Uechi-Ryu.com

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

Clearly your own post above with Kerry's comments show that he lied. "Excessive" is a bit cavalier, don't you think?

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.

I lived through those time periods. I went to school with people returning from Viet Nam. I considered myself part of an effort consistent with supporting the mental health of soldiers returing from a horrible experience that the world didn't quite understand and know how to deal with.

My protest was silent. I voted. Meanwhile, I wore buttons supporting POWs and MIAs.

Kerry contributed to the problem by lieing to Congress and fraternizing with the enemy. He was a mixed up kid who should have seen a psychiatrist rather than being angry at the world and lashing out at it - at the expense of his brothers in battle.

- Bill

Scott Danziger wrote:If you are getting your info from OFFICERS from Iraq you get the party line. No officer will risk his career to give you his real opinion until he gets out of that unform. However this is not to say that those in uniform do not support this war in Iraq. I do realize that.

I just don't believe that my relatives who are officers or NCOs are lying to me.

The grunts rule! And they will tell you the truth. Don't imagine what they think ask them! Find out the real story. And don't think for a moment there is freedom of speech in the military. If you served, you know what I mean.

They sound just like the rest of my relatives who are in, except they don't have any real rank yet.

When I was in the military, many Vietnam vets stayed in because it was easier to aclimate after the war still in uniform than to go into civilian life. And the stories they told would curl you hair. There were atrocities commited. And ##### happened you will never know about. These were from guys that were in the bush.

Seeing terrible things in combat happens in war. However, my point has been that if you or anyone else knows about "atrocities commited", then you have a hard choice to make. Either ignore it and be guilty of war crimes yourself, or turn the criminal in so they can be held accountable. Kerry not only accused other soldiers of war crimes, he admitted to committing them himself.

One next to last thing before you all try to bash on me. If you are not a vet or a current sworn in member of the armed forces who can possibly be sent overseas to get your ass tore up, Don't bother. Your opnion means nothing to me.

It seems that you believe that only those who've served in the military should have any say in the government. Sounds a lot like the concept from "Starship Troopers". There are lots of reasons why someone wouldn't have been in the military, but by your statement, none of them count. If I were to put forth a similar contention that no one who is given money out of the government coffers should be allowed to vote... or perhaps that only those who are land-owners should be allowed to vote... or maybe it should be only Doctors... how about only whites.... gee do you think there'd be an outcry?

You can talk all the talk but if you ain't walked the walk.... It's not to be disrespectfull to anyone as a person, but as a vet who strongly opposes the war in Iraq, I only respect the opinions of those who do and have served. I of course won't agree with those who oppose my view but I will respect it.

You'll only respect the opinions of vets, what about all of the women in the country who agree with you, but didn't serve? Don't matter... No respect... In fact, Kerry was a strong advocate, after VietNam ended, of a minimal military, no draft, and people NOT serving. So all those people who listened to that in the mid-70s onward, don't count and don't have your respect. That also cuts out a significant portion (I'd say majority) of Hollywood...

One last thing, if a foreign country invaded America, bombed our towns and cities, put their troops on my streets, patrolled in front of my house with armed troops and tanks, all in the name of their version of freedom (or whatever excuse), I'd be an insurgent too. Think about it.

We'd be right there with you. Already thought about it... Since the UN is pushing for "treaties" that will basically make our Constitution null and void, we should watch out for them right now!

GOD BLESS THE TROOPS!!
GOD BLESS THE VETS!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

Ditto...

Scott Danziger wrote:I like ... Hillary AND Bill Clinton.

Now all you "righty's" explain this.... If a CIA agent was outed from a member of the White House staff to the press during the Clinton administration, and nothing was done about it, what would you being doing right now? I mean after you scream bloody murder?? HYPOCRITS!

Y'know, like 5X defery Cheney.

One next to last thing before you all try to bash on me. If you are not a vet or a current sworn in member of the armed forces who can possibly be sent overseas to get your ass tore up, Don't bother. Your opnion means nothing to me. You can talk all the talk but if you ain't walked the walk.... It's not to be disrespectfull to anyone as a person, but as a vet who strongly opposes the war in Iraq, I only respect the opinions of those who do and have served. I of course won't agree with those who oppose my view but I will respect it.

How can you call folks on the Right hypocrites after mentioning that you like Hillary and Bill Clinton?

How can you be upset at Cheney and not upset at Bill Clinton?

How can you say that only those who've served have opinions that count and that you respect after mentioning that you like Hillary and Bill Clinton?

I can tell you're upset and this isn't the way you normally express yourself, but this time, I gotta tell you... it sounds like the old pot and kettle debate.

