Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:what was the objective of the vietnam war??

To prevent communism from spreading into South Vietnam.

Quote:what was the plan of action to accomplish that objective??

Initially it was to help the French maintain the south as a democratic government. However the French eventually retreated (no shock there) and the US pledged to aid the South militarily to keep it from falling under the communist North that was receiving aid from now Communist China.

Quote:for what reasons was it deemed a necessary means to this country??

Communism was spreading and had been since the end of WW II. China became a communist nation in 1949. It was in American interests to keep South Vietnam a from communist rule.

right, right, and right....sort of.

that was definitely the case in the beginning, but to say that we strayed away from that and lost our focus would be a more than fair way of putting it.

there was really no strategic plan on how to win it. it was even referred to as a war of containment. at the time kerry began protesting it, it was after he had served over there. it was also 1971. by that time walter cronkite was against the war and i don't think anyone would consider him unimformed or anti-american. he, like many, felt it had spun WAAAY out of control and had such a poor plan of action and a poorly stated objective that people had forgotten what it was all about in the first place.

i don't think it is fair to criticize kerry for protesting the war. as it turns out, the majority of people agreed that it was not worth it and we pulled out. it was important to stop the spread of communism and protect america, but we weren't really doing it by fighting in vietnam. after all, this country prides itself on its checks and balances. questioning and critiquing the actions OUR government (and it is our government) is not only not unamerican, it is our responsibility as americans to do so. without the freedom to do this, we mind as well be blind.

now, what no one seems to be talking about, and what i am personally more interested in, is what kerry has been doing in the 30+ years between vietnam and today. i think his career as a senator would carry much more relevance than people are giving it, and THAT is what has bothered me about his campaign so far.

what issues did he support as a senator??

what issues did he argue against as a senator??

i know he was in vietnam. christ, unless you've been living on mars, you know that by now. i get it. WHAT ELSE DID HE DO AFTER BECOMING A POLITICAN??

i'm still undecided. if i vote for kerry, it won't be because of vietnam. he has gotten up and mentioned a lot of the issues our country is facing. they are legitimate issues, but hell, i could have gotten up there and mentioned them. that doesn't mean i should be president. what i'd really like to see is he or bush (preferably both) present us with a plan of action and a list of tangible goals. my biggest fear is that NEITHER candidate will do that.

i have my greviences with bush as well, but i'll wait until after his convention. perhaps he will address some of the issues there, but i doubt it.

sorry for rambling, but this is a political thread

xubrew Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:what was the objective of the vietnam war??

To prevent communism from spreading into South Vietnam.

Quote:what was the plan of action to accomplish that objective??

Initially it was to help the French maintain the south as a democratic government. However the French eventually retreated (no shock there) and the US pledged to aid the South militarily to keep it from falling under the communist North that was receiving aid from now Communist China.

Quote:for what reasons was it deemed a necessary means to this country??

Communism was spreading and had been since the end of WW II. China became a communist nation in 1949. It was in American interests to keep South Vietnam a from communist rule.

right, right, and right....sort of.

that was definitely the case in the beginning, but to say that we strayed away from that and lost our focus would be a more than fair way of putting it.

there was really no strategic plan on how to win it. it was even referred to as a war of containment. at the time kerry began protesting it, it was after he had served over there. it was also 1971. by that time walter cronkite was against the war and i don't think anyone would consider him unimformed or anti-american. he, like many, felt it had spun WAAAY out of control and had such a poor plan of action and a poorly stated objective that people had forgotten what it was all about in the first place.

i don't think it is fair to criticize kerry for protesting the war. as it turns out, the majority of people agreed that it was not worth it and we pulled out. it was important to stop the spread of communism and protect america, but we weren't really doing it by fighting in vietnam. after all, this country prides itself on its checks and balances. questioning and critiquing the actions OUR government (and it is our government) is not only not unamerican, it is our responsibility as americans to do so. without the freedom to do this, we mind as well be blind.

now, what no one seems to be talking about, and what i am personally more interested in, is what kerry has been doing in the 30+ years between vietnam and today. i think his career as a senator would carry much more relevance than people are giving it, and THAT is what has bothered me about his campaign so far.

what issues did he support as a senator??

what issues did he argue against as a senator??

i know he was in vietnam. christ, unless you've been living on mars, you know that by now. i get it. WHAT ELSE DID HE DO AFTER BECOMING A POLITICAN??

i'm still undecided. if i vote for kerry, it won't be because of vietnam. he has gotten up and mentioned a lot of the issues our country is facing. they are legitimate issues, but hell, i could have gotten up there and mentioned them. that doesn't mean i should be president. what i'd really like to see is he or bush (preferably both) present us with a plan of action and a list of tangible goals. my biggest fear is that NEITHER candidate will do that.

i have my greviences with bush as well, but i'll wait until after his convention. perhaps he will address some of the issues there, but i doubt it.

sorry for rambling, but this is a political thread

As long as you're livin the High Life :drink:

:)

xubrew,

I don't think the problem his fellow soldier have with Kerry has to do with him protesting the war per se - rather the WAY in which Kerry protested.

