McGentrix wrote:Harper wrote:georgeob1 wrote:
Not really. Just a lot of nit-picking over details, and well stretched rationalizations. I gave the essential - and fully sufficient -facts in my post above, and no one here has either disputed or diluted them.
It would help if you actually read what was posted on the thread, which at last count was 21 pages. You are losing any semblance of credibillity here. Wait a second, you can't lose what you never had...
That's just too funny for words!
Well, words would help explaining wha t is funny about it. Apparently, you have a rather unique sense of humor. BTW there should be some kind of rule (like the one about the first person accusing someone of fascism loses)....something like....when the only reply is LOL you lose.
Sorry, it's just seeing someone as yourself, who has absolutely ZERO credibility, discussing ANYONE's credibility is funny to me. I was trying to be polite by not pointing that out.
Let's try to steer this thread back to the topic and away from useless bashing of each other's candidate. There are other threads for useless bashing of each other's candidate.
The fact that the republicans had to distance themselves from their own keynote speaker was priceless.
Cycloptichorn
That's what they get for letting a democrat in to bash his own party. Hehehe
CoastalRat wrote:That's what they get for letting a democrat in to bash his own party. Hehehe
And there it is. The plausible deniability.
You see, he's really been a plant for the Dems for a long time. Operation: raving lunatic has finally come to completion, much to the Republican's dismay!
Cycloptichorn
Soz,
You are correct - it is a matter of personal dislike.
I served in Vietnam, (more properly flew from the decks of carriers in the gulf of Tonkin). I am quite familiar with the process for administering Purple Hearts and awards for meritorious and valorous service.
Normally one did not put himself in for any awards - there were boards and processes for that. Despite this there were a few who did. Men who bypassed the normal process to advance their own esteem or notoriety, or even to avoid more service. We generally felt a great deal of contempt for those who did this. Perhaps envy is a factor in this reaction, but there are also other attributes normally associated with virtue in it as well.
I ejected (over the Gulf) from an aircraft that was hit by enemy fire, and received some minor (but much greater than Kerry's) injuries in the ejection. No one put me in for a Purple Heart for this, and I never even considered that one might be merited. This in fact was an all-to-common occurrence.
When we started our second eight month deployment to the Gulf, I fond myself wishing we had instead been sent to the Mediterranean. Everyone in the squadron felt that way, but we stayed and did our duty. The thought of seeking or claiming special recognition or treatment for one's self in such a situation was repugnant to us. Some weren't bothered by all that, but fortunately for the country they were very few.
Undoubtedly some atrocities occurred in Vietnam as they do in all wars. However they were not systematic and they were not pervasive. John Kerry testified before the Congress that they were both systematic and pervasive and very strongly implied (though did not specifically say), that he had observed them himself. For an officer to have done so and not reported it would have been a crime punishable under the UCMJ. When this point was later noted, Kerry quickly added that he did not observe any atrocites himself - a fact he omitted from his earlier testimony. That offends me. I believe he was grandstanding for his own personal benefit, notoriety and future political career at the expense of the moral stature of those with whom he (briefly) served. I belive this is a reasonable and human reaction. Moreover it may also be an indicator of certain flaws in Kerry's moral character that may affect his fittness for high office. (One can't be sure, but I, for one, am not willing to take the chance.)
Finally, despite all this Kerry has gone to extraordinary lengths to define and portray himself as a warrier hero - it has been a constant theme of his political life and this campaign, from the goofy salute and "John Kerry reporting for duty" bit at his acceptance speech, to the Naval Aviator's flight jacket that he wrongfully wears at most campaign stops.. This is a bit unusual, and this too concerns me. I know a few real heros, and they usually don't talk much about such things, and, when they do, give more emphasis to their shortcomings than their 'heroics'. My experience strongly suggests that those who have truly seen the bear don't behave as Kerry has done, but those who fake it often do.
georgeob1 wrote:Soz,
You are correct - it is a matter of personal dislike.
Finally, despite all this Kerry has gone to extraordinary lengths to define and portray himself as a warrier hero - it has been a constant theme of his political life and this campaign, from the goofy salute and "John Kerry reporting for duty" bit at his acceptance speech, to the Naval Aviator's flight jacket that he wrongfully wears at most campaign stops.. This is a bit unusual, and this too concerns me. I know a few real heros, and they usually don't talk much about such things, and, when they do, give more emphasis to their shortcomings than their 'heroics'. My experience strongly suggests that those who have truly seen the bear don't behave as Kerry has done, but those who fake it often do.
