Originally posted by PhishPhreak:
Here is why I find Kerry's war history offensive:
1) pre-war: he was already known to be 'anti-war' and against US policy on communism.
2) pre-war: he and his skull and bones yale buddies all decided that they needed to go to war to acheive their political goals
3) pre-war: kerry had clear plans to enter politics and knew the war was part of that agenda
4) kerry knew he was likely to be drafted, so he offered to volunteer if he could play an officer (fits political aspirations)
5) kerry received 3 purple hearts in less than 4 months and used that to get out of service
6) records show that his wounds were superficial and only needed band aids.
1) He was an American with an opinion. Perfectly legal and encouraged.
2) Conjecture on your part that politics was their motivation.
3) He may have had plans to enter politics, but saying it was his war agenda is conjecture.
4) Volunteered. Very noble of him. Being an officer makes sense since he had a degree. The Navy would have encouraged him to do so anyway.
5) Why is it an issue how long it took to be wounded three times? He didn't get ouf of the Navy, he got out of Vietnam. Everything done legal in accordance with Navy Regulations.
6) His Purple Hearts were awarded within the guidelines of Naval Regulation. All legal. Besides, if you have a problem with that, attack his commander - who signed the medal - not Kerry.
So why do you find that so offensive? Is it because
you had to go to combat for the mere sake of duty to your country and didn't receive a Purple Heart when you were wounded more severely, in your eyes, than Kerry? Were you forced to spend your entire tour in theater because you didn't get wounded enough?
Honestly, why do you find it so offensive that he volunteered for combat duty? Strictly because of what you perceive his motives were at the time?
Previous Topic
Index
