SwiftVets.com

[95 bxl]

Given Kerry's confession that he's a war criminal, and the inability of his supporters to accept that he's a war criminal, I've gone to the extreme of looking it up.

hyperdictionary

Definition: [n] an offender who violates international law during times of war

See Also: offender, wrongdoer

yourdictionary

1. war criminal -- an offender who violates international law during times of war

wordiq

A war crime is a punishable offense, under international law, for violations of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.

Clearly, Kerry is certainly guilty of this... whether he has called himself a war criminal in view of his confessions on the subject being totally irrelevant... and the gross situational ethics of Kerry supporters on this matter is reason enough to oppose Kerry BY ITSELF.

[eecee]

[sparky]

Eecee, there's a reason for that. They're hoping for the impossible:

- Pin the tag of "war criminal" on Kerry while exonerating everyone else there

- Make it sound like Kerry claimed he was a war criminal

- Hope that everybody thinks this means the ear-necklaces and baby-raping type stuff that actual war criminals did (without adding fuel to the fires of accusations against Vietnam Vets that infuriates them so much)

- Sway voters so that Bush gets four more years

- Enjoy whatever agenda they hold dear that Bush will promote (more wars, tax cuts for the rich, environmental degradation, whatever).

I think the public will see through this crap. Ultimately, they'll realize that what Kerry did was under order, not war crimes and not atrocities, and that Kerry just needed time after his battlefield experiences to sort out whether what he did was actually atrocious.

Nobody serving on that boat believes it was. Even Gardner hasn't called Kerry a war criminal.

[carpro]

The problem with trying to politicize this issue is that, to a lot of Viet Vets, this is not about politics at all. Its much more personal than that. I may be a liberal democrat or a conservative republican. The truth is that you don't have a clue which.
I never accused John Kerry of being a war criminal nor have I denied that atrocities were committed in Vietnam. Some people do, however, tend to forget that they were committed by BOTH sides. I do know that the statements Kerry made, true or not , strengthened the resolve of our enemies and were used to mentally torture our POW's. These are documented facts.
The rest is purely personal. I've lived with the same tags that all Viet vets carry with them everywhere for the last 30 plus years. Unless you were there when people whispered "Baby Killer" when you walked past them in uniform, you can't know what it means or how it felt. We have John Kerry and a few others like him to thank for that.
Now you may agree or disagree with all of this but these things happened to me and I won't forget it for the sake of politics. I wouldn't vote for Kerry if he was running for dog catcher, regardless of his political party or who his opponent was. Jane Fonda is a possible exception.
I don't have to offer any proof for my feelings. I was there. I earned the right to feel as I do.

[NecAsperaTerra]

Too bad they didn't have digital cameras in Vietnam 38 years ago, eh?

This discussion wouldn't be happening, at least not this way.

[carpro]

Good point! Cameras were plentiful and cheap in Vietnam. No digitals though. Where are all the pictures?

[eecee]

[JasonBinPNW]

Denying that war crimes happened in Vietnam is like denying that world is round, but there is a massive difference between small abominations and systemic conduct. Do two incidents make a pattern? Do 20 from 20 different organizations with 20 different non-dependent goals make one? There was no pattern to it. Kerry wanted to make a name for himself, and that is all there was to it.

Most laughable is that statement that he might not have known they were war crimes at the time... it's almost not worth addressing, except for the notion that OFFICERS ENFORCE THE RULES OF WAR! They're the ones trained to spot violations by the troops. They also apply their knowledge of those laws to the planning and conduct of an operation at their level.

Sparky, you're just killing me with these off the wall statements. You are throwing everything against the wall and testing to see what sticks, and what doesn't. It's laughable.
_________________
Semper Fi!

Jason

Proud member of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"

[JasonBinPNW]

[carpro]

Debating in the abstract may be a lot of fun but doesn't really accomplish anything.
John Kerry may or may not have committed atrocities. For the purposes of debating his post war record, it really doesn't matter. He may be a real live hero or not. Doesn't matter to anyone but him. His war record and his post war record are separate issues.
He did far more damage to his comrades-in-arms after the war than he could ever justify by his conduct in the war.
I repeat, to many Viet vets, its personal, not political.

[Craig]

[Decom Reject]

[NecAsperaTerra]

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

[sparky]