 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rbshirley
Founder
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 394
|
 Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 8:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sparky wrote: | I agree with Kerry's depiction that those activities were
commonplace. And Kerry never said "everyone" committed those
atrocities. Indeed, not everyone did. I doubt even "most" did.
That doesn't mean we have to deny atrocities or cover them up.
To me, that's as bad as committing them. |
We have finally settled you down to concentrate on the MAIN issue of the
SBVFT ... and leave your game playing behind
Just what proof makes you agree that those activities were commonplace?
Winter Soldier? Dewey Canyon? Almost all statements made during those
John Kerry/Jane Fonda/Anti-war Movement sponsored activities have
been called into serious question by many respected authors and
historians. And certainly none have been substantiated by any formal
charges made by the people using these media events to sensationalize
such supposed allegations ... including Kerry.
My Lai was an atrocious and (more) serious event than even the current
Iraq prision disclosures. Yet isolated. To extrapulate that such activities
were/are commonplace without proof defies all logic.
Paraphrasing you: "That doesn't mean we have to {create imaginary}
atrocities or {use them for political gain}. To me, that's as bad as
committing them."
.
Last edited by rbshirley on Mon May 10, 2004 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First hand knowledge, Sparky?
Still waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | How many times do we have to go through this? |
As many times as it takes for you to get it. 
First of all, the laundry list above isn't the true issue. "Use of 50 calibre machine guns," "search and destroy missions," "harassment and interdiction," "free fire zones," "burning villages" - all could have been fully moral and lawfully conducted activities/operations, depending upon the situation.
That Kerry would include only those things in his "admission" of war crimes was disingenuous on his part - already waffling at that tender age.
Kerry's "confession" was very carefully worded - in part, because he knew that these things were lawful under the rules of land warfare.
He also knew that he hadn't seen any of the things about which he testified to Congress - and that's the true issue - the list of atrocities provided to Congress in his 1971 testimony. He didn't mention those in his confession, because it would have been evidence for a war crimes trial.
His admission was intended to feed into his whole anti-war persona - humbly "admitting to war crimes" which weren't crimes at all, while giving the impression that he had participated in activities that were criminal.
There is no way that someone got through the training required to became an officer in the United States Navy without a very clear understanding of the Geneva Conventions, treatment of POW's, war crimes, lawful and unlawful orders, etc.
Even enlisted people got classes in these matters, but the officers were required to be able to teach them and guide their units by them, so they had to know it inside out.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tahoejoe
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was raised in OC California just a few miles south of El Toro Marine Base, not far from the LTA station and north of the many bases in San Diego. As such I was in constant contact with our military men and women some of whose children I attended school with. During those years I saw all of them abused by the so called peace niks. The children were chided in school and their fathers spit on and called every unimaginable name in the book. Why.. due to a door opened by John Kerry....Daniel Ellsberg noted antiwar spokeperson even stated JFK's testimony was false and in ways slanderous. Unfortunately at the time his comments weren't carried on all the major networks as was Kerry's. John Kerry may have served his country in Vietnam but his actions afterwards were nothing short of despicable. Let me remind you other men served in uniform but their acitons later were just as bad if not worse. If John Kerry had merely wanted to protest and throw his medals away, so be it. But his actions and comments before congress that day went well beyond the acceptable.
Before ol' Sparky comes out screaming I'd like to say I was raised in a dem household that was so thick within my family history the lone republican(by marriage) was considered a black sheep and forbade to talk about his party affiliation. Also within my family my Great grandmother was bestowed the title of Kentucky Col, my uncle asst attorney general for Ky and my great uncle hobknobbed with the Gore's as he too was an attorney and grew tobacco like Al's daddy. I was a dem for 20 years and now fall into the indy category but can assure you had the dems nominated Joe Lieberman I'd have strongly considered voting for him.
In closing I now live in San Diego and have found 4 out of every 5 service men and women would rather have GWB as their CinC. That to me is the tell of the tape...and I'll vote with them not against them..
Oh yeh..sparky...several men have come forward who served with President Bush and the whole story was dissected in 2000 by the NYT. LA Times and George mag to name a few..all found he had served, been seen and served honorably... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All of us know that Kerry denied any personal first hand knowledge of atrocities using the same innocuous drivel that you have used.