Hence, this is why I am an INDEPENDENT. Clinton did great things for our economy. His personal flaws that have NO EFFECT on anyone but his own self are of no concern to me. Hillary is a tougher lady than you think and has won respect even from the right side of the aisle. (This from repubulicans that have spoke about her on Sunday morning news shows)

Believe it or not, Starship troopers made a great point. Only vets should be citizens. (Actually I somewhat support that in a way. Truthfully, combat vets should pay way less taxes, if any. Non combat vets a major break, and let all those who never served foot the most part of the bill. That outa fill the ranks.)

As for those who are not vets that agree with me, well good for them too. So what. The "respect" I am referring to, I say again, is not personal.

Also, I stated, yes there are those there that do support Bush and the war, I realize that. Ask them again when they come back after they have been in a major combat situation. Diverting to Iraq was wrong. Period. ONE of the best ways to fight terrorism is not to create more terrorists. This is what is happening.

And also, I am not going to defend Kerry. He was NOT my choice by no stretch. But he is the only viable alternative in this campaign. As I said I supported Wes Clark, and would have supported John McCain if he was to have run.

Scott

Scott, I agree with Bill 1001%... You've earned the right to voice your opinion. Contrary to popular belief, I am registered "unenrolled" (in Massachusetts they recognize the "Independent" party, so anyone without party affiliation is "unenrolled" in a party, even though you're enrolled to vote... It's a "Massachusetts thing". ) Also, contrary to popular belief, I didn't vote for "W" last time and won't be voting for him this time either...
Popular belief seems to be that I'm "Conservative" which isn't really correct. I looked at the Libertarians and the Constitution Party, but neither of them really has my beliefs completely in their platforms. I'm against big government. Government shouldn't act "In loco parentis" to everyone. While I don't agree that only vets should vote, I DO agree that vets shouldn't have to pay anything into the system... they've already paid. In my vision of the system, Government would be small enough where taxes would be minimal and the lose of any revenue from vets wouldn't make any difference. BTW, I have two nephew-in-laws who've both seen action recently... They support the war. However, one did say that he wished they could fight a little less "PC". The terrorist insurgents know that we won't go in after them if they duck into a Mosque, so they do their raid and head for church... He thinks we should be able to go in after them. He also said that nearly all of the folks he talks with on the street are glad we're there. We actually agree on one thing... Neither of the major candidates running are a good choice and if you're going to vote for one of these two, you have to decide who (in your opinion) is the lesser lizard. I have to (again) agree with Bill and say that I will never vote for Edwards to be anywhere near the whitehouse. With family in NC, they have stated their complete dislike and distaste of him and his "methods" as well...

Take care...

Bill, as much as you're convinced I'm not reading what you're writing, I feel the same way. For example:

I wrote that if the US actually cared about UN resolutions, they wouldn't go to war against the UN's vote to uphold UN resolutions Saddam broke.

You reply that I don't understand the reason the UN failed to vote for war. This doesn't matter to me. It's fine if you feel the UN is corrupt and bought out by Saddam. This is probably precisely what Dubya feels about it. And that's why it is bullsheet that we felt obligated to uphold those resolutions. Dubya's administration just found that a justification.

It'd be like our going to war to uphold amnesty international recommendations abroad when we violate them ourselves with the death penalty. The death penalty is a debatable issue but its the clue that we don't cre about amnesty international.

"This was a recipe for disaster, Ian. If you can't see that with all of Iraq's history of seizing oil land and actually using WMDs, then you don't want to see it."

Today's news was that SAddam's WMD appear to have been destroyed by 1991. His military was easily rolled over and was going nowhere. He WAS a bad man. But what changed that mandated war? The impetus, if I recall, was taking the fight to the baddies after 9/11. This link I still don't see.

Some questions:
--If NK is totally different, why invade Iraq to scare it?
--If Afghanistan is only calm because the baddies are busy in Iraq, why didn't Afghanistan go to hell before the Iraq war? And why would we believe that no terrorists could travel or lived there already? Bookstore owners are shouldering RPGs in Iraq, but not in Afghanistan. Period.
--Is an Iraq war really a good thing because it's become a terrorist mecca?
--If the Iraq war is siphoning off all the terrorists, why, and who was that in Russia and elsewhere? There are plenty of other US sites to attack outside of Iraq, right?
--If cave fighting in Pakistan is not a good idea (and this wasn't one I proposed), and you feel there isn't anyone worth hunting there anyway, heck, why not go after the terrorists? Or was that the purpose of Iraq, to bring them out of hiding (I recall Bush challenging thugs to attack our troops at one point).

FYI, I haven't spoken on Kerry and the war, and I haven't seen anything from Moore since Columbine years ago.

I wrote that if the US actually cared about UN resolutions, they wouldn't go to war against the UN's vote to uphold UN resolutions Saddam broke.

Perhaps you forget that GW first GOT the U.N. resolution he felt he needed. Remember? What does severe consequences mean to you?

