Refighting Vietnam while Iraq rages on...
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
Once again we are refighting a war that ended 30 plus years ago.
In 2004 it was all about vietnam. Did Kerry really serve nobly? What about those purple hearts? Did Bush lie about his air national guard service?
Now in 2008 we discuss Mccain's vietnam pow experience and Bill Ayers who has gotten more press in the last few months than he ever recieved in the 60's and 70's.
meanwhile the war in iraq continues to claim the lives of scores of youngsters.
And neither mccain "100 years in iraq", or Obama "will fight the war on terror with vigor" will stop it.
How will the history books look at us? In 2004 we were in the middle of a war, and the candidates focused on a war that ended 30 years previous. In 2008 we were still in iraq, yet the main issue of the campaigns was about a 1960's radical.
In 2004 it was all about vietnam. Did Kerry really serve nobly? What about those purple hearts? Did Bush lie about his air national guard service?
Now in 2008 we discuss Mccain's vietnam pow experience and Bill Ayers who has gotten more press in the last few months than he ever recieved in the 60's and 70's.
meanwhile the war in iraq continues to claim the lives of scores of youngsters.
And neither mccain "100 years in iraq", or Obama "will fight the war on terror with vigor" will stop it.
How will the history books look at us? In 2004 we were in the middle of a war, and the candidates focused on a war that ended 30 years previous. In 2008 we were still in iraq, yet the main issue of the campaigns was about a 1960's radical.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
yeah I notice they don't talkabout the issues really. They pretend to debate, but usually say very little.
Its not about whether or not we should hunt terrorists, its about how we should go about doing it. Its not about 'should we have invaded Iraq, and should we pull out?' its about how to deal with the resistance forces now.
they either regurgitate conventional ideology or divert us completely, as in the case of Ayers.
I think its fairly advanced propaganda. They give us an illusion of debate. They may disagree on certain details, but the real questions are never asked. And I think that's why the personal attacks are such a big part of presidential campaigns. That's all they have, since they cant challenge conventional thought.