Veterans, Vietnamese Unite To Oppose Kerry

[Warlady]

Veterans, Vietnamese unite to oppose Kerry
While photo of candidate with Jane Fonda circulates on Internet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 10, 2004
2:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A Vietnam veterans organization and a Vietnamese-American group have united in opposition to Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry.

"We represent hundreds of thousands of American veterans who do not want to see John Kerry anywhere near the Oval Office," said Ted Sampley, founder of Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry. Sampley is a U.S. Army Green Beret and veteran of two combat tours in Vietnam.

Said Sampley: "I have personally dealt with John Kerry on the issue of U.S. POWs left behind in Vietnam. Kerry is not truthful and is not worthy of the support of U.S. veterans. Many Vietnam vets have been duped into thinking Kerry is their friend. He is not. To us, he is 'Hanoi John.'"

Dan Tran is president of the Vietnam Human Rights Project and a member of Vietnamese Americans Against John Kerry.

"John Kerry aided and abetted the communist government in Hanoi and has hindered any human rights progress in Vietnam," Tran said.

Said the new coalition in a statement: "In the Senate, Kerry blocked the Vietnam human rights (and religious freedom) bill on behalf of Hanoi, while the Vietnamese Communists continue to wage a war of repression against the non-Communist Vietnamese and a war of genocide against our former allies the Montagnard ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands of Vietnam."

The coalition plans nationwide demonstrations against Kerry beginning with the New York and Massachusetts primaries.

Click to read the rest (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37049)

[dajoga]

I doubt Kerry gets many Iraqi votes either. Some guy was on FNC this morning saying a poll in Iraq was overwhelming in favor of Bush winning this fall. Could we make them a state for a year?

[Estragon]

Oh, Iraqis are scared to death we will cut and run, abandoning them to the best-armed militia. The communists aided and abetted Saddam for 30 years. Of course the prospect of the US electing one of them frightens Iraqis.

[Warlady]

If I were an Iraqi just recently freed by President Bush my biggest nightmare would be for the Americans to elect a Democrat. My God can you imagine living in fear for all of your life some for 30 years of their life and have a wonderful President like GW Bush finally freeing them from a monster like Saddam and then having someone like John Kerry sending the message that he would pull out of Iraq if he were elected?????? OMG. Talk about a nightmare. Women can't tell their children that they can count on America. Husbands can't tell their wives that they can count on America. Is it no wonder that most of the Iraqis are chanting Bush Bush Bush when they march? I think it is a sad day when an American President is more popular in Iraq than he is in his own country. What is wrong with this damn picture? Our citizens don't know what it's like to be tortured. Our citizens don't know what it's like to be run through a plastic shredder. Our citizens don't know what it's like to not be able to speak freely. Our citizens don't know what it's like to oppose government and get your legs chopped off. It is time for Americans to learn what it's like to be under the tyrannical rule of a mad man like Saddam Hussein. Perhaps then they will feel some compassion for the Iraqi people and know what it's like to unearth mass graves filled with the bones of their loved ones. I sure hope they wake up then. I thank GOD that I don't need to be painted a picture such as that to realize that the Iraq war was JUSTIFIED. I thank GOD every day that I am an American and live in a country that does the right thing where the oppressed are on the top of our list. I just wish that all of the world would appreciate our efforts. I sacrificed my brother in the name of freedom in Vietnam. No one knows better than I the sacrifices a family makes in the name of freedom. For those of you who do not understand, or choose to close your eyes and ears to the sacrifices regular Americans make for oppressed humans around the world... screw you. You aren't worth the powder it would take to blow your ass to hell.

[Wyatt_Junker]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif

[eric]

Warlady,

I understand your points, and I genuinely feel for you hearing of the personal loss to your family.

The argument is over whether America is always a force for good. Unfortunately, we've seen too many occasions where the US is not always a force for good. Foreign policy is immensely complex.

We know the US (and many other countries) gave support to Saddam Hussein as the lesser of two evils in the Iran-Iraq. That meant that a tyrant was helped in order to achieve the best overall result for the US.

In Afghanistan, we see that although the Taliban is gone, the situation of women remains appalling. These people have not been liberated.

Countries rarely (if ever) go to war to protect liberty, but to do what is in their selfish national interest. The US is no different, but as the "Hyper-puissance", it is currently the most visible.

[Wyatt_Junker]

So at the time *early 1970's* we KNEW Saddam was a sociopath?

