Vietnam and George W. Bush

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
I got to thinking this morning about the outcry from the left prior to the 2004 election concerning W's apparent dodging of the Vietnam War. I then asked myself a couple questions:

Why would people who felt that the Vietnam War was unjust be outraged at someone who did not participate?

Another question I asked was, are these people trying to relate the Iraq War with the Vietnam War, and therefore are trying to say that W's status in the latter is relevant? Obviously, this seems to be the angle that the left has played on this issue. However, since GWB is not using a conscripted Army, can one actually make an issue out of his apparent avoidance of conscription? I would have to say no.

GWB has asked for volunteers to fight this war and has never publicly entertained the thought of conscription. So much for the hypocrisy charge.
 
#2
#2
Im interested why you are even asking this question, because wouldn't Bush have also had to have "volunteered" for "duty?" Just turned out that "duty" was a little much to ask. Isn't it the right that harkens back so often to "character?"
 
#3
#3
He fulfilled his duty. Funny thing about the National Guard is everything works on a points system. You could earn enough points in one month and not be seen again for a whole year, yet you would still qualify for a good year.

Anyway, you definitely avoided the key issue there.
 
#5
#5
Avoidance, once again.

The key issue is that the left has no ground to stand on in devaluing his service. If they say that it was awful of him to do what he could to stay out of Vietnam, then they are implying that the Vietnam War was justified. Therefore, the right thing for GWB to be doing would have been to be killing NVA troops and VietCong during that period of his life.

If they refrain from using that argument, and state that his service record is relevant because he is waging a war, then they would have to somehow tie up the loose ends between Vietnam troops being drafted and Iraq troops volunteering. When someone asks for volunteers to do anything, you cannot turn to them and say they are wrong to ask because they never volunteered. That is why it is volunteering, because you should not feel pressured in any way to do it (whether the pressure is past, present, or future.)
 
#6
#6
I really don't give a flip about W and his National guard "service", but I think he's scum of the earth for attacking Kerry and belittling Kerry's service in Vietnam just to gain votes. Veterans everywhere should have been a little pissed off about the daddy's boy running his mouth about that.

There was a question if Bush was AWOL, that was never a question with Kerry.

And before everyone goes marking me as a huge Kerry supporter...don't. He definitely wasn't my favorite..
 
#7
#7
I think the only avoidance is the question itself, which is why I asked why you are even asking this question to start with. You are trying to tacitly reframe W's handling of Iraq by making an argument for his nonavoidance in Vietnam; you are saying that Vietnam has nothing in similar with Iraq, yet you are the only person who has been bringing up Vietnam lately rather than addressing the current war.
 
#8
#8
There was not a question of whether Bush was AWOL...there was a fabricated document, OWB.


Kerry made his service a campaign issue early in the democratic primaries (most likely to compete with Clark.) Bush never made his service a campaign issue, however, he did call Kerry out for touting his service in 2004, yet throwing his medals into a fire and stating that his service was not noble nor honorable in the 1970s.
 
#9
#9
cibai said:
I think the only avoidance is the question itself, which is why I asked why you are even asking this question to start with. You are trying to tacitly reframe W's handling of Iraq by making an argument for his nonavoidance in Vietnam; you are saying that Vietnam has nothing in similar with Iraq, yet you are the only person who has been bringing up Vietnam lately rather than addressing the current war.
Click to expand...
No, this had nothing to do with the handling of Iraq. I was asking the question of why the left had thought Bush's service record was of relevance in 2004.

Nice try though.
 
#11
#11
therealUT said:
I got to thinking this morning about the outcry from the left prior to the 2004 election concerning W's apparent dodging of the Vietnam War. I then asked myself a couple questions:

Why would people who felt that the Vietnam War was unjust be outraged at someone who did not participate?

Another question I asked was, are these people trying to relate the Iraq War with the Vietnam War, and therefore are trying to say that W's status in the latter is relevant? Obviously, this seems to be the angle that the left has played on this issue. However, since GWB is not using a conscripted Army, can one actually make an issue out of his apparent avoidance of conscription? I would have to say no.

GWB has asked for volunteers to fight this war and has never publicly entertained the thought of conscription. So much for the hypocrisy charge.
Click to expand...
The only question I would have is how many soldiers would be in the armed services right now had the war with Iraq been going on whenever they initially enlisted?Would there be an all volunteer army then?
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
No, this had nothing to do with the handling of Iraq. I was asking the question of why the left had thought Bush's service record was of relevance in 2004.

Nice try though.
Click to expand...

My question is why that question is relevant in late 2006, other than as a red herring :whistling:
 
#13
#13
cibai said:
My question is why that question is relevant in late 2006, other than as a red herring :whistling:
Click to expand...
It is relevant because I felt like asking it. If I wanted to use it to bolster the argument about Iraq, I would have posted in that thread. I started a new thread so that this would not be associated with other arguments.