Kerry admitted on a TV talk show in the early '70s (Dick Cavett (sp?) I think) that he had committed various unsavory acts while in Vietnam (burning villages that were non-military targets, etc.). Upon return home, he stated on many occasions that he had seen EVERY soldier committing various atrocities-basically, painting our entire military with the broad brush of disgraceful conduct.

I can't imagine what those other men felt like, upon returning home from a brutal war, hearing one of their "band of brothers" accusing them of war crimes.

THAT'S my only problem with Kerry's Vietnam stuff. If he's going to make such a big issue out of it to boost his leadership credentials, then he needs to explain why he threw good men, indeed our entire military, under the bus for personal gain.

Good to have you around. :)

This explains the photo rather well:

<a href='http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp</a>

I hope Jane Fonda never mentions "patriotic" again. In fact, I wouldn't be too upset if she was caught in the middle of a firefight in Iraq.

What she did is unforgivable.

Quote:that was definitely the case in the beginning, but to say that we strayed away from that and lost our focus would be a more than fair way of putting it.

I would agree completely.

Quote:there was really no strategic plan on how to win it.&nbsp; it was even referred to as a war of containment.

That was the biggest problem. We didn't fight the war to win it, and that was a major mistake.

I agree with what Carl said. It wasn't the fact that he protested the war, it was the manner in which he did it. And I have a real problem with the fact that he now uses for politcal gain a war that he once protested. It would be like me protesting against Abortion and then turning around and accepting money from a doctor who performs them.

Quote:what has bothered me about his campaign so far.&nbsp;

what issues did he support as a senator??

what issues did he argue against as a senator??

i know he was in vietnam.&nbsp; christ, unless you've been living on mars, you know that by now.&nbsp; i get it.&nbsp; WHAT ELSE DID HE DO AFTER BECOMING A POLITICAN??

I think the fact that he's avoiding talking about the things you listed above is very telling. Kerry knows if he were to campaign on his record in the Senate he would lose.

Welcome to the board, nice to have you.
:D

Ninerfan1 Wrote:That was the biggest problem. We didn't fight the war to win it, and that was a major mistake.

How would you have won Vietnam?

Quote:I agree with what Carl said.&nbsp; It wasn't the fact that he protested the war, it was the manner in which he did it.&nbsp; And I have a real problem with the fact that he now uses for politcal gain a war that he once protested.&nbsp;

He's not using the war for political gain.

He's using his service to his country for political gain.

There is a huge difference.

...and as we have all seen, his service was disgraceful. He protested and talked that **** about our troops while he was still commissioned.

Quote:How would you have won Vietnam?

First America should have provided enough troops to wage a successful campaign against the main North Vietnamese forces. Second we should have tapped into the vast man power in the South and train them for military duty. The US forces could have fought the major engagements without have to split their forces and the fought along side the South Vietnmamese to pacify the rural areas.

Second we never should have used napalm or agent orange. Both of those turned public opinion in the south against us, as well as the American public. Standard bombing campaigns to destroy the north's cities and infrastructure. We also should have not gone the search and destroy route when fighting because we were fighting an enemy that knew their country 100 times better than we did. By going to them we walked into their booby traps and were forced to deal with their completley unethical mode of fighting, ie using children as bait, strapping bombs to themselves etc. Instead we should have bolstered the defensive capabilities of the south while continuing to bomb military targets in the north.

I'm not a military genius by any stretch, but you'll never convince me this war couldn't have been won.

Quote:He's not using the war for political gain.

He's using his service to his country for political gain.

There is a huge difference.

Ah, so he's using his service in an immoral war, in his opinion, that plagued him so much that he came back and sold his fellow soldiers out and became a radical. But at the same time not having any moral qualms about filming his exploits in said war and even reenacting some of them for film. And his problems again disappear when he uses the fake footage for his political campaign, despite saying he never would. :rolleyes:

You can't defend Kerry on this, so you shouldn't even try.