lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Nov 1, 2007 20:12:56 GMT -4
A quick question for Jason what evidence do you have that the accounts that Kerry testified about were false? What evidence did he have that they were true? Your notion of burden of proof is CT like “I’ve made a claim, prove that it isn’t true” He and the other organizers took efforts to verify that the men had actually served in Vietnam. They gave very specific information about units, dates and locations. What reason would they have for making things like that up implicating themselves and their buddies in horrendous war crimes? Witness accounts are used by journalists, historians, polices, courts and just about every type of investigation. Citation most account I've read said he ran in 72. He had served 4 years most of that combat duty, is that an early discharge? No one as far as I could determine has produced evidence they were not vets, Lane got booted pretty early on because the other deemed him unreliable. Yes a report that only one person claims to have seen (1 pg 3) or perhaps was only told about (2). The Pentagon said they found no evidence such a report ever existed (1 pg 3). Numerous historians and Vietnam vets have attested that the thing the “Winter Soldiers” described happened. Including a historian who reviewed military files in the National Archives (3). And even by a historian who served in Vietnam. "Every one of those things he named happened--and I don't mean just once," said military historian Gary Solis, who served two tours as a Marine officer in Vietnam and then spent 18 years as a military prosecutor and judge advocate. (1) 1) www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0402220494feb22,1,6906503.story?page=1&coll=chi-newsnationworld-utl&ctrack=1&cset=true 2) kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/index.php?s=213cce7d794bd98841a4bb1da2543720&showtopic=6&st=20&p=1357%EF%BF%BDentry135 Post 23 3) www.villagevoice.com/news/0438,turse,56936,1.html See also: The other articles in link 2) www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE www.answers.com/topic/winter-soldier-investigation
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Nov 1, 2007 20:18:24 GMT -4
According to the reports, the audience was split nearly 50/50 between his supporters and those that went to challenge him, so overall they would be neutral, about the only thing they apparently agreed on was for Barrett to remove himeself. Not that I'm a Barrett fan, I probablly would have told him to shut up to if I were there but can you link to any accounts not from pro-Horowitz publications?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 1, 2007 20:48:12 GMT -4
The stereotype that Vietnam was uniquely tragic or had an amazing ability to turn Americans into remorseless killing machines is false. All wars are de-humanizing to some extent, but the mythology built up around Vietnam is just that.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 1, 2007 21:00:49 GMT -4
I shouldn't butt in here because I don't know a lot about American politics but, is Jason saying that: Kerry lied about his war record. Atrocities by American troops did not happen. or if they did, they were few and far between.
I'm also curious - did Kerry associate himself with Jane Fonda before or after her famous visit to Hanoi? Even I found that disgraceful. (I'm not saying she should have been charged with treason or anything though) As I remember, she manned an anti-aircraft gun, smiling for the cameras? I think you should always support the troops. Now I say that without thinking about it too much... It's hard to say what information should be made public during war, it's a very tricky issue - there's reasons for classified information - but there's also reasons for declassifying them. Who decides?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 1, 2007 21:23:25 GMT -4
It's hardly secret that atrocities occurred. I'm morally certain that a majority of soldiers had nothing to do with them, but they did happen. There's at least one picture of a brightly smiling young man and his collection of ears, for example, and there is, after all, My Lai. To deny they happened is, frankly, offensive and foolish--or just ignorant; take your pick. (And my own father was in Vietnam, so I'm certainly not attempting to paint everyone who was there with the same brush.)
How common were those atrocities? Too common, certainly--happening at all makes them too common. I think, in fact, that they were relatively rare, actually. However, they happened more often than command acknowledged, which I think was the point John Kerry was trying to make.
In my opinion, Vietnam was a war without a moral compass--we were in there to attempt to keep France's colony. Had we supported Ho Chi Minh against the French, he wouldn't have turned to the Chinese for assistance against us. LBJ knew nothing happened in the Gulf of Tonkin ("Hell, those damn dumb sailors were just shooting at flying fish"), but he used it as an excuse to escalate. The reports of enemy casualties were exaggerated at best.
