[quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“almas john”]Alien,
However, I DESPISE BEYOND WORDS Kerry for what he said about is fellow soldiers in Vietnam after he got back to the States so I - if I were a Meiguoren - would reluctantly cast a vote for Bush. I don’t really care if Kerry lied about his own service in Nam but to brand decent soldiers as baby killers is beyond the pale. Unvoteable!!![/quote]
did he actually brand all those serving in Vietnam ‘baby killers’ or did he just recount the testimony he had heard from from a few servicemen and indeed lable it this way? I’m just wandering which ‘decent soldiers’ he personaly branded as ‘baby killers’.[/quote]
Kerry claimed to have committed atrocities in Viet Nam.
Butcher Boy wrote [quote]did he actually brand all those serving in Vietnam ‘baby killers’ or did he just recount the testimony he had heard from from a few servicemen and indeed lable it this way? I’m just wandering which ‘decent soldiers’ he personaly branded as ‘baby killers’.[/quote]
I never said ALL. The “decent soldiers” I refer to are the Joe Average soldiers. Kerry painted the US soldiers in Vietnam in a very poor light, giving the idea that atrocities were far more common than they really were. He has apologized for this, hasn’t he?
I can’t give you specific “baby killers” because (correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t think Kerry gave specific people, times and places for these atrocities.
"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command…
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
– John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971
He was only telling the truth. The truth is painful to hear - that’s the problem.
The U.S. Armed Forces really did commit horrible atrocities against the Vietnamese population. In this day and age, knowing what we know now from all the documented evidence of soldiers who were there corroborating the horrors of that stupid war, you’re going to deny this? You’re going to act like it’s 1971 and you’re Archie Bunker in denial mode ranting about the Domino Effect and “my country right or wrong”?
Vietnam was an immoral war and there is nothing wrong with refusing to fight for a cause you don’t believe in and feel to be against your conscience, nor is there anything wrong with protesting a war you believe to be is wrong. In fact, if you genuinely care about and love your country, it is one of the highest acts of patriotism to do so when the leaders of government are in the wrong and are bringing harm to the nation by involving it in a pointless war overseas that sends thousands of innocent young men to their deaths. It is extremely insulting to claim that during wartime we have to all keep our mouths shut and never waver in our support of our troops - it insults our troops as so weak-willed that anything beyond ‘rah rah rah’ will fatally undermine their resolve, and it insults democracy by implying that during wartime or other ‘emergencies’ democracy and the freedom of expression must be temporarily put on hold.
Everybody talks about the 58,000 American soldiers who died in Vietnam, but how many Vietnamese died? Around a million, and that’s the conservative estimate (the liberal estimate in 2 million). Chew on that number and then try telling me that protesting the Vietnam War was somehow worse than participating in the War, napalming villages and carpet bombing civilian populations with more tonnage of explosives than were dropped during the entirety of WWII. If it were the '60s I would have dodged the draft, hell yes - knowing with hindsight how wrong the U.S. was to get involved in Vietnam, and I wouldn’t regret it. If I were a French boy in the 1950s I would have done the same in regards to Algeria.
A German boy in the 1940s - dodging the draft would be infinitely more honorable than fighting for my country. A PLA soldier given direct orders to shoot on my own countrymen in 1989 - not fighting for my government would be the right thing to do. Soldiers who fight in war don’t deserve automatic respect just because they were soldiers fighting in a war; they only deserve that entitlement if the cause they were fighting for was something to be proud of. And Vietnam was not one of those causes.
[quote]"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command…
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."[/quote]
Looks to me Kerry was just citing those veterans who indicted themselves and he, Kerry, did not call anyone anything based on the above quote.
Why don’t you tell us more about all these war crimes, since you were there. Cut off many ears, did you? Rape 12 year old girls? Come on, give us the details. Spare us nothing.
No one is saying that all the soldiers who served in Vietnam committed war crimes. But it’s ostrich-headed to deny that many - thousands of them - did. On all sides of the conflict. War is war. Sherman called it hell for a reason.
No one is saying that all the soldiers who served in Vietnam committed war crimes. But it’s ostrich-headed to deny that many - thousands of them - did. On all sides of the conflict. War is war. Sherman called it hell for a reason.[/quote]
Fuck me! You were at My Lai?
:bravo: [b]R i g h t ![/b]
And on a separate note, according to a recent poll conducted by the Vietnamese-American newspaper, Cali Today, 90% of Vietnamese-American voters will cast their votes for George Bush. In the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, 100% of voters will vote for John Kerry. Isn’t democracy lovely?
No one is saying that all the soldiers who served in Vietnam committed war crimes. But it’s ostrich-headed to deny that many - thousands of them - did. On all sides of the conflict. War is war. Sherman called it hell for a reason.[/quote]
Fuck me! You were at My Lai?
:bravo: [b]R i g h t ![/b]
[/quote]
Did Hiroshima happen? Don’t know. Wasn’t there.
Did the holocaust happen? Don’t know. Wasn’t there.
Did 9/11 happen? Don’t know. Wasn’t there.
Did slavery happen? Don’t know. Wasn’t there.
Did England win the world cup in 1966? Don’t know. Wasn’t there.
Did my mate get married last year. Don’t know. Wasn’t there…
In fact, in every war ever since WWI civilian casualties/deaths have been greater than military casualties.
In other words, there are loads of atrocities committed in modern warfare. There are multiple reasons for the same, such as weaker sides taking up positions among civilians and or targeting civilians, among other reasons.
Kerry’s remarks made it seem as though the atrocities committed by US soldiers were particularly nasty and numerous. He even stated that he himself took part in committing atrocities, thus bolstering his claim that the war was particularly atrocious. His words in fact were used by NVA prison guards when torturing captured US pilots and soldiers.
The accounts of atrocities were exagerated in terms of the nature and numbers of the same. There are now even accusations and confessions that Kerry coached vets as to what to say regarding atrocities and some of the people who testified may not have even been vets.
Nobody denies that atrocities were committed in the war.
The dispute is with the characterization of the atrocities and the way the same was ambiguously and sloppily applied to all Viet Nam Vets.
So, if Kerry committed atrocities, how is it he deems himself a war hero?
Sure there have been lots of civilian casualties in modern wars – and yet (unless you’re Chomsky) there is a difference between inadvertently hitting civilians while dropping bombs on Schweinfurt and deliberately gunning down a village. It stings the American consciousness when our troops do unheroic things, and that’s natural. Vietnam was perhaps one of the early signs that our struggle with the larger menace of Cold War-era communism was far from the “clean” fight we liked to think of it as being.
Tigerman, were you there?? You write: “The accounts of atrocities were exagerated in terms of the nature and numbers of the same.” Thus, I have to ask if you aren’t just pulling info from your keister again.
Figuring 1) that most countries and individual soldiers don’t exactly trumpet the atrocities (i.e., the atrocities are downplayed by those who commit them) and 2) that the dead tell few tales (and possibly fewer in the midst of a tropical climate) and 3) that the haze of war prevents the collection of full information about many of the deaths throughout, I’m wondering how you claim to be such an authority on the precise amount of atrocities that happened.
Please supply facts to support yourself, such as where and when you served, your method of analysis, etc. However, I expect you to do the same-old, same-old Tigerman routine of running from facts like a cockroach from light. Please surprise us. You’ll feel better.
[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”] His words in fact were used by NVA prison guards when torturing captured US pilots and soldiers.
[/quote]
I have no doubt that they did use his words, but I doubt they needed them to commit torture. I don’t doubt that they would have done it anyway. I also wouldn’t be suprised if certain groups in Iraq were uttering ‘bring it on’ in a southern drawl as they imprison.,torture and murder western and in particular, American hostages.
[quote=“almas john”]Butcher Boy,
Can I ask you a couple of questions?
Are you an American?
Going back to something closer to the original thread topic, do you like Kerry? Please give me an answer that is about Kerry and not Bush. Thanks.
Who do you think is going to win the election?[/quote]
Of course you may.
Nope, just an interested onlooker.
Do I like Kerry? To be honest no, but I don’t care for many politicians. Do I think he is a good candidate for the democrats? I think he is the best that they have. He is liberal enough to get the base out but I don’t think he should scare right leaning swing voters the way that say Howard Dean would. I know many people think he is a bit stodgy and all, but I don’t think that is always a bad thing. One of the key points for me if I had a vote would be deciding who is better suited to sorting out the mess that is Iraq. I was for the war (because otherwise sanctions would have gone on for who knows how long) so I don’t agree with some of his latest Iraq campaign stuff. But I do agree with him that the aftermath has been a monumental fuck up. It seems that whilst what was needed was a massive focus on security after the fall of Saddam, what instead happened was Jerry Bremer et al focused on a mad dash to supply side economics, and the coalition has been playing catch-up since then. (Sorry, I know you said no Bush stuff, but it is a little tricky to comment on one runner in a two horse race without refering to the other one at least a little bit).
On the economic front I think he offers a little more, though I am concerned about what exactly he would do about outsourcing. Protectionism etc would only harm the US economy as a whole for the sake of a few states.
I have no idea. Depends on which campaign really gets their message of hate and scare-mongering over best (I think that is what both campaigns will end up being - not pretty but probably true). Also a big event - say Osama handing himself in or, God forbid, another masive terrorist stike - could really screw up any predictions. I know a lot of Reps. are starting to get very excited but I would be a little more circumspect. It may be a case of peaking at the right time. No point being ten points ahead now if you lose by 500 votes come election day.
[quote]Butcher Boy,
Can I ask you a couple of questions?
Are you an American?
Going back to something closer to the original thread topic, do you like Kerry? Please give me an answer that is about Kerry and not Bush. Thanks.
Who do you think is going to win the election?[/quote]
Butcher Boy wrote:
[quote]Of course you may.
Nope, just an interested onlooker.[/quote] Me, too.
It’s rather unfortunate that the Dems (and to a lesser extent, the Reps) have a man that they don’t really like that much. Both camps are largely driven by dislike of the opposition.
Actually, I think Kerry’s anti-war stuff must play pretty badly with swing voters.
I don’t have a problem with stodgy, either.
[quote]One of the key points for me if I had a vote would be deciding who is better suited to sorting out the mess that is Iraq. I was for the war (because otherwise sanctions would have gone on for who knows how long) so I don’t agree with some of his latest Iraq campaign stuff. But I do agree with him that the aftermath has been a monumental fuck up. It seems that whilst what was needed was a massive focus on security after the fall of Saddam, what instead happened was Jerry Bremer et al focused on a mad dash to supply side economics, and the coalition has been playing catch-up since then.[/quote] Kerry, as a new president, would have less baggage if elected and more opportunities to change the current tactics. However, I doubt if he has Bush’s stubborness to see Iraq through to the end.
[quote]On the economic front I think he offers a little more, though I am concerned about what exactly he would do about outsourcing. Protectionism etc would only harm the US economy as a whole for the sake of a few states.[/quote] I don’t really think politicians have that much control over economic forces like outsourcing.
Yeah, it could go either way, but I would put money on a Bush win.
? i think i might cry 