I want to know about Sparky!
Any first hand knowledge to support your agreement with Kerry?
Still waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Just what proof makes you agree that those activities were commonplace?"
My experiences reading and talking with deniers of all stripes (Holocaust deniers, Native American genocide deniers, deniers of the brutality of slavery in the US, deniers of massacres by our allies in Central America and, of course, those denying US atrocities in SE Asia).
Ultimately, you realize that denial isn't about truth, but is about reputations, political goals and cover. This is always evidenced at first by outright denying the legitimacy of the accusation and then when it can no longer be denied, it turns into a defense of the act itself. That's why investigations into these matters are now done by the UN under what's called "Truth Commissions" and when this has been done, it has not reflected well on the US security apparatus.
Like Tiger Force. Here on this bbs, first came the denials that it was legitimate. After the credibility of the stories appeared incontrovertible, the horrific conclusions were poo-pooh'd, as though it was just an isolated incident or that the Kerry campaign was somehow behind it, even though journalists began investigating it years before Kerry had announced he was even running.
After awhile enough isolated incidents...
| Quote: | Lt. Calley's massacre, the thousands of civilians killed by Tiger Force (investigated and covered up by the Department of Defense and atrocities encouraged by commanders), the massacre at Thanh Phong, the torture and murder in Iraqi prisons (denied until pictures were released), the report from Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam "In the Name of America" which detailed hundreds of possible war crimes, ranging from mistreatment of prisoners to incidents of Americans killing civilians without regard to their identity, the CIA's Phoenix Program, which sanctioned the direct assassination of alleged Viet Cong leaders and led to the killing of thousands of civilians,
Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatrist who interviewed Vietnam veterans extensively, "every returning combat soldier can tell of similar incidents [to My Lai], if on a somewhat smaller scale." Likewise, Gary Solis, who wrote a book about Son Thang, told the New York Times Magazine that far more GIs committed war crimes in Vietnam than the 122 who were convicted. |
...and they no longer can be called "isolated." Since there has been no quantitative study on the matter, simply having served in some capacity in Vietnam doesn't give anyone a better grasp on the pervasive nature of the atrocities than someone who hasn't. In fact, it probably gives you a bias to ignore inconvenient realities because you perceive them as a personal affront or attack, as all nationalists do.
Accordingly, something that would be considered rare by conservatives, was considered "routine" by the Army itself in recently released documents on Tiger Force:
| Quote: | | During the Army's investigation, 27 soldiers said severing ears from dead Vietnamese became routine. "There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears," former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators. |
After enough denials that atrocities or holocausts occurred and after enough UN Truth Commissions revealing terrible wrongs, I'm not going to let some political agenda lead me to deny atrocities simply because they "make my side look bad." To quote George Orwell on conservatives,
| Quote: | | The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dacha u and Buchenwald. |
One of the founders of this board has referred to the Vietnamese as "gooks" in an interview with Douglas Brinkley. That alone does wonders in making me doubt the objectivity of kerry-bashers in accepting the realities occurring in Vietnam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well said but won't wash. Kerry said that he had no personal knowledge of his broadbased assertions. He did not then and has not to this date provided any proof of his testimony.
Yet you agree with him.
I take it ,by your long post, that you have no personal knowledge of his assertions, either.
OK, I give up!
I'll take 2nd hand knowledge if you have any. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "Kerry said that he had no personal knowledge of his broadbased assertions. He did not then and has not to this date provided any proof of his testimony. " |
I never visited Cuba, China under Mao, the USSR under Stalin, but I've read and heard enough credible sources to believe that these were terrible places to be.
I say this without personal knowledge as does everyone here, even though this is a broad-based assertion.
There has not been a credible quantitative study on the pervasiveness of atrocities in Vietnam (or lack thereof). Ultimately it comes down to the credibility of those testifying and researching, how well their stories corroborate and the results of Army investigations, released after being suppressed, that show more of more of such atrocities with each release.
I'm not calling liars those vets who claim this didn't happen. I just don't believe they saw a full cross-section of the war. As I said before, nobody has done a thorough and credible study. And "being there" doesn't mean being all places at all times.
