Kerry demands equal time on Sinclair broadcast

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 17 2004, 10:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 17 2004, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 17 2004, 10:25 PM
They were anti-war protesters together.

Rogue,
I mentioned wrong, i meant to say that it was O'Neils opinion instead of CNN.

I wasn't even alive during the Vietnam War but i still believe that from what i have read that Kerry demoralized the troops even more because at home yes of course the country was against the war, but when someone that has been there comes home and gives evidence ( or lies) of what is happening that, to me strikes at the moral of the troops even more.

And if he had the balls to do it, why didn't he do it where it really counted, in Vietnam, why come home where he knows he'll get full support?

Yes it takes a man to stand up and do what he did, but he wasn't man enough to do it himself.

And i never said anything about Bush or Cheney so i don't know where you're getting that from.

Millions of people were anti-war protesters. Jane Fonda included.

Tens of thousands of veterans spoke out against the war.

He was a regular veteran with an opinion. It seems that he was a little too articulate and people actually listened to him.

And if he had the balls to do it, why didn't he do it where it really counted, in Vietnam, why come home where he knows he'll get full support?

Full support? Learn a little man. I wasn't alive at the time either but sheesh, don't you know anything about it? Go to your library or at least get a free membership to Blockbuster.

Yes it takes a man to stand up and do what he did, but he wasn't man enough to do it himself.

Interesting argument. So he was man enough to voice his opinion, but not man enough to voice his opinion? Okay. In other news, it's snowing outside, but it's not snowing.

And i never said anything about Bush or Cheney so i don't know where you're getting that from.

Fair enough. It is obvious you don't think Kerry is fit to be President and I assumed you feel George Bush is. I was wrong. Why do you like Nader? [/b][/quote]
First of all, yes there were thousands of anti-war protesters, but none made Vietnam so public as Kerry did.

The only reason i'm talking about Fonda is because she apologized for her actions against the troops in Vietnam and Kerry hasn't, why? Because it could turn the election completely around. I believe he will eventually apologize if he loses the race.

With full support i mean that he knew he had thousands of people backing him up so literally anything he would say goes as truth to the protesters because of course he was there.

And with being a man to stand up for it himself, i think its clear what i mean, he did it at home where he knew nobody would downplay him, at home where he knew that there were millions of people that would support him, at home where he wouldn't get court marshalled. Of course he could have done it in Vietnam and if it was true what he was saying he would have made even more of a statement.

And no i don't like any of the candidates especially not Nader, but if i had to choose i would certainly go with Bush.

[sjwalter]

And regarding what the original post by Cowperson was about, why does Kerry think he needs to get equal time? Does he think his demands have to be met or else? Should Bush also demand that the papers that endorse Kerry also give equal endorsement to Bush? Because thats all this is, an endorsement to Bush only on Television.

Kerry should stop complaining about "getting equal time" on a broadcast obviously owned by a Bush supporter. I don't recall ever hearing Bush complain about not getting equal endorsement from someone who has already endoresed Kerry. Kerry has celebrities that support him, why don't they help him get a station or company to play his movie on?

[RougeUnderoos]

Geez and I thought this one had died.

Actually, I said there were millions of people against the war. Millions, not thousands. Thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of vets were against the war. You seem to be arguing that Kerry should have kept his mouth shut because he was smart/well-spoken and people would listen to him. Also, you are giving him way, waaaay too much credit. If he hadn't said his piece, someone else would have.

As an aside, I think he's said his use of the word "atrocities" was extreme and maybe not the best word to use.

And with being a man to stand up for it himself, i think its clear what i mean, he did it at home where he knew nobody would downplay him, at home where he knew that there were millions of people that would support him, at home where he wouldn't get court marshalled. Of course he could have done it in Vietnam and if it was true what he was saying he would have made even more of a statement.

