Kerry on the Vetrans

[WadeFulp]

Not sure how much this has been debated here, but what do you think about Kerry coming back to the US and claiming that him and other soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam? Then the Vietnamese army got ahold of his testimony and played these tapes to our troops who were POW's and yelled at them and told them they were war criminals and would be treated as such, when they may not have been.

Why should someone who put our POW's in such an awful position be allowed to even run for President?

The fact about this happening or not is not debateable as this is fact and his words are fact, and what resulted from his words are fact.

Debate if you think what he did was wrong or not, and if he should be running for President who is in charge of the very people he called war criminals in the past.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/10/04 02:44 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Not sure how much this has been debated here,

Alot.

but what do you think about Kerry coming back to the US and claiming that him and other soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam?

It was his duty.

Then the Vietnamese army got ahold of his testimony and played these tapes to our troops who were POW's and yelled at them and told them they were war criminals and would be treated as such, when they may not have been.

Well that's a sad state of affairs.

Why should someone who put our POW's in such an awful position be allowed to even run for President?

He didn't put them into that position, the Vietnamese army apparently did, no?

Debate if you think what he did was wrong or not, and if he should be running for President who is in charge of the very people he called war criminals in the past.

There's also no debating whether or not the US committed such atrocities during the Vietnam War. We did.

What do people propse, that Kerry came back to the US and remained silent about what he had seen? Would hiding the truth be better?

[RedSkunk]

Here's a transcript of his April 22, 1971 testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations", in Detroit in 1971, to get everyone on the same page. I'll read it in a sec. I'm unaware if there are any other notable transcripts that should be brought to the table.

[cheshirepus]

I'll give him the benefit of the time (if there even were any then) that he was to young to know when to keep his mouth shut, even if he was right about what happened. The best of 'em in our government right now usually have one story or another about committing war crimes in Vietnam, but they're usually smart enough not to talk about it.
I remember reading in Colin Powell's autobiography about even some of his own involvement in the My Lai massacre, but aside from just a quick mention about it, that's obviously not something he likes to talk about... and I would argue that Powell is probably the most capable and respected man in the White House right now.
So no, I don't think it's right that Kerry did this. I think it shows a fundamental weakness in his character; that he's willing to sacrifice the good of his fellow Americans to protest what he thinks is wrong. Ultimately, it is poor judgement. It is something that needs to be addressed, but the timing was very wrong, much like the poor timing that the media and military expressed with the release of those Abu Grhaib photos. Once again, something that needed to be publicly addressed, but should have also been talked about at a later time.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 9/10/04 02:57 PM, cheshirepus wrote: So no, I don't think it's right that Kerry did this. I think it shows a fundamental weakness in his character; that he's willing to sacrifice the good of his fellow Americans to protest what he thinks is wrong.

I suppose the question is, what’s more important…

Staying patriotic. Or telling the truth.

Right?

[RedSkunk]

At 9/10/04 02:57 PM, cheshirepus wrote: Once again, something that needed to be publicly addressed, but should have also been talked about at a later time.

So that the war could continue unabated? So that such atrocities could continue? Why?

[cheshirepus]

Please, don't use selective quotes. I hate that.
Leaving out things like "It is something that needs to be addressed, but the timing was very wrong..." makes me look like an uncompassionate asshole.
I'm simply arguing that sensitive information should handled delicately to avoid any further degredation of whatever cause it is that we happen to be serving. I think the war with Iraq is a bunch of bullshit, but I'm not going to do anything to put our Soldiers and Marines in any more danger than they are. You have to have some faith in our system that an internal investigation would have stopped prison abuses without becoming the catalyst for a number of symbolic public beheadings and mutilations. Similarly, Kerry should have shown the same restraint... Who said war was playing nice? But come on, don't fuck over your buddies in a POW camp because you disagree with the Administration at the time.

[BeFell]

I do believe that Wade watches "Your World" with Neil Cavuto. The thing that makes most people upset about Kerry's claims is the fact that he had no proof. He said that he heard of these things being done but did't actually witness them first hand. The only thing he could say for sure happened was the burning of villiages because he gave the order to have it done. Those two things alone are enough to question his credentials and then the fact that his statements endangered the lives of others goes to show how much he takes responsibility for his actions.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/10/04 03:18 PM, BeFell wrote: I do believe that Wade watches "Your World" with Neil Cavuto. The thing that makes most people upset about Kerry's claims is the fact that he had no proof.

From the link I already conveniently provided:
"I would like to talk, representing 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, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape 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 Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side 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."

