Kerry demands equal time on Sinclair broadcast

[RougeUnderoos]

Since you are offering up mainstream Hollywood movies for our education, I'll start a list for you...

1. Apocalypse Now
2. The Deer Hunter
3. Full Metal Jacket
4. Platoon
5. Hamburger Hill

People on both sides did terrible things.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 04:40 PM
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.

John Kerry never lied.

The incidents he referred to in his testimony undoubtedly occured. The My Lai Massacre is just one example. A photo of a Vietmanese mother trying to shield her doughter from American soldiers oments before both were killed was chosen by LIFE magazine as one of the 100 Photographs that Changed the World.

Kerry may now say he regrets characterizing the acts as atrocities, but that doesn't make his testimony lies.

For that matter, how would you characterize what happened in My Lai?

[sjwalter]

I agree that the atrocities happened, but i wouldn't call them atrocities, rather as one poster mentioned things that happen in every war. I still don't think Kerry told the truth as he explained the atrocities. Why would he go back on the word after saying if under oath? Every war has involved the death of innocent citizens, Vietnam was no different.

Kerry and communism, believe what you want there is a connection.
Kerry Opposes Bush's plan to end communism in Cuba
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../7/155730.shtml

Does he support the country that was an ally to the most evil empire the world had ever known, the Soviet Union, and the country that helped the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports....E20040401a.html

Still nothing to do with communism?

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpa...e=EdgeofTreason

He meets with the Viet Cong leaders, but still has nothing to do with communism?

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/art...pr/oct243.html

He downplays the threats of communism, so of course the Cuban Missle Crisis had no effect throughout the world right? Does downplaying communism mean that he supported it?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=14416

His slogan is referred back to leftist wing supporters of Stalin or Marx, the fathers of communism, but of course he had nothing to do with communism right?

http://www.americandaily.com/article/199

His words are more closely involved with America's enemies then they are with those that support America, yet he never supported communism right?

Do not tell me Kerry had nothing to do with communism. He said himself he met with communism Viet Cong leaders, and found no fault in them.

Found no fault in the people that slaughtered the French sent into try to create peace. And when the US stepped into Vietnam to train the South Vietnamese troops for physcological warfare not committing itself to war but helping to South stop the spread of communism, the communist North were the first to attack. Lyndon B. Johnson committed the US mostly to war after the death of an estimated 100 American troops, by who? Those that Kerry downplayed saying that there was no threat in communism. So in fact the US never started the war, they were sent in to finish it for the French who couldn't do it themselves. Sent in to stop communism from spreading to other nations after China became communsim in 1949, and Vietnam was saw as a place to do that.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

Of course if JFK would have listened to what Kerry said, or even thought like Kerry did, who knows the Cuban Missle Crisis might indeed have turned into a Crisis. If Reagan would have listened to Kerry, the Soviet Union would still be standing today because of course "communism is no threat."

Kerry said that himself, and he was involved with communism after he came back from the War he admitted it.

For that matter, how would you characterize what happened in My Lai?
I would call that an act of war, because those things have happened in every war throughtout World History. This time is no different except for the fact it was actually made public.

Don't tell me that these things didn't happen in the World Wars, they did only the media never got their hands on the photo's and facts.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 19 2004, 04:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 19 2004, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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

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 [/b][/quote]
Is there another prespective?

What you said reminds me of someone i know......that would probably be me eh?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 11:11 PM
I agree that the atrocities happened, but i wouldn't call them atrocities, rather as one poster mentioned things that happen in every war. IVwould he go back on the word after saying if under oath? Every war has involved the death of innocent citizens, Vietnam was no different.

You have really got to learn not to contradict yourself.

You agree that atrocities happened, but they weren't atrocities.

I'd hate to go up against you in a coin toss.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 19 2004, 11:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 19 2004, 11:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I agree that the atrocities happened, but i wouldn't call them atrocities, rather as one poster mentioned things that happen in every war. [/b]

Does that make them okay though? You think if this is happening in Iraq it'll help with the whole process of democratization? Abu Gharab sure didn't help America's cause too much. Not to mention this is the stuff that's supposed to be put to an end when a country like America takes over a country like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

<!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter

Don't tell me that these things didn't happen in the World Wars, they did only the media never got their hands on the photo's and facts.
[/quote]
Could it not also be true then that perhaps the media never got their hands on all the photo's and facts regarding atrocities commited in Vietnam?