It's often not clear what you mean. It still isn't. He testified before the US Senate, which is rather difficult to do in Viet Nam. He's admitted to his own guilt and role in certain events. I know it's a hard concept for some to accept, but recognizing mistakes and past failures (personal/political) is not a character flaw. That is what he did -- he saw that things were going wrong, he accepted his own role in it, and then said "this has to stop".

You yak on and on about what a traitor Kerry is and how he destroyed morale and this and that and then you say "but I'd choose Bush". I'm no expert on troop morale in Viet Nam, but it would be interesting to hear what they thought of rich, beer swilling frat boys who not only dodged the draft but didn't even keep up their end of the bargain and protect the dangerous skies over Georgia.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 18 2004, 06:17 PM
Geez and I thought this one had died.

Actually, I said there were millions of people against the war. Millions, not thousands. Thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of vets were against the war. You seem to be arguing that Kerry should have kept his mouth shut because he was smart/well-spoken and people would listen to him. Also, you are giving him way, waaaay too much credit. If he hadn't said his piece, someone else would have.

As an aside, I think he's said his use of the word "atrocities" was extreme and maybe not the best word to use.

And with being a man to stand up for it himself, i think its clear what i mean, he did it at home where he knew nobody would downplay him, at home where he knew that there were millions of people that would support him, at home where he wouldn't get court marshalled. Of course he could have done it in Vietnam and if it was true what he was saying he would have made even more of a statement.

It's often not clear what you mean. It still isn't. He testified before the US Senate, which is rather difficult to do in Viet Nam. He's admitted to his own guilt and role in certain events. I know it's a hard concept for some to accept, but recognizing mistakes and past failures (personal/political) is not a character flaw. That is what he did -- he saw that things were going wrong, he accepted his own role in it, and then said "this has to stop".

You yak on and on about what a traitor Kerry is and how he destroyed morale and this and that and then you say "but I'd choose Bush". I'm no expert on troop morale in Viet Nam, but it would be interesting to hear what they thought of rich, beer swilling frat boys who not only dodged the draft but didn't even keep up their end of the bargain and protect the dangerous skies over Georgia.

Kerry would have made twice the statement if he would have done it in Vietnam, but instead he carried out the same atrocitites that he accused others off.

The only thing that will end this will be when Kerry apologizes for what he said.


As an aside, I think he's said his use of the word "atrocities" was extreme and maybe not the best word to use.

You have a link to that, or are you trying to help Kerry away? He himself said he commited the atrocities, but when you get to talking about them Kerry then backs off and says well maybe it wasn't that serious. Another flip flop if its true.

[RougeUnderoos]

I gotta admit, you are making me feel a little like the messageboard version of the "dupe" on a hidden camera show.

Anyhow, in the interests of fun...

This past weekend, Kerry said that his use of the word "atrocity" in a 1971 interview was "inappropriate," and he added that he never intended to cast a negative light on the sailors with whom he served.


Look familiar? It should, considering it comes from a link you supplied yesterday. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...erry.military/

Again -- you are badmouthing him about what he said in the United States Senate and saying he should have done it in Viet Nam. The United States Senate is in the United States.

You continually try to pull some version of "the old switcheroo". One of your points gets shot down so you ignore that and try some other tack. You say Kerry should apologize and I say "he has admitted that using the word atrocity was wrong" and suddenly that is evidence of flip-flopping.

Re: Flip-flopping -- like I said earlier, changing your mind/strategy on the basis of actual evidence is not a character flaw. It's the sign of not being a child. Sticking with a strategy or a course of action that is obviously not working is not something to be admired.

[sjwalter]

Alright Kerry said the word was bad to use, but he still hasn't apologized.

IMO saying the word was bad to use takes some pressure off of him, because he himself said he commited the same things, but of course now they aren't atrocities.

And i'm not saying he shouldn't have stood before the US Senate, but he should have stood before them after refusing to carry out the atrocities that other troops were. He would have made twice the statement then.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 18 2004, 08:16 PM
This past weekend, Kerry said that his use of the word "atrocity" in a 1971 interview was "inappropriate," and he added that he never intended to cast a negative light on the sailors with whom he served.

