Since the French seem to feel the need to edit my posts and censor my ways of thinking on the Eternal Wrath boards, I figured I'd share my new sig over here instead. After all, I didn't spend the time creating it for it to only be used in two threads before I was told to silence myself.

So, all you political pundits who seem to frequent here, enjoy!

Soon after taking office. President Richard Nixon introduced his policy of "vietnamization". The plan was to encourage the South Vietnamese to take more responsibility for fighting the war. It was hoped that this policy would eventually enable the United States to withdraw gradually all their soldiers from Vietnam.

To increase the size of the ARVN, a mobilisation la\v was passed that called up into the army all men in South Vietnam aged between seventeen and forty-three.

In June, 1969, Nixon announced the first of the US troop withdrawals. The 540,000 US troops were to be reduced by 25,000. Another 60,000 were to leave the following December.

Nixon's advisers told him that they feared that the gradual removal of all US troops would eventually result in a National Liberation Front victory. It was therefore agreed that the only way that America could avoid a humiliating defeat was to negotiate a peace agreement in the talks that were taking place in Paris. In an effort to put pressure on North Vietnam in these talks, Nixon developed what has become known as the Madman Theory. Bob Haldeman, one of the US chief negotiators, was told to give the impression that President Nixon was mentally unstable and that his hatred of communism was so fanatical that if the war continued for much longer he was liable to resort to nuclear weapons against North Vietnam.
Ya.. Kerry is the one who betrayed people... riiiighht.

Way to duck the issue L2. If you want to know the truth, then click the link. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545

Oh god, GREAT site.

How is it avoiding the issue? Who is responsible for losing the war? Kerry for going to Paris if you listen to neo con revisionists.


North Vietnam won because most of South Vietnam didnt give a shit, and it was run by a corrupt, propped up government.
Kerry had jack and shit to do with.
The Vietnamese made a mistake, they as a nation pretty much chose Communism. Most of it coming from the contact they had under neo colonialism with the French and the extreme corruption of the wealthy landowner class that was in power because of American might.
Sometimes, ya just gotta walk away... that was one of those times.

*shrug* You may dislike the site, but the words written there arn't from a republican. Republicans didn't go over to North Vietnam and erect a museum with a special display on how Vietnamese government officials recognized Kerry's contributions to them winning the war.

Semedi, I linked this in another forum and found it very telling. I didn't beleive it at first (a co-worker told me about the exhibit in Vietnam to Kerry) but sure as hell there it was.... I'm glad im not the only one this is unsettleing to....

btw, that's disturbing info Sem, thanks for the link.Regardless of whether or not Vietnam recognizes Kerry as helping them win the war, at the point where he began protesting, with what we know now- what was bad about trying to expediate the process of troop withdrawl from vietnam? We knew we weren't going to win, and the longer we took the more American loses occurred. I don't see how its disturbing, to be honest, that they recognize him, even though they were the enemy. When you look back on it, regardless of what side you were on, America kinda fudged the bucket on that one, and it was time to cut the losses and drop it like a bad habit. Whatever though, both of the two party candidates are heinous wenches.




Who else has one over the size limit?Did you check Semedi's? He started the thread, suprised you skimmed over it so easily but named all the other conservative people you knew. You are just soooo damn tricky, you silly, silly goon. Unless of course I"m wrong, and it isn't actually 600x150x50kb...

Like...

Where'd the rest of this thread go?

I split the crap to sandbox, and left the actual discussion here.

Kerry (inadvertently) helped the North Vietnamese win the propaganda war. The real war was already lost and had nothing to do with him.

You are now the deciding factor on what is "crap" in a debate?

Don't fool yourself deaath1, a liberal will stop at nothing to hide and subvert the truth. I'm guessing my comments and pictures were hitting a little too close to home.

It serves as an excellent reminder for why I rarely post here.

Don't fool yourself deaath1, a liberal will stop at nothing to hide and subvert the truth.
All political fanatics will "hide and subvert" information in order to further their own political and personal beliefs. That includes people on both the far left and far right. It's basically the defining factor of a political fanatic.

Also, trying to use the word "liberal" like an insult, or even a stereotype, is absolutely ridiculous. The same goes for the usage of the word "conservative" in similar context. It shows a very poor understanding of the words themselves, and political ideas in general.

Also, trying to use the word "liberal" like an insult, or even a stereotype, is absolutely ridiculous. The same goes for the usage of the word "conservative" in similar context. It shows a very poor understanding of the words themselves, and political ideas in general.
That doesn't stop political commentators and analysts from doing exactly that day in and day out. I have an excellent grasp on politics and the connotations of the various terms... with the extremist and borderline fanatical viewpoint that constitutes the majority of the democratic platform these days, I feel perfectly comfortable using the term liberal with a negative slant. Certainly it's not a blanket statement that applies to every liberal out there; but as a whole I'd say it's a pretty fair association.

You are now the deciding factor on what is "crap" in a debate?
Wow, have you even bothered to look at the part of the thread I split off? It's not as if I deleted anything. It's all still there. It degenerated into a discussion about slips, tampons, and sig sizes; with a healthy dose of moronic photoshoped photos tossed in. Funny, sure. Belonging here? Not really.

It has nothing to do with the left, right, or middle wanting to hide anything. It's all right here (http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=5523), if you're too slow to find it.

Since the French seem to feel the need to edit my posts and censor my ways of thinking on the Eternal Wrath boardsI guess "the French" feels like an EQ guild board isn't the place to express your political views?

After all, I didn't spend the time creating it for it to only be used in two threads before I was told to silence myself.It serves as an excellent reminder for why I rarely post here.Want a cookie? Posting just to display an embarassing (in someone's eyes?) political issue, without participating to any debate... My bad, want a cookie and a lollipop?

a liberal will stop at nothing to hide and subvert the truth.You must feel ashamed of yourself to say that about a forum ADMIN who could have ban you between two blinks, but only removed the poop slinging garbage.
Yeah the "truth" is Kerry is a Teletubby and Bush doesn't know how to use binoculars! *shows fist at Sanchek* You bad bad Admin, stop hiding the truth!

Too bad we lost the ruleset when we had to use a database backup or I'd show you the part that said that 1- you lack free speech on these boards, and 2- that excessive imaging isn't alright.

with the extremist and borderline fanatical viewpoint that constitutes the majority of the democratic platform

You certainly do not have a good grasp of politics if you limit this to the democratic platform. If you did, you'd understand that Karl Rove wrote the book on uniting non-centrist groups around a single platform.

Want to ignore the Catholic vote (which was needed for every presidential election until 2000) because you can't get it? Cater to the fastest growing religious group in the US - evangelical protestants.

Want to galvanize the religious right? Drop a sentence here and there saying you might support an anti-gay-marriage amendment. Sure, you know it could never pass congress, but that doesn't matter.

