cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 12:18 pm
@okie,
okie, You are too dumb to acknowledge the reality of government programs. Even republicans benefit from the social services provided by all levels of our government. They went to public schools, and had the benefit of social security and Medicare to retire with some level of security. Your brain is calcified and useless; it doesn't understand facts and reality.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Tue 24 May, 2011 12:24 pm
@JTT,
JTT, Those facts just flew over the cuckoo's nest; okie has no way to absorb facts. His brain won't allow it - as has been proven so often on a2k.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Tue 24 May, 2011 02:40 pm
@JTT,
YOu can choose to believe whatever you wish, but I will judge the issue by what I saw with my own two eyes, okay. As a member of infantry units in Vietnam for a year, I did not witness, nor did I ever hear of any atrocity from any fellow GI's, okay. I know that to be fact, not fiction made up by someone that wants to believe the worst. Again, I am not asserting that no atrocities ocurred there, but I believe I saw enough of everyday life in Vietnam to know that atrocities were not typical or commonplace. I also recognize that I was not there during the worst part of the war, but it was not exactly a haven of peace either. I think I can speak with more authority on the subject than you can, JTT.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Tue 24 May, 2011 02:46 pm
@parados,
Desparate. Hilarious and desparate. No, make that pitiful, hilarious and desparate. Give that crap to your professor.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Tue 24 May, 2011 02:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Party memes? I don't belong to a political party and I didn't know that Time was a "party meme". Poor thing.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html#ixzz1NIBppFTE
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 02:53 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I think I can speak with more authority on the subject than you can, JTT.


Perhaps you missed the title of the book, Okie -

The War Behind Me: Vietnam Veterans Confront the Truth About U.S. War Crimes

Do you think that you can speak with more authority than, say, "[T]he chief of staff quietly assembled a team of officers to collect information on other war-crime allegations that had been reported internally or elsewhere.

They operated in secret for five years. During that time, they amassed nine thousand pages of evidence implicating U.S. troops in a wide range of atrocities.[3] In contrast to the My Lai investigation, their inquiry led to no major actions or public accounting. In fact, the Pentagon kept the entire collection under wraps, even after the war ended.

++++++++++++++
EXCERPT


On November 12, 1969, the Dispatch News Service carried investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh’s first article on the My Lai massacre. [1] In the weeks that followed, photographs appeared in print and on television. The army announced a full-scale inquiry that, four months later, confirmed the magnitude of the slaughter and the cover-up. [2] The tragedy and its fallout are in every credible history book on the Vietnam War.

The army launched a second important inquiry in the wake of Hersh’s exposé. But this one would receive no public notice. The chief of staff quietly assembled a team of officers to collect information on other war-crime allegations that had been reported internally or elsewhere. The men culled investigation files, surveillance reports, press accounts, court-martial records, and congressional correspondence. Each month they summarized what they’d found and sent a memo up the chain of command.

They operated in secret for five years. During that time, they amassed nine thousand pages of evidence implicating U.S. troops in a wide range of atrocities.[3] In contrast to the My Lai investigation, their inquiry led to no major actions or public accounting. In fact, the Pentagon kept the entire collection under wraps, even after the war ended.

In 1990, Kali Tal, founder of Viet Nam Generation, a small journal of contemporary history and literature on the 1960s, was tipped to the papers’ existence. She requested a declassification and Freedom of Information Act review. After a year had passed, the National Archives and Records Administration notified her that the documents were available for inspection.[4] She found the records deeply disturbing and posted a short notice in her journal to alert others. She did not pursue the matter further, and the boxes returned to the storeroom shelves.

A decade later, Cliff Snyder, a Vietnam specialist on the Archives staff, brought the cartons to the attention of Nicholas Turse, a visiting military historian.[5] While researching them for his dissertation, he came across a 1968 massacre and other cases he believed to be newsworthy. In 2005, he contacted the Los Angeles Times about them. I was the newspaper’s Washington investigative editor at the time, so his e-mail was relayed to me. We joined forces soon afterward to investigate the long-buried reports.[6]

When I proposed the project to John Carroll, then the Los Angeles Times’ top editor, his first question was whether a few rogue units committed most of the crimes. That had been his impression as a young Vietnam War correspondent, and a commonly held view. The most notorious was the Americal Division, responsible for My Lai and a lengthy list of less-known atrocities. The Tiger Force, an elite army platoon, became a late addition to the club with the Toledo Blade’s Pulitzer Prize–winning series in 2003 that documented a seven-month killing spree in which scores perished.[7]

The archive collection contained hundreds of sworn statements from soldiers and veterans who committed or witnessed rapes, torture, murders, massacres, and other illegal acts. There were letters from soldiers, statistical reports, and case summaries.[8] When we hand-entered the data into a spreadsheet, it became clear the problem was much bigger than a few bad men: Every major division that served in Vietnam was represented. We counted more than 300 allegations in cases that were substantiated by the army’s own investigations. Some had never been revealed; others had been publicly disputed while the army remained silent about its findings. Five hundred allegations couldn’t be proven or weren’t fully investigated.[9] According to officers who helped compile the records, those numbers represented only a small fraction of the war crimes committed in Vietnam.