Again, way to avoid everything about it.
 
#14
#14
therealUT said:
Kerry made his service a campaign issue early in the democratic primaries (most likely to compete with Clark.) Bush never made his service a campaign issue, however, he did call Kerry out for touting his service in 2004, yet throwing his medals into a fire and stating that his service was not noble nor honorable in the 1970s.
Click to expand...

The way I see it is that Kerry risked his life for those medals. He earned those medals and they were his to do whatever he wanted to do with them.

As for his stance on the Vietnam War, he had every right to criticize it since he was there and saw what was going on.
 
#15
#15
utfantilidie said:
The only question I would have is how many soldiers would be in the armed services right now had the war with Iraq been going on whenever they initially enlisted?Would there be an all volunteer army then?
Click to expand...
Not going to get in the specifics, because again this completely misses the point of the thread topic, however, our military is larger than it was in March of 2003. That means we have recruited very well throughout the Iraq War and have retained significant amounts of troops. So, our Army is bigger and is still all volunteer.
 
#16
#16
OWB said:
The way I see it is that Kerry risked his life for those medals. He earned those medals and they were his to do whatever he wanted to do with them.

As for his stance on the Vietnam War, he had every right to criticize it since he was there and saw what was going on.
Click to expand...
I am glad that Kerry was risking his life for medals...

Yes, he had every right to criticize Vietnam. However, it is pretty tough, politically, to criticize a war so strongly (even referring to your own service as dishonorable and disgraceful) and then, 30 years later, to run your campaign on that service (without coming out and stating you were young and stupid 30 years ago.) The Bush campaign just called him on his anti-war actions during the 1970s.
 
#21
#21
1st off I'd be greatly intrested in therealUT's posts should he suddenly become a democrat. Would he as blindly defend the left as he does the right? GWB joined the national guard to avoid overseas duty, any1 who says different is deluded or simply refuses to be fair in a discussion. Kerry burning his medals were an action that spoke to issues in another place, another time...this was a different country 40 years ago. I also am no Kerry supporter, however having an uncle that won the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart in Vietnam posthumously I feel I can say a sitting president that slings mud over military service when he dodged the draft by hiding in the National Guard is like slinging rocks from a glass house. To blindly sit and take one party's side no matter what the issue is tantamount to communism. Surely to goodness you take issue with 1 or 2 republican slants on issues. If not I prefer your speeches in the original German...:yes:
 
#23
#23
dan4vols said:
1st off I'd be greatly intrested in therealUT's posts should he suddenly become a democrat. Would he as blindly defend the left as he does the right? GWB joined the national guard to avoid overseas duty, any1 who says different is deluded or simply refuses to be fair in a discussion. Kerry burning his medals were an action that spoke to issues in another place, another time...this was a different country 40 years ago. I also am no Kerry supporter, however having an uncle that won the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart in Vietnam posthumously I feel I can say a sitting president that slings mud over military service when he dodged the draft by hiding in the National Guard is like slinging rocks from a glass house. To blindly sit and take one party's side no matter what the issue is tantamount to communism. Surely to goodness you take issue with 1 or 2 republican slants on issues. If not I prefer your speeches in the original German...:yes:
Click to expand...

if it doesn't matter what Kerry did 40 years ago, why does it matter what GWB did 40 years ago?
 
#24
#24
dan4vols said:
1st off I'd be greatly intrested in therealUT's posts should he suddenly become a democrat. Would he as blindly defend the left as he does the right? GWB joined the national guard to avoid overseas duty, any1 who says different is deluded or simply refuses to be fair in a discussion. Kerry burning his medals were an action that spoke to issues in another place, another time...this was a different country 40 years ago. I also am no Kerry supporter, however having an uncle that won the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart in Vietnam posthumously I feel I can say a sitting president that slings mud over military service when he dodged the draft by hiding in the National Guard is like slinging rocks from a glass house. To blindly sit and take one party's side no matter what the issue is tantamount to communism. Surely to goodness you take issue with 1 or 2 republican slants on issues. If not I prefer your speeches in the original German...:yes:
Click to expand...
Right, I tow the party line...

I guess you fail to comprehend the original post in this thread. I stated that yes, Bush joined the guard to avoid going to Vietnam. I then posed the question of why the left gets upset about that. If it was an unjust war, as the left very strongly believes it was, then his staying out of it would be the just thing to do...

Oh, and by the way, the "tantamount to communism" and the "speeches in the original German" certainly display a lack of historical understanding on your part. The Nazis were not communists. That might be good in case you ever find yourself on Jeopardy or Who Wants to Be a Millionaire...
 
#25
#25
therealUT said:
The Nazis were not communists. That might be good in case you ever find yourself on Jeopardy or Who Wants to Be a Millionaire...
Click to expand...

Hmm...paying attention is also crucial. I never saw a reference to Nazis there. I never saw anything that said either were the same as well.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top