All we KNEW was that Iran was the epicenter of a new kind of hostility directed specifically at the US for our support of the recently ousted Shah.

Obviously you aren't old enough to remember.

[eric]

That wasn't my point and you know it. We knew Saddam wasn't a force for liberty and freedom. He didn't take power until 1979, so we're looking at the 80s.

Supporting a tyrant to oppose another tyrant is still supporting tyranny.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
In Afghanistan, we see that although the Taliban is gone, the situation of women remains appalling. These people have not been liberated.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you want the US to remain in Iraq also, right? Until we make things better? Maybe we should pack up NOW and strap 'em to pallets and air drop them over the Afghani airspace, perhaps?

If the answer is 'no' then your statement serves no purpose. Can't have it both ways.

[eric]

I don't understand by "strap 'em...". Strap who/what?

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
That wasn't my point and you know it. We knew Saddam wasn't a force for liberty and freedom. He didn't take power until 1979, so we're looking at the 80s.

Supporting a tyrant to oppose another tyrant is still supporting tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when did he get the official Tyrant status with the standard Rolex timepiece?

[eric]

Look, I don't want to get into a debate about when we knew Hussein was a tyrant. It would be hard to argue the point that until he invaded Kuwait, we all thought he was rather a nice man.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
Look, I don't want to get into a debate about when we knew Hussein was a tyrant. It would be hard to argue the point that until he invaded Kuwait, we all thought he was rather a nice man.



[/ QUOTE ]

Then why bring up such speculation in the first place? To buffer up all that sagging propaganda? You're logic is as soggy as a spooge mop in a porno theatre.

[eric]

Look, I'm merely pointing out the harsh truth about foreign affairs.

You can believe that Saddam was a nice guy until 1989. Facts show otherwise.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
Look, I'm merely pointing out the harsh truth about foreign affairs.

You can believe that Saddam was a nice guy until 1989. Facts show otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did God ever use Babylon as a war club against Israel?

Open a Bible, read Habbukuk.

One asshole kicking another asshole translates into a zero sum net total.

I thought you French supported realpolitik? Let the barbarians have at it, kind of like a democratic primary.

[eric]

There's your problem. By supporting a tyrant, the US indirectly supported the suppression of Iraqis. Are they assholes? Did they deserve it? Did they view the US supporting Saddam as a force for good?

You're right about Realpolitik. That is unfortunately what happens in real life. There's no black and white (US good, others bad) in foreign policy.

BTW, I'm not french.

[Wyatt_Junker]

It still doesn't prove the point that the US intentionally backed a tyrant. The real world, thanks to this funny thing called time, unfolds events without the aid of hindsight. Events take on a kind of evolutionary role as they play out. What's it with libs and their childish back seat driving? The US backed away from Saddam over a period of time as his hidden ugliness surfaced. International relations is not as easy as you suggest, nor would it implicate the US in this particular case. If anything it should vindicate the US for their integrity in reading the situation as it morphed and then our back pedaling. It was a love for human rights that moved us. If we continued to back Saddam after gassing the Kurds then that would certainly implicate us, but that's just not the case.

Now, why do you hate the United States again?

[eric]

It's you who paints it black and white.

In your view, the US is always good. Those who are skeptical of US foreign policy are just US Haters.

It's just tired old rhetoric.

I suppose those french collaborators were being patriotic and the resistance were French haters, because they didn't support Petain.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
It's you who paints it black and white.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, that was a good one. Now let me try on my best imitation little-girl-playground voice, "No, its YOU! Nah nah nah nah nah nah."

[ QUOTE ]
In your view, the US is always good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove we aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
Those who are skeptical of US foreign policy are just US Haters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove you aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
It's just tired old rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, yours is. Tiring, very tiring. In fact, you could make a narcoleptic look like a spaz on a sugar high.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose those french collaborators were being patriotic and the resistance were French haters, because they didn't support Petain.


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does that have to do with the US? That's neither here nor there.

[Beowulf]

John Kerry voted for the Iraq War resolution I believe only because of the events from 9/11. He voted against the first Gulf War in which I fought.

Yes, foreign policy is complex. The US has always known how evil Saddam is. He is a conquerer. During his war with Iran however, we had to pick the lesser of the evils. Iran had our people hostage and was at the time a bigger threat. I didn't like the idea of siding with Hussein but it served it's purpose. How were we supposed to know what the future held.