Many veterans tried to alert the Pentagon and the public to the problem in the early 1970s at forums sponsored by such groups as Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Most famously, John Kerry, then a leader in the organization, testified on Capitol Hill on April 22, 1971, that U.S. forces had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war....”[10]

Within days, the declassified records show, the White House quietly requested a list of war-crime investigations from the army.[11] The staff at the Pentagon was ready with a lengthy response that reported 213 suspects and included confirmed cases of acts from the litany cited in Kerry’s testimony.[12] Yet the Nixon administration went ahead with an aggressive backroom campaign to discredit as fabricators and traitors Kerry and other veterans who spoke out about war crimes. The president and White House aides worked closely with a rival organization, Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace, to publicly condemn the allegations.[13] “The big lie” became the group’s familiar drumbeat. Years later, the founder of the group would boast, “Americans got the message that a motley crew of exaggerators and frauds didn’t speak for Vietnam veterans.”[14] The impression stuck. By the mid-1980s, the whistle-blowers largely had been silenced, and conventional wisdom held that atrocities in Vietnam were overblown.[15] The controversy resurfaced in 2004, when Kerry ran for president. His old detractors ran ads demanding that he disavow his 1971 testimony, confident they would play to a receptive audience; their efforts contributed to his defeat.[16] All the while, the army had evidence in its files that he had spoken the truth.

But this book isn’t about Kerry. It’s about setting the record straight for the many ordinary men who were ignored, threatened, or disbelieved. It’s a place for them to tell their stories again, now with the full force of the army’s own investigation findings behind them. Years ago, many of them hoped their accounts would pressure the Pentagon to stop “all the wrong killing,” as a soldier wrote in a private letter to then army chief of staff Gen. William C. Westmoreland in 1970.[17] The war ended without an accounting or acknowledgment of the war crimes they witnessed. Their retelling comes at an equally important time when, having failed to address the past, we’re destined to repeat it.

talk72000
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:00 pm
@JTT,
The problem was that they didn't want to go there and all the yahoos ended up there so there was bound to be nastiness.
parados
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:19 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Desparate.
Do you mean disparate?

Quote:
Hilarious and desparate.
You sure seem angry for one that claims to be amused but then that could be because you can't make a comparison.

Quote:
[No, make that pitiful, hilarious and desparate.
Now you are getting desperate trying to come up with words. But I guess spelling 2 out of 3 correctly is an accomplishment for you.

Quote:
Give that crap to your professor.
I wouldn't dare give him your crap with the spelling errors.
okie
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:30 pm
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
The problem was that they didn't want to go there and all the yahoos ended up there so there was bound to be nastiness.
You might be onto something there, talk, but I am thinking in terms of those people exaggerating what happened there. The guys with a big chip on their shoulders were probably more prone to exaggerate anything negative. I would also add the fact that there was fairly commonplace drug use, principally pot smoking, in Vietnam. I did witness that and I can vouch that it was a fact among quite a few fellow GI's. Therefore, I think their thinking and memory of events are probably suspect to say the least. Those pot smokers probably included John Kerry.

A couple of things I did not understand while in Vietnam, one being why any GI would choose to numb his mind into a state of dis-alertness by doing drugs, and another was why the officers would turn a blind eye to such activity?
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:36 pm
@parados,
You're whining like a little piggy. Poor thing.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:37 pm
@okie,
okie, How can you see anything with your own two eyes? If what you post on a2k is any example of your ability to see anything correctly, you still haven't proved it to anyone - except ican.

You are not only blind, but have no ability to see facts and evidence as presented.

You are a joke.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:40 pm
@okie,
Quote:
A couple of things I did not understand while in Vietnam, one being why any GI would choose to numb his mind into a state of dis-alertness by doing drugs, and another was why the officers would turn a blind eye to such activity?