[badnarik]

i think its a bit naive to think none of these things ever happened before abu ghraib.

the difference is the media

i can't imagine what cable television would have looked like if it had existed during ww2 where 50 million people were killed

wowowowo 50 million? a few thousand is just a nuisance

[Cowperson]

I didn't see the attached story in this thread so I assume the crowd hadn't noticed Sinclair is apparently bowing somewhat to the pressure on broadcast the full anti-Kerry film.

Money talks. Shareholders of Sinclair and journalists have successfully pressured for changes to the format that will be broadcast.

On Tuesday, the Sinclair plan was partly responsible for threats of legal action from some shareholders. They're upset about a sharp drop in the company's stock, which they say was partially due to the controversy over Stolen Honor. Sinclair's stock closed Tuesday at $6.26. It has fallen more than 50% this year.

Sinclair executives were warned by the company's journalists Sunday that the program would have to be about more than Stolen Honor if the company wanted to protect its credibility. Reporters and editors at Sinclair's headquarters are now in charge of producing the program, which will air on most Sinclair stations at 7 or 8 p.m. (local times) Friday.

Leiberman said Tuesday that he is convinced Sinclair also altered its plans because of outside pressure. Sinclair executives did not respond to interview requests Tuesday.

An interesting story:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...erry-film_x.htm

Cowperson

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 19 2004, 10:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 19 2004, 10:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 11:11 PM
I agree that the atrocities happened, but i wouldn't call them atrocities, rather as one poster mentioned things that happen in every war.# IVwould he go back on the word after saying if under oath?# Every war has involved the death of innocent citizens, Vietnam was no different.

You have really got to learn not to contradict yourself.

You agree that atrocities happened, but they weren't atrocities.

I'd hate to go up against you in a coin toss. [/b][/quote]
I have never said that i didn't believe innocent civilians were killed. They were, but the thing i disgree with is that these killings were called atrocities. Its what happens in every way, and God forbid the American people if the media would have gotten their hands on World War 2 footage of Hitler killing all the innocents.

i think its a bit naive to think none of these things ever happened before abu ghraib.

the difference is the media

i can't imagine what cable television would have looked like if it had existed during ww2 where 50 million people were killed

wowowowo 50 million? a few thousand is just a nuisance
The media had way too much of a part to play in Vietnam. Todays wars that are being faught are all media wars and in many cases IMO it prevents the military from doing their job the real way.

Does that make them okay though? You think if this is happening in Iraq it'll help with the whole process of democratization? Abu Gharab sure didn't help America's cause too much. Not to mention this is the stuff that's supposed to be put to an end when a country like America takes over a country like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Of course it doesn't make them okay. But is there any other way? Saddam was killing more people then the US Military ever will and being diplomatic wouldn't work either, because Bush clearly gave him a deadline to get out of Iraq. Saddam has more crimes against humanity then can be charged for, thats precisly why he is out of power.

Could it not also be true then that perhaps the media never got their hands on all the photo's and facts regarding atrocities commited in Vietnam?
So you're saying that no one has facts that the atrocities were committed? I agree, there are no facts to prove that the "atrocities" were actually carried out.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 20 2004, 05:17 AM
Is there another prespective?

There is always another perspective.

The U.S. was piling missiles into similarily aligned countries around the world before the Soviets ever put them in Cuba. Ask people who lived Soviet Republics at the time if they liked having U.S. missiles in neighbouring countires pointed right at them. Whether or not their fears can be legitimized in hindsight is arguable, but at the time, they were just as scared as Americans were during the Cuban missile crisis. Nobody knew the Americans wouldn't strike first. They were just as paranoid. When it came to foreign policies, the east and west blocs were doing essentially the same things. Do you think it made them safe to see the U.S. piling troops into Vietnam?

If anything, the Cold War prolonged totalitarian communism in the east by uniting people in fear. When people are afraid, they are more likely to tolerate government oppression and corruption. Funny thing is, exactly the same thing (uniting by fear) is happening today between muslim countries and the west thanks to religious fanatics and neocons on both sides.