Foreign policy is much like politics, if they aren't one in the same already, pick the lesser of evils.

[Estragon]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
Warlady,

I understand your points, and I genuinely feel for you hearing of the personal loss to your family.

The argument is over whether America is always a force for good. Unfortunately, we've seen too many occasions where the US is not always a force for good. Foreign policy is immensely complex.

We know the US (and many other countries) gave support to Saddam Hussein as the lesser of two evils in the Iran-Iraq. That meant that a tyrant was helped in order to achieve the best overall result for the US.

In Afghanistan, we see that although the Taliban is gone, the situation of women remains appalling. These people have not been liberated.

Countries rarely (if ever) go to war to protect liberty, but to do what is in their selfish national interest. The US is no different, but as the "Hyper-puissance", it is currently the most visible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you realize the subject is complex, perhaps you would appreciate additional information.

Saddam launched the war against Iran in 1980. His army was superior, but the Iranians had many more men, and kept them coming.

There was a real danger of Iraq being overrun by Iran. The mullahs of Iran were the most radical in the world at the time. Allowing them to gain control of Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil was not an option.

The "support" we gave Iraq consisted mainly of access to satellite photos showing Iranian troop movements, and tactical advice on how to save the Iraqi army.

Your statement about women in Afghanistan is quite misleading. Women are now able to attend school, and it is now legal for them to go out without male escorts and without burkhas if they choose.

"Liberating" means freeing. It does not mean we force people to change their religion. The status of women in Muslim countries is not what it is in the west. We did not create those customs. And, we have no right to attempt to change their culture by force.

Is America always a force for good? Again, since you admit the subject is complex, you should look a little deeper. In the case of Saddam and the Iran-Iraq War, nothing we did harmed the Iraqi people in any way. In fact, we saved many lives, soldiers and civilians. We didn't put Saddam in power, so they were no worse off after our minor aid than before. Had we not helped them out, they would have been much worse off.

Similarly, we from time to time supported regimes who didn't meet American ideals during the Cold War. The alternative was much worse. Some of the petty dictators we propped up to stop communist expansion were brutal guys who stole much of their nation's wealth. They still weren't as bad as the communists. Ask anyone who lived under the communists.

If supporting a lesser evil stops a greater evil from affecting even more people, is that not being a "force for good?"

Are we supporting evil by our dealings with friendly Arab regimes because they are undemocratic? What would you have us do? Invade them all because we don't like their governments? A complex issue, indeed, but under what theory would unprovoked invasions of every dictatorial regime be a "force for good?"

Look at the long term results of our foreign policy: over a billion people have been freed from the yoke of communism, and democracy is spreading throughout the world, which no longer faces the constant threat of total nuclear war. Is that a good thing, or not? So, were the smaller regional pieces of the policy which led to this situation, in the end, good or evil?

Perhaps you should be more specific about the "too many occasions where the US is not always a force for good." In making your list, remember to consider the whole geopolitical context, and the longer term results. Remember, it's a complex issue. Your statement is general and oversimplified.

[Warlady]

Well done Esty. That's going to leave marks. Hopefully eric will learn something.

[BuckeyeMike]

I would guess that our little eric dude is too young to remember Fidel Castro and his debut on the world scene......he was a "darling" too...wasn't he? Shit happens little boy, and you have to learn to "roll with the punches" as it were, and when assholes like Fidel and Saddam show their true colors, you adapt, adjust and create a new game plan to confront the situation at hand. It's done in everyday life as you will learn after graduation from high school, and it's done by the "big boys" in governments and militarys....the stakes are just a bit higher though. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/patriot.gif

[eric]

Estragon

On the whole, I agree with your points. I already accepted that Saddam Hussein was the lesser of two evils in the Iran-Iraq war. I disagree with your comments about the situation of women in Afghanistan. I admit I've not been there (I doubt you have either), so I have to accept what I read and hear in the media. The impression garnered is of a lawless Afghanistan, where the US controls a small area around Kabul. The rest of the country appears dominated by competing warlords. The US administration (It was Clinton, but I'm not making a partisan point here) was reportedly happy when the Taliban ousted the Northern Alliance.

The point of the post was to offer some balance to a previous post stating the US has ALWAYS been a force for good in foreign policy. There are plenty who would disagree.

I agree, on the whole, that the US is a force for good (I'm not a US hater), I was just trying to bring some moderation to the debate.