--If NK is totally different, why invade Iraq to scare it?

Shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ghadaffi found religion and came clean in Lybia. This after several administrations of terrorism support and even taking part in the downing of a civilian aircraft. That's a whole country worth of terrorism gone and cleaned up. Not bad...

Does that answer your question?

Are you discounting negotiations now ongoing with NK?

--If Afghanistan is only calm because the baddies are busy in Iraq, why didn't Afghanistan go to hell before the Iraq war?

1) Inertia. It takes time. The first strike on Afghanistan knocked the Taliban out. Before the remnants of al qaeda and others who hate us could respond, the U.S. was in Iraq.

2) There are now greater numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. If you want to kill some Americans, Iraq is the place to be. The Afghans appear to be doing fine with their own people right now.

Frankly I'm glad various terrorists are busy in Iraq trying to kill people who are capable of fighting back. Give them that to chew on for a while. Take the fight to them rather than being on the defensive at home where our economy and civilian population are much more vulnerable.

And if we are lucky, Iraq will get a representational government at the end of the day.

--Is an Iraq war really a good thing because it's become a terrorist mecca?

See above.

--If the Iraq war is siphoning off all the terrorists, why, and who was that in Russia and elsewhere? There are plenty of other US sites to attack outside of Iraq, right?

Come on now, Ian, you're not going to tell me you think that global struggles are one dimensional, are you?

Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union will be having problems with "Balkanization" for generations. Many of these problems - including that in the former Yugoslavia - are centuries old struggles. This is a Chechen Muslim nationality issue, and their beef is with the Russians who are interested in maintaining whatever territorial sovereignty they still have left.

But yes, the methods and motives are strikingly similar. We should not be surprised. Many of them learned their tactics from the mujahadin who chased the Russians out of Afghanistan and eventually formed the Taliban regime.

The biggest mistake of the U.S. was abandoning Afghanistan after the mujahadin chased the Russians out. Big, big, big mistake. There are several administrations long before GW to blame for that one.

--If cave fighting in Pakistan is not a good idea (and this wasn't one I proposed), and you feel there isn't anyone worth hunting there anyway, heck, why not go after the terrorists? Or was that the purpose of Iraq, to bring them out of hiding (I recall Bush challenging thugs to attack our troops at one point).

I don't endorse your foreign policy ideas - particularly the smartaleck ones.

GW was feeling his oats that day. Good for him. Certainly there are no Democrats who will be patting him on the back.

****

There are many more substantive things to argue about, Ian, like the most recent final report from Bush's CIA inquiry that showed there were no WMD. That, my friend, presents a much more interesting issue.

* So why the hell did Hussein make the rest of the world believe he still had WMD? Some think he did it to scare Iran away from invading him. If I were responsible for killing a million Iranians - some with WMDs - I think I might be crapping my pants as well w/o my favorite nasty toys.

* How does or should Bush feel now that his man found nothing? It sounds damning, but you need to go deeper in the report than most of the press is reporting. It indicates that he was diverting oil-for-food money away from the food and towards palaces and weapons. It also indicated he was prepared to resume WMD production the second sanctions dropped.

So, should we then have invaded? Good question.

- Bill

I am sure by now you are aware that during the debates Vice President Cheney directed millions of viewers to the incorrect web site where they in turn were directed to this web site:

http://www.georgesoros.com/

Hilarious. Frightening as well though. Just think if W is re-elected and anything happens to him -- this man would be in charge.

I easily can live with that. You may not agree with Cheyney's hawkishness and conservatism, but he's got the most mental horsepower, clarity of thought, and effectiveness of all the four gentlemen.

Frankly I was delighted to see him scold Edwards the opportunistic ambulance chaser like a negligent school child. (The "Senator Gone" speech.) Edwards fans may have thought he "won," but it's telling that he will neither win his state of birth (South Carolina) or the state he represents (North Carolina). And folks were actually cheering in the bar here in Virginia whenever Cheney verbally jabbed at Edwards.

Different strokes for different states... These days my only allegience to New England is a handful of good people, Uechi, and the Red Sox.

- Bill

lunacy101L: YOU WERE WARNED!

I repeatedly asked you to contact me directly BEFORE posting to this forum ever again. YOU have ignored those requests and REPEATEDLY posted anyway. I WARNED YOU that if you posted again without contacting me first I would contact your ISP.

NOTICE: You did NOT take me seriously. I have contacted your ISP.

DO NOT EVER post to this forum again under any username!

I already have some information and will be seeking more from your ISP for further followup.

ANY MODERATOR THAT SEES "lunacy101L" POST TO THIS FORUM HAS PERMISSION AND MY REQUEST TO IMMEDIATELY DELETE HIS/HER POSTS!