Reply With QuoteThat kind of happened, Yoni. The dialogue was made up. The situations were realistic.
I saw Full Metal Jacket. Good movie but, it's got about as much to do with reality as John Kerry's testimony before the Senate Committee in 1972.
That kind of happened, Yoni. The dialogue was made up. The situations were realistic.
Really? Then Kerry should have been dragged before an international tribunal and tried for these statements:
Of course he was totally discredited at the time and over time.On April 22, 1971, under oath, John F. Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he had knowledge that American troops...
"...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 Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam."
And then he admitted on television that "...yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."
And, for good measure, he added "...(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."
Do bad things happen in a war? Yes. Are there bad people serving our country during a war? Yep. But, unlike almost any other country on the face of the globe -- Israel and Britain -- being notable exceptions, we hold our soldiers accountable for their actions.
To imply these were every day events and a "matter of course" in the war, is not absurd but it dishonors the millions that served honorably in the Vietnam War.
You know, after posting that, I see a pattern emerging.
Kerry also attended a meeting where the assassination of U.S. Senators was seriously discussed and voted on. And, while he voted against the proposition and then quit the organization over the matter, he didn't report it.
Just like he didn't report the atrocities to his superiors in Vietnam.
Instead, he waits until the most politically advantageous time to make a political statement on the matter. Yeah, this guy is honorable.
Only My Lai was ever brought to public attention and trial. Scapegoats, as usual, to take the pressure off of the brass. They knew this was going on.But, unlike almost any other country on the face of the globe -- Israel and Britain -- being notable exceptions, we hold our soldiers accountable for their actions.
Why is it absurd to think that 5000 or so assholes, the 1%, may have been running amok at any one time? And how does this impugn the other 99%?To imply these were every day events and a "matter of course" in the war, is not absurd but it dishonors the millions that served honorably in the Vietnam War.
Wait a minute, you're talking about people "running amok" and I'm talking about Kerry's testimony this was the stated policy of the U.S. Government.
We agree there were people running amok. , we have people running amok in Iraq. However, that neither reflects the official policy of a government nor does it negate the legitimacy of the military action being undertaken.
So, what's your point.
Kerry admitted to being one of those that ran amok. He should be in prison...if what he said is true.
Which you have denied....if what he said is true.
I'm not saying that the events in question were official policy, but bigwigs/brass sure as knew they were going on. I think that was what Kerry was trying to say. Field level commanders probably did order some of the , against policy. Don't assume that the 1% were all grunts.
Well sure but he advanced the notion that the claims that this was rampant behavior throughout the military operations in Vietnam were accurate and this is what seems to have pissed off a lot of Vietnam vets for a long, long time.
Probably for as long as they live TD.
From what I have seen just as many vets from all wars support Kerry, and maybe even more, than care about what Kerry said or did about the war once he came back. By the 70's public opinion about the Vietnam war was just as negative as it has grown today about Iraq. Once again the Republican't have found a issue that fires up the base, but does little to convince swing voters that in itself should disquilify John Kerry from being Commander in Chief.
As Tommy would say "Who gives a ?".
Apparently a fair number of vets (and POWs, let's not forget) from all wars do not support Kerry for his public anti-war activities and his support, unintentional or perhaps, worse, for the VietCong. Again, Kerry says to vote for him because of who he was 35 years ago. Well then.
Don't despair danny. Kerry might just do a little better than the Duk when he loses to a Bush.
Yeah right. The Swift boat vets can't even hold their own ship together. Many of the vets who are listed among the 250 supporters have said that they never intended for this too be used as a political weapon against Kerry. Other have denied ever being contacted by the Swift Boat vets at all.
The other day on right-wing radio they asked Vets to call in and answer whether they supported Kerry or not based on these allegations, most of the Vets who called in supported Kerry overwhelmingly and criticized both W. and Cheney for allowing these attacks to continue against a fellow vet. Suprised the out of the right-wing host.
The same could be said of the DNC, Kerry's campaign, and Kerry's stance on most issues.Yeah right. The Swift boat vets can't even hold their own ship together.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions