Going Upriver: Why what happened 35 yrs. ago matters today

Heather, I hope you do see it, I thought I liked Kerry before, but I just continue to gain respect for him. I know people in here tend toward anarchy and dislike being led or whatever, but that is how our country is set up and we ought to elect the best man for the job.
Kerry is a very principled man, I admire him a lot. It kills some people to admit admiration for powerful people for fear that they will seem weak or seduced by the elites, but as you said, if you do the research, Kerry is a decent man. I am proud to support him!

 

Excellent website Green: http://www.goingupriver.com/

Thanks. I also suggest watching the movies, "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Platoon".

Many patriotic republicans begin to question what the Bush administration is doing when they lose a loved one in the war.

**************************************************

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

 

You're welcome!

I agree about republicans questioning Bush*. I wonder though how many republicans have someone in the war. Maybe it is mostly kids from poor families who have no other options, you know, "nobodys".
I may check out those movies you suggested.

 

Tell me his plan for peace. I haven't heard one, other than training Iraqi's to defend themselves and getting more of our "allies" in there to share in the corporate occupation. Show me where he supports them having an independant government in iraq, which would mean getting Iyad Allowi (who has connections to the CIA) out of there. Will he let the Iraqi's manage their own oil assets? And I mean a true, elected Iraqi government, not a puppet government like the current one.

What will kerry do when in office regarding voting reform here in the united states? Theres already been plenty of voter fraud in this election cycle and in the last one. What steps will Kerry take to protect democracy in the future? Will there be Instant Runoff Voting? Will the process be made easier? Hell, they want to make Reagan's B-day a national holiday, why not making the election day a national holiday to increase voter turn out and participation in this 'democracy'?

Will he withdraw from NAFTA and WTO???

Will he repeal the patriot act?

Do you know who he will appoint to the supreme court?

What will he do to protect democracy from corporate interests?

Unfortunately the issues that truely matter on a global scale I dont think Kerry will make real progress with. There will be some here and there positive things he does that the media will gladly pound into your head over and over as if he is a saint (hell what wouldn't be positive after a Bush Admin) but all in all no real progress will be made.

I agree, kerry will be better than Bush, but I still won't vote for him.

I will however watch the documentary and give you feedback as soon as I do.

 

He will end the war in Iraq sooner than Bush. This alone is enough of a reason to vote for him. None of your candidates will win, so electing Bush is the other option and I'm not willing to participate in that.
I think the environment is a global issue and he will be infinitely better in that area than Bush. He will be better for democracy too, we all know how the Bush administration has stifled it and stolen many of our civil liberties. He does want to amend the Patriot Act, some parts of it are good though.

Look, Kerry fought hard to stop the Vietnam war, now many of you are on his case for not doing enough to stop the Iraq war. He hasn't even been elected yet. You know much of his rhetoric is just politics, he can't be too anti-war or he won't get elected. The Bush administration has milked 9/11 for all it's worth and they've got people terrified. He's in a difficult position, surely you must realise that. Candidates like Nader, Badnarik and Kucinich can say what ever they want, they have that freedom because since they won't win, they know they don't have anything to lose.

 

And those would be the very same actions that Kerry has spent the entire fucking campaign trying to distance himself from, right?

Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader spoke at antiwar rallies against the CURRENT war. Kerry didn't, because he was too busy VOTING FOR IT.

And now you are trying to tell us what a great antiwar activist Kerry is? Give me a break....

 

Kerry did do an anti-war protest when he came home from vietnam because of all the attrocities that happened while he served..He was very brave to do so..regarding this war.."Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."
He said this, and the ONLY reason he would want to go to war is if we exhaused our last efforts, which the weapons inspectors came back now and said there were NO weapons of mass destruction..This is one of the things that Sen. Kerry was referring to that was crucial..But we were led into a pre-emptive war..We did NOT exhaust everything before going to war..we just jumped into it..and i do NOT believe we should blame Kerry for this..He stated his words as what he felt about this..and he says even today, we did NOT do what needed to be done as a last resort to go to war.