[Lurch]

At what point is a thread officially declared pointless??? I love debating small, insignificant points as much as anyone, but when "Kerry is a Communist" is actually put forward as a serious assertion, come on. This has degenerated well below grade school level.

And yes, like Sideshow Bob, I recognize the irony of participating in this thread in order to decry it!

[dangler22]

SJwalter it is hard to take your arguments seriously because your view is made up of distorted history(heavily slanted towards the american viewpoint). Not to mention your whole ideology is quite frankly eurocentric. I urge you to pick up a textbook and study communism, capitalism and the cold war obejectively and get the even side of the picture. Right now all I am hearing is uncle sams view and there are always two sides to every story.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

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.

And there has been as many statements from veterans supporting Kerry's statements. What you have to understand is that there are some very bitter Viet Nam veterans out there that lash out at anyone who dare speak against the effort in Viet Nam. When I lived in Florida I worked with and became very good friends with a Vietnamese gentleman who was a tunnel rat for the Americans during the war. He told me stories than made me lose my appetite. This was from a very peaceful man who had no axe to grind with anyone and loved America. He (correctly) reasoned that it was war and you have to do terrible things during war. I agree with that sentiment and believe that things which happen during the war should die with the war. Once the mourning period ends the war should be buried along with the dead. Those that keep bringing it up, Kerry included, are wrong IMO. You never allow a wound to heal if you keep picking the scab off.

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.

There were plenty of people who supported the claim that attrocities were taking place. Thousands of vets came back and joined the protests. And I'm not talking about embittered vets with an axe to grind, but guys who went, fought and realized the war was unjust. This is a highly respected group that was at the protest gig long before John Kerry came along.

Vietnam Vets Against War

I know you like to watch movies to get your sense of history, so try "Born on the 4th of July".

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.

I think that its already been shown that Kerry was not the only one supporting this view.

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?

WWII was a war to stop agression. It was not a battle of ideologies (not initially). People disagreed with the Nazi ideal, but the war was not launched to change the belief of those in power. That is the difference between WWII and the other engagements you discuss. Ideology and regime change has been the primary motivator of the engagements in Vietnam and Iraq.

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.

You have very screwed up views in regards to Kerry's protest of the war. Are you saying that everyone who protested the war was supporting communism? You need to understand how the Vietnam war affected the nation and ripped it up. It was not a good time for the country.

I also think you do not really have a good grasp on the Vietnam war, and that's because of your age. America did not know how to fight a war in this type of terrain and their tactics we not effective. They had to learn how to fight in this theatre all over again, and took serious casualties because of it. The protest did nothing to hurt the war from a military perspective. The flow of bodies continued and the flow of weapons continued. The thing that really hurt the war effort was the fact that it was run from an office in Washington rather than by a General on the ground. This is the same reason why Iraq has been a failure as well. The military are being directed from an office rather than from a command center.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 20 2004, 05:11 AM
A whole bunch of links...

Dude, you have fallen into a very easy trap when trying to post support to your side of an argument. You've posted some links to some very unreputable sites that are recognized for their bias (a good clue here for you in the future is that if there is a promotional link to the "conservative\liberal book store", they are not credible and have a serious bias). Its tough to find quality support to an argument without envoking bad material, but you have to do just that. Wade through the garbage and find the stuff that is good. Don't worry, we all get burned on posting bad supporting docs from time to time, it happens to the best of us.