So, I'd guess that George Bush's landing on the carrier really offended you. I know it truly offended some veterans, and heroes, I know here.
You are most certainly entitled to your personal dislike. And I am genuinely grateful to you for your service.
My only objection is when the personal dislike takes the guise of subjective "facts" which are not. To take this part:
Quote:John Kerry testified before the Congress that they were both systematic and pervasive and very strongly implied (though did not specifically say), that he had observed them himself. For an officer to have done so and not reported it would have been a crime punishable under the UCMJ. When this point was later noted, Kerry quickly added that he did not observe any atrocites himself - a fact he omitted from his earlier testimony. That offends me.
He said at the time that it was testimony, what he had been told. I again refer to Piffka's post on the subject:
Quote:Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971 to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that at times they had personally....
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=865991
That's right at the very beginning of his testimony.
georgeob1 wrote:
Undoubtedly some atrocities occurred in Vietnam as they do in all wars. However they were not systematic and they were not pervasive. John Kerry testified before the Congress that they were both systematic and pervasive and very strongly implied (though did not specifically say), that he had observed them himself.
My brother was in a sort of book-keeping position for Americal, which was the largest army group in Nam, and assures me that he'd have seen reports on any sort of thing such as Kerry described, and that Kerry's claims are pure fiction. It never happened.
Please. Are you seriously arguing that we didn't do some extremely bad things in Vietnam, Swolf?
Cycloptichorn
cyclo, are you asking swolf a serious question?
I guess so
I don't know what's wrong with me today.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Please. Are you seriously arguing that we didn't do some extremely bad things in Vietnam, Swolf?
Cycloptichorn
There were a small handful of atrocities you heard about, the worst being Mei-Lai, but they were isolated events generally brought about by soldiers seeing their comrades killed by an enemy they never saw. There was no systematic policy of atrocious conduct, terror warfare, or reprisals such as the nazis practiced or such as was the normal practice of Chengis Khan's armies.
My brother told me that the one or two worst incidents he ever noticed were brought about by the ARVN not being able to read maps and calling in air strikes on friendly villages.
Ike's parting words to JFK and all others who came after him were not to get America involved in anything resembling a land war in Asia, by which he assuredly meant VietNam. Even Dick Nixon would have had the brains to heed that advice.
Yep, Vietnam was a mess all right.
It seems apparant the George Bush suffered from combat induced bowel movements.
That's the official line, Swolf.
I'm not trying to sit here and blame the soldiers. I mean, crazy shite goes on in wars, especially when the orders coming down the pipe are none too clear and the enemy is shooting at you from the houses of a village.
But; you have to realize that there is a good chance that atrocities went on all the time in Vietnam, and a lot of evidence that they did. Certainly if you ask the Vietnamese they did. I mean, how much of it went unreported? Probably tons, compared to the official books.
I don't think there was systematic war crimes brought down by direct orders. I think that a lack of a clear objective and a tough enemy, mixed in with a civilian population, led to them occurring.
The truth lies in the middle of the extremes on both sides, yaknow. Vietnam is a black spot for our military record however ya slice the pie.
Cycloptichorn
And despite Eisenhower's warning, the Republicans in both houses had complicity in that war.
Cycloptichorn wrote:That's the official line, Swolf.
I'm not trying to sit here and blame the soldiers. I mean, crazy shite goes on in wars, especially when the orders coming down the pipe are none too clear and the enemy is shooting at you from the houses of a village.
But; you have to realize that there is a good chance that atrocities went on all the time in Vietnam, and a lot of evidence that they did. Certainly if you ask the Vietnamese they did. I mean, how much of it went unreported? Probably tons, compared to the official books.
I don't think there was systematic war crimes brought down by direct orders. I think that a lack of a clear objective and a tough enemy, mixed in with a civilian population, led to them occurring.
The truth lies in the middle of the extremes on both sides, yaknow. Vietnam is a black spot for our military record however ya slice the pie.
Cycloptichorn
How black? Well over a million Vietnamese fled their country when Saigon fell. The 'independent agrarian socialist' goverrnment of Vietnam has now had over 30 years to deliver the freedom and prosperity they promised. What have they achieved?
Do you really think you know what you are taking about?
Again, my brother and others I've spoken to tell me it wasn't possible to keep that sort of thing a secret very long in Nam and that there were only a very small handful of such incidents. The basic story which Kerry was trying to tell is fiction.
The basic reality is that despite all the problems of the Vietnam war, our military generally conducted itself well and the vast majority of the people in it believed they were fighting a good cause. That's the thing which the left has still not come to grips with.