Want to make sure you have the gun-rights fanatics? Make sure there are photo ops of you and your ranch.

Want to get attention away from your candidate's military service record? Fund a 527 group to attack your opponent. Low, but perfectly legal. Repeat the mantra often enough, and people will start to believe it.

Want the isolationist vote? Talk smack to the U.N. and give lip service to tighter border control.

Want to get attention away from your candidate's military service record? Fund a 527 group to attack your opponent. Low, but perfectly legal. Repeat the mantra often enough, and people will start to believe it.
Why would I waste my time debating you when your posts smack of bull****? When you're ready to talk about truth and facts, get back to me.

Anterak, this is a discussion for adults. Kindly stay out if you have nothing to contribute. You need to learn to read between the lines. "Shame" is certainly one of the emotions I feel least, because I'm confident in what I do. If an admin here chooses to ban me, that's a reflection on them, not myself.

'Anterak, this is a discussion for adults'

- Shut the fuck up then.

zing

Halo, I guess I forgot where Europeans had any say in American politics. Feel free to show yourself and your vulgarity to the exit.

Halo, I guess I forgot where Europeans had any say in American politics. Feel free to show yourself and your vulgarity to the exit.
Guess you missed this then, huh?

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=5497

Amusing would be my initial reaction Sanchek, frightening is probably closer to the truth though. I did in fact read that, and they can moderate and observe all they like, but they can't interfere with our politics in any way. I'm not telling Halo that he should end his obsession with Americans, merely that he should realize the reality of the situation. When push comes to shove, he has zero say in American politics or our political system. vbmenu_register("postmenu_70571", true);

Whatever gave you the impression that what you were doing was worth enough of our time to ban you? :p

Shutup Kivorn. No one loves you and Flygande and Hubbe are much better Swedes
than you.

p.s. <3 thanks for the hos :(

Shutup Kivorn. No one loves you and Flygande and Hubbe are much better Swedes
than you.

p.s. <3 thanks for the hos :(
It's true :(

Whatever gave you the impression that what you were doing was worth enough of our time to ban you?
Those arn't my delusions; apparently Anterak feels I should be. I could care less either way.

Well, I like a good debate. Here goes.

http://www.vetsagainstkerry.org/Misc/KerryHonoredByCommunists2.htm

This is an anti-Kerry site that "documents" the photo. It shows pictures of several different walls from the museum. I am not going to copy ever photo here, but please check them out if you haven't yet. I count 6 different walls that are pictured in full. Then there is this picture.

http://www.cox-internet.com/dogood/images/image002.jpg

Why don't we get a full view of the wall with Kerry's picture on it? Why is someone holding up that newspaper? Well, from a NY Sun article:

While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr.Kerry is part of that tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.

It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr. Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials.

That picture was taken while Kerry was part of a high level delegation to Hanoi to discuss outstanding POW/MIA issues. He was there trying to get remains of soldiers returned to their families and the right wing tries to make him into a communist for it.

Fil

I don't like Kerry much at all, but rarely is such a brutal owning seen in this forum.

I'm with Sanchek on this one. Hah.

I retract my previous Zing. Fila just won the thread.

Don't fool yourself deaath1, a liberal will stop at nothing to hide and subvert the truth. LMAO, that makes this quote so priceless.

Those arn't my delusions; apparently Anterak feels I should be.Sorry if my words meant that, but that certainly not what I wanted to say.

If you read again what Daidal just quoted, "stop at nothing" was remove 2 posts about sig sizes and photoshopped pics. You are still able to post, to have your sig, etc. Think, what would have been a true "stop at nothing" to shut your mouth? Yes, ask you to change your sig size!!

Anterak, this is a discussion for adults.Awww how cute...

PWNED!!!1!~

I'll ignore all the "loelz owned" replies as they really bring nothing to the table. If any of you had bothered doing any research, or something as simple as just clicking the links in this thread, you would realize you're only owning yourselves by magnifying your ignorance. Kudos to Filatil for at least making an attempt, however misguided it may be.

Anyway on the issue at hand...

I would hardly consider the NY Sun a bi-partisan media source. While it's fun to selectively copy and paste quotes to this thread with the goal of making me look foolish, lets get a link to the full article please. But even ignoring your selective focus, the quote you posted proves absolutely nothing. What relevance does his '93 excursion to Vietnam have on the topic at hand? Certainly you didn't expect them to have a photo of Kerry in North Vietnam during the war? It would be indicative of treason had he met with their government while he was a member of the armed forces. As it stands now, many vets feel comfortable with calling him a traitor to the United States based upon his slanderous actions. The fact remains that the Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory. You ask me why that newspaper is held over the photograph next to Kerry? There's no conspiracy to cover up the truth here (or that other photo for that matter, the photo has absolutely zero relevance to Kerry, they are merely next to eachother by coincidence), in fact the answer lies in the VERY ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO.

The June 2, 2003 edition of the “Viet Nam News” is held beside the Kerry photograph to confirm the date the photo was taken.If we dig further into the link you provided Filatal, we discover even more shocking and yes... relevant information.

Several members of the mainstream media have questioned the authenticity of the photograph on the grounds that they have no proof that Senator Kerry was in Vietnam during July 15-18, 1993. The reports do not contain confirmation that Senator Kerry was part of the US delegation; however, in his press release of July 2, 1993 announcing the formation of the delegation, President Clinton mentioned John Kerry and noted that “Members of Congress and representatives of veterans groups have traveled to VietnamThe critical issue here is that the Vietnamese Communists have chosen to honor Senator Kerry in their War Remnants Museum for his assistance in helping them achieve victory over the United States. The sign outside the entrance to the room reads: “The World Supports Vietnam in its Resistance.” Also exhibited inside the room are protest banners and emblems from various nations and photographs of international leaders who supported North Vietnam’s cause, including communist hero Mao Tse-Tung.All of the above information is contrary to what you would lead the people in this thread to believe, and yet I obtained all of it from the very article that you provided. Obvisouly the authenticity of the photo was called into question, as was Kerry's appearance in Vietnam. The photo shown in Filatil's post served as further proof that the photo IS real, with a newspaper held up to help prove it. Apparently the timing and frequency of Kerry's visits to Vietnam are in question as well. Similar to Kerry's Naval records that he refuses to release; a cloud of uncertainty hangs over the dates when Kerry visited with Vietnamese officials.

Now, far be it from me to expect the immature people in this thread to actually read the information I've provided above, or absorb it. Please by all means, keep your security blanket wrapped around yourselves to protect you from all the evil Republicans in the world. But to any democrat who can actually comprehend this: Congratulations, I just served up some diffinitive ownage for you.

Anyone got that picture on hand where Powell was shaking Saddam's hand?

Ok let's try to be serious, sorry for the giggles, but I'm not a morning person.