On to the jest of your post. Kerry is not a communist, nor does he believe in the communist idea. Now many conservatives would like you to believe this, and will promote this until the cows come home (don't be waiting up for Cowperson though, he parties late) because of the paranoia in the United States regarding communism. The hope is that people will believe this BS and that it will sway their votes. Only the incredibly dumb would believe this line of reasoning. Now you're young and probably haven't been exposed to the two sides of the battle and are not familiar with the "junk" on both sides of the argument. You get a pass in this regard for the time being and will have to do your homework to get up to speed on this. The fact is that Kerry is slightly left of the center line for American politics does not make him a communist. It just means that he has a belief in social balance for the nation, and believes the government can provide regulation to facilitate that. Nothing he has said, that has not been twisted beyond belief, says otherwise and does not make him a Marxist. Time to hit the books.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 20 2004, 07:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 20 2004, 07:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Does that make them okay though? You think if this is happening in Iraq it'll help with the whole process of democratization? Abu Gharab sure didn't help America's cause too much. Not to mention this is the stuff that's supposed to be put to an end when a country like America takes over a country like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Of course it doesn't make them okay. But is there any other way? Saddam was killing more people then the US Military ever will and being diplomatic wouldn't work either, because Bush clearly gave him a deadline to get out of Iraq. Saddam has more crimes against humanity then can be charged for, thats precisly why he is out of power.
[/b]

Any other way? I might be misunderstanding you here, but how but not committing atrocities and war crimes? That seems like a viable alternative to me.

And I realize what Saddam has done is not even comparable to what has gone on (Abu Gharab) and what may be going on. But I get the impression here that your saying that because what Saddam did was way worse, it justifies what might be going on now. That's like saying some kid was getting beaten up everyday at school by a bully but then a new bully came, ousted the old one, and instead of beating the crap out of the kid just smacked him in the face once in awhile. Better compared to the old bully, but not that good by itself.

<!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter

Could it not also be true then that perhaps the media never got their hands on all the photo's and facts regarding atrocities commited in Vietnam?
So you're saying that no one has facts that the atrocities were committed? I agree, there are no facts to prove that the "atrocities" were actually carried out.
[/quote]
That's not at all what i'm saying, you've made quite a stretch here. You stated that these types of things happened in WWII just that they weren't really made that public. So i'm basically restating what you said, just replacing 'WWII' with 'Vietnam'. Proof of atrocities has already been posted in this thread and i'm merely raising the point that perhaps more stuff went on in Vietnam than we've seen, just that it was never made public...

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 20 2004, 07:46 AM
At what point is a thread officially declared pointless??? I love debating small, insignificant points as much as anyone, but when "Kerry is a Communist" is actually put forward as a serious assertion, come on. This has degenerated well below grade school level.

And yes, like Sideshow Bob, I recognize the irony of participating in this thread in order to decry it!

Did i say he was communist? No i just pointed out how we was linked to it. This is a thread about Kerry, i try to imply what he did wrong throughout his history, simply because i am against him.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by dangler22@Oct 20 2004, 07:56 AM
SJwalter it is hard to take your arguments seriously because your view is made up of distorted history(heavily slanted towards the american viewpoint). Not to mention your whole ideology is quite frankly eurocentric. I urge you to pick up a textbook and study communism, capitalism and the cold war obejectively and get the even side of the picture. Right now all I am hearing is uncle sams view and there are always two sides to every story.

History? Thats the whole point of the thread, showing Kerry's history. And in his history he was linked to communist leaders, which i am showing here.

Kerry did wrong meeting with the enemy and IMO that needs to be showed to everyone. I know how the democrats would be jumping all over Bush if he did the same thing.

[sjwalter]

And there has been as many statements from veterans supporting Kerry's statements. What you have to understand is that there are some very bitter Viet Nam veterans out there that lash out at anyone who dare speak against the effort in Viet Nam. When I lived in Florida I worked with and became very good friends with a Vietnamese gentleman who was a tunnel rat for the Americans during the war. He told me stories than made me lose my appetite. This was from a very peaceful man who had no axe to grind with anyone and loved America. He (correctly) reasoned that it was war and you have to do terrible things during war. I agree with that sentiment and believe that things which happen during the war should die with the war. Once the mourning period ends the war should be buried along with the dead. Those that keep bringing it up, Kerry included, are wrong IMO. You never allow a wound to heal if you keep picking the scab off.
I am guilty of being one sided in this arguement, but i have to learn. I totally absolutely agree with what you say about a war. Everything should have been buried where it died, and Kerry shouldn't have said what he did. This may be another reason people are protesting against him. Vietnam was a bad time for everyone, and for this reason i should be remembered for everyone in the back of their mind but it should also be not talked about and always referenced for.


