Kerry: war hero, or coward?

[DreamOfTheRood]

Swift boat duty was some of the most hazardous duty in Vietnam. Their job was to go up river and draw fire so they could locate the enemy. They were pretty much exposed the whole time. The boats had wooden hulls and no armor. Kerry volunteered for that. If he hadn't done anything BUT the primary objective of drawing fire in an exposed condition, he would still be a hero. And he IS.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

 

Use the link to view an article on Kerry's swift boat service. In the article, you'll be happy to note that the swift boats were not assigned to hazardous duty until after Kerry joined, meaning that he joined the Swift Boats before they were assigned to do such idiotic things as draw enemy fire from an exposed position. He didn't volunteer to do hazardous duty; he was assigned to it after he joined the Swift Boats.

[ImmortalSnafu]

he got a medal for bravery by shooting a single wounded and fleeing soldier in the back, lied about what happened, and made himself out to be a hero for stopping an attack.

Based on what information are you making this assertion?

 

Use the link to view an article on Kerry's swift boat service. In the article, you'll be happy to note that the swift boats were not assigned to hazardous duty until after Kerry joined, meaning that he joined the Swift Boats before they were assigned to do such idiotic things as draw enemy fire from an exposed position. He didn't volunteer to do hazardous duty; he was assigned to it after he joined the Swift Boats.

What's you point?

[DreamOfTheRood]

What's you point?

Point is this: People are making the man out to be something that he's not. They're saying that he's a hero because he signed up to go into extremely hazardous duty, but he didn't. The Swift Boats were only assigned to hazardous duty after he joined, meaning that he didn't have any idea of the kind of duty he was going to be on.

If he did save a guy, and there is much information that he did, then he's a hero. However, by saying that he went into Cambodia and that he witnessed all these terrible things that American soldiers did, that kinda makes a moot point of him being a hero. There were a lot o people who fought bravely, but they got screwed up by the media after they came back due to the portrayal of the Vietnam war as a barbarous and terrible thing. John Kerry helped to get a lot of those people screwed up by lying about the amount of atrocities committed by American soldiers. Since he's running on his war record, I think that should factor in to how people vote.

[surian]

From what I've been seeing, most of the talking heads are (when they are talking about it at all) trying to point out that Kerry is a hero because of the specific actions he took while a swiftboat captain. The fact that he signed up for a less hazordous duty doesn't matter at all, he DID perforrm heroic acts while enlisted. The link I provided earlier to the smokinggun website should help to prove that he did deserve his bronze star as well as one of the purple hearts he recieved during the same incident.

 

As for the people claiming that "he shot a fleeing enemy soldier in the back" I can say this: I don't know how accurate that is, but I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and say that is true and he did, in fact, shoot a fleeing enemy soldier in the back. However, that doesn't mean a thing. How the hell else are you going to respond when you have an enemy soldier in your sights that is a threat to you. You track him down and you kill him so he doesn't get back to the rest of his friends and come after YOU. So that covers the fleeing part, as for shooting him in the back... how else do you shoot someone running the other direction? Tap him on the shoulder and say "please turn around so I can shoot you?"

 

But let me just say this to end on: I don't think this matters one bit as far as choosing a president. First of all, both sides claim Kerry was a war hero, even Bush's campaign won't deny it. They don't want to make it an issue because Kerry has enough evidence to back his claim up. Bush's military record doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me either. I don't like him for his POLITICAL decisions, I don't care if he was a drunk at one point, or if he tried cocaine. Hell, I wouldn't trust a presidential candidate that said they NEVER tried drugs or alcohol before (Like Clinton, I think it's pretty obvious that he was a liar about a lot of stupid unimportant thing at the very least).

 

This whole issue is rediculous. What you have going on is neither party is willing to go outright and just SAY these things on their own. If Bush was to go on TV and say "Kerry is a coward and a liar" then he would have to have some really good facts to back that up because Kerry sure as hell has enough to back up his claim. However, if you get a 3rd party organization to do this on their own time you can make any claims you want, drag either party into the mud and start a media frenzy over really unimportant details. This isn't even just about the SBVT ad, it's about all this bullshit that happens all the time in politics. Both sides do it and no one is left blameless.

 

Personally, I just try not to pay much attention to it. This particular ad was just a little more off the wall than others so it demanded a little attention towards how bogus it was but other than that, I don't watch cable, or network TV. I don't listen to partizan news on the radio or read blatently partizan newspapers. I make MY OWN choices. It's unfortunate that it's gotten to this point.

 

So to sum up, this whole issue is rediculous. It has no real bearing on whether or not a particular party's candidate will be better or worse in the presidency. Kerry is NOT lying about his past and both sides know this. The attacks were made by a 3rd party group with ties to the republican party in an attempt to draw attention to this issue without putting any of the blame on Bush. It happens on both sides and it shouldn't but it does. Moral: be smart and don't pay attention to this BS.

[Icefiddell]

Look i'm not American and i dont know much about American politics but here's what i think.

 

This Kerry guy sounds gd, i think he'd do a good job because it sounds like he'd see everything from a soldiers point of view and know what these soldiers in Iraq are going through. So he'd do a much better job of clearing all this up than Bush could ever do.

 

I dont see why you are picking on this guy because of what he chose to do in the army for gods sake. I mean even if he did choose these fast boat things or what ever they are because they where safe. At least he had the courage to join the army.

 

I mean when my dad went to the Falklands to fight (which IMO is one of if not the last great military campaign this country will ever achieve but thats another story) he did not join the infantry so that he could be on the frontline, he didn't choose that just so he could fight, he chose it because he loves his country. And i'm sure Kerry probably did the same.