It's not even that far in BeFell. Come on.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/10/04 03:16 PM, cheshirepus wrote: Please, don't use selective quotes. I hate that.
Leaving out things like "It is something that needs to be addressed, but the timing was very wrong..." makes me look like an uncompassionate asshole.

Anyone following the thread read your reply. I took the essence of your post. It's tidier that way. However you look is totally beside the point.

You have to have some faith in our system that an internal investigation would have stopped prison abuses without becoming the catalyst for a number of symbolic public beheadings and mutilations.

The system didn't respond. The prison abuse had been going on for years. The horrors in Vietnam had been going on for decades.

So again. What exactly should he - and all of the other veterans who came back and exposed the truth - of waited for? Hell to freeze over?

[FatherVenom]

At 9/10/04 03:16 PM, cheshirepus wrote: Please, don't use selective quotes. I hate that.
Leaving out things like "It is something that needs to be addressed, but the timing was very wrong..." makes me look like an uncompassionate asshole.

Actually he pretty much covered that line considering you were repeating yourself.

I'm simply arguing that sensitive information should handled delicately to avoid any further degredation of whatever cause it is that we happen to be serving.

Bull, if people can't handle the truth then they should just bury their heads in the sand.

You have to have some faith in our system that an internal investigation would have stopped prison abuses without becoming the catalyst for a number of symbolic public beheadings and mutilations.

Do I now? I suspect that these events would have happened reguardless of our actions. We did invade their country.

Who said war was playing nice?

Of course not, which ties back in to what Wade said. The POWs over there know whether they were involved in any attrocities and they know that atrocities happened.

But come on, don't fuck over your buddies in a POW camp because you disagree with the Administration at the time.

If you had read the transcript you would know that Kerry isn't the one who originally revealed these things that most Americans knew already.

[cheshirepus]

Gee, forgive me for taking some sort of middle ground here and trying to be reasonable. I suppose I'm going to have to take some sort of hard lined Left or Right Wing point of view to have any credibility with some of you.
Believe me, I don't like the current state of things in this world any more than the rest of you, but I'm not going to cling to an absolute value just to try and prove my point. Cut me some slack.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Am I the only one that has a problem with Kerry denouncing service in Vietnam and associated war crimes, then turning right around a couple of decades later and seemingly placing his whole campaign on the basis that he's a Vietnam "war hero"?

Bush may be a war criminal, but Kerry is too by his own admission, yet his service in which he committed these war crimes is supposed to be commendable? What the hell?

[FatherVenom]

At 9/10/04 05:12 PM, cheshirepus wrote: Gee, forgive me for taking some sort of middle ground here

Sure, why not, considering you didn't?

and trying to be reasonable.

Only if you forgive me for being rational.

I suppose I'm going to have to take some sort of hard lined Left or Right Wing point of view to have any credibility with some of you.

No, but you did.

At 9/10/04 05:13 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Am I the only one that has a problem with Kerry denouncing service in Vietnam and associated war crimes, then turning right around a couple of decades later and seemingly placing his whole campaign on the basis that he's a Vietnam "war hero"?

Only because your the only one who seems to think that he's basing his whole campaign on it.

[fli]

Big crap... A war that happened 30 years ago with no ties to the current one shouldn't be given bigger coverage then what it should.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/10/04 05:13 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Am I the only one that has a problem with Kerry denouncing service in Vietnam and associated war crimes, then turning right around a couple of decades later and seemingly placing his whole campaign on the basis that he's a Vietnam "war hero"?

Only because your the only one who seems to think that he's basing his whole campaign on it.

Okay, he may not be basing his whole campaign on it, fair enough. However, it is a integral part of it. And I bet if you were to ask people what first comes to mind when you say John Kerry, I would imagine that there would be plenty of "Vietnam" and "Purple Heart" responses.

[FatherVenom]

At 9/10/04 06:38 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I would imagine that there would be plenty of "Vietnam" and "Purple Heart" responses.

You know why presidential candidates are forced to parade around their war record? It's for the Souther hick vote, which is where you will find those responses.

[EnragedSephiroth]

That still doesn't imply that Kerry is a bigger idiot than Bush, or that he never makes mistakes. But for good ol' Bushy it's a daily routine to do stupid things. If Bush were a NG artist, he would have been blammed more than those people who submit cheesy outdated Matrix and clock clock stuff.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/10/04 06:44 PM, FatherVenom wrote: You know why presidential candidates are forced to parade around their war record? It's for the Souther hick vote, which is where you will find those responses.

I thought that was what Edwards was for on this campaign?
If it's for the southerner "hick" vote, why is he focusing so much energy and effort on Republican strongholds that he's probably not going to win?

[RedSkunk]

It forces Republicans to take resources off of swing states, and do a little shoring up in strongholds.