There were plenty of people who supported the claim that attrocities were taking place. Thousands of vets came back and joined the protests. And I'm not talking about embittered vets with an axe to grind, but guys who went, fought and realized the war was unjust. This is a highly respected group that was at the protest gig long before John Kerry came along.

Vietnam Vets Against War

I know you like to watch movies to get your sense of history, so try "Born on the 4th of July".

Lanny my point is, that there are only claims. And i wish we would all stop calling them atrocities, me included because IMO they weren't. It was part of the war, people should have left it at them. And if the vets thought the war was unjust they didn't have to accuse their fellows of these crimes. Thats been my whole point throughout my posts. Vietnam wasn't right, probably wasn't the right war to fight, but it was a war, and the media should have let the troops fight it. Thats exactly what is happening in Iraq right now.

I think that its already been shown that Kerry was not the only one supporting this view.
Again i've been guilty of thinking too one sided here, but i believe only Kerry was before the Senate giving a confession, correct?

WWII was a war to stop agression. It was not a battle of ideologies (not initially). People disagreed with the Nazi ideal, but the war was not launched to change the belief of those in power. That is the difference between WWII and the other engagements you discuss. Ideology and regime change has been the primary motivator of the engagements in Vietnam and Iraq.
It wasn't a war of belief, but a war to clean up an evil empire. Saddam was in sense doing the same thing as Hitler, same as in the crimes against humanity. The war was fought on different terms as well, but if World War 2 wouldn't have been finished properly, people would think of it as Vietnam and the 400,000 Americans would died in World War 2 would have died without a cause, just like the 57,000 who died in Vietnam to most people died without a cause. I'm linking the evil empires not the war of beliefs.

You have very screwed up views in regards to Kerry's protest of the war. Are you saying that everyone who protested the war was supporting communism? You need to understand how the Vietnam war affected the nation and ripped it up. It was not a good time for the country.

No not really. Kerry was linked to communist leaders, the other protesters for the most part weren't. Thats the only reason i got communism and Kerry brought together. Its all mostly IMO.

I also think you do not really have a good grasp on the Vietnam war, and that's because of your age. America did not know how to fight a war in this type of terrain and their tactics we not effective. They had to learn how to fight in this theatre all over again, and took serious casualties because of it. The protest did nothing to hurt the war from a military perspective. The flow of bodies continued and the flow of weapons continued. The thing that really hurt the war effort was the fact that it was run from an office in Washington rather than by a General on the ground. This is the same reason why Iraq has been a failure as well. The military are being directed from an office rather than from a command center.

You're right, the Vietnam war was before my time so most of the information i get comes for sources or articles, and as i'm sure you know its mostly conservative sources. Also i agree with the reasons the war was pretty much negative and played so much of a downside to the American people. And i will take your advice and try to watch the movie, and read some more books.

Thanks for the reply.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

No, Kerry was not linked to Communist leaders. No more than any other political figure of that time was. Just because the guy meet with Communists des not make him a communist. It makes him a person trying to understand the other side and span a gap. Richard Nixon met with the Chinese. Does that make him a communist? Ronald Reagan met with the Russians. Does that make him a communist? Sometimes people make trips to see other leaders to bridge gaps. That's what dipomacy is all about. To call Kerry a communist, or a communist sympathizer is pathetic and something I would expect to hear from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or one of the other sub-80 IQ crowd on the radical right.

BTW... the whole Castro thing? I think this is another situation where the United States has been cruel and Kerry wants to make a change to show the world just how much the United States does care. Castro is not a threat. I think Kerry sees the situation that the people of Cuba are going through, the strain that South Florida feels, and would like to see something done to help everyone out. Again, this is what diplomacy is all about. Cuba is not a threat in any fashion and the people there need help. Why should the US continue with their 40 year old embargo? What does it help? Nothing. By lifting the embargo Kerry can provide relief to the people of Cuba, open the country up to American tourism, and crush communism on the island with a flood of dollars and capitalism. This will look great in the world eye and score major brownie points with the international community, a group that he needs to appeal to to build strong coaltions to deal with the serious problems of the world, like fixing Iraq, dealing with North Korea, etc. Its about time that Americans put their fear of communism to bed. Its a dead ideology that is no threat to the American way of life. Kerry knows this and isn't afraid to prove it.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 20 2004, 09:43 PM
No, Kerry was not linked to Communist leaders. No more than any other political figure of that time was. Just because the guy meet with Communists des not make him a communist. It makes him a person trying to understand the other side and span a gap. Richard Nixon met with the Chinese. Does that make him a communist? Ronald Reagan met with the Russians. Does that make him a communist? Sometimes people make trips to see other leaders to bridge gaps. That's what dipomacy is all about. To call Kerry a communist, or a communist sympathizer is pathetic and something I would expect to hear from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or one of the other sub-80 IQ crowd on the radical right.