The photo shown in Filatil's post served as further proof that the photo IS real, with a newspaper held up to help prove it.
I don't think anyone is questionning the validity of this picture, it *is* real, and was taken in 1993. It's even stated in the first link you posted (your 2nd post in this thread).
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545
Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, in Vietnam, July 15-18, 1993.

I guess the deeper question Filatal is rising is "Is this picture there to praise actors of reconciliation or is this picture there to praise anti war protestors?". I'll do later some search on this museum (lunch time now ;) ), but I'll be interested to know who are the other "american anti war protestors" pinned on that wall. I can imagine Kerry wasn't the only one to protest against this war.

Anyone got that picture on hand where Powell was shaking Saddam's hand?
It wasn't Colin Powell it was Donald Rumsfeld.

Right.

Anyone got that?

I can guarentee there will be at least one person on that wall without even checking. Have a look for Jane Fonda... I bet Halo is a big fan of hers. Should I even mention that she and John Kerry have ties in the past in relation to anti-war activities? :rolleyes: A truly hated American if I've ever seen one.

...Semedi...

their ties were a photograph where they were seated 2 rows away from one another at some event...truely a connection!

http://www.dittohead.org/images/janenkerry.jpg

wait, or maybe you mean
http://www.wgni.com/kerry_fonda1.jpg

but wait!

http://media.gn.apc.org/fl/0404fake.html
Close inspection reveals that this event took place in a remarkable location with two suns, one toward the top right and one the top left of the image. Or, rather, that it didn't take place: John Kerry was indeed in the photo with the trees and Jane Fonda was added later

:(

I thought that second photo was originally with Fonda and Kerry was added in... regardless, I'm already well ahead of you.

It's funny how you all think you can get the drop on me, but I've got my bases well covered thanks.

It's funny how you all think you can get the drop on me, but I've got my bases well covered thanks

Insane-Paranoia Man !!

but I've got my bases well covered thanks.

Who's on first???

http://www.composerjohnbeal.com/Costello_files/costello2.gif

I didn't bother with quotes from that web page, since it has obvious bias ( vetsagainstkerry.org kind of tipped me off ) and that bias wasn't supported really well. But if you want to use quotes from it as facts, I'm game.

The fact remains that the Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory

Dan Tran also asked his Vietnamese associates to get a more precise wording of the placards under the photo. Below are the exact English, and French wordings.

Mr. Do Muoi, Secretary General of the Vietnam Communist Party met with Congressmen and Veterans Delegation in Vietnam (July 15-18, 1993)

Camarade Do Muoi – Secrétaire General du Parti Communiste du Vietnam – recevait une délégation de Sénateurs et Anciens Vétérans du Vietnam le 18 Juillet 1993

It's so clear that they recognize his contributions that they forgot to put his name on the placard. And after he worked so hard for them. :(

Fil

Right Filatil, because that is the pretense under which that particular photograph was taken. The Vietnamese have no pictures of him with their government during the war because like I said that would be tantamount to treason. But the section of their museum that he is honored within recognizes the contributions of anti-war activists in the international community that helped the Vietnamese win the war. Period.

Please demonstrate a direct link between war protesters and the gradual US pullout from Vietnam. Don't talk about attitudes, or how they poisoned the well, so to speak. Show us the link between the protesters and the policy. Also, to demonstrate your point you must show that the US would have won the war if anti-war activists had not protested their country's involvement. Thank you.

Wrong Thormir. You don't seem to get it... these arn't my words. These are the words and actions of the communist party in Vietnam. Don't ask me to explain it because I can't put words in their mouth. If you're that interested, feel free to get in contact with them and ask for yourself. vbmenu_register("postmenu_70707", true);

I think it's now fairly obvious why they were censoring you on the EW boards, Semedi.

I'd put together a post summing up the blatantly obvious from this thread for you (that you seem to be missing), but you'd just fall back on the ad homium arguments again anyway.

Anyone got that picture on hand where Powell was shaking Saddam's hand?
But you didn't see some sort of homage to Powell on an Iraqi Palace wall.....

You didn't see an homage to John Kerry in the museum either. You saw 1 picture. One. O-N-E

O

N

E

I got a question here. You guys seems to be fond of "speech" and trashing candidats ( see the whole communist thing). I don't know when I vote for my president here I look at his past result, what he is promising to do, with who and I basically pick the lesser of the 2 evil ( well in france its more like 8 evils anyway). I don't care about his war record nor his sexual life. Shrug current president has an illegitimate son in one of the french islands in the pacific and who give a crap, he is still a pretty good president. His private life is his own business as long as he runs the country well.

So far maybe these boards are biased but what I got is.... Vietnam records and those speech ( talk a lot of shit basically) seems more important than economy/security/jobs/etc and having a president that actually spell correctly in public and don't humiliate himself with stupid quotes.

I guess the thing that really schock me with us presidential is the ammount of poo slinging that goes around. If one of the candidat tried to pull something like this here he would get sued at the court within one week.

So different mentality I guess but I m really interested in knowing if its just some people or everyone. Not looking for any kind of flaming just really curious.

its that way here as well kinu, the biggest scandal was when the prime minister autographed 2 paintings that she didnt paint and they were sold. The president is just a vessel for the party.

In the US at least, we prefer our candidates to be of upstanding moral fiber (its a traditional thing). Sadly very few are in actuality these days. In the US, military service is considered to show moral fiber and character (as long as the service was honorable). In this election, Kerry made a point to rely upon his Vietnam War service to garner some votes (a mistake on his part since his past anti-war/establishment message is no longer in vogue). A lot of Vietnam vets resented his characterization of them as criminals and murderers and have gone after his character with a vengeance. What would normally have helped him now appears to be working against him, especially if the charges of padding his service are believed. Not only has his integrity come under question as a result, but he has been too preoccupied to really address issues of substance where he might prove stronger than Bush. Running on a platform of "I'm not Bush" is not sufficient to win the election.

I too prefer to vote for the candidate who I feel will do a better job, based upon their platform/plans and not so much on their private lives. In this election not enough time has been spent discussing actual issues. The lack of such discussion will favor Bush in the long run because people know what to expect from him. Kerry is an unknown and in general people will stick with the devil they know, at least in the US IMO.

Personally I am waiting to see what Kerry does and has to say before November. If he does not impress me more than he has done in the last few months, likely my vote will go to Bush.

*Added a thought on French Politics*
I suspect the main reason there is far less poo flinging in the French elections is the system works differently. My understanding is that because no party can rely on a sufficiently large majority to rule directly, they must make deals with other parties to form a government. In that kind of system, you have to be careful how nasty you get if you want to keep any hope alive of making a deal with anyone. There is more incentive to remain civil.

Kinu whats the age in France to be able to vote and how many times have you been actually able to vote?

