posted on August 11, 2004 11:50:17 PM new
An interesting little fact. The communist Vietnamese made a large shrine for john kerry in their Vietnam War museum.
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Aug 11, 2004 11:53 PM ]
posted on August 12, 2004 12:09:25 AM new
Uh-huh. Your "large shrine" consists of what looks like an 8x10 photo. They have an area of photos in their museum of pictures of American war protestors.
So what? It is no secret Kerry protested against the war when he returned. At least he had somewhere to return from and to object to, unlike Bush who relied on daddy to hustle him into a NG unit ahead of all other applicants despite an abysmal score, and then skipped out and spent his time DUI and taking drugs.
edited to realign the "s" and "p" in despite
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
[ edited by bunnicula on Aug 12, 2004 12:10 AM ]
posted on August 12, 2004 07:48:13 AM new
Sure after he got his 3 purple hearts or maybe 4. His Silver Star and his early release so he could run for politics to furthur his agenda. Get elected to the senate where he did about absolutely nothing.
Then he protested the war. True American.
Below the photograph of John Kerry are explanatory placards in English, French, Vietnamese, and Chinese. The English placard reads:
"Mr. Do Muoi, Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist Party met with Congressman and Veterans Delegation in Vietnam (July 15-18, 1993)"
"This photograph's unquestionable significance lies in its placement in the American protestors' section of the War Crimes Museum in Saigon. The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory. This find can be compared to the discovery of a painting of Neville Chamberlain hanging in a place of honor in Hitler's Eagle's Nest in 1945."
Senator Kerry may argue today that his anti-war protests did not render support to the enemy in time of war and that his activities did not violate the definition of treason given in Article III, Section 3, of the US Constitution. This exhibit paying tribute to Kerry in the War Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City tells a very different story. The Vietnamese communists clearly feel that the American anti-war protestors were a very important force in undermining support in the United States for American war efforts, a force that contributed materially to ultimate communist victory in 1975.
posted on August 12, 2004 09:27:57 AM new
Yea....a war hero to our enemies. Great.
It's hard for me to even think of kerry being Commander-In-Chief....because of his actions upon returning home.
How disgraceful to have a man running for the Presidency who called his own country's democricy a FARCE!! Who aided and abetted our enemies....who said his own country were the criminals.
posted on August 12, 2004 09:31:33 AM new
And I have mentioned repeatedly I have a shrine for George Bush located in my toilet. Both are equally relavent.
posted on August 12, 2004 10:28:55 AM new
Well the liars can't seem to make anything stick to Kerry.
So now they acuse Kerry of protesting a pointless war that we had no way to win. Imagine holding it against a citizen for protesting against their government's ploicies, how un-American.
Next they'll be telling us that the Vietnam war was a smart venture.
Yea....a war hero to our enemies. Great.
The Vietnamese our enemy ? We were our own enemy in that Vietnamese civil war. We had no business being there and no way for us to win their civil war.
posted on August 12, 2004 10:37:10 AM new
A Vietnam POW Looks At Kerry
I have known Senator John McCain for 33 years. I have known Senator John Kerry for the same length of time. Sen. McCain I met in person, in a prisoner of war camp. In the same camp, I came to know about Senator Kerry, but only by reputation. In the Spring of 1971, Senator McCain was in the same camp with me, a camp the Communists told us was a punishment camp which we had been placed in because we were "reactionaries," with "bad attitudes." I only knew John Kerry through his words, but I encountered his words while in the same camp and at the same time as I met Senator McCain. In the 2000 presidential election I supported John McCain because, from my personal knowledge of him gained in that camp, I knew that he was fit to serve as President. In the 2004 presidential election, again based upon my knowledge gained in that camp, I oppose the election of John Kerry because I believe that he is unfit to serve as President.
In November of 1970 U.S. forces staged a commando raid on the prisoner of war camp at Son Tay, in North Viet-Nam, only 20 miles from downtown Hanoi. The North Vietnamese, in panic, began shutting down the outlying prison camps and moving American prisoners to the most secure location available, the infamous Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi, the prison we called "the Hanoi Hilton." There, with all 348 of the prisoners captured in the North together in one place, the Communists attempted to impose order. Their attempts were resisted. By January, an attempt by the Communists to forbid religious services in our cells led to a series of confrontations known by some as "the Church Riots." Finally, on March 19, in order to put a lid on things before they got out of hand, the Communists took 36 men whom they identified as the ring leaders and took them to a small camp a few miles south of Hanoi. Somehow, I was included in that number.
In this camp, which we called "Skid Row," the Communists appeared to have dispensed with the periodic interrogations which we referred to as "attitude checks." The "attitude check" needs to be explained. Throughout our imprisonment, we were constantly interrogated by political officers, a position which has no counterpart in the armed forces of non-communist countries. It is a central belief of marxism-leninism that our beliefs are the product of "objective material conditions." If one is not a marxist, it was only because he has not yet been exposed to marxist doctrine under the appropriate material circumstances. Thus, Communist armies travel everywhere with a baggage train of socialist missionaries eager to make converts.
Every prisoner of war camp in North Vietnam had at least one political officer, as well as some junior officers who assisted the political officer. It was their task to show us that we were wrong to oppose the spread of communism. I am sure that in the early years, they were confident that they were on the verge of a big break through, that just a few more interrogations would bring us to see the light. Eventually, they had to face the fact that it wasn't working. In reality, it was the very structure of marxist dogma that doomed the project before it was started.
Marxism is based upon economic beliefs that are, simply put, demonstrably wrong. Since it calls for behavior that is contrary to human nature, marxists understand that they cannot create the society they claim to believe in without changing human nature, or, as they put it, "creating the new, socialist, man." That is the job of the political officer, the socialist missionary. Unfortunately for the missionary, the new socialist man cannot be created if he is deceived by knowledge that is contrary to marxism. A person who lives under marxism will not hear opposing ideas debated. Thus, the political officer, appointed to teach in the Socialist version of Sunday School, has no capacity at all to defend the ideas he is selling. Since they did not know how to argue, we would try to confound them during these interrogations. I am certain that the record of our years of "attitude checks," in which we frustrated and taunted the political officer, had as much to do with our being chosen for the "punishment camp" as did our participation in the Church Riots. It should be understood that the last torture that we knew of had taken place in September of 1969. However, all torture was always preceded, and usually accompanied, by an interrogation. Any interrogation created anxiety, even if you could be reasonably certain that it would not end in torture. Thus, we were relieved when it seemed that our anti-communist "bad attitudes" had earned us a reprieve from the cycle of interrogations.
The reprieve did not last. In late May, two months after our arrival in the punishment camp, I was called out for interrogation. I entered the interrogation room to find a junior officer, a communist's helper, whom we called "Boris." For some time, Boris rambled on about the anti-war movement and of my "crimes." Usually, we would try to entertain ourselves in an interrogation by leading the interrogator along until he commits himself to a point which, if examined, is contrary to the party line, then show this to him. This involved considerable risk while there was still the actual threat of torture, but in the long run we thought that our cause would best be served by letting them see that we were not changing, that we remained "reactionaries." The thinking was, that any slight inclination toward the marxist view would be seized upon by the political officer who would then put unrelenting pressure upon you to go further. Besides, we were still at war, and we could still contribute something by letting the enemy know that he might be wrong. In fact, just presenting him with such an idea could torment him when he knew that the idea appeared to be true, but was the opposite of what the party taught him.
We sparred for about an hour. Then Boris reached behind his back and pulled out some clippings from a left wing newspaper in the U.S. He showed me several articles about an event, which had been held in Detroit, called "The Winter Soldier Hearings." He left me to read the articles while he left the room. The articles reported alleged "testimony" from people who claimed to be Viet-Nam veterans who allegedly claimed that they had done things which, if true, would have lead to courts martial for each of them. That is, they were typical communist propaganda.
Suddenly, I read an article about my mother testifying. Unlike the leftists, she did not condemn the U.S., she merely stated that she hoped the war would end soon and I would be released. The next article mentioned testimony from my father. His was like my mother's testimony, merely expressing hope that the war would end soon and that all who suffered from war would find relief. Nothing they said fit with the virulent anti-American sentiments that the leftists had expressed. But having their testimony included in with the "testimony" of those who claimed to be veterans, and the left wing activists present, seemed to give a dignity to the whole proceeding which it did not merit.
When Boris returned he asked me what I thought. I told him that I was from Detroit, but did not recognize any of the names so I assumed that they were communists brought in from around the country. "Not so," he cried. Look at this. He showed me a picture of an unforgettabIe face. "This man was an officer in your navy. He says that the war is illegal, immoral and unjust. Read what he says." I read the words of John Kerry. What John Kerry said, according to the clippings, was that the U.S. should abandon South East Asia, unilaterally and immediately. This, of course, would not only leave the Prisoners of War in the hands of the communists, but far worse, there was not a sane person in the universe who did not know that the instant the countries of South East Asia were abandoned, the blood bath would begin. I told Boris "this man should be punished. He says that he did criminal things. America is a free country and a free people do not allow such crimes. We are not like communists." I told Boris that there would be a blood bath if we pulled out unilaterally. Boris got angry and began threatening me. He said that my own countrymen, Jane Fonda, Sen. Fulbright, and the subject of the article, John Kerry, insisted that the threatened "blood bath" was a myth invented by the reactionary government of the United States. He told me that Kerry had admitted that we were criminals, as the communists never ceased to tell us, and that we should be punished. The interrogation continued for another hour. Finally, Boris, frustrated, put me back in my cell, while still muttering threats at me. It was the longest interrogation I had without torture.