The thing a lot of people don't realize is that US involvement in Vietnam actually began under Eisenhower. Contrary to what a lot of people will tell you, incidentally, Kennedy had no intention of withdrawing US troops--and in fact, had he lived but an hour longer, he would have given a speech announcing same.
Oh, and regarding 1812--the US government of the time acknowledged that they'd lost the war. And, in fact, the act in Parliament outlawing pressing citizens from US ships was passed before the war started! (Communications being far slower then, of course.) No, we didn't lose any territory, but we did have our capitol burned.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 1, 2007 22:06:10 GMT -4
According to the reports, the audience was split nearly 50/50 between his supporters and those that went to challenge him, so overall they would be neutral, about the only thing they apparently agreed on was for Barrett to remove himeself. Not that I'm a Barrett fan, I probablly would have told him to shut up to if I were there but can you link to any accounts not from pro-Horowitz publications? How about this from someone who was there?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 2, 2007 0:54:19 GMT -4
I shouldn't butt in here because I don't know a lot about American politics but, is Jason saying that: Kerry lied about his war record. No I haven't said that. In fact, I have specifically said the evidence isn't firm enough to be sure he lied. I'm not saying that either. Atrocities happen in any war. That's more like what I'm saying. Much fewer than the impression Kerry was trying to create in 1971 with his testimony. I blame him because he was using sensationalist, unsubstantiated stories to attack his fellow servicemen. Yes he intended to attack their leaders, but his method was to make the U.S. soldiers look like kill-crazed zombies either too stupid or too stoned to recognize an illegal or immoral order. It was a betrayal. The icing on the cake came the next day, when he threw someone else's medals over the white house fence, while all the other protesters around him were throwing their own decorations, hats, jackets, or military papers. It was the start of Kerry's political career. It lead to appearances on the Dick Cavett show and NBC's Meet the Press the next year. He tried to use that fame to build into a run for congress in 1972 but was defeated. He had requested an early discharge (by 8 months) in 1970 to run, but didn't get a real campaign together until '72. The Winter Soldier "investigation" (media event) was in 1971. Fonda visited Hanoi and posed on the anti-aircraft gun in 1972. What would you say constitutes "supporting the troops"?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Nov 2, 2007 11:24:37 GMT -4
I shouldn't butt in here because I don't know a lot about American politics but, is Jason saying that: Kerry lied about his war record. No I haven't said that. In fact, I have specifically said the evidence isn't firm enough to be sure he lied. Funny there is just about zero evidence he lied and lots of evidence including the unanimous opinion of everyone who was there including some who are Republicans that he is telling the truth and you say “the evidence isn't firm enough to be sure he lied” that would be like saying “the evidence isn’t firm enough that the Moon landings were faked” That wasn’t clear in your earlier postings. That wasn’t the focus of his testimony; it was literally only a minute or two out of two hours. His conservative critics rather than Kerry himself highlighted those few words. Some vets were upset by what he said, others suported them. You said the “Winter Soldier” investigation was a sham, do you still believe so? If so why in light of the contrary evidence I posted. If not you should say so. I’m sure you’d object if he’d thrown his own as well, the medals belonged to a friend who presumably asked him to throw his medals. Sort of a false start he spent the next 10 years in law school and DA’s office and didn’t run for office again till 1982 when he was elected Lt. Governor. I already asked for a citation once.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 2, 2007 14:34:13 GMT -4
That is just conjecture on your part. Show me that he was the only vet who threw a friend’s medals that day.
What is disingenuous is to claim that he pretended they were his medals when he did not.
Oh, ha ha, Jason. That’s really rich. Kerry was honorably discharged after being wounded three times and after serving in actual combat.