I m 22, age is 18 and I have voted 4 or 5 times already ( mayor/deputy/president etc). And when I talk about how I vote, I m talking in general about french people not specifically me. Now I don't see what me voting a lot of times has to do with the discussion but I m sure waiting for you to tell me how I m a youngins and whatever crap you tell talid too heh.

We have a shitload of debats here too but its about what the current party in power did and what was good/bad etc. About how X would create more jobs and Y would reduce the country deficit etc. There is no commercial allowed on TV xept a 5min nightly talk for every party running campaign as well as interview and TV debat. There is no "commercial" anti candidat or whatever. I guess its a real different mentality, not thats one is better than the other. TV channels can't take position for one or another party.

First off it makes a difference how old you are when you are saying you dont care about the morality of a president..in other words if he cant keep his cock in his own pants while hes married..it makes a difference to american voters.me in particular. Whether he can be trusted as our protector of our country makes a difference. You wanted to share your knowledge of how "you" vote.. I just wanted to know how many times you have actually had the chance to vote. From the looks of it not to many times so really your experiences as a seasoned voter are NULL to me.

Your vote is important in your country Kinu and I wouldn't attack your age as well I have never even made one post to Talid..I think you are confusing me with one of your guild mates..hmm think hes a Ranger.

Ibudin

First off it makes a difference how old you are when you are saying you dont care about the morality of a president..in other words if he cant keep his cock in his own pants while hes married..it makes a difference to american voters.me in particular.

That doesn't seem coherent enough to be worthy of having a point. Specifically, why does "it make a difference how old you are when you are saying you dont care about the morality of a president?"

If you say at a young age you could care less if the person who wants to run your country is out fucking around (all presidents with in my life time have been married) makes no difference.. I attribute that to not yet understanding how important as a leader it is not to commit adultery...if for say he was older and said those same words I atttribute the comment to simply..ignorance.

Ibudin

It's an issue of character and integrity, and how our President is the #1 go to guy for representing the USA to the rest of the world. If I can't respect a candidate, then I'm probably not going to see eye to eye with him on the issues as well; because we'll have a different set of morals. If I feel like a candidate is going to embarass my country on the world stage (Bill Clinton anyone?) then that person is the last I'll ever endorse to be President. I'm going to guess that the character of a President is far more important to Americans then the French, because France isn't a world power and the citizens of other countries don't pay nearly as much attention to France's politics.
I don't care about his war record nor his sexual life.
How do you accurately judge a person if not based on their past actions? Am I just supposed to believe everything at face value that a politician promises me about the future?

a president that actually spell correctly in public and don't humiliate himself with stupid quotes.
Sorry, just because someone has mis-steps when they're speaking doesn't make me think any less of their intelligence. Anyone who graduates from Yale at least deserves my respect as an intelligent person. I'm really not going to nitpick his public speaking as long as his policies and leadership are sound.

Talk to me of florida vote rigging. Address Bush's claims about flying for years after he actually did. Offer up some reasoning as to how Bush continues to claim he wasn't AWOL, having the temerity to offer up a dental record. Describe why Bush is such a good and honest man, and in the same breath excuse his and Cheney's drink driving. Defy the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report about the WMD before the war, and how the public were deceived by the "fundamentally misleading" Bush administration. Talk to me about the Butler report. Talk to me about halliburton, and Cheney's department overseeing contracts to the company that appointed him CEO, despite no business experience, and then denying it despite solid evidence. Hit me up with Cheney's lobbying for relaxation of sanctions in Iraq, Iran and Libya. Or how halliburton traded with Iraq under Cheney. Help me readjust my opinions by discussing why Bush made terrorism such a low threat prior to 911. Hold up Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's decision to sack the joint chief of staff for the military, immediately before the war, because he felt more troops were essential. Explain to me why Rumsfeld ignored the State Department's advice about how to handle Iraq in the days immediately after the successful liberation. If you're still going, talk to me about the outing of CIA agents. Bring cheney's 5 deferments to the table. Explain to me why bush appears to have no, even admits to little, knowledge of foreign policy. Tell me about how Bush never wanted to be a politician, or his consistent failures in business, despite his father's influence. Explain to me why the economy has stalled. Let me know why the not-tax and spend policy is viable. Show me where the jobs are. Run past me how a constitutional ammendment to ban homosexual people from marrying is just or right. tell me why Bush wants to ban embryonic cell cloning worldwide, against the consideration of the scientific community, and why his un sponsored ban will actually make rogue development more likely.

/ off the top of my head

Use that to show me why usama bin laden isn't winning his ideological war against America in the Middle East, as Bush tries to run the RNC on anti-terrorism hype

THEN tell me about Kerry's picture hanging on some fucking wall in North Vietnam

If I feel like a candidate is going to embarass my country on the world stage (Bill Clinton anyone?) then that person is the last I'll ever endorse to be President.

Uh, for the most part, people in other countries felt that the whole blowjob thing was... well... overblown. And if you want to get into how much respect Bush garners on this planet... heh.

I think that blowjob would have costed him a re-election had he been able to. Remember him coming onto national TV saying he did not have a sexual relationship with Monica L.? Blantant lie to the entire coutry.

Ah hell you said other countrys..but then again what other countrys think of our presidents doesnt really matter to me.

Ibudin

Talk to me of florida vote rigging. Address Bush's claims about flying for years after he actually did. Offer up some reasoning as to how Bush continues to claim he wasn't AWOL, having the temerity to offer up a dental record. Describe why Bush is such a good and honest man, and in the same breath excuse his and Cheney's drink driving. Defy the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report about the WMD before the war, and how the public were deceived by the "fundamentally misleading" Bush administration. Talk to me about the Butler report. Talk to me about halliburton, and Cheney's department overseeing contracts to the company that appointed him CEO, despite no business experience, and then denying it despite solid evidence. Hit me up with Cheney's lobbying for relaxation of sanctions in Iraq, Iran and Libya. Or how halliburton traded with Iraq under Cheney. Help me readjust my opinions by discussing why Bush made terrorism such a low threat prior to 911. Hold up Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's decision to sack the joint chief of staff for the military, immediately before the war, because he felt more troops were essential. Explain to me why Rumsfeld ignored the State Department's advice about how to handle Iraq in the days immediately after the successful liberation. If you're still going, talk to me about the outing of CIA agents. Bring cheney's 5 deferments to the table. Explain to me why bush appears to have no, even admits to little, knowledge of foreign policy. Tell me about how Bush never wanted to be a politician, or his consistent failures in business, despite his father's influence. Explain to me why the economy has stalled. Let me know why the not-tax and spend policy is viable. Show me where the jobs are. Run past me how a constitutional ammendment to ban homosexual people from marrying is just or right. tell me why Bush wants to ban embryonic cell cloning worldwide, against the consideration of the scientific community, and why his un sponsored ban will actually make rogue development more likely.That's the Cliff Notes to every dumbass post you've made this past year. Throw in a few images from tin-hat-theorey.com and you're ready for publication.

