no idea where you got your information on that, but it's 100% dead wrong.

Came from an old report. Not sure if I could find it again. Basically had to do with the average lifespan of soldiers once they landed on Vietnamese soil.

LOL! Well, thank you. That was totally unexpected. :)

Why is that? I (and many who share my views) have nothing but respect for those who serve in our military. My boyfriend's brother is in special ops and his desire to serve his country is truly admirable, as are the desires of most of the soldiers/vets I have met.

As to running for President, I wouldn't take that job if BOTH parties camped on my doorstep and begged me to take it!

Heh, I hear you there.

According to you.

Sometimes it's "better the devil you know than the one you don't."

Not when the devil I know is ruining my profession and my country and will only be given leave to do so in more extreme ways if given a second term.

No, of course not. But they reported the abuses without agitating, protesting, making political hay out of their stance, or plotting to kill US Senators who opposed them.

So if you have to yell and scream to get people to listen to you, you shouldn't report abuses?

And plotting to kill US senators? I doubt you have proof that Kerry did anything of the sort.

Wait, people are still saying that Kerry didn't earn his medals?

YOu know, if you really want to complain, some guys did a thing on it recently and found that the medals were all earned fairly and such. You can complain to them here (http://www.navy.mil/)

Wait, people are still saying that Kerry didn't earn his medals?

YOu know, if you really want to complain, some guys did a thing on it recently and found that the medals were all earned fairly and such. You can complain to them here (http://www.navy.mil/)
Not fairly. They said procedures were followed. There's a very large difference.

Dumbya cuts your benefits. The VA won't help with prescriptions any more. No promised month of leave time. Poor medical care on base. lack of equipment. Its all his doing, cutting corners financially while committing to greater military presence overseas.

I got news for you. The VA medical benefits weren't real great to begin with. Have you after been to a VA hospital before? Let me tell you its not a pretty sight. Vets can be sitting for hours before they get medical attention. And its been like that for quite some time. In fact its been like that for at least 20 years.

Now you're probably asking how a 21 year old would now what conditions where like 20 years around. I'll tell you. My mother went down to the VA hospital in metro Detroit with my dad once about twenty years. I can't remember what she said it was for, but I sure as hell remember her descriptions on how dirty and appaling the conditions were, as well as see vets wait for hours upon hours (and possibly days in some cases) for medicines, to see a doctor, etc. And that was only the waiting room. So don't go around saying Bush has ruined VA benefits. He certainly hasn't helped, but they weren't all that great to begin with, which is sad because of sacrifice whose vets have made for this country.

I bet the Vietnamese do ...

Are the Vietnamese people - those currently residing in Vietnam without American citizenship - voting in this election? You missed the point entirely.

But anyhow, I think that Kerry is not telling the truth.

Blanket statemetns do not prove anything; provide facts - that's the point everyone's missing.

Ideality vs Reality is the problem you face.

Can't argue there; I'd rather be an idealist than a realist, especially in today's day and age.

Simple statistical reasoning will indicate that, particularly during Vietnam, to "win" three purple hearts ( without spending ONE day in the hospital ), two Bronze Stars ( with "V" device, for "Valor" ), and one Silver Star ( strangely, also with "V" device, which is redundant since any Silver Star is for valor ), within a FOUR MONTH period, was statistically impossible..

Yet, he did it, didn't he?

As I'm sure enough digging - that I don't have the thought processes to do right now - will show others who did so, too.

US Defense Department policy during the Vietnam era (and Korean War era too and may stil be in place, not sure about that one) is that someone who is wounded in action (regardless of the severity of the wounds) is considered to have completed a tour of duty and sent home.

The US policy on awarding Purple Hearts is that they are awarded regardless of the severity of the wound, regardless of how the wound was suffered as long as the wound was caused by combat directly or indirectly. This has been the policy since the award was created.

Medal inflation was a serious issue in the Vietnam War and still exists today. But the US military in World War II awarded a lot more medals than anyone else and simply has expanded that since.

And Kerry could just as easily have been killed in action, in which case his parents would have received his Purple Heart (you get one for getting killed too, although generally you don't really care too much)

So unless you personally have been in combat, I don't think any of us who have not been there have the right to criticize anybodys medals.

