Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:11 pm
First, not all that was mentioned were "war crimes." Last time I checked, people killed each other in wars. This isn't done humanely as in a lethal injection for a man on death row. This involves killing via bombs, mortars, grenades, mines, automatic weapons, and even hand-to-hand combat where peoples' ears and heads get cut off. War isn't pretty.
I agree war is horrible, people get killed, hence the reason I never want to go. Call me a coward for that but it’s something I can live with. But you know and I know when Kerry was talking about cutting off ears and heads he wasn’t talking about hand-to-hand combat.
I am not going to accept that Kerry accurately represented what happened to those 150 men, nor do I believe they would have endorsed him telling Congress what grieving soldiers needed to talk about behind closed doors
Unfortunately the only way to find out whether your opinion is right is to ask those 150 men he was representing.
In other venues, he suggested that he himself committed war crimes. If this had happened today (such as the fiasco at Abu Ghraib), what do you think would have happened to him? Think about it. At the very least, he would have had to plea bargain some testimony - assuming he didn't perjure himself. At the worst, he may have been convicted of war crimes and have been treated as a felon. That's a man you want as commander in chief?
Here is a piece that I found on this:
MIAMI, April 18 Senator John Kerry on Sunday distanced himself from contentious statements he made three decades ago after returning from the Vietnam War, saying his long-ago use of the word "atrocities" to describe his and others' actions was inappropriate and "a little bit excessive."
"If you wanted to ask me, `Have you ever made mistakes in your life?' sure," Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in an hour long interview on the NBC program "Meet the Press." "I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger."
The near-apology came after the host, Tim Russert, played videotape of Mr. Kerry, in 1971, acknowledging that he had participated in shooting in free-fire zones, burning villages and search-and-destroy missions. All those actions were "contrary to the laws of warfare" and the Geneva Conventions, he said then. Republicans have seized on those comments, and accusations about war crimes the young Mr. Kerry made in testimony before a Senate committee, to try to undercut his war credentials.
"The words were honest," Mr. Kerry said Sunday, "but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top."
I have no idea whether or not the things he admitted to 30 years ago would get him arrested today. More likely then not they would go after his superiors and move up the chain of command as high as it would go. Today in his own words he says he was misrepresenting the truth 30 yrs ago. So which is worse, misrepresenting the truth to end a war 30 yrs ago, or misrepresenting the truth to start one today?
There is nothing wrong with being against the war in Vietnam. I'm old enough to have voiced my own protest against the war. But my voiced opinions did not contribute to the torture of POWs
Can you honestly say that? The majority of the US population viewed the war as wrong, and voiced that opinion. The NV used that fact against POWs, your voice included. Anyone who publicly voiced outrage against the war in Vietnam during those times should be held to the same “crimes against POW’s” as Kerry is.
Again though my main question still stands. Is it either what happens on the battlefield stays on the battlefield no matter what happens? Or does the public have a right to know about it, to attempt to keep it from happening again?
Paul_C
I agree war is horrible, people get killed, hence the reason I never want to go. Call me a coward for that but it’s something I can live with. But you know and I know when Kerry was talking about cutting off ears and heads he wasn’t talking about hand-to-hand combat.
I am not going to accept that Kerry accurately represented what happened to those 150 men, nor do I believe they would have endorsed him telling Congress what grieving soldiers needed to talk about behind closed doors
Unfortunately the only way to find out whether your opinion is right is to ask those 150 men he was representing.
In other venues, he suggested that he himself committed war crimes. If this had happened today (such as the fiasco at Abu Ghraib), what do you think would have happened to him? Think about it. At the very least, he would have had to plea bargain some testimony - assuming he didn't perjure himself. At the worst, he may have been convicted of war crimes and have been treated as a felon. That's a man you want as commander in chief?
Here is a piece that I found on this:
MIAMI, April 18 Senator John Kerry on Sunday distanced himself from contentious statements he made three decades ago after returning from the Vietnam War, saying his long-ago use of the word "atrocities" to describe his and others' actions was inappropriate and "a little bit excessive."
"If you wanted to ask me, `Have you ever made mistakes in your life?' sure," Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in an hour long interview on the NBC program "Meet the Press." "I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger."
The near-apology came after the host, Tim Russert, played videotape of Mr. Kerry, in 1971, acknowledging that he had participated in shooting in free-fire zones, burning villages and search-and-destroy missions. All those actions were "contrary to the laws of warfare" and the Geneva Conventions, he said then. Republicans have seized on those comments, and accusations about war crimes the young Mr. Kerry made in testimony before a Senate committee, to try to undercut his war credentials.
"The words were honest," Mr. Kerry said Sunday, "but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top."
I have no idea whether or not the things he admitted to 30 years ago would get him arrested today. More likely then not they would go after his superiors and move up the chain of command as high as it would go. Today in his own words he says he was misrepresenting the truth 30 yrs ago. So which is worse, misrepresenting the truth to end a war 30 yrs ago, or misrepresenting the truth to start one today?
There is nothing wrong with being against the war in Vietnam. I'm old enough to have voiced my own protest against the war. But my voiced opinions did not contribute to the torture of POWs
Can you honestly say that? The majority of the US population viewed the war as wrong, and voiced that opinion. The NV used that fact against POWs, your voice included. Anyone who publicly voiced outrage against the war in Vietnam during those times should be held to the same “crimes against POW’s” as Kerry is.
Again though my main question still stands. Is it either what happens on the battlefield stays on the battlefield no matter what happens? Or does the public have a right to know about it, to attempt to keep it from happening again?
Paul_C