Those who have gathered first-hand stories by vets who did witness atrocities or committed themselves, have enough numbers on their side to give the point credibility.
Those denying this have resorted to suggesting it was a plot directed by Saigon, that the atrocities that HAVE been documented were rare, that all those returning vets are liars, ad infinitum.
After enough denials shown to be true, it stops being credible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | "Just what proof makes you agree that those activities were commonplace?"
My experiences reading and talking with deniers of all stripes (Holocaust deniers, Native American genocide deniers, deniers of the brutality of slavery in the US, deniers of massacres by our allies in Central America and, of course, those denying US atrocities in SE Asia).
Ultimately, you realize that denial isn't about truth, but is about reputations, political goals and cover. This is always evidenced at first by outright denying the legitimacy of the accusation and then when it can no longer be denied, it turns into a defense of the act itself. That's why investigations into these matters are now done by the UN under what's called "Truth Commissions" and when this has been done, it has not reflected well on the US security apparatus. |
Well, that explains it clearly! Obviously it's a clear cut case of denial!
"Do you beat your wife?" No? "Well, you are clearly in denial!"
"Have you quit beating your wife?" Oh, you claim you never have beaten your wife? "Well, you are clearly in denial!"
"Do you drink alcohol? No? Only, a little? "Well, clearly you are in Denial, and an Alcoholic!"
"Do you now, or have you ever done Drugs?" No? "Well, you are clearly in Denial!"
"Do you still molest your children?" No? "Well, you are clearly in Denial!"
And so on!
Yep, that explains it!
Those who understand, understand!
Those who do not understand, will never Understand!
And Sparky is one of those that will never Understand! Maybe he's in denial? 
War Woof!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drew Merkel
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 10:50 pm Post subject: Kerry vs. Bush |
|
|
Kerry............................................Bush
Buried his family name Kohn...........Bore his family name
Joined the US Navy ROTC...............Joined the Air Force National Guard
Served 3 months and quit................Fulfilled his obligation
Protested against the war............... Never protested against the war
Put fellow Vietnam Veterans at Risk..Never put Vietnam Veterans at Risk
Married money...............................Married someone he loved
Married again for money.................Loyal to his first and only wife
Unable to recognize who he is..........Knows exactly who he is
Unable to identify moral weaknesss..Solved personal problem (booze)
Flips and Flops............................... Does what he says he will do
Wobbly like a top............................Stable as a rock |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NecAsperaTerra
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 11:07 pm Post subject: You keep asking for proof. |
|
|
Where is your proof? How do you prove something did NOT happen?
The testimony of over 100 (verified) Vietnam veterans isn't enough? And that was just in 1971. How about today?
Have you seen the Toledo Blade story that won a Pulitzer last month? A story some men want told. A story about special operations soldiers in 1967 called Tiger Force. (I know you've heard of them.)
How many "isolated instances" do you need before you have a pattern?
My husband saw things like that. He saw an old woman get her nose sliced off. Also, almost every Vietnam veteran I know (and I know quite a few) said they opened fire into the jungle and brush without knowing what was there. It was the only way to stay alive, sometimes. Those little guys were sneaky, in those tunnels. Officers would request and obtain permission to widen the free-fire zones. It happened all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As you like to say, Sparky. No quantative study has been done, but you still believe atrocities were "commonplace". Then,very soon after that statement, you say you"doubt most did" meaning you doubt most viet vets committed atrocities. You can't have it both ways, Sparky. Its either commonplace, which would mean most did, or most didn't which precludes it from being "commonplace".
While we're discussing your last post, you alluded to the me being a nationalist. Now you don't know anything about me except that I believe Kerry testified to things he had no firsthand knowledge of and thereby dishonored his Vietnam service and slandered thousands of men and women who served honorably. However, if by nationalist you mean that I identify with and am devoted to the interests of my country or that I love and defend my country against all enemies, foreign and domestic... then you are correct, I am a nationalist.
Shame on you if you are not! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| carpro wrote: | As you like to say, Sparky. No quantative study has been done, but you still believe atrocities were "commonplace". Then,very soon after that statement, you say you"doubt most did" meaning you doubt most viet vets committed atrocities. You can't have it both ways, Sparky. Its either commonplace, which would mean most did, or most didn't which precludes it from being "commonplace".