[Venus]

Good postin', Est, but I think I see what the child is up to this time. This thread is supposed to be about VVs against Kerry, which means we're talking about Kerry's activities after the war.

While you keep that in mind, I'll point out what I've noticed the last couple days. The 'rats are trying to shift the dialogue now to the Eighties and Nineties, as I figured they would. They had their fun smearing Bush with their AWOL lie in the hope of scaring 'pubs away from further discussion about that entire era because it's bad news for Lurch. Here's what the little tyke wrote a few posts back:

"That wasn't my point and you know it. We knew Saddam wasn't a force for liberty and freedom. He didn't take power until 1979, so we're looking at the 80s."

So now the dialogue on a thread that was supposed to be about VVs against Kerry is now about the Eighties. He opened the topic of the Eighties thusly:

".........The argument is over whether America is always a force for good. Unfortunately, we've seen too many occasions where the US is not always a force for good. Foreign policy is immensely complex.

We know the US (and many other countries) gave support to Saddam Hussein as the lesser of two evils in the Iran-Iraq. That meant that a tyrant was helped in order to achieve the best overall result for the US..."

Children should be seen and not heard.

[eric]

Hey, I'm not writing on behalf of the DNC. I was just replying to an earlier post. I'm not Terry McAuliffe

[Venus]

If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to be much more circumspect about your facts and the logic of the conclusions you draw. Until then, you're just another ill-informed lefty trying to spin and deflect the harsh truth about the 'rat party and its candidates, as well as its office-holders, past and present.

As Don Rumsfeld said so succinctly, "You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts."

[eric]

Well, it seemed fairly self evident what I was saying. That's why people agreed with the genreral message.

Perhaps it's easier not to step out of line.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your comments about the situation of women in Afghanistan. I admit I've not been there (I doubt you have either), so I have to accept what I read and hear in the media. The impression garnered is of a lawless Afghanistan, where the US controls a small area around Kabul. The rest of the country appears dominated by competing warlords. The US administration (It was Clinton, but I'm not making a partisan point here) was reportedly happy when the Taliban ousted the Northern Alliance.


[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't our job in Afghanistan to turn every broad into a Gloria Steinhim clone. Our job in Afghanistan was to slaughter the Taliban and their headquarters and then, as a result of that, by default, whatever happens happens socially. If the Afghanis want to change their social structure themselves then by all means they were given the opportunity to do so by the US military. As Bush always said in his campaign speeches, he wasn't into nation building. He said nothing of nation destroying or nation reforming. Let the people who live in those countries buy their own clue for that shit.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, I don't care what happens to it as long as the fanatics are deprived of a home base. If they root in again, then tip them over again. If they right themselves, knock them over. Don't build their society. Level their enemies and let the people be free enough to decide what they want to do as a people.

Buzz off, do-gooder.

[Warlady]

Excellent post Wyatt!!

[Estragon]

The reason Clinton was happy to see the Taliban consolidate power was he wanted the civil war to end, hoping some stability would come to Afghanistan. The Taliban at the time were not viewed as a threat in any way. Their extreme fundamentalist version of Islam was even more backward-looking than the radical Shi'ites in Iran.

And it worked out that way for a while. Osama bin Laden was in Sudan. The Sudanese begged Clinton to take him four times, but Clinton refused, because at the time he didn't think we had any evidence with which to charge him. So Sudan expelled bin Laden, who fled to Afghanistan and began operating his al-Qaeda training school.

It is true that warlords still operate in the rural areas of Afghanistan, much as they have for the past 1000 years, but now most of them are on their best behavior, because of the 800-pound gorilla {US} hanging around. Only in remote areas in the mountainous eastern districts, where the Taliban's power base has always been, do they dare come out and attempt to enforce their strictures. Villages, not cities or towns.

In Kabul and elsewhere, many women still choose the burkha, but because it is their choice and their religion, not because some Taliban thug will beat them on the street.

The wisdom that comes with experience teaches us that the perfect must never be the enemy of the good. We can't do it all at once. Remember the warnings of the left before we invaded? Afghanistan was untamable, they had expelled the mighty Soviet Army, quagmire, quagmire, quagmire.

Just because Afghanistan isn't quite Montana yet doesn't mean our invasion hasn't been successful. We've already done what they said couldn't be done. The difficult was easy enough, but the impossible takes a bit longer.

Again, I believe your contention was that US foreign policy hasn't always been a force for good. Is Afghanistan better off now, or before?