 

Well, "bravery" aside (it was much more socially acceptable to be antiwar in the early '70s than it is now), why isn't Kerry even mentioning his ANTIwar credentials in his campaign? Instead, he is running from his protesting past as hard as W ran from his guard service! Instead of his once passionate rhetoric about "being the last man killed for a mistake", we got the single most MILITARISTIC democratic presidential campaign in history. Rather than condemning the WAR itself as illegal and immoral, he promises only to CONTINUE the war (sending thousands more troops to die), only to manage the atrocities better than Bush has! Some antiwar leader, huh?

 

Ellis, do you think we should just pull out and leave the Iraqi's defenseless after completely tearing up their country?

 

What he is saying is, we can't pull out, we have to help rebuild Iraq..He doesn't put into his presidential campaign about his anti-war in vietnam protest because people will think he won't be a good president, and he won't be hard on terrorists, also, they said he wasn't tough enough about how he would be on terrrorists..so he has to fight to be president and get Bush out..What would you do? also he doesn't lie about his anti-war record, and he says he would do it all over again, there are some things he said, he didn't need to say then, and he was young at the time, but he doesn't regret his decision about his anti-war protest.

 

In a word, yes. But we wouldn't be leaving them "defenseless", just not under US OCCUPATION.

ALL US troops, contractors, and corporate mercenaries need to be removed ASAP, and their places taken by peacekeepers, advisers, and infrastructure experts from countries who HAVEN'T been tainted by association with the Bush regime. As much of the rebuilding work as possible should be handled by the IRAQI PEOPLE, and other muslim nations who want to help out. ANYTHING that the US does in Iraq or the rest of the Arab world will be viewed with suspicion and greeted with violence. We have burned our bridges there, and our continued presence is only providing fuel to radical theocrats and their followers.

The only thing that we should be doing is paying restitution to Iraq for all the infrastructure we destroyed. Let non-US countries work to rebuild the damage, and let the US pay for it, starting with Halliburton, Bechtel, and the rest of the corporate war profiteers who have been sucking up all the current rebuilding contracts. Let the first reparations payments come right out of their CEOs stock dividend checks!

 

You know he didn't vote for it, you are just parroting a popular republican distortion. I won't waste my time correcting you because you know the truth. I give you that much credit.
9/11. Ring a bell? Of course it does, because we weren't allowed to forget it. You know Bush's administration has used 9/11 as a tool to achieve things they normally would not have been able to even consider...the war, the Patriot Act...
Now, John Kerry is aware, as are his advisors, that this is the climate of America today- fear of terror like 9/11. He would not be elected if he chose a more antiwar stance than he currently does. I think you know as well as I do that he will fight "the war on terror" much differently than Bush. He will not use preemptive attacks, but rather address the individuals behind the terror acts as well as addressing the reasons we were attacked in the first place. We need to get back involved with the rest of the world, preventing terror can be done only be cooperation with other countries and the sharing of intelligence.

Kerry was a champion peace activist during Vietnam, he helped to end that war. That is much more of an accomplishment than most people will achieve in their lifetimes. And you down-play it...

 

I know, I know. He only voted to "authorize the use of force", not "for the war". But knowing what a lying, warmongering SOB Bush is (which was obvious even then), his vote was the equivalent of giving a book of matches and a can of gasoline to a pyromaniac! No, he didn't explicitly say "go to war", but he (and most of the rest of the spineless Dems) failed to stand up against the obvious BULLSHIT the administration was feeding the public. Antiwar people and international agencies were talking about the lack of WMDs or Iraq/al Qaeda connections even then, and Kerry FAILED TO LISTEN TO THEM.

So because a lot of people have been brainwashed into giving up their rights because of the 9/11 attacks, Kerry feels that it is somehow acceptable to either become one of the brainwashed sheep, or at least pretend to be?

And why did he vote for the Patriot Act, anyway? Another political calculation showing willingness to trade away the Bill of Rights for political expediency? Then again, Kerry was a supporter of allowing law enforcement to use "roving wiretaps" and such even pre-9/11, so maybe his Patriot Act vote shouldn't be a complete surprise....

So you are openly admitting that Kerry would do or say anything in order to get elected? Isn't that exactly what the Bushies are accusing him of?

Then why did he explicitly NOT renounce the use of preemptive attacks during the debates? He specifically reserved the right to do so...

Again, political expediency trumps principle (not to mention international law)......

I don't "downplay it" at all. But it was 35 freaking years ago! Has he shown himself to be a consistent anti-militarist and peace activist during his Senate career SINCE Vietnam? I don't think so. Kerry supported the use of force in Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Somalia in 1992, Kosovo in 1999 and Afghanistan in 2001.

 

I'm with Ellis.

What I think people don't understand is that Kerry has been propped up by the media to be our next president. It's not that he's all great and stuff(again, who isn't when running against Bush), but its the fact that you've seen his name paired with bush's in competition since BEFORE the primaries were even finished!!!!! you hear his name SOOO much that you just accept it and roll over.

I think even candidates I don't like so much should have equal campaigning money, and equal televised debates and equal televised interview time as the candidates i do like.

That would be democratic right? Not too much to ask.

Kerry is like Iyad Allowi to Saddam. Saddam was much worse. But Mr. Allowi is still part of a larger agenda. If kerry wasn't part of a larger agenda, he wouldn't have gotten all the media support.

The TV really decides 2 candidates that you get to pick and choose from. Yes some people may have gone with Kerry even if our elections WERE fair, but its a small percentage of kerry supporters.

 

And I agree with Ellis on rebuilding Iraq and pulling all U.S. troops and Companies out.

There are much more creative ways to perceive the situation that are conducive to true peace that haven't been looked at or even on the radar with the mainstream perceptions your TV feeds you.

 

I disagree, because if that's so, they wouldn't be putting Bush up there high on everything i read..

 

I agree to some extent..but we have to be proactive about it, and make sure it will work..I don't watch much tv, I do a lot of research myself..I'd rather find out myself.

 

They're planning a similar documentary for George W. Bush. It's called Going Upriver: Without a Paddle.

 

You seem to take your anger at the entire democratic party out on Kerry.

I never said it was OK, I just said that's how it is. Nearly all Democrats I know or have spoken to believe that he is trying hard to sound tough on terror but will NOT start preemtive wars and will get us out of Iraq much more quickly than Bush. He's a politician, that's not so hard to believe is it? You like to believe whatever is convenient, you trust that he'll use preemptive attacks, but you don't believe he'll do all the positive things he claims he'll do. You have to be consistent.

No, not anything, only sound more aggressive on terror. I think he will be good on terror, he will prevent it rather than create it like Bush. I don't really pay attention to what the "Bushies" are saying about him....apparently you are, well you should, you obviously want to give him 4 more years.....

Americans want to feel safe. That's all I can say. I've talked to many people, that is often the first concern of theirs this election.

35 yrs. ago.........well, tell that to the people who ARE ALIVE because of what he did back in the olden days ....History is written, unless you can rewrite it, his duties were admirable. I hope no one disrespects your anti-war activism 35 yrs. from now (I assume you've been active protesting this war since you seem to have a strong opinion about it and also strong criticism for Kerry-the man who will end it).

You know, I'm not a Nader Traitor, I never considered voting for him, I don't know why you act as if I'm betraying him when I support Kerry. Many have left his side though, to join us, the man who can actually win and get Bush out, the goal of any sane and compassionate person.

 

Well, that is your opinion. I do think he is a good man and will be a good leader. He is the Democratic nominee, so yes, he is the main competition for Bush, nobody needs the media to pound it into their head, it's just common sense.

This is not Kerry's fault, you guys love to find scapegoats don't you? Do you really think Nader is what people want? Do you think they like his ideas? I don't. I know most people don't based on the people I know. He's too extreme. You guys keep saying Kerry should adopt Nader's platform, but why, so he could appease you few socialists? Why doesn't Nader adopt some of Kerry's platform? It would make him more electable.

That's all just speculation, you can't back it up.