He never intended to cast negative light on the sailors with whom he served? What the hell was he thinking his remarks were going to do, make them hero's?

Poor comeback for him especially at this time after making the families of those sailors live in the the negative light he indeed did cast on the sailors.

He is one step farther, now he needs to apologize publicly.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 18 2004, 09:37 PM
Alright Kerry said the word was bad to use, but he still hasn't apologized.

IMO saying the word was bad to use takes some pressure off of him, because he himself said he commited the same things, but of course now they aren't atrocities.

And i'm not saying he shouldn't have stood before the US Senate, but he should have stood before them after refusing to carry out the atrocities that other troops were. He would have made twice the statement then.

Okay let me get this straight -- he should apologize for saying that atrocities were being committed, and when I use the very link you yourself provided as proof that he has done this, he's just taking heat off himself?

You want him to say "there were not atrocities" and if he does then it's just a personal cop-out.

And again -- it's been explained to you repeatedly -- he was not weaseling out of anything. He was admitting his own guilt and he was saying "terrible things are going on in Viet Nam, I was part of it, I saw it with my own eyes, we have to get out of there because American soldiers are dying and it is a mistake".

He was right. What he said was the truth. Get it? He was not wrong. What he said was happening was actually happening. It's been proven. There were atrocities. They ended the war because it was a mistake. You want him to apologize for being correct.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 18 2004, 08:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 18 2004, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 18 2004, 09:37 PM
Alright Kerry said the word was bad to use, but he still hasn't apologized.

IMO saying the word was bad to use takes some pressure off of him, because he himself said he commited the same things, but of course now they aren't atrocities.

And i'm not saying he shouldn't have stood before the US Senate, but he should have stood before them after refusing to carry out the atrocities that other troops were. He would have made twice the statement then.

Okay let me get this straight -- he should apologize for saying that atrocities were being committed, and when I use the very link you yourself provided as proof that he has done this, he's just taking heat off himself?

You want him to say "there were not atrocities" and if he does then it's just a personal cop-out.

And again -- it's been explained to you repeatedly -- he was not weaseling out of anything. He was admitting his own guilt and he was saying "terrible things are going on in Viet Nam, I was part of it, I saw it with my own eyes, we have to get out of there because American soldiers are dying and it is a mistake".

He was right. What he said was the truth. Get it? He was not wrong. What he said was happening was actually happening. It's been proven. There were atrocities. They ended the war because it was a mistake. You want him to apologize for being correct. [/b][/quote]
Where's it been proven that what he said was correct?

IMO he lied, thats why i want him to apologize.

Jane Fonda apologized, so obviously something the anti-war protesters were saying was wrong.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 18 2004, 09:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 18 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Okay let me get this straight -- he should apologize for saying that atrocities were being committed, and when I use the very link you yourself provided as proof that he has done this, he's just taking heat off himself?

You want him to say "there were not atrocities" and if he does then it's just a personal cop-out.

And again -- it's been explained to you repeatedly -- he was not weaseling out of anything. He was admitting his own guilt and he was saying "terrible things are going on in Viet Nam, I was part of it, I saw it with my own eyes, we have to get out of there because American soldiers are dying and it is a mistake".

He was right. What he said was the truth. Get it? He was not wrong. What he said was happening was actually happening. It's been proven. There were atrocities. They ended the war because it was a mistake. You want him to apologize for being correct.

Where's it been proven that what he said was correct?

IMO he lied, thats why i want him to apologize.

Jane Fonda apologized, so obviously something the anti-war protesters were saying was wrong. [/b][/quote]
Come on now -- everyone knows that atrocities took place and most everyone will agree that the war was a mistake for America.

You want him to apologize for a lie -- what specifically was the lie? Maybe he should apologize for the timing of his comments (I disagree) but what lies did he tell?