If I feel like a candidate is going to embarass my country on the world stage (Bill Clinton anyone?) then that person is the last I'll ever endorse to be President.Clinton didn't embarass himself on the world stage, the way this affair was treated and blown out of proportion was what was funny to embarassing.

I'm going to guess that the character of a President is far more important to Americans then the French, because France isn't a world power and the citizens of other countries don't pay nearly as much attention to France's politics.As this sentence doesn't make lots of sense (French people don't care about their president morales because France isn't a world power... huh?), I guess you wanted to mean something else. But again, it's not because our presidents' morales aren't our first reason to vote for them that it doesn't matter at all. It's just not the 1st reason to vote or not vote for them.

How do you accurately judge a person if not based on their past actions?His political actions and results shouldn't matter more?
I have the feeling sometimes if you are hoping to be the USA president one day, you'd better not have smoke weed during your scholarship, or someone will dig it up, and blow it giganormously to prove you don't have the right morales (How will he protect our children from drugs if he smoked one joint when he was 17????). Also, I feel that during US pre-elections period, it's more productive to attack your opponents on their weaknesses rather than emphasizing your own strengths.

I guess because the difference between Dems and Reps measures in a few dregees of "right wingness", Americans people have to value their future president on other grounds, morales, when other countries, like France, usually proposes a larger pannel of valid political views, leftish to rightist.

I didnt say I believed each to be true Akipt.
But lets not play favorites. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Besides, as the Republicans have shown us, truth is only optional when campaigning. The repetitiveness of the smear is whats important.

I just wanted to know how many times you have actually had the chance to vote. From the looks of it not to many times so really your experiences as a seasoned voter are NULL to me.
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read....thanks for making me come out of trolldom, Ibudin.

You can speed up the time it takes to become a "seasoned voter" by taking a voting class at your local college.

Welcome back who ever you are.

I guess what I ment to say is someone who is marrried or in a relationship (cares whether we have a faithfull president) someone who owns a home (cares about taxes and interests rates) someone who cares about the Protection of his country (cares about bogus military records) ...ect. Someone who has no full time job or no job period, lives off his mom and pops, doesn't belong to a country who militarily is spread out around the fucking world (of course someone from France wouldnt give a shit about his presidents military record or lack of it).

Had he said hey im 40 years old and voted on ever single presidency of my country and the issues I stated above really didnt matter...then I would say his opionion of how one should base thier votes on doesnt sound like a bad idea.

Get it now?


Ibudin

Thank you and well met, Faalkor Rainblade 65th seasoned Ranj0r.


Well as a home owner, husband, and father I have to disagree with you. When I go to the dentist, I want him to be a good dentist. I could care less what he does in his private (made public by a republican witch hunt in Clinton's case) life. Do I think it is wrong, absolutely. Does it make them an ineffective leader? No at all.

I can see your view point a little better from you explanation but it still seems very elitist. In the US you can vote at 18, this vote is no more or less important than your "experienced" vote. There is no law saying your demographic is right or has more influence than any other so don't try and belittle anyone who is exercising there RIGHT to vote, no matter what country it is in.

And since you might ask...I am 28, living the American dream :)

Your comparison of your Dentist to someone in control of our country is not a very good one. Someone who would cheat on his wife, and I am one to believe adultery to be a serious situation (whether you or anyone else doesn't think so) and want to earn the trust of me as a voter..you just lost it all with me. It does matter 100 percent...its a breach of trust in the worst way.

I agree fully on everything else you said.

Ibudin

Haha well said akipt.

Liberals and Europeans across the world cry today, as President Bush's lead in the polls becomes double digits - a significant bounce following the excellent RNC.

Sorry... I'd post more but I'm busy evacuating from Florida at the moment. vbmenu_register("postmenu_70815", true);

i wouldnt call it crying, more like feeling sad for you, but to each his own

...current president has an illegitimate son in one of the french islands in the pacific and who give a crap, he is still a pretty good president. His private life is his own business as long as he runs the country well.
Uh..we ARE talking about Chirac, right?

Pretty good president?


Clinton didn't embarass himself on the world stage, the way this affair was treated and blown out of proportion was what was funny to embarassing.
HAHAHaha haha...ha..

Yeah, sexual harrassment is funny!

That and lying to get out of the case it resulted in are what Clinton's fuckup was about. It was not just about Clinton getting a little action on the side, no matter how often people try to say otherwise. What Clinton did would result in both the loss of his job and several years in prison if he were in the private sector.

A more apt comparison is, would you let your 7 year old son go to a dentist who is a known child rapist. Though when it comes to politics, you're usually forced to choose between the rapist and the murderer.

A more apt comparison is, would you let your 7 year old son go to a dentist who is a known child rapist. Though when it comes to politics, you're usually forced to choose between the rapist and the murderer.
The point I am trying to make here is that Clinton's job as president was never to be a role model, that's what parents and religious leaders are for. His indiscretions, although a bad judgement call, didn't prevent him from leading the country.

Besides, when Clinton lied no one died......

Yeah, sexual harrassment is funny!
I never said that, I just pointed that Clinton's case was blown out of proportion. Yes adultery is a bad thing, yes sexual harrassment (I thought it was consensual btw) is a bad thing, yes lieing in court is a really bad thing. But imho, it was shown and reported to the world like he committed Crime against Humanity.

If I feel like a candidate is going to embarass my country on the world stage (Bill Clinton anyone?) then that person is the last I'll ever endorse to be President.
You guys only assume I was talking about Clinton getting his dick sucked. That's the least of his indiscretions. How about when he sold China ICBM missle technology, only to have them turn around and promptly point their nuclear missles towards us? Talk about an embarassment. There's many more inept moments one could point out regarding his Presidency.

If I feel like a candidate is going to embarass my country on the world stage (Bill Clinton anyone?) then that person is the last I'll ever endorse to be President.

Wait... What? That doesn't make any sense at all. How on earth could you say that, and then endorse Bush?

Nixon embarrassed us with his criminal behavior, and subsequent resignation.

Ford embarrassed us with his constant clumsiness, and inability to put forth a real direction for the country.

Reagan's only real foible was his poor choice of advisors, which allowed his administration to begin piling the debt on our children with poor economic policy.

Bush senior embarrassed us by being the first to overtly begin the use of attack ads, ala Willie Horton. Making the other guy look worse than you became the norm in political debate after that, regardless of truth or completeness of the accusations. Tossing his cookies at the Japanese dinner did not help, nor did his reversal of the "No new taxes" pledge.

Clinton embarrassed us with his sexual behavior, which was amplified by the Starr effort (aided by a few others, who subsequently had their own dirty laundry of the same ilk aired)to find anything possible to "get him" with, and by his response to the charges which allowed the march toward possible impeachment.

