NationStates Jolt Archive

This is for those of you who think that the Swift Boat group is correct in calling Kerry a traitor:

Do you believe that american troops in Viet Nam did not commit war crimes? I am not talking about all of our soldiers, sailors, etc. or even most of them, but not about a few "normal abberations" either. Many who have returned have said that war crimes were commonplace on both sides. What do you think?

This is for those of you who think that the Swift Boat group is correct in calling Kerry a traitor:

Do you believe that american troops in Viet Nam did not commit war crimes? I am not talking about all of our soldiers, sailors, etc. or even most of them, but not about a few "normal abberations" either. Many who have returned have said that war crimes were commonplace on both sides. What do you think?

War, by it's nature turns human beings into killing machines. Both sides of any war will commit atrocities. They can deny all they want, but no warring nation is innocent.

War, by it's nature turns human beings into killing machines. Both sides of any war will commit atrocities. They can deny all they want, but no warring nation is innocent.

Do you speak as a SWVT supporter? Do you think it is traitorous to tell about war crimes? Or are you saying that war crimes are normal and so nothing to make a big deal about?

I don't know about anybody else, but I do believe that the campaign has come down to focusing of the issues of the current Presidency and it makes far more sense than focusing on the distant past of either candidate?

Do you speak as a SWVT supporter? Do you think it is traitorous to tell about war crimes? Or are you saying that war crimes are normal and so nothing to make a big deal about?

I'm an anti-Bushite actually so ... I forgot to mention that b4 (not a SWVT supporter), but everyone has the ability to be evil and war is one of best ways to bring it out.

What transpires in the field, stays in the field!

what ever idiots believe that the SBVAK are telling the truth should be drawn and quartered

(alabama would lose 20%+ of its population)

The SBVfT was already proven to be lying from other Vietname veterans, from the government, and from family and friends of there families.

I would like to hear from those who think that Kerry was a traitor.

This is for those of you who think that the Swift Boat group is correct in calling Kerry a traitor:

Do you believe that american troops in Viet Nam did not commit war crimes? I am not talking about all of our soldiers, sailors, etc. or even most of them, but not about a few "normal abberations" either. Many who have returned have said that war crimes were commonplace on both sides. What do you think?

It's not what I think, but what I know to be true. Yes, war crimes were comitted. Yes, soldiers were caught. Yes, soldiers were prosecuted. Do I think that they were the exception to the rule? Yes.

It's not what I think, but what I know to be true. Yes, war crimes were comitted. Yes, soldiers were caught. Yes, soldiers were prosecuted. Do I think that they were the exception to the rule? Yes.

Do you believe that Kerry is a traitor for telling what he had heard about it before a congressional commitee?

Do you believe that Kerry is a traitor for telling what he had heard about it before a congressional commitee?
No, I do not think Kerry was a traitor for telling what he heard....
I do think he was a traitor for accusing the President and the Pentagon for ordering the war crimes.

Do you believe that Kerry is a traitor for telling what he had heard about it before a congressional commitee?

I think the term "traitor" for that testimony might be a bit extreme. He did, however, indicate that such "atrocities" occurred on "a daily basis," and used extreme terminology to describe them. This was hurtful in the extreme, not only for the huge majority of us who did NOT commit such atrocities, but for those being held in North Vietnam prisoner of war camps.

No, I do not think Kerry was a traitor for telling what he heard....
I do think he was a traitor for accusing the President and the Pentagon for ordering the war crimes.

Then you should consider the Republican Congress traitors for investigating Clinton/

I think the term "traitor" for that testimony might be a bit extreme. He did, however, indicate that such "atrocities" occurred on "a daily basis," and used extreme terminology to describe them. This was hurtful in the extreme, not only for the huge majority of us who did NOT commit such atrocities, but for those being held in North Vietnam prisoner of war camps.

Kerry specifically asserted that war crimes occurred on a daily basis from the point of view of the 150 Vets that testified to him during the "Winter Soldier Investigation." Those that did not commit or see those war crimes committed on a daily basis have no business feeling implicated. It would be similar to stating that all corporations bilked their shareholders just because Enron did.

Kerry specifically asserted that war crimes occurred on a daily basis from the point of view of the 150 Vets that testified to him during the "Winter Soldier Investigation." Those that did not commit or see those war crimes committed on a daily basis have no business feeling implicated. It would be similar to stating that all corporations bilked their shareholders just because Enron did.