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 18 2004, 09:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 18 2004, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Where's it been proven that what he said was correct?

IMO he lied, thats why i want him to apologize.

Jane Fonda apologized, so obviously something the anti-war protesters were saying was wrong.

Come on now -- everyone knows that atrocities took place and most everyone will agree that the war was a mistake for America.

You want him to apologize for a lie -- what specifically was the lie? Maybe he should apologize for the timing of his comments (I disagree) but what lies did he tell? [/b][/quote]
No not everyone knows the atrocities were being carried out. I wonder why there are people opposing Kerry.

Prove to me that they were carried out. Because there is certainly proof that he was lying be it viable or not.

[sjwalter]

I don't think the war was bad for America, only bad for the sense that it was dividing the nation back home.

The war was started to stop the spread of communism, and i don't see communism affectiong us today.

[RougeUnderoos]

Heyhey -- two for one.

No not everyone knows the atrocities were being carried out. I wonder why there are people opposing Kerry.

Okay, let me clarify. Everyone but you knows atrocities occurred.

Prove to me that they were carried out. Because there is certainly proof that he was lying be it viable or not.

You are going to hafta go back and and edit that one. It seems you are saying "there's proof he was lying, even if the proof is not actually proof".

II don't think the war was bad for America, only bad for the sense that it was dividing the nation back home.

The war was started to stop the spread of communism, and i don't see communism affectiong us today.

Hmm. They lost the war, 57 000 soldiers died, 250 000 were wounded, and it was good for America? You are a hell of an optimist, I'll give you that.

The war was started (ostensibly) to stop the spread of communism, but they lost the war, and communism spread. It wasn't a high point for the US in the Cold War. Don't try to paint it as such.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 18 2004, 09:59 PM
Heyhey -- two for one.

No not everyone knows the atrocities were being carried out. I wonder why there are people opposing Kerry.

Okay, let me clarify. Everyone but you knows atrocities occurred.

Prove to me that they were carried out. Because there is certainly proof that he was lying be it viable or not.

You are going to hafta go back and and edit that one. It seems you are saying "there's proof he was lying, even if the proof is not actually proof".

II don't think the war was bad for America, only bad for the sense that it was dividing the nation back home.

The war was started to stop the spread of communism, and i don't see communism affectiong us today.

Hmm. They lost the war, 57 000 soldiers died, 250 000 were wounded, and it was good for America? You are a hell of an optimist, I'll give you that.

The war was started (ostensibly) to stop the spread of communism, but they lost the war, and communism spread. It wasn't a high point for the US in the Cold War. Don't try to paint it as such.

First of all, there has certainly been enough statements from many veterens to say that the atrocities that Kerry was talking about were lies. There is support among veterens saying the he was lying.

Question is, why don't i see anyone else supporting Kerry in his claim that the atrocities were carried out? Yes he has veterens supporting him but to my knowledge they have never mentioned Kerry's accusations against those he served with.

And everyone but me knows that the atrocities were carried out? Did everyone serve in Vietnam, did everyone see them being preformed? Too my knowledge only Kerry was the one accusing the troops of preforming them. The atrocities have been called lies more then they have been verified as truth and you said yourself that Kerry backed down from using the word. IMO maybe they weren't attrocities.

And would you call 400,000 dead in World War 2 a loss? No because we took power away from Hitler. Had the US been able to finish their job in Vietnam then the war wouldn't be looked upon with such grim being as it is. Same goes for Iraq, who's to say Iraq can't be cleaned up with the continuation of American presense?

The war was started to stop communism, had the troops be allowed to stay there it would have stopped the spread or at least helped it. Instead IMO Kerry allowed communism to continue to spread throughout the world where it eventually brought us to the brink of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. You said yourself Kerry helped stop the war, and he did with his accusations and statements before Congress. And then you also said that the US lost the War. How did they lose it, well mainly because the lack of support back home pressured the goverment to bring the troops home. And who helped pressure the governemt? Kerry did as he was one of the anti-war protesters. And even though it might be a wild connection, IMO Kerry helped allow communism to spread by complaining about the war.

