Kerry is a War Hero
 

Bush never served in active combat. What a flaming gay coward Bush is. Kerry
can protest wars, especially since he actually served. BYE BYE BUSHY!


RB

Kerry is a War Hero
 

On 01 Jun 2004 22:43:28 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Bush never served in active combat. What a flaming gay coward Bush is. Kerry
can protest wars, especially since he actually served. BYE BYE BUSHY!


You didn't serve in any war either. So why are you criticizing the
war? you stupid hypocrite.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Kerry is a War Hero
 

He means serving, as in combat, not like Horass who services his
boyfriend.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 01 Jun 2004 22:43:28 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Bush never served in active combat. What a flaming gay coward Bush is.
Kerry
can protest wars, especially since he actually served. BYE BYE BUSHY!


You didn't serve in any war either. So why are you criticizing the
war? you stupid hypocrite.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Kerry is a War Hero
 

Darn it Bob, quit insulting gays.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Bush never served in active combat. What a flaming gay coward Bush is.
Kerry
can protest wars, especially since he actually served. BYE BYE BUSHY!


RB

Kerry is a War Hero
 

Darn it Bob, quit insulting gays.


You're right, Vito. Calling Bush gay is unfair to other gay folk who aren't
cowards and liars like he is.

RB

Kerry is a War Hero
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
Darn it Bob, quit insulting gays.


You're right, Vito. Calling Bush gay is unfair to other gay folk who
aren't
cowards and liars like he is.

RB

You surprise me, Bubbles. Calling Bush a coward and a liar isn't fair to
genuine cowards and liars. Like yourself.

Max

Kerry is a War Hero
 

You surprise me, Bubbles. Calling Bush a coward and a liar isn't fair to
genuine cowards and liars. Like yourself.

Max, I'd think perhaps you could do better than this. On these boards that's
hardly a breeze.
Blow harder, as Horvath would say.

RB

Kerry is a War Hero
 

Kerry is a War Hero
 

Of course i'ts all bullsht but you guys are so really sharp that you can put it
all in perspective for the rest of us. So please, protect us from the bull****.
Gov.

Kerry is a War Hero
 

Yeah right or wrong is like saying your mother, drunk or sober. We can't
pick our relatives but we can pick our leaders. Bush is going away.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OzOne wrote in message ...
On 2 Jun 2004 15:29:00 -0700, (Joe) scribbled
thusly:

(Bobsprit)
. 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.

Ahh so if he'd lied he'd be a better candidate?
Maybe you should stick to Bush...he's well practiced in the art.

he jumped on the hanoi jane wagon because that was in fashion at the
time. thats his problem.

He decided tat the war was wrong.
Funny,JFK had already deciced taht too and was preparing to pull out
after his reelection.


We know if Bush says he going to do something he does it. Right or
wrong he sticks by his guns. Will Kerry?

Yep, right or wrong.
No going back, no "Oh ****, we've made a serious mistake here, lets
try and correct it"
Instead "We'll just invent a story and the dumb rednecks will vote for
us"

Joe




RB



Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Kerry is a War Hero
 

Which bull**** are you talking about?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Governos" wrote in message
...
Of course i'ts all bullsht but you guys are so really sharp that you can
put it
all in perspective for the rest of us. So please, protect us from the
bull****.
Gov.

Kerry is a War Hero
 

"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?

Kerry is a War Hero
 

Vito wrote:
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.

??? Hardly. The Dulles brothers stand closer to the top of that list
than them.


To refresh your memories, Ho & Co didn't know what to do after ousting the
French.

??? What alternate history is this? They did indeed know what to do:
proceed with the establishment of communist states in the rest of
Southeast Asia.

... 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.

Excuse me, that was not Ho's plan, that was the U.N. Ho was actively
trying to establish a communist gov't (subservient to him of course) in
the south.

Apparently you have forgotten that Ho was trained by the Soviets and was
a dedicated communist revolutionary.

... 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.

???

Where are you getting this malarkey? The southern Vietnamese disliked
and distrusted the Communists from the git-go, and furthermore the south
was swamped with refugees fleeing Ho's gov't. The reunification
plebescite was never held in the north, and attempts to hold it in the
south were disrupted by communist guerillas.


... JFK had a rep for
letting Kruchev bitch-slap us around

umm, yeah, that's certainly the truth... not

DSK

Kerry is a War Hero
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Vito wrote:
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.

??? Hardly. The Dulles brothers stand closer to the top of that list than
them.

What do the Dullus boys have to do with this subject - they didn't work for
JFK nor did they manufacture the Gulf of Tonkin incident. McNamara and
Bunker did. I never saw any hippie rallies protesting Dullus and AFAIK Abie
Hoffman never mentioned that name. So ????