Bush (dubya) has embarrassed us by trampling of civil rights, alienation of most of our former allies, raising the negative attitudes of the middle east countries (Egyptians polled have a 98% negative attitude toward the US, as reported in the St Paul Pioneer Press), the loss of 900,000 jobs since his election, the increase of over 1 million without adequate healthcare in the past year, willful trampling of the last 100 years of environmental policy for the sake of big business, and on and on and on.....


VOTE McCAIN:D

I <3 anon reputation.

09-07-2004 05:03 PM hahaha funny.. not..

And yes, McCain.

Me too, I got called a Nazi :rolleyes:

Get some balls, leave a name when you do rep bumps.

This just... breaks my heart :(
Anon rep hit:

Idiot extrodinaire - someone who puts the cart before the horse.

Woot! Negative rep. comparison contest. Mine's bigger than yours! =)

I keep getting these anon rep messages that I'm boring and long winded. I can't imagine why ;), but hey, at least own up :).

Regards,
Nydia

I got one from someone calling me a 'baby killah.' ;p

I got one that said "blah, blah, blah...".


That pretty much sums up why I have not used or paid much attention to the reputation tool. If folks can anonymously leave such feedback, while it may be an honest indicator of their ability to form an intelligent argument with the post they are attempting to comment on, it strikes me as being useless in terms of giving honest feedback or criticism of the post in question, let alone the poster.

So as to prevent even further hijacking..

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?p=71106#post71106

Nothing anon about it Kivorn, that was my comment. Where am I supposed to leave my name? Within the comment itself?

Oh and whoever left the comment "your sig is disgraceful" for my reputation, let me refute by saying that John Kerry's treason against this country is disgraceful. I'm a proud American, are you?

Oh I know it was you Sem. But yes, you need to sign it. Now keep it in the new thread please.

Once again, I submit this thread would be more interesting if I actually had avatars and sigs turned on.

(It's a pretty peaceful place without them...)

Semedi stated:
Wrong Thormir. You don't seem to get it... these arn't my words. These are the words and actions of the communist party in Vietnam. But by putting those words in your sig, you adopt them as your stance. You may not be willing to put words in the North Vietnames leadership's collective mouths, but you seem perfectly willing to accept their words in your own. In essence, you're accepting communist dogma in order to turn Americans against another American. You've called Kerry a traitor without evidence, but it's clear that you're the divisive puppet of those whose words you've taken for your own.

No evidence? Did you hear the bullshit Kerry spewed from his mouth before Congress that was used for years to torture American POWs by the Vietnamese?

Can't say I have, other than that atrocities were committed. Are you denying that atrocities were committed in Vietnam? If not, be more specific. And tell us how his comments before Congress were specifically "treasonous" in any manner other than your own opinion. Currently, you seem nothing more than a puppet for North Vietnamese propaganda, gullible and far more traitorous than you would have us believe Kerry to be.

Its all how you read between the lines with Kerry. For some, he is akin to Ron Kovic (Born on the 4th of July) in that he was a veteran who served proudly for the wrong cause in an unjustified and unpopular war, thus had first hand knowlege of what Vietnam was as opposed to others with an anti-war message who never left the comfort of their local college campuses. The differences begin with Kerry serving as an officer (LTJG) in the Navy, as compared to Kovac being a Seargeant in the Marine Corps. One living the officer's life of priviledge from a more well off family than Kovic, the lower middle class grunt from Nowheresville. One got 3 purple hearts from shrapnel from various firefights and walked away. The other got one purple heart and was carried out paralyized. Both recognized that perhaps the war in Vietnam was total bullshit, with BOTH sides being unable to claim some kind of moral high ground. It was a war and survival was important for both sides...and when something is that important THERE ARE NO RULES. Plain and simple.

The Vietcong, if anyone, might actually be able to at least claim that they supported their veterans, instead of spitting on them and casting them away. Its funny how the tools of politics, the soldiers on the battlefield, catch the shit for their politician masters. The politicians who sent them to die in some far away malaria infested poophole are the ones who should be spat on and the ingrateful populace who kicked them when they were at their lowest should be right there next to the people they voted into office. Honestly, I don't think Kerry disgraces Vietnam or the United States any more than the fine job BOTH countries accomplished in that department on their own when the war was actually going on 40 odd years ago. We lost that war on both fronts, that being the actual country of Vietnam and here at home. Perhaps if the US at that time didn't want our GIs snapping and doing acts of medieval rape, pillage and burn, they could have at least expressed some sympathy. Many soldiers did not get that. Most got to see their buddies killed to bolster the images of all the death they saw on TV before even being drafted and sent to a war that no one seemed to support even for the benifit of the troops.

If Kerry wants to throw away his medals, than fine. So be it. By all rights and accounts, he earned them and some of them they just don't give away in a box of Crackerjacks. If Kovic wants to "march" in protest against the war, fine. They gave alot more than most to DESERVE THAT RIGHT TO PROTEST than most anyone else who may label them as "traitors".

Am I voting for Kerry? No. I am not. I just don't like to see people branded as "traitors" for having views that are not common with spoon fed, narrow minded perceptions of whats right and wrong. Considering now that we are in Iraq and the press is just hungry to see what kind of atrocities our troops will do to Iraqis in addition to how many of our service people have been killed in a manner of some kind of morbrid fund drive tally, its obvious that Vietnam left some deep scars. Why is it ok for the press to do that kind of shit now, yet it is not OK for Kerry to have done so in the past?

Can't say I have, other than that atrocities were committed.SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. Or did you just ignore all that from the hundred other times its been discussed ad nuaseum on these boards?

And tell us how his comments before Congress were specifically "treasonous" in any manner other than your own opinion. Whether on purpose or not, some people confuse patriotism and treason. John Kerry is not unpatriotic. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt assume he loves this country as much as anyone else.

...but he sit down across the table from an active enemy of our country, who was still engaged in armed conflict with us, and negotiated a "withdrawal plan" with them. He then brought that to the Senate testimony, along with his "Winter Soldier" investigation, which was a bunch of lies on top of everything else wrong with it.

Sorry, that's treason in my book.

Alright, akipt, now which part of Kerry's quote was "bullshit" (other than a possible exaggeration of the "thousands")? We do know that a lot of shit went down in Vietnam. We also know "from another quote" that Kerry was, in part, relaying what he had heard from others. Whether he used good judgment in discerning fact from fiction is difficult to say, but it was an impassioned era, and sometimes it's difficult to make precise judgments (I recall the swaying testimony before Congress pre-Gulf War 1 of a Kuwaiti regarding claims of Iraqis taking infants off medical equipment that turned out to be false).

I don't know a great deal of Kerry's chit-chat with the North Vietnamese (and am open to whatever authoritative sources might be linked), but it still strikes me that opinions of Kerry as treasonous are just that -- opinions -- which could likewise be applied to politicians of any stripe, including those who bring us into war unnecessarily.

Since you were proven wrong that Kerry did say he committed atrocities, you now want to swing it around and say it was no big deal. Which is it? You came down pretty damned hard on Semedi for even accusing him of it in the first place. Whatever it takes to win huh :)

Alright, akipt, now which part of Kerry's quote was "bullshit" Kerry's entire Winter Soldier investigation, and subsequent sworn under oath Senate testimony has about as much truth and integrity as a Dan Rather interview with a democratic fund-raising Bush basher with MS Word documents from 1971.

We do know that a lot of shit went down in Vietnam.
Yeah so? That make it ok for Kerry to committ treason? Lie under oath? Meet with our enemies in a foreign land? ... while still wearing the uniform and rank of an officer in our military?

Again, I'm not going to accuse Kerry of being unpatriotic - but time and again, even during this campaign he has demonstrated a serious lack of judgement.

it was an impassioned era, and sometimes it's difficult to make precise judgmentsYeah, good to know Kerry has consistently been wishy washy.

I don't know a great deal of Kerry's chit-chat with the North Vietnamese (and am open to whatever authoritative sources might be linked), He did it, nothing else to talk about. I don't care if he wanted to talk about the Paris Arts Festival - meeting with our enemy, especially during a time of engaged conflict is treason. Stop trying to give him an out. There is absolutely no acceptable reason for him doing what he did.

it still strikes me that opinions of Kerry as treasonous are just that -- opinions -- which could likewise be applied to politicians of any stripe, including those who bring us into war unnecessarily.A democratically elected president getting authorization under our Constitution to do what he thinks is necessary to defend this country, and an upstart political wanna-be meeting with our enemies - no comparison. That applies as much back then as it does now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132405,00.html

Looks like Kerry not only lied about the "atrocities" in Vietnam, he coerced others into lying about it.

Since you were proven wrong that Kerry did say he committed atrocities, you now want to swing it around and say it was no big deal. Which is it? You came down pretty damned hard on Semedi for even accusing him of it in the first place. I never said Kerry didn't say that he committed atrocities. I didn't say he didn't do it. I didn't say they were "no big deal." Anything more you would like to make up? "Anything to win," indeed. I came down on Semedi for making claims of treason and for being a sucker for North Vietnamese propaganda, not for saying that Kerry did things he shouldn't have in Vietnam.
Kerry's entire Winter Soldier investigation, and subsequent sworn under oath Senate testimony has about as much truth and integrity as a Dan Rather interview with a democratic fund-raising Bush basher with MS Word documents from 1971. From what I understand, Kerry testified with information given to him by others. Unknowingly providing false information doesn't make one a liar. If you want to provide evidence to the contrary, by all means do so. The CBS document thread is over there, btw.
He did it, nothing else to talk about. I don't care if he wanted to talk about the Paris Arts Festival - meeting with our enemy, especially during a time of engaged conflict is treason. Laughable assertion. If he provided information that would directly assist the enemy in materially hampering our war effort (e.g., providing troop locations, plans, technology, etc) then yes, it's treason. Trying to bring about an end to the war is not. Again, provide authoritative information on what Kerry was up to over there, and you may convince me (Hint: Semedi's posts do not qualify as authoritative information).

Speaking of free speech, hear about the woman who was fired from her job for supporting Kerry?

Let me find that link... ah... here it is: http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/040912/sticker.shtml
No matter what side you are on in the Presidential race, you really have to step back and think about this. How did we become so partisan that we are willing to fire someone for holding a political view that is different from ours?

I'm hoping there was some other reason- like she was doing heroin in her eyeball on her shift or something.

Unknowingly providing false information doesn't make one a liar. If you want to provide evidence to the contrary, by all means do so. What part of "I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. " is confusing to you?

Laughable assertion. If he provided information that would directly assist the enemy in materially hampering our war effort (e.g., providing troop locations, plans, technology, etc) then yes, it's treason. Trying to bring about an end to the war is not.Fucking clueless man. You don't even know what treason is.

Laughable assertion?

WHO THE FUCK GAVE KERRY THE AUTHORITY TO "bring about the end of the war"?

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason as giving aid or comfort to this country's enemies.Ask yourself why the Vietnamese communists met with Kerry. Don't you think they had something to gain from that? Do you think they obtained what they were looking for when brokered a meeting with a popular and charismatic anti-war leader who was also a highly decorated veteran of same war? I think the little commies got hardons just thinking about it -> "aid and comfort"

U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953. A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power in any manner.Breaking the law! and considerably underminding Henry Kissinger's ability to negotiate formally with the exact same parties that Kerry met. But that's ok right? We didn't like what Nixon was trying to do and passions were high and judgements were easily blurred ...

If you want to provide evidence to the contrary, by all means do so.See my post above. At least one of the soldiers says he was coerced by Kerry to lie about the atrocities. Kerry has admitted that he lied (he chalked it up to something like youthful exuberance).

Then don't vote for him. Better yet, how about YOU run for President. It pays 125K a year, has good retirement benifits and a heck of a dental plan. Plus the helicopter, limo rides and 747 jumbo jet at your disposal to bring you to any place in the world are pretty nice too. Only drawback is you get the blame for everything....even when its completely not your fault.

As for Kerry, the Statutes of Limitations obviously for this have run out and he is a civilian now so its probable that he can't be executed as a traitor. If he truely was being treasonous, then he would have been executed 30+ something odd years ago. Also, Vietnam was never a "real" war. We never formally drafted a declaration of war against the country of North Vietnam. It was one of those gray area "police operations". Our commitment originally started as being military advisors to the French, and when they pulled out, we stayed. It was never about being a "patriot" or "honor" or "duty" in Vietnam. Was it Kerry's business to be a diplomat in Vietnam? How the fuck should any of us know to be honest. Apparently no one cared enough back then and saw it as treason until now.

Vietnam was a tragic piece of our histroy. Why dig up all this dirt now? Does anyone truely give a crap what someone did 30-40 years ago? 99% of the people on this board were not even a glimmer in their parent's eyes back then. I am 30 years old and I was born when the war was finally wrapping up after almost 20 years of accomplishing absolutely nothing but destroy an entire generation. Heck, 40 years ago when the Vietnam war was in full swing we still had "Colored" and "White" drinking fountains. We as a country somehow managed to survive those dark days and get on with our lives. Perhaps we did it by looking forward instead of backwards.

If you want to judge these canidates, I suggest you focus more attention on what they might acomplish for the nation in the future or maybe even the right now, instead of if they were total complete angels or saints who never even so much as masterbated to the Playboy centerfold when they were teenagers. Unless you have been failing to keep up with current events, whoever ends up being President for the next 4 years has alot of work to do and hard decisions to make. I would rather a leader be accused of making a questionable or perhaps unpopular decision and substantiate it with good sound logic than have some guy come out of no where who has never made a single tough decision or questionable call. The odds are very much in that person's favor that he or she will fuck up grandly and not know how to handle it.

