"Joe" wrote
(Bobsprit) wrote
Kerry can protest wars, especially since he actually served.
Yes he can, thats what he fought for.
He could of also stood by the men that he served with, he would be the
perfect canidate to me if he did. However he chose to discrace he
fellow sailors.
he jumped on the hanoi jane wagon because that was in fashion at the
time. thats his problem.
One of the most disgraceful moments in American history came when the
anti-war movement(s) blamed the military for the 'Nam war instead of the
real perp's - NcNamara, Bunker and the rest of JFK's whiz kids.
To refresh your memories, Ho & Co didn't know what to do after ousting the
French. Western democracies clearly offered their people better lives than
the USSR or China but we had ignored his pleas for help. So, at Ike's
suggestion he decided to give both a try then let the people decide -
Commist north, Capitalist south, and reunification elections in (IIRC) five
years. But JFK's support for the corrupt but Catholic Diem regime had
Buddists (the majority) burning themselves in protest and, by the time he
went to Dallas, polls showed Commies by a landslide. JFK had a rep for
letting Kruchev bitch-slap us around so his whiz kids felt they couldn't
loose another country to communism no matter the cost. They decided to delay
the election and send in enough grunts to prop up Diem's successors. But we
had to avoid any appearance of success else we'd be labled foreign invaders
just like the French (which we were).
Experienced military leaders were appalled by their idea. The Vietnamese,
and the world, know a foreign invasion when they see one and "Don't get in a
grunt war in Asia" had been a military maxim for centuries. Our military is
geared toward winning wars by destroying the enemies weapons factories, just
like we did in WW2, but Ho's factories were safe in the USSR. So the
Whizzers passed over the men who'd led us to victory in WW2 and seen the
expensive stalemate the grunt war in Korea had provided til they finally
found an officer willing to put their plan into operation. History shows it
failed, just like the senior military predicted. It killed a lot of
Americans and even more Vietnamese, wasted $billions we needed here at home
and made America look like both an aggressor and a looser - and in the end
the Communists took over just as they would had the election been held on
time.
Protests began when that failure became apparent, but for some idiot reason
the protesters blamed the victims of McNamara's folly - the poor draftees
who couldn't get deferred like the shrub and got sent there to perform an
impossible task - instead of JFK's darlings. Yes, the military could have
won had they been allowed to - but JFK's whizzers were in charge and that
wasn't their plan. So American "peasants" bled and died or came home to be
spat on! Yes, there were atrocities, but far fewer than we have any right to
expect. And in return, grunts blamed the hippies who spat on them. Meanwhile
the real culprits went on to bigger and better things. McNamara took over
the World Bank and the dollar collapsed soon thereafter.
IMHO, Kerry's failure to recognize that his hero's whiz kids were the real
perp's puts him in the same catagory as Bush - not wise enough to lead a
country. So, which self-serving idiot should one vote for?