To refresh your memories, Ho & Co didn't know what to do after ousting
the French.

??? What alternate history is this? ....

The truth instead of the BS you've been spoon fed. UN? sure it was. Just
like Desert Storm and Korea.

Apparently you have forgotten that Ho was trained by the Soviets and was
a dedicated communist revolutionary.

Apparently you never knew that Ho worked for us and was supplied by US
intellegence during WW2, or that an independent Vietnam was established just
after WW 2, or that when it was attacked by France Ho wrote letters to
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower begging us to come in and take over like we
were doing in the Phillipines and show them how to govern a free country -
but that we were afraid to offend France. Communist revolutionary? Only in
your dreams! Ho was a Vietnamese nationalist forced into the USSR's hands
when we turned on him.

... 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.

Where are you getting this malarkey? The southern Vietnamese disliked
and distrusted the Communists from the git-go, and furthermore the south
was swamped with refugees fleeing Ho's gov't. The reunification
plebescite was never held in the north, and attempts to hold it in the
south were disrupted by communist guerillas.

Fact is only a tiny percent of Vietnamese had ever heard of communism, or
capitalism for that matter. Most were apolitical Buddists who were glad the
French invaders had been ousted but just wanted peace. Do you think that Ho
and his fighters were unpopular after beating the French? Do you deny that
Buddist monks were emolating themselves to protest the Diem government?
That Diem used US aid to turn villages into prison camps? That if a village
elected a Buddist Diem sent soldiers to kill him and install a Catholic?
Yes there were refugees - Air America was established to fly them north or
south as they wished- but.most of those heading south had collaborated with
the French and were being abused by vet's of that war.

CIA told JFK Diem had to go for Ike's plan to work but JFK waffled. He had
to consult the Pope, et cetera, while time slipped away. The Viet Cong
guerillas did not become active nor disruptive until after the So.
Vietnamese government announced that the reunification election would NOT be
held on time - in fact that's what set them off. After that there was a war
going on as far as the north was concerned.

Old saying: How do you make a fool uninformed? Take away his newspaper and
TV. How do you make him misinformed? Give them back. Obviously you got
yours back.

Kerry is a War Hero
 

Vito wrote:
What do the Dullus boys have to do with this subject - they didn't work for
JFK nor did they manufacture the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The U.S. had commited armed forces to Viet Nam long before the Gulf of
Tonkin incident.

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/chrono1/chrono1.htm

The truth instead of the BS you've been spoon fed. UN? sure it was. Just
like Desert Storm and Korea.

Excuse me? The Geneva Accords on Viet Nam were bull****? They were
drafted jointly by the U.S., Britain, China, the Soviet Union, France,
two different representatives from Vietnam (Viet Minh and
representatives of Bao Dai), Cambodia, and Laos.

SEATO was formed at the same time, including Australia, New Zealand,
Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand.


Apparently you have forgotten that Ho was trained by the Soviets and was
a dedicated communist revolutionary.


Apparently you never knew that Ho worked for us and was supplied by US
intellegence during WW2

Yep. But didja forget that the USSR was our ally during WW2? Anyway the
"work" that Uncle Ho did for the US, and the supplies he received, was
very marginal.


.. or that an independent Vietnam was established just
after WW 2

Actually, an independent Viet Nam was "established" (using the term
loosely) three of maybe even four times at the end of WW2. Everybody got
their chance, the Commies, the French, the Japs, and the UN as
represented by the British Army.

... or that when it was attacked by France Ho wrote letters to
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower begging us to come in

A bit of an overstatement, there. Ho wrote 1 letter to Truman asking for
recognition.



... Communist revolutionary? Only in
your dreams! Ho was a Vietnamese nationalist forced into the USSR's hands
when we turned on him.

Then how come he was attending the school for communist revolutionaries
in Moscow through most of the 1920s?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar.../biography.htm


...Vietnamese government announced that the reunification election would NOT be
held on time - in fact that's what set them off. After that there was a war
going on as far as the north was concerned.

The North's goal was always to take over the south, preferably by armed
force since they would then be free to eliminate the pre-existing gov't
and take any repressive measures they wanted. General Giap has made this
clear in several public statements post 1974.

The fact is that throughout most of history, Viet Nam was actually
divided into two or three countries. The unified country that exists
today is an artificial construct.


Old saying: How do you make a fool uninformed? Take away his newspaper and
TV. How do you make him misinformed? Give them back. Obviously you got
yours back.

It appears that you have a good bit more learning to do. The "history"
that you think you know is a little bit of fact stirred up with a lot of
propaganda and wishful thinking.

Regards
Doug King