What part of blah blah blah is confusing to you? What part of "I never said Kerry didn't say that he committed atrocities." has you so completely befuddled?
WHO THE FUCK GAVE KERRY THE AUTHORITY TO "bring about the end of the war"? Personally, I don't think anyone needs someone else's approval to bring a peaceable end to a war. Such a purpose rests on its own merits. Similarly, I could give a fuck who gave him authority to meet with the Vietnamese if it resulted in POWs being freed without a compromising quid pro quo. But given that Kerry had no binding diplomatic authority, his visit was meaningless from a material standpoint.
Ask yourself why the Vietnamese communists met with Kerry. Don't you think they had something to gain from that? They'd certainly meet with him if they thought they had something to gain. Whether it truly produced tangible results on their behalf I don't know, but they likely benefitted at least a little in non-material ways.
Breaking the law! Committing treason is breaking the law, but breaking the law is not necessarily committing treason. Kerry was never charged with treason. Perhaps he could have been, depending on how the Dept of Justice chose to interpret "aid and comfort," but it didn't happen.

My assessment is this: Kerry likely broke the law in meeting with the North Vietnamese. His desire to see the war come to an end led him to pursue talks with the other side and to agree to their requirements for an end to the conflict (not unlike how Bush's desire to invade Iraq resulted in misinterpreting and misrepresenting evidence of stockpiles of WMDs). I do not see him rendering aid to the enemy, and any "comfort" given was hardly intentional (the terms are ambiguous, but I am concerned with material aid/comfort). This isn't treason, but it seems illegal.

Kerry was never charged with treason. Perhaps he could have been, depending on how the Dept of Justice chose to interpret "aid and comfort," but it didn't happen.
If we look at the actual wording:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.We see that there is more too it that just giving an enemy aid and comfort.

That part is a trailer to "adhering to their enemies"- which means taking their side (and here is the kicker) acting on it.

Since Kerry wasn't acting on behalf of the Viet Cong, it seems a stretch to call him a traitor. Sure, the VC might have gotten some nice photo ops, but it wasn't like he sold them nukes or anything.

That doesn't mean he isn't an idiot. He is. He probably also broke a law or two; look at Bobby Fisher and some others who (by even spending money in Iraq during that silly human shield thing) were charged with breaking trade embargos of some sort.

Furt, I read the link, thanks. Some comments: First, "coerce" is a little strong; "coached" is how the soldier in the article puts it. Second, unless we came across tapes of the conversation between Pitkin and Kerry, it's difficult to validly assess things like how strong Kerry's urgings were, how forceful Pikin's denials of participation in atrocities were, and any other pertinent factors. Third, were all 100+ soldiers Kerry spoke to similarly coached? Or did they have real stories to tell? We know that atrocities were committed in Vietnam, after all (but then, why coach one soldier when you have so many other witnesses? hmm).

I'm very wary of the he said/she said dilemmas from 30 years ago. Ample research has shown that our memories are highly malleable, and time only worsens accurate retention (much less, interpretation of what was retained). Humans are also prone to exaggerate their experiences, especially in the retelling of stories (doubtless the source of some of Kerry's inventions), and it's hard to say definitively what is imagination and what is stretching the truth.

There may be something to this, though, especially if Pitkin's story reflects the experiences of others who also come forward.

Committing treason is breaking the law, but breaking the law is not necessarily committing treason. Kerry was never charged with treason. Perhaps he could have been, depending on how the Dept of Justice chose to interpret "aid and comfort," but it didn't happen. Perhaps you should read the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 104: (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl104.htm)

"Aiding the enemy"
“Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

John Kerry is "not guilty", but he is certainly not innocent of the charge.

Vietnam was a tragic piece of our histroy. Why dig up all this dirt now? Does anyone truely give a crap what someone did 30-40 years ago?
Did you watch the Democratic convention? We're talking about Vietnam because Kerry has made his 4 months in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. "Reporting for duty" is how he introduced himself at his convention. Kerry spent 19 years as a senator yet I would wager more people in the U.S. know more about his 4 months in Vietnam and his activities when he returned.

Third, were all 100+ soldiers Kerry spoke to similarly coached?
I don't know and honestly I don't see the number that he coached to lie as being particularly relevant. Isn't the fact that one person believes he was instructed/coached to lie by Kerry cause for alarm? Isn't Kerry's admission that he lied (exagerated) cause for alarm?

One perspective many of us lack is how destructive and harmful Kerry's actions were to Vietnam veterans and the war effort. Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam (1 year in S. Pacific), came home, and through now admitted exagerations and alleged coaching thoroughly trashed the reputations of soldiers still fighting in Vietnam on behalf of the country. Kerry's words were played to POWs held in Vietnam and were used to justify torture on POWs. Kerry now seeks to make his 4 months in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign and the sole reason you should elect him as President. Many vets are understandably furious by this action.

http://nationalreview.com/kob/obeirne200409100906.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/owens200404230859.asp

Decent editorials to give a little perspective on why Kerry's acts after he came back from Vietnam matter to people.

"For only the second time in our nation's history, the bitterness of a bloody, lost war will shadow national politics until generational replacement has removed all the brave soldiers who experienced the event first-hand,'' University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato says in his latest analysis of the 2004 campaign.

Intresting dilemma. Vote for the canidate who actually showed up for duty and made some very questionable decisions or the one who never even bothered to show up for a cushy stateside Air National Guard. Screw em both.

Maybe we need to find a thoughtful intellectual civilian canidate, if any exist these days, who has no ties with the Military or Big Business. At this point I would rather elect a college dean or someone with a PhD. Elect a philosopher and a scholar perhaps instead of a general, a corporate mogal, or a career politician. One can always hope. Anyway, here is an intresting read:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/25/MNGTI8DG0R17.DTL&type=printable

EDIT: Oh, and no I did not watch the Democratic National Convention. I don't have a subscription to cable TV in my barracks and rabbit ears don't help either. Sorry.

On the topic of Vietnam,

"We did not lose; we left."

Ask any veteran. Many feel this way, and it seems to me the best way to sum it all up.

I don't know and honestly I don't see the number that he coached to lie as being particularly relevant. It's relevant in reference to the truth of Kerry's testimony before Congress, but not to the ethical considerations of coaching.
Isn't the fact that one person believes he was instructed/coached to lie by Kerry cause for alarm? Isn't Kerry's admission that he lied (exagerated) cause for alarm? It's potentially a cause for alarm, sure. But because we do not know the context or content of the exchange between Kerry and Pitkin, we cannot accept the latter's claim as conclusive. It's an allegation open for substantiation if corroborative evidence surfaces (and which is almost impossible to disprove, short of retraction).