[dangler22]

[FlamesAddiction]

The closest we ever were to nuclear war was smack dab in the middle of the Vietnam war, and arguable partially because of the Vietnam war.

On atrocities in Vietnam:

Sure a lot of soldiers are going to deny it. Many are too ashamed, or do not believe what they did was an atrocity. For every soldier who denies it, I'm sure you can find one who doesn't. It's all heresay.

What did Kerry have to gain by making it public anyway? If anything, he was risking a lot of trouble.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 19 2004, 04:23 PM
The closest we ever were to nuclear war was smack dab in the middle of the Vietnam war, and arguable partially because of the Vietnam war.

On atrocities in Vietnam:

Sure a lot of soldier are going to deny it.# Many are too ashamed, or do not believe what they did was an atrocity.# For every soldier who denies it, I'm sure you can find one who doesn't.# It's all heresay.#

What did Kerry have to gain by making it public anyway?# If anything, he was risking a lot of trouble.

The closest we ever were to nuclear war was smack dab in the middle of the Vietnam war, and arguable partially because of the Vietnam war.

It was? Do not tell me that the tensions between the US and the Soviet Union in 1982 and the warheads being transported into Cuba was all for not? And when JFK told the Soviet Union to back down, and the nation was on standby for 13 days, that wasn't close to nuclear war?

The 13 days that shocked the world wasn't close to Nuclear War?

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/NC/nuchis.html

The history and events of nuclear warfare, i don't see Vietnam mentioned once.

The Cuban Missle Crisis?

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/coldwar/source.htm

Watch the movie 13 Days.

Sure a lot of soldier are going to deny it. Many are too ashamed, or do not believe what they did was an atrocity. For every soldier who denies it, I'm sure you can find one who doesn't. It's all heresay.
If you can find one who admits too it, how come there haven't not been more that have stood by Kerry's accusations against his fellow troops? Kerry said it was an atrocity, WHILE UNDER OATH. Does this mean when others believe what they did wasn't an atrocity that Kerry lied under Oath?

I do realize that some vets do support Kerry with his campaign but they never said they supported what he said in 1971.

You see where i'm getting my idea from that Kerry is a lier and i want him to apologize.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 19 2004, 11:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 19 2004, 11:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Oct 19 2004, 04:23 PM
The closest we ever were to nuclear war was smack dab in the middle of the Vietnam war, and arguable partially because of the Vietnam war.

On atrocities in Vietnam:

Sure a lot of soldier are going to deny it.# Many are too ashamed, or do not believe what they did was an atrocity.# For every soldier who denies it, I'm sure you can find one who doesn't.# It's all heresay.#

What did Kerry have to gain by making it public anyway?# If anything, he was risking a lot of trouble.

The closest we ever were to nuclear war was smack dab in the middle of the Vietnam war, and arguable partially because of the Vietnam war.

It was? Do not tell me that the tensions between the US and the Soviet Union and the warheads being transported into Cuba was all for not? And when JFK told the Soviet Union to back down, and the nation was on standby for 13 days, that wasn't close to nuclear war?

The Cuban Missle Crisis?

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/coldwar/source.htm

[/b][/quote]
Yeah thanks. I'm aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I should have said at the beginning of the Vietnam War.

The Cuban missile crisis occurred when the U.S. was building up troops in Vietnam. Cuba strengthened it's military alliance with the Soviets partially in response to the military build up in Vietnam.

So I stand by what I said.