BTW... the whole Castro thing? I think this is another situation where the United States has been cruel and Kerry wants to make a change to show the world just how much the United States does care. Castro is not a threat. I think Kerry sees the situation that the people of Cuba are going through, the strain that South Florida feels, and would like to see something done to help everyone out. Again, this is what diplomacy is all about. Cuba is not a threat in any fashion and the people there need help. Why should the US continue with their 40 year old embargo? What does it help? Nothing. By lifting the embargo Kerry can provide relief to the people of Cuba, open the country up to American tourism, and crush communism on the island with a flood of dollars and capitalism. This will look great in the world eye and score major brownie points with the international community, a group that he needs to appeal to to build strong coaltions to deal with the serious problems of the world, like fixing Iraq, dealing with North Korea, etc. Its about time that Americans put their fear of communism to bed. Its a dead ideology that is no threat to the American way of life. Kerry knows this and isn't afraid to prove it.

No, Kerry was not linked to Communist leaders. No more than any other political figure of that time was. Just because the guy meet with Communists des not make him a communist. It makes him a person trying to understand the other side and span a gap. Richard Nixon met with the Chinese. Does that make him a communist? Ronald Reagan met with the Russians. Does that make him a communist? Sometimes people make trips to see other leaders to bridge gaps. That's what dipomacy is all about. To call Kerry a communist, or a communist sympathizer is pathetic and something I would expect to hear from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or one of the other sub-80 IQ crowd on the radical right.

The communist leaders were the enemy Lanny, i don't care what you think of the war, Kerry does not have a right to meet with the enemy. He met with the enemy at a time of war, or just after the US had finished in Vietnam. Presidents meeting with communist leaders is a different matter, they have the power to be diplomatic. Kerry was a just a anti-war protesters, hippie and who knows what they talked about. Reagan met with the Russians but still stood them down when it came for that time, will Kerry be able to do that if China threateans way should Kerry get into the office, or would he still deam the as no dangerous threat. Sean Hannity as a sub 80 IQ but he still gets ton of support, i wonder why? Your views come from the radical left.


BTW... the whole Castro thing? I think this is another situation where the United States has been cruel and Kerry wants to make a change to show the world just how much the United States does care. Castro is not a threat. I think Kerry sees the situation that the people of Cuba are going through, the strain that South Florida feels, and would like to see something done to help everyone out. Again, this is what diplomacy is all about. Cuba is not a threat in any fashion and the people there need help. Why should the US continue with their 40 year old embargo? What does it help? Nothing. By lifting the embargo Kerry can provide relief to the people of Cuba, open the country up to American tourism, and crush communism on the island with a flood of dollars and capitalism. This will look great in the world eye and score major brownie points with the international community, a group that he needs to appeal to to build strong coaltions to deal with the serious problems of the world, like fixing Iraq, dealing with North Korea, etc. Its about time that Americans put their fear of communism to bed. Its a dead ideology that is no threat to the American way of life. Kerry knows this and isn't afraid to prove it.
Castro isn't a threat? Maybe not but he stills run a type of government that governed the evil empire of the world. That makes him threat enough. Castro who invited the nuclear attack on the US by allowing missles to be brought into his country, but he still isn't a threat. Give Castro his chance, he would bomb the sh*t outta the States. And is all that Kerry cares about is looking good? I hope not because to me people that want everything to look good are pussies, afraid to do the job right, even if it means down and dirty. Communism might become the biggest threat to the American way of life. Look at China, they have become a world power or are soon to be, and who's to say they won't instigate World War 3? Then of course communism isn't a threat right. Castro isn't a threat then right?