View Single Post
  #434  
Old July 18th 04, 10:58 PM
Bill Shatzer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that

encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,

and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.


How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?


Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphe
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours.


If you're speaking of "Hanoi Jane", it should be noted that Fonda's
North Vietnam visit came -after- the Kerry photo and, indeed, after
Kerry had broken with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

It would seem a bit much to expect him to make an accurate prediction
of her -future- actions.

And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone,


Is there any doubt at all that Americans were committing some
atrocities - or at least some pretty bad things - in the combat
zone?

What is the appropriate moral response when one has evidence of
such things? Indeed, what is the appropriate patriotic response
when one has evidence of such things?

Somehow, being a good German doesn't seem the correct response.

or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.


My goodness! Whoever claimed -other- than that it was "staged".

It was a demonstration and a photo-op for gawd sakes. Everything
was "staged" in the sense that it was organized and choreographed
in advance.

One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.


He was, as you correctly noted, speaking against "atrocities", not
folks "honorably following orders".

Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.


He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
choosen the WRONG conflict.

And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.


That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops wer
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south


Wasn't that just about the time Dewey Canyon II and Lam Son 719 were
ongoing? And the notorious Cambodian invasion was but nine or ten
months in the past?

US forces had been largely, though not entirely, withdrawn from aggressive
search and destroy ground missions by mid-71 but there were a lot of
aviation companies, artillery units, engineering battalions, and the
like still providing active combat support to the ARVN units. And lots
of PBI-types still taking significant casualties. Certainly to claim that
the "only major combat troops were air units" overstates the case by
quite a bit.

so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal
political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.


Well, perhaps. But certainly the more useful tact for a decorated
war hero to take were he concerned about politics would NOT have
been active opposition to the war. You can certainly raise more
campaign contributions at the local VFW hall than at any number of
VVAW rallies populated by folks in tie-dye and wearing beads.

Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"