Oh, perhaps because they were hijacked from their lives, against their will, to go and fight someone who they didn't give a **** about, in order to defend people they didn't give a **** about, in a hell-hole of a country with terrible weather, for no good reason what-so-*******-ever.

And the officers knew it. What a ****-up that whole ordeal was.

Cycloptichorn
JTT
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:42 pm
@okie,
Any port in a storm, eh, Okie?

Quote:
A couple of things I did not understand while in Vietnam, one being why any GI would choose to numb his mind into a state of dis-alertness by doing drugs, and another was why the officers would turn a blind eye to such activity?


Quote:
Now, obviously i'm not going to stand in front of you and say that the CIA might be involved in drug trafficking, am I? READ THE BOOK. Read The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. For 20 years the CIA was helping the Kuomantang to finance itself and then to get rich smuggling heroin. When we took over from the French in 1954 their intelligence service had been financing itself by smuggling the heroin out of Laos. We replaced them - we put Air America, the CIA subsidiary - it would fly in with crates marked humanitarian aid, which were arms, and it would fly back out with heroin. And the first target, market, of this heroin was the U.S. GI's in Vietnam.


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:43 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

You're whining like a little piggy.

One things for sure. We don't have to worry about your statements being disparate.

You do tend to be little Johnny one note.

Quote:

Poor thing.
I'm not poor but I do enjoy the entertainment value of someone so easy to play.
JTT
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:47 pm
@okie,
Quote:
but I am thinking in terms of those people exaggerating what happened there.


Perhaps you missed this, Okie.

Quote:
Within days, the declassified records show, the White House quietly requested a list of war-crime investigations from the army.[11] The staff at the Pentagon was ready with a lengthy response that reported 213 suspects and included confirmed cases of acts from the litany cited in Kerry’s testimony.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 03:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, How can you see anything with your own two eyes? If what you post on a2k is any example of your ability to see anything correctly, you still haven't proved it to anyone - except ican.
You are not only blind, but have no ability to see facts and evidence as presented.
You are a joke.
Question, if you have experienced an issue personally, would you be more prone to judge that issue from your own personal experience, or would you throw that experience out and use a collection of hearsay and stories about the issue, at least some of which had been proven to be false, to form your opinion about it?
parados
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 04:03 pm
@okie,
If you want to use that argument okie, then you would argue that tornadoes didn't hit Joplin, MO because no tornado has ever hit your house.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 04:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Oh, perhaps because they were hijacked from their lives, against their will, to go and fight someone who they didn't give a **** about, in order to defend people they didn't give a **** about, in a hell-hole of a country with terrible weather, for no good reason what-so-*******-ever.

And the officers knew it. What a ****-up that whole ordeal was.


And as perpetual as the seasons, the whining is about poor little ole us.

Millions of innocents slaughtered, weapons of mass destruction poured all over the people and country, more bombs than in all of WWII, war crimes 'til' hell won't have 'em and what is Cy worried about, little ole us.

Is being honest really that repugnant to you, Cy?

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 04:15 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Oh, perhaps because they were hijacked from their lives, against their will, to go and fight someone who they didn't give a **** about, in order to defend people they didn't give a **** about, in a hell-hole of a country with terrible weather, for no good reason what-so-*******-ever.

And the officers knew it. What a ****-up that whole ordeal was.


And as perpetual as the seasons, the whining is about poor little ole us.

Millions of innocents slaughtered, weapons of mass destruction poured all over the people and country, more bombs than in all of WWII, war crimes 'til' hell won't have 'em and what is Cy worried about, little ole us.

Is being honest really that repugnant to you, Cy?


Well, to be honest, I don't give a **** about your criticisms, your bitching, your carping, your totally invalid and crazy worldview, or your constant attempt to change the subject of conversation to what YOU want to talk about. You totally mis-interpreted what I wrote, in some crazy ass direction, and expect me to be upset about it somehow? Yeah ******* right! I'm an anti-war, dirty f'ing hippie, and even I can see that you're crazy as a junebug, JTT.

Go jump in a lake / Die in a fire / whatever.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 May, 2011 04:27 pm
@okie,
No. It's been proven often that witnesses to crimes see different things. The best advise for you is "believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see." Memorize that if possible. You'll benefit from it.

There are globs of first-hand witness reports of the atrocities perpetrated by American troops in Vietnam. They have been supported by others who saw the same things in Vietnam. I also talked with some Vietnam vets during the war, and they related to me what they did in that country. I trust them to be more accurate than any report you provide, because you have shown that you not only lie, but don't remember factual history.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2051
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 05/22/2024 at 11:03:16