When John Kerry said that Vietnam vets were criminals, did he not know that the communists would use his words against the POWs? He feels insulted when someone questions his patriotism. What other conclusion would you come to, if you were in my shoes? Kerry, from what I read, did not criticize the tactics or strategy we were using in Vietnam. If that was what he wanted to say, I am sure that most Vietnam vets, who saw first hand that McNamara's strategy was foolish, would have agreed with him. It appeared to me that it was not the methods we were using to defend the people of South East Asia from communism that he disagreed with, it was the fact that we were doing it at all. When he said that Viet-Nam vets were criminals, did he not know that the communists would use his words against the POWs?
Anti-communists predicted a blood bath if the communists took over Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. The left, including Jane Fonda and John Kerry, told us that this was a myth. Which one proved to be true? When liberals in the United States Congress voted to withdraw all material support to the free people of South East Asia, did innocent people die? Up until the moment that John Kerry embraced the anti-war movement — which in my situation, what else could I believe other than that this meant embracing the cause of the communists — the evidence against communism was overwhelming. In the attempt to build the "new socialist man" millions of innocents were willfully slaughtered, and millions more lived squalid and hopeless lives, impoverished by economic policies which a freshman economics student could tell you would not work. If John Kerry did not embrace this, if he did not embrace what the liberals in Congress did in 1975, then what the hell was he embracing?
Given the evidence that John Kerry has presented to us, his own words, his own actions, I am forced to one of two conclusions. Either John Kerry's patriotism is questionable, or his judgment is questionable. Without deciding which is true, I can say that I personally believe that in neither case is he qualified to be President.
posted on August 12, 2004 11:16:26 AM new
Jim Warner writes well. He makes his case and I have to agree, either way you look at it, Kerry is unfit to lead this country.
You should read his entire piece, but one line really jumped out at me. Writing about his communist interrogators he wrote, "...any slight inclination toward the marxist view would be seized upon by the political officer who would then put unrelenting pressure upon you to go further." This is similar to the actions of the liberals in this forum if you even so much as nod when they make a salient point. It makes them go into a feeding frenzy for more acknowledgment. You don't argue with liberals as much as you channel the flow of their barbra streisand.
posted on August 12, 2004 11:28:58 AM new
So now we can blame Kerry and the protesters for the treatment of POWs ? What an outrageous position.
So if evey citizen had kept silent about Vietnam, the POWs would receive better treatment ? Ridiculous.
There were no protesters during the Korean war or WWII but prisoners were treated far worse than the North Vietnamese treated any of our POWs.
This stuff about protesters having any real effect on the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese is a load of pure BS.
It is just another attempt by some veterans to wring some sort of historical glory out of a worthless war. They have to try to re-write history before they die off.
posted on August 12, 2004 11:29:40 AM new
Agreed, parklane.
-----------------
[i]So now they acuse Kerry of protesting a pointless war that we had no way to win[i].
Not according to our communist enemies...they have been quoted as thanking, and it's why they honor kerry and his ilk so much, that they were ready to conceed....UNTIL kerry's anti-war actions started changing the 'tide' of public opinion. It gave them HOPE to continue....they did...the rest is history.
Yea....a war hero to our enemies. Great.
The Vietnamese our enemy? We were our own enemy in that Vietnamese civil war. We had no business being there and no way for us to win their civil war.
Yes, reamond. What many appear to overlook is at that time the US was fighting the spread of communism from both Russia and China. The communists were supporting the civil war. We went in to work at holding back the spread of communism to their country. kerry and crew worked against that American goal. Traitors all!!!
And I always love how the left here brings up Nixon and his role in VN. Rarely mentioning JFK's roll nor that of LBJ.
And imo, we're facing the same thing now, since we have gone into Iraq. Decision was made...we're there...what do we here from the anti-war people? Not support for our Nation...but more support and giving hope to our enemies by their constant statements against it.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on August 12, 2004 11:42:20 AM newNot according to our communist enemies...
So you use communist propaganda to base your judgements on ? What else have the communists been telling you ?
Yes, reamond. What many appear to overlook is at that time the US was fighting the spread of communism from both Russia and China. The communists were supporting the civil war. We went in to work at holding back the spread of communism to their country. kerry and crew worked against that American goal. Traitors all!!!
Oh yes, the spread of communism. I remember that scourge. The world would come to an end if Vietnam fell to the communists.
So how was it that the USSR avoided sending 500,000 troops into the service of North Vietnam for all those years the USSR was supporting the civil war ?
Why did we send all those troops instead of just sending weapons like the USSR and China did ?
Could it have been that the South Vietnamese didn't really want our help ? Was it just that the South Vietnamese dictators wanted our money ?
And where did these Viet Cong come from if the South Vietnam government was a popular government ?
We weren't stopping communism, we were proping up yet another dictatorship in South Vietnam.
We're doing the same thing now in Saudi Arabia, and will be doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and perhaps soon in Iran.