 

And as for shooting some one in the back, so what! They were in a war you weren't. My dad has told me stories about the Falklands and ive heard even worse stories about WW2 because my Grand Father was in the special Boat Service fighting the japanese. You think shooting a man in the back is bad you need to open your eyes. Far worse things have happened.

 

As Surian said above what do you think that running man would have done when he got back to his friends, go home and live happily ever after, no. Most likely he would have picked up another rifle and went back on the attack he could of even killed another soldier he could of even killed Kerry himself. So if you think about it Kerry ensured this didn't happen.

 

To be honest i'd say give the guy a break, he's running for president big wow, i dont see why you have to pick faults with every thing in his past life. He's done good to where he's got to now but yes he may have done some bad things to. But everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect, at least he's got the courage to face all the people out there that dont like him and not break under pressure. And well anyone who can do that gets my respect.

 

Well theres the thoughts of someone who is Nuetral and i not going for either party lol.

[Diabolic_Wizard]

"Peace at home, peace at world"

 

that's a "must be"...

[Guest kfmccall]

bah yer all cracked *hic*. Retreat to your hammacks, get some fine pipeweed and enjoy a book.

 

There are better and more wonderful things in life than arguing about something our one vote can not change. Were all going to live and die through presidential elections that we agree and disagree with. At the end of your days you don't want to recollect all the time wasted debating about inevitability.

 

These arguments never end with people constantly picking at eachother's posts or how they phrase their words, regardless of how far their opinion digresses from the original topic. There is no solution to this madness! Do something more productive. The world is run by those that do, not those that talk. :D

[Icefiddell]

lol finally some one said it ^_^

 

Although i have to say i thought the world was run by people that talk rather than do, well at least this country anyway <_< lol

[DreamOfTheRood]

This Kerry guy sounds good, i think he'd do a good job because it sounds like he'd see everything from a soldiers point of view and know what these soldiers in Iraq are going through. So he'd do a much better job of clearing all this up than Bush could ever do.

The reason people are nitpicking Kerry's war record is because he'd basically running on that. He's not running on his record in Congress, mainly because it's spottier than a mangy Dalmatian. Instead, he's running on his record in Vietnam and his record as an anti-Vietnam war activist.

I don't think Kerry would do any kind of good job in Iraq; that being said, I don't think Bush has a snowball's chance in hell of doing what really should be done.

Here's my argument against Kerry doing a good job in Iraq: He voted for the war, whether it was justified or not. Whether we had all of the information or whether Congress was manipulated, he still voted for it. Then, when it came time to ante up the bucks for equipment for the troops, he voted against it. This shows a lack of character, a lack of commitment and a lack of compassion for the troops. That really bothers me.

On the other hand, I don't think Bush is going to do what he should do in Iraq. From what I understand, he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq at some point, and I think that's a bad idea. Instead, I think we should build and staff a few military bases in the country, much like we did with Germany. The other side of the coin is that the US has basically no international support right now, and that's not going to change if Bush stays in office. I think that Bush is a better president than Kerry would be, but I don't think he's the kind of guy who's going to rebuild our rapport with other countries.

I don't mean to sound like we were wrong in invading Afghanistan and Iraq; I think both of those actions were right. Even though Bush's attitude is 'black and white,' I think it was exactly the right thing.

[ImmortalSnafu]

The reason people are nitpicking Kerry's war record is because he'd basically running on that. He's not running on his record in Congress

Have you been paying attention to this election? He hasn't been the one focusing on his military record, the media and Bush's camp have been the ones dead set on his military record. When was the last time you heard Kerry's senate record discussed on CNN?

 

mainly because it's spottier than a mangy Dalmatian.

Apparantly you aren't very familiar with his record if you consider it 'spotty'. There are only a handful of disagreeable things that he's voted for during his lengthly senate term.

 

Here's my argument against Kerry doing a good job in Iraq: He voted for the war, whether it was justified or not. Whether we had all of the information or whether Congress was manipulated, he still voted for it.

Yes, he voted to allow military action.

 

Then, when it came time to ante up the bucks for equipment for the troops, he voted against it. This shows a lack of character, a lack of commitment and a lack of compassion for the troops. That really bothers me.

Which bill are you refering to? I'll assume you are talking about the $87 billion bill that passed not long after the war in Iraq began.

 

This link should explain the many misconceptions about Kerry's vote on that bill:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

 

 

On the other hand, I don't think Bush is going to do what he should do in Iraq. From what I understand, he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq at some point, and I think that's a bad idea. Instead, I think we should build and staff a few military bases in the country, much like we did with Germany.

The problem with that idea is that it would only serve to further enrage the radical terrorists in the region. One of the main reasons so many people hate America in the middle east is because of our military bases in Saudi Arabia. Even more permanent bases would probably be catastrophic.

 

I don't mean to sound like we were wrong in invading Afghanistan and Iraq; I think both of those actions were right. Even though Bush's attitude is 'black and white,' I think it was exactly the right thing.

Our invasion of Afghanistan was by all means necessary, but unfortunately it was conducted in such dismal way that it seems to have failed. Only a fraction of a division was sent in to fight the war, and the special forces that could have captured Bin Laden didn't arrive for months. Already to country is falling back to its old ways, the Taliban is regaining a foothold and most of the Al Qaeda network remains intact.

 

I'm curious, why do think the war in Iraq is 'the right thing'?