But that wasn't the point I made. I agree with Tuesday that the election isnt and shouldn't be about Vietnam, my point is that don't forget why what happened then was important and the way people dealt with that war probably shapes their character to this day.

Cheney and Bush did not see combat, Cheney so no service, Edwards is practically a kid compared to the others so he didn't either. Kerry at least went there and put his life on the line. Bush put his life on the line too though. Flying jet fighters in the late 1960s and early 1970s was a pretty risky business. Old farts like me remember when Dean Martins son was killed in a jet crash during that time. So rich kids died just like poor kids did serving our country. And Bush could have just as easily been killed in a training or operational accident during that time.

Nobody cares about Vietnam anymore.

I do. Kerry gave moral aid to the Vietcong, and that is wrong. Those sick bastards did abominable things. They liked to castrate old men and sew their genitals in their mouths, shove bamboo spears in one ear and out the other, shoot children, torch people to a crisp with flame-throwers, gang-rang women, beat three year old girls beyond recognition with rifle butts, decapitate and disembowel people, jam wooden chopsticks into childrens' ears so deeply their eardrums burst, slice out peoples' tongues, slash open pregnant womens' wombs, break every finger and toe, rip off fingernails one by one, etc. And Kerry had the gall to support these f***ers. That's more than enough to convince me not to vote for him.

Dumbya cuts your benefits. The VA won't help with prescriptions any more. No promised month of leave time. Poor medical care on base. lack of equipment. Its all his doing, cutting corners financially while committing to greater military presence overseas.

Forces re-ups. Thought they couldn't do that, huh?

Wake up. Kerry really fought; he faced hostile fire, he sympathizes with vets and their families.

Dumbya couldn't care less. He's just gotch hypnotized.

Take care of yourselves, use your brains, stop letting the spin doctors think for you.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but this is unadulterated bullshit ... in my opnion, of course.

I got news for you. The VA medical benefits weren't real great to begin with. Have you after been to a VA hospital before? Let me tell you its not a pretty sight. Vets can be sitting for hours before they get medical attention. And its been like that for quite some time. In fact its been like that for at least 20 years.

Now you're probably asking how a 21 year old would now what conditions where like 20 years around. I'll tell you. My mother went down to the VA hospital in metro Detroit with my dad once about twenty years. I can't remember what she said it was for, but I sure as hell remember her descriptions on how dirty and appaling the conditions were, as well as see vets wait for hours upon hours (and possibly days in some cases) for medicines, to see a doctor, etc. And that was only the waiting room. So don't go around saying Bush has ruined VA benefits. He certainly hasn't helped, but they weren't all that great to begin with, which is sad because of sacrifice whose vets have made for this country.

This has changed radically over the past ten years or so. Most of the VA hospitals I have been to are clean, friendly and seem to be effiicient. My own benefits have gone up over the past four years, several times, and I suspect they have for everyone else as well since that's the way it usually works.

I do. Kerry gave moral aid to the Vietcong, and that is wrong. Those sick bastards did abominable things. They liked to castrate old men and sew their genitals in their mouths, shove bamboo spears in one ear and out the other, shoot children, torch people to a crisp with flame-throwers, gang-rang women, beat three year old girls beyond recognition with rifle butts, decapitate and disembowel people, jam wooden chopsticks into childrens' ears so deeply their eardrums burst, slice out peoples' tongues, slash open pregnant womens' wombs, break every finger and toe, rip off fingernails one by one, etc. And Kerry had the gall to support these f***ers. That's more than enough to convince me not to vote for him.
Wait what?
He didn't support them. That is totally subjective. If I try to not support someone but they like it anyway how is that support? That is the case I see.

When he appluades them then maybe but till then you sir are laughable. Hard to believe its Roach.

Nobody cares about Vietnam anymore.


I think you're wrong. I care about Vietnam, because my dad was there, and he may one day need medical treatment for his troubles. I know someone right now whose dad IS getting medical attention for the cancer he got from a good dose of agent orange. The fact is, we're in the middle of a new generation of decision makers, and they're people who met adulthood in the era of the Vietnam war. It's not the best litmus test out there, but how they handled it says something about their character.

Of course, a lot of water has passed under the bridge too, and they've done other things since then that should be brought into the equation, but you can't just say that the Vietnam war is so far in the past that it's beyond relevance.