While we're discussing your last post, you alluded to the me being a nationalist. Now you don't know anything about me except that I believe Kerry testified to things he had no firsthand knowledge of and thereby dishonored his Vietnam service and slandered thousands of men and women who served honorably. However, if by nationalist you mean that I identify with and am devoted to the interests of my country or that I love and defend my country against all enemies, foreign and domestic... then you are correct, I am a nationalist.
Shame on you if you are not! |
Actually whether most did or did not do something does not have a lot of relevance in relation to whether a thing be labeled 'commonplace' or not.
Well, murder might be described as commonplace in an are where the way majority of folks do not do murder nor have been murdered.
As for kerry testifying to things that he had no firsthand knowledge - that is much of the nature of being spokesperson for a group. In my reading I did not see that there should have been much ambiguity what he was speaking on behalf of the group and what he testified as his own ecperience.
Now take this group. There are folks aplenty making testimony about what they are just sure of even though it conflicts with any of the accounts of first hand testimonay of any of the folks who actually served with Kerry and actually had opportunity to witness first hand stuff he did.
Damn! I wish the posters in this group who actually served on them Swift Boats would identify themselves so I could sort out from those who are just some Republican bitchy shills.
Maybe I should put in my own sig my time and branch and place of service. ??
Maybe first I will give a study to see how many actual Swift Boat folks have done so - and are proud enough to do so with their actual names. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 10, 2004 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Semantics, Craig. We will just have to agree to disagree about the meaning of "commonplace".
You are correct,however, about Kerry speaking for the group when he recited the list of atrocities that had been "testified" to by others.
But when he said that those events were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" , I believe he was drawing his own conclusions and making a statement that was just NOT true at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
As you do with me...what do you base that on? Because you personally didn't see it, it can't exist?
You've never personally been to Cuba or the USSR so therefore you can't accept second-hand accounts of what it's like there?
It all comes down to credibility. The atrocity-deniers have a long string of proven atrocities that they initially denied but that have been verified by FOIA documentation. Defenders of the USSR have a list of contrary evidence that abrades against their positions.
| Quote: | | "Do you beat your wife?" No? "Well, you are clearly in denial!" |
Not a good analogy, War Dog, unless you ask someone that question after hearing hundreds of testimonials to that effect. You want to make it look like I'm pulling this out of my hat, as those who falsely accuse wife beaters proverbially do.
By "denial" I don't mean the psychological mechanism "you're in denial" but rather denial as in "holocaust denial" Do you know the difference?
NecAsperaTerra summarized what I said well when he asked "How many "isolated instances" do you need before you have a pattern? "
After enough government denials that turned out true, it starts to become as meaningless as Soviets denying Afghanistan atrocities back in 1979. Eventually, listeners become a little jaded and start to believe Pravda isn't telling the truth.
After awhile you realize atrocity-deniers have political and strategic objectives:
o They usually believe that "their side," whatever side that may be, must commit atrocities to win but that ultimately once their enemy is eliminated, humanity will be better. The nazis and soviets were masters at this mismatch between ends and means.
o They believe that denying realities, even after documentation is placed before them, is self-defense and that "their side" will be able to continue with atrocities or massacres if the public is kept confused or unaware of the atrocities. If the public starts to realize the extent of brutality by the military, our resolve will be weakened and we'll lose the twilight struggle (be it against commies, jews, slave revolts, or whomever the enemy is)
o Usually they believe that all they hold dear is threatened by a monstrous force and that all lies, denials, distractions, and brutalities are just and moral because of the hugeness of the threat, which is about to devour humanity (the Jews, the commies, the Iraqis, the "gooks" take your pick)
And let's clarify something: Kerry never gave testimony claiming first-hand knowledge of things he didn't have first-hand experience with. For atrocities he didn't witness personally but had discussed with others, he described second hand and was clear about this.
Those hearing his testimony could have extended the investigation to days and brought in those 100+ individuals he was quoting, or they could hear Kerry give summaries. It was up to them to hear Kerry speak for other Vets who had already told their story. This was a way to economize resources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
