Time Heals All Wounds.. And Then Kills the Patient

China and Taiwan are having their old dance again. It really must be embarassing for China, a big nation, to be making claims to Taiwan, while clearly not controlling it. They have an image to uphold, after all.. as, I guess does every nation. After all, by letting go of Taiwan, they'd be 'rewarding the enemy', or at least so the Jingo says.

My grandpa, like him as I do, has again sent out an awfully conservative article he found to everyone he knows.. and again i feel compelled to reply to it. Writing a reply has taken most of the break time I'd normally be spending on my BLOG, so I might as well just post my reply here, as a substitute for what I was going to write about. For those of you not used to email/usenet tradition, the stuff in red with the angle bracket starting each line is the original text. Enjoy.

>No one questioned General Patton when he accused Kerry of treason in giving >aid and comfort to the enemy, especially when it was revealed that North >Vietnam incorporated Kerry's exploits into its communist propaganda machine. >However, because of the prevalence of treason at the time and the >monumental task of prosecuting Kerry and his proclaimed 'revolutionaries,' >Kerry's actions went unpunished and the associated advances of communism >went unhindered. (Patton vs Kerry, what's this about?----Bob)

>John Kerry, the Senator, statesman and presidential candidate of today, is >a far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of VVAW in the early >1970s.

>Or is he?

Kerry was hardly the readical hippie-like leader portrayed. He was only strongly anti-war after his return from Vietnam, and did not participate in the hippie subculture. Further, he resigned from Vietnam Veterans against the War when the group began to grow radical in the early 1970s.

>Candidate Kerry has announced his own group of foreign policy experts who >will travel to Iraq for a first hand analysis of the situation. Kerry has >stated that he wants an accurate account of events in Iraq, so that he can >properly evaluate the current situation as it exists today. Who exactly >does Kerry think he is fooling? Even the most casual observer realizes that >Kerry intends to deploy a group of ideologues who will return home and >report that the Bush foreign policy is a failure, the Iraq war was handled >poorly, rebuilding Iraq has been handled poorly, and a President Kerry could >have done a better job.

It doesn't take anyone special to see that. Bush's foreign policy certainly is a failure, unless his policy is intended to alienate Europe, provoke anti-American sentiments throughout Asia and the Middle East, and prepare Iraq for a transition from a bad dictator to a worse, Shar'ia (Islamic religious law)-dominated theocracy. Rebuilding Iraq has very clearly been handled poorly. Exclusive contracts have been assigned to largely American firms with political connections to the BushJr Administration, paid for with Iraqi oil, which charge far more than the competitive (ignored) quotes from Iraqi companies. Technological standards have also been set that are clearly designed to give American businesses a free ride.

Would Kerry have done a better job? Would Gore? It's hard to really know. It seems to me though that BushJr has done bad things to our country, domestically and internationally, and I'd like to see someone else at the helm. Truth be told, I would've preferred to see Howard Dean be the Democratic candicate -- Kerry waffles on gay rights (which I support), and he isn't as politically clean as I'd like. However, Kerry seems to be a lot closer to what I want than BushJr on almost every issue.

>There is no difference between 1971 and 2004, different war, same Kerry. >With troops still in theatre and soldiers still in harm's way, Senator >Kerry, again, is attempting to undermine current United States foreign >policy for his own personal agenda. Just as the North Vietnamese combined >Kerry's propaganda with their own, rest assured that terrorists within Iraq >and around the world will embrace Kerry's words today to support their >cause.

>While Kerry's attempt to undermine the war on terror is obscene, it is far >from an isolated incident. Over the last week on the campaign trail, Kerry >has repeatedly stated that foreign heads of state, "who cannot go on the >record," are praying the he wins the Presidency in November. Interestingly >enough, while foreign leaders pray for a Kerry presidency, it appears that >North Korea and Iran are gambling on a Kerry victory in November as well.

>I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I become suspicious >when a candidate for President of the United States is being cheered by >North Korea and Iran, and unofficially supported by, say, France, Germany >and Russia.

>While the Kerry campaign has tried to distance itself from the images of >the Vietnam War protests, it simultaneously participates in identical >behavior. This time, however, the stakes are higher. This time, the >Lieutenant (junior grade) who gave aid and comfort to the enemy is running >for President of the United States. The enemy is a different one, but the >aid and comfort remains. It's a different war, but the same Kerry. >Beware.

>Robert P. Kiley is a Chief Financial Officer for the hospitality and real >estate development industry in Southeastern Massachusetts. ----------- >Please note that the writer is in the Peoples Republic (Commonwealth) of >Massachusetts. Apparently not everyone there shares Kerry's views

Maybe Robert P. Kiley should be charged with treason for not sharing Kerry's views? :) Believe it or not, people don't automatically support people from their home state. There are Democrats in Texas. It's silly to make a big deal out of normal and expected variation in opinions.