George W. Bush actually did just walk away from his weekend warrior duty with the National Guard to work on the Senate campaign of Winton Blount. It is offensive in the extreme to claim that George Bush is the hero and Kerry is the goat.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 2, 2007 15:38:19 GMT -4
This is exactly what I thought was so freaking ridiculous about the whole affair during the '04 elections. People were fuming and fussing about whether Kerry deserved the 3 purple hearts he recieved while serving in the heart of Vietnam while nobody seemed to care at all that Bush obviously dodged the draft by enlisting in the air national guard (where it was abundantly clear from reports that he served half-heartedly and didn't fulfill his obligations).
Here are some facts for those that forgot:
John Kerry served in Vietnam and was involved in direct combat.
George Bush did not serve in Vietnam, and never saw combat in his life.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 2, 2007 16:03:23 GMT -4
What would you say constitutes "supporting the troops"?
You know, I've been thinking about that and I'm not sure what I mean. I know how it would apply to our troops in Afghanistan. It means that however you feel about the war, don't apply that to our soldiers fighting it. They volunteered to protect our country, to possibly face death to protect and preserve our freedoms. They are normally respected and honoured for doing that service. To crucify them all of a sudden if the country gets involved in an unpopular war just doesn't make sense. The common soldier doesn't get to pick and choose which conflicts they fight. They are normally looked up to, as they should be - they are our fathers and brothers and sons, yes and mothers , sisters and daughters too. They could be a member of your church, or a grower of your food, or your high school chum. DIrect your protests to your government,. I always felt that it was wrong when VIetnam vets came home and were called baby killers. Indeed, some re-enlisted because coming home was worse than fighting in VIetnam. Now, if atrocities are committed by soldiers, they should be accounted for and justice served. Even Canadian soldiers are not immune to bad behavior - as in Somalia. But I hope it was a very isolated incident.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 2, 2007 16:16:53 GMT -4
I would imagine every person on this forum would say they support the troops. What galls me is when conservatives claim that failure to support the war policy means failure to support the troops. That is completely ludicrous, but has been going on since day one. By that logic, opposing anything the President wants to do with the military is a failure to support the troops.
I would happily pay more taxes if it meant getting more and better body armor and more and better up-armored vehicles to our troops. I support the troops. But I don't support the war.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 2, 2007 19:00:15 GMT -4
What galls me is when conservatives claim that failure to support the war policy means failure to support the troops.
Conversely, if you say you support the troops people assume you support the war! I wonder if Canada is considered "at War" right now in Afghanistan. Presently there are 1500 troops there. So technically speaking these last few years would not be considered peacetime for my country.
Also: Wonderin' what you Brits and Aussies out there feel about your involvement in Iraq (if I'm correct in my assumption)? Is there a lot of opposition to it in your countries? How do you feel about Canada's decision not to go to Iraq? Do you think we made a logical decision or a political one?
EDIT: I note that the Netherlands (1,345 troops - withdrawn 3/05) withdrew in 2005, and New Zealand ( 61 troops withdrawn 9/04) in 2004 from Iraq. Australia presently has 820 troops there - 2000 were deployed originally. Great Britain presently has 5200 troops out of 45000 deployed in 2003.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 2, 2007 22:21:24 GMT -4
Actually, as I've mentioned before, one of the troops supports me. (Not for much longer, though; my federal disability will be enough to cover my share of expenses.) For me, supporting him meant wanting him home while he was gone and making sure his comic books got paid for.
On a larger scale, though, it means seeing that the troops get what they need while they're in combat and aren't put into combat unnecessarily. I support the mission to find Osama bin Laden (remember him?), and--speaking as a woman, a history buff, and an art lover--I was never exactly thrilled with the Taliban. I just didn't want to lose my beloved in a quagmire, any more than my grandparents would've wanted my father lost in one. (Since I'm 30, it goes without saying that, had my father died in Vietnam, I never would have been born.)
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 2, 2007 22:41:14 GMT -4
Define "war"? Anymore, it's anything from a relatively minor military action on up. Used to be the demolition/conquering of an enemy...a total city/state effort. What's this "war" stuff?
|
|