Talk Elections

Anyone else in here military/former-military/military affiliated and get a chuckle out of John Kerry's Hollywood-esque way of saluting?

Even here around the Pentagon I see plenty of people saluting with a bent wrist.  Just laziness.

Bent wrist, over-the-eyebrow, Hollywood-style bunk is what his salute amounts to.  Not that it's a big deal, but you think that he would have had sense enough to do it right at the Democratic Convention when he announced that he was, "reporting for duty."

FYI, since the Navy doesn't salute uncovered, it always seems unnatural to do it out of uniform, uncovered. But it's something the Army vets expect to see since they don't make the distinction.

His salute was indicative of sloppiness.  He was an officer, for Pete's sake.  He knew better.  He just doesn't give a hoot for the military.

Do you have facts or reasoning to back up your allegation?

Or you just another person living in Bushland?

J-Mann, I've got a question for you: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=10622.0

Are you asking about the sloppy salute, the fact Kerry was an officer, or that Kerry doesn't care about the military?

Are you unclear what I was asking? Or just being pedantic?

You were the one who was asking the vague question.  If you want, I can give you a lesson in how to perform a proper military salute.  Or, I can give you the military career history of Kerry.  Or I can tell you how Kerry views the military and their benefits.

Simple enough.  Just clearly ask what you are looking for.

You can lecture people on military bearing? Ooo... I'm impressed.

How would you explain Kerry's views on the military?

one word for kerry's dedication to his military career....sellout

How was Kerry a sellout?

You turned 18 in 1971. Did you volunteer to go to Vietnam?

And if so, did you burn down villages?

Philip, please respond to the questions in this thread, https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=10622.0

One word ------> Navy


Kerry, though the spin doctors would like to say otherwise, does support a strong military, which means he is also in favor of strong military benefits for the soldier and family.   (Think we can all agree on that point.)  He would like to provide the military with the latest and greatest hardware, but only within a defined spending budget (as reflected in his voting against various weapons platforms in the 80s and 90s).  So that means you'd have a lot more of the Joint-strike programs rather than Boeing developing one craft/weapon for the Air Force while Lockheed develops as similar craft/weapon for the Navy.  In the late 1990s, this is the approach the military began to take when they started their C4I concepts and other interoperability platforms.

As far as from the point of CIC, he would use military force as a last resort to such an extend that we would need to have an imminant threat on our security (if an attack hadn't already been committed).  Though he says he would not bow before the UN before committing our troops, his prior actions indicate otherwise.  Even with the blessing of the UN, he has been against the use of force in the global arena.  I cannot completely fault him for this since being one who has had friends and family in harms way during Vietnam, I understand what the loss of life due to combat can impact upon those who are left behind.  However, I think this overly conservative approach to activating our troops is more of a detriment to our national security than a benefit to our international relations.  It is at this point that Kerry and I (and most Bush supporters) vary.  We should never be bound to an organization which slants against the US/Western nations while allowing third-world dictators to get away unpunished for crimes against humanity.

*** NOTE - I do have a very negative view of Kerry from when he returned from VN and watching him on tv.  His actions and sentiments were unbecoming of an officer and put many people still in theater in greater danger by empowering our enemy.  For that alone he would not receive my vote since I can't afford to have him make the same mistake again.   

I did my best to keep this neutral and objective.  Pardon any subtile Kerry bashing in my analysis of his view of the military.

Was the Vietnam War wrong?

Did you volunteer?

I do not believe the VN war was wrong, but I do believe the handling of the war was wrong.

I entered the Navy on my own.

This is extreme historical revisionism, but...

How should the war have been handled? Why wasn't it handled this way?

Did you join the Navy to avoid being a grunt?

No, it was handled wrong from the beginning.  If we were to commit troops, we should have gone in with a sizable force from the beginning to defend the idiot that we helped gain power.  But instead, we sent in advisors, and then just a handful of troops at a time.  Poor planning.

I entered the Navy since I love the ocean.  My father and his uncle were also in the Navy, as well was my brother.  Afterwards, I sailed commercially.  I miss sailing.

Were you draft eligible? Did you have a low number?

This has been claimed before, but I'm skeptical.

Say the U.S. went in with a big force right away. How would this have changed the underlying dynamics that the RVN gov't was seen as an illegitimate puppet and the Ho was seen as a popular nationalist figure?

I think Iraq is basically the example of doing Vietnam with overwhelming force from the beginning. And starting with overwhelming force does not mean that the US didn't have to deal with a guerrilla movement.

BTW, someone recently observed that since WWII when great powers try to use military power to subjugate another people the insurgents always win. See http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004954.php

Yes, but I was already on track to join the navy, so it was a non-issue.

As far as the forces in VN goes, in comparison with Iraq, they are totally different.  In Iraq, we knew what what we needed to do, which was a quick sweep through the nation and "liberate" (define at your own risk).  In VN, that was never our intention.  At first, we were there to help the French assist Boa Dia's regime from the Viet Minh (backed by the Chinese).  Within the first year (back in 1950), the US was already paying half of the French costs since we were determined to halt the spread of communism.  Once the French were defeated and withdrew from VN, we should have washed our hands of the country and walked away, but we decided to keep a liaison office there to counsel with the new PM following the Geneva conference which split the nation in two.  10 years later, the Viet Cong forms in South VN, which begins attacking the South VN nation which we said we'd support.  However, it took us 4 years to send any sizable force to the nation, and that was only after the Gulf of Tonkin incident.  Four years of having our "advisors" in a hostile region, being killed, while a rebellion force is attacking a sovereign nation which we said we'd support and help defend back in 1954.  The whole handling of VN was screwed from the beginning, and too many people died as a result. 

So no, Iraq and VN are really not that much alike.

(Sorry if this is a bit jumbled.  The phone keeps ringing, and the e-mails keep flowing in.)