Morning	Fri Mar 26 10:47:43 2004
Ice Snakes
Topics: Politics
China and Taiwan are having their old dance again. It really must be embarassing for China, a big nation, to be making claims to Taiwan, while clearly not controlling it. They have an image to uphold, after all.. as, I guess does every nation. After all, by letting go of Taiwan, they'd be 'rewarding the enemy', or at least so the Jingo says. My grandpa, like him as I do, has again sent out an awfully conservative article he found to everyone he knows.. and again i feel compelled to reply to it. Writing a reply has taken most of the break time I'd normally be spending on my BLOG, so I might as well just post my reply here, as a substitute for what I was going to write about. For those of you not used to email/usenet tradition, the stuff in red with the angle bracket starting each line is the original text. Enjoy. Subject: Re: Kerry bashing, I love it. >No one questioned General Patton when he accused Kerry of treason in giving >aid and comfort to the enemy, especially when it was revealed that North >Vietnam incorporated Kerry's exploits into its communist propaganda machine. >However, because of the prevalence of treason at the time and the >monumental task of prosecuting Kerry and his proclaimed 'revolutionaries,' >Kerry's actions went unpunished and the associated advances of communism >went unhindered. (Patton vs Kerry, what's this about?----Bob) Is it treason to suggest that a war is unjust, and that one's country should not be involved in foreign agression? If so, I'm proud to be committing treason by suggesting the same about Iraq and this 'fake war' on terror. If 'the enemy' (whoever BushJr wants to bomb next) happens to use my statements to suggest that not all Americans support American foreign aggression and the leadership of fundamentalist hawks intent on greed and the spread of a medieval worldview, I'm not bothered a bit. Mind you, Vietnam was more ethically murky than what our country is doing today, as the opposition of almost all civilized nations BushJr has failed to bribe shows us. The term treason, I submit, is sensationalistic, undeserved, and in fact suggests a broadening of the definition to include very common differences of opinion. >John Kerry, the Senator, statesman and presidential candidate of today, is >a far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of VVAW in the early >1970s. >Or is he? Kerry was hardly the readical hippie-like leader portrayed. He was only strongly anti-war after his return from Vietnam, and did not participate in the hippie subculture. Further, he resigned from Vietnam Veterans against the War when the group began to grow radical in the early 1970s. >Candidate Kerry has announced his own group of foreign policy experts who >will travel to Iraq for a first hand analysis of the situation. Kerry has >stated that he wants an accurate account of events in Iraq, so that he can >properly evaluate the current situation as it exists today. Who exactly >does Kerry think he is fooling? Even the most casual observer realizes that >Kerry intends to deploy a group of ideologues who will return home and >report that the Bush foreign policy is a failure, the Iraq war was handled >poorly, rebuilding Iraq has been handled poorly, and a President Kerry could >have done a better job. It doesn't take anyone special to see that. Bush's foreign policy certainly is a failure, unless his policy is intended to alienate Europe, provoke anti-American sentiments throughout Asia and the Middle East, and prepare Iraq for a transition from a bad dictator to a worse, Shar'ia (Islamic religious law)-dominated theocracy. Rebuilding Iraq has very clearly been handled poorly. Exclusive contracts have been assigned to largely American firms with political connections to the BushJr Administration, paid for with Iraqi oil, which charge far more than the competitive (ignored) quotes from Iraqi companies. Technological standards have also been set that are clearly designed to give American businesses a free ride. Would Kerry have done a better job? Would Gore? It's hard to really know. It seems to me though that BushJr has done bad things to our country, domestically and internationally, and I'd like to see someone else at the helm. Truth be told, I would've preferred to see Howard Dean be the Democratic candicate -- Kerry waffles on gay rights (which I support), and he isn't as politically clean as I'd like. However, Kerry seems to be a lot closer to what I want than BushJr on almost every issue. >There is no difference between 1971 and 2004, different war, same Kerry. >With troops still in theatre and soldiers still in harm's way, Senator >Kerry, again, is attempting to undermine current United States foreign >policy for his own personal agenda. Just as the North Vietnamese combined >Kerry's propaganda with their own, rest assured that terrorists within Iraq >and around the world will embrace Kerry's words today to support their >cause. Considering the disasterous nature of the U.S. foreign policy, anything that undermines it can't be that terrible. Terror is a result of raised tensions, a feeling of helplessness in the traditional sphere, and failures in dialogue. Hawkish agression fuels terrorism, and it's not 'giving in to terror' to attempt to fix the underlying causes. When you're beating your head against a wall, it's not a terrible sign of weakness to realize it and stop. >While Kerry's attempt to undermine the war on terror is obscene, it is far >from an isolated incident. Over the last week on the campaign trail, Kerry >has repeatedly stated that foreign heads of state, "who cannot go on the >record," are praying the he wins the Presidency in November. Interestingly >enough, while foreign leaders pray for a Kerry presidency, it appears that >North Korea and Iran are gambling on a Kerry victory in November as well. It's no surprise. European parliaments have a number of people openly condemning BushJr's actions. Any heads of state, naturally, wouldn't want BushJr to cut off trade with their nation for publically condemning him, but it's easy to meter the view the world has of BushJr. America under BushJr has very few friends, and it looks like BushJr likes it that way. >I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I become suspicious >when a candidate for President of the United States is being cheered by >North Korea and Iran, and unofficially supported by, say, France, Germany >and Russia. There's nothing wrong with France, Germany, or Russia. As for North Korea and Iran, should we expect them to be crying to think of our current warmongering administration, which seems to be picking a fight with them for little reason, being replaced with a more sane one? >While the Kerry campaign has tried to distance itself from the images of >the Vietnam War protests, it simultaneously participates in identical >behavior. This time, however, the stakes are higher. This time, the >Lieutenant (junior grade) who gave aid and comfort to the enemy is running >for President of the United States. The enemy is a different one, but the >aid and comfort remains. It's a different war, but the same Kerry. >Beware. I don't buy it. "Aid and Comfort to the Enemy"? Hardly. The Vietnam War was more complex than the idiocy happening now anyhow. >Robert P. Kiley is a Chief Financial Officer for the hospitality and real >estate development industry in Southeastern Massachusetts. ----------- >Please note that the writer is in the Peoples Republic (Commonwealth) of >Massachusetts. Apparently not everyone there shares Kerry's views Maybe Robert P. Kiley should be charged with treason for not sharing Kerry's views? :) Believe it or not, people don't automatically support people from their home state. There are Democrats in Texas. It's silly to make a big deal out of normal and expected variation in opinions.