And btw, I won't watch the movie "13 Days" because it is biased towards the American perspective, and unless I can see a movie showing the Cuban and Soviet perspective, then I refuse. :P

[FlamesAddiction]

Atrocities did occur in Vietnam:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=3872071

http://www.g0lem.net/PhpWiki/index.p...tnamAtrocities

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...FORCE/409050410

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/87856.php

http://web.archive.org/web/19990508155018/...lai/mylaihp.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/...mylai/64344.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/04/25/n..._KERREY_00.html

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010507/cover.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/05/01/...ain288832.shtml

The fact is, massacres and atrocities did occur in Vietnam. It is well known. Are you still sure Kerry is a lier(sic)?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 19 2004, 05:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 19 2004, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 18 2004, 09:59 PM
Heyhey -- two for one.

No not everyone knows the atrocities were being carried out. I wonder why there are people opposing Kerry.

Okay, let me clarify. Everyone but you knows atrocities occurred.

Prove to me that they were carried out. Because there is certainly proof that he was lying be it viable or not.

You are going to hafta go back and and edit that one. It seems you are saying "there's proof he was lying, even if the proof is not actually proof".

II don't think the war was bad for America, only bad for the sense that it was dividing the nation back home.

The war was started to stop the spread of communism, and i don't see communism affectiong us today.

Hmm. They lost the war, 57 000 soldiers died, 250 000 were wounded, and it was good for America? You are a hell of an optimist, I'll give you that.

The war was started (ostensibly) to stop the spread of communism, but they lost the war, and communism spread. It wasn't a high point for the US in the Cold War. Don't try to paint it as such.

First of all, there has certainly been enough statements from many veterens to say that the atrocities that Kerry was talking about were lies. There is support among veterens saying the he was lying.

Question is, why don't i see anyone else supporting Kerry in his claim that the atrocities were carried out? Yes he has veterens supporting him but to my knowledge they have never mentioned Kerry's accusations against those he served with.

And everyone but me knows that the atrocities were carried out? Did everyone serve in Vietnam, did everyone see them being preformed? Too my knowledge only Kerry was the one accusing the troops of preforming them. The atrocities have been called lies more then they have been verified as truth and you said yourself that Kerry backed down from using the word. IMO maybe they weren't attrocities.

And would you call 400,000 dead in World War 2 a loss? No because we took power away from Hitler. Had the US been able to finish their job in Vietnam then the war wouldn't be looked upon with such grim being as it is. Same goes for Iraq, who's to say Iraq can't be cleaned up with the continuation of American presense?

The war was started to stop communism, had the troops be allowed to stay there it would have stopped the spread or at least helped it. Instead IMO Kerry allowed communism to continue to spread throughout the world where it eventually brought us to the brink of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. You said yourself Kerry helped stop the war, and he did with his accusations and statements before Congress. And then you also said that the US lost the War. How did they lose it, well mainly because the lack of support back home pressured the goverment to bring the troops home. And who helped pressure the governemt? Kerry did as he was one of the anti-war protesters. And even though it might be a wild connection, IMO Kerry helped allow communism to spread by complaining about the war. [/b][/quote]
You keep hammering away at his Senate appearance, but it seems you don't even know what he said. Look it up.

Anyway, atrocities were committed in Viet Nam. It happened. Rapes, massacres, beheadings, you name it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam...hes/mylai.html
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/...reher_Rape.html
http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1.htm

It's common knowledge. That war went on a long time. To believe that American soldiers didn't do nasty things is to ignore the obvious. It happens every time, in every war, with every army. So when Kerry said atrocities were being committed, he was right.

As for the war as a whole, they lost it because it was a mistake from the get-go. That's why it's such a contentious issue today. Trying to compare it to WWII is just silliness.

Like I said above, if John Kerry was as influential as you think he is, he would have been President years ago.

Instead IMO Kerry allowed communism to continue to spread throughout the world where it eventually brought us to the brink of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Come on, now you are just being crazy. What do you think, he's some kind of superhero and he would have stopped Communism if he'd just held onto his gun and kept his mouth shut?

And even though it might be a wild connection, IMO Kerry helped allow communism to spread by complaining about the war.

It's not a "wild connection", it's a stupid connection.