I obviously strongly disagree. I prefer the analogy of passing on "juicy gossip" without first verifying the veracity of the sources and the truthfulness of the gossip.

No, I do not think Kerry was a traitor for telling what he heard....
I do think he was a traitor for accusing the President and the Pentagon for ordering the war crimes.

The president ordered the illegal invasion and bombing of Cambodia, which was a war crime.

The president ordered the illegal invasion and bombing of Cambodia, which was a war crime.
That's not what Kerry was talking about... he was talking about the President and Pentagon ordering the very war crimes that occured each and every day in the field.

That's not what Kerry was talking about... he was talking about the President and Pentagon ordering the very war crimes that occured each and every day in the field.

Transcript, please?

I obviously strongly disagree. I prefer the analogy of passing on "juicy gossip" without first verifying the veracity of the sources and the truthfulness of the gossip.

Yes, but even if it was just "juicy gossip" how can you take it from there to make the assumption that Kerry accused all soldiers? His actual, undoctored words make it clear that he was not referring to all soldiers.

Say, for example, someone tells me they were attacked by a group of circus clowns. Now, if I relate this person's words to the police, does that mean I am lying? Does it mean that I am accusing all clowns?

The issue of investigating Mr. Clinton and the SBVFT are apples and oranges different things

It is not traitorous to investigate crimes. That is what was happening with the congress and Mr. Clinton. Mr. Clinton could have stopped the whole process by telling the truth in the first place. "Yes I had oral sex with woman. So what, my wife knows I play around on her and accepts it. It's who I am." No charges, no impeachment. Furthermore it would have made his enemies furious and he could have safly enjoyed their anger while calling Monica up to get him another blowjob. Mr. Clinton was lying to a court which is a serious crime regardless of what he was lying about. Many people think he committed other crimes as well but this was the one they caught him on. It was the SAME crime (Perjury) that brought down Mr. Nixon.

That said, it would not have been treasonous for Mr. Kerry to say "I have heard of things that were war crimes, I have wittnesses war crimes and these were not punished and these crimes are a stain upon the record of the many good and decent men and women in our armed forces" What he actually said clearly implied that EVERY US SOLIDER was engaged in criminal activity. That thewars crimes were systemic and intentional were indeed, direct orders coming from the highest command levels and furthermore one sided. That my friend is not only provably wrong and slander it is treason He met with enemy agents while still on active duty. Not in an official capacity (i.e. a spy) but to hold talks with them about obtaining conditions for an American surrender. That abrogated his chain of command and is treason as well.

I have 5 uncles who served in Vietnam. Two of them served multiple tours of duty. None of them comitted war crimes. I missed Vietnam by only 3 years. I come from a military family. Mr. Kerry slanders my family every time he opens his mouth. I m a veteran from the post vietnam era, he slanders me.

His medal record is an absoute joke. There is no way on God's green Earth he could earn three purple hearts a Bronze Star and a Silver Star in a three month tour. He didn't have time to recover ffrom the wounds normally received in to get one purple heart let alone three. I'm sorry it is simply impossible unless he was writing his own AAR's and recomending himself for medals. He has admitted as much about one of his purple hearts This is not treason but it is fraud. If itis not the e case then why will he not sign the form 180 and release ALL his service records rather than the 6 pages that people can see? He coulfd shut me up really quick by releasing ALL his records Mr. Bush released his records in his forst campaign. Mr. Kerry is hiding something

I could write more on this issue. But I feel that those who agree allready agree and those who do not cannot be convinced.

Transcript, please?

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

That said, it would not have been treasonous for Mr. Kerrey to say "I have heard of things that were war crimes, I have wittnesses war crimes and these were not punished and these crimes are a stain upon the record of the many good and decent men and women in our armed forces" What he actually said clearly implied that EVERY US SOLIDER was engaged in criminal activity. That thewars crimes were systemic and intentional were indeed, direct orders coming from the highest command levels and furthermore one sided. That my friend is not only wrong it is treason He met with enemy agents while still on active duty. Not in an official capacity (i.e. a spy) but to hold talks with them about obtaining conditions for an American surrender. That abrogated his chain of command and is treason as well.

I have 5 uncles who served in Vietnam. Two of them served multiple tours of duty. None of them comitted war crimes. I missed Vietnam by only 3 years. I come from a military family. Mr. Kerrey slanders my family every time he opens his mouth.

His medal record is an absoute joke. There is no way on God's green Earth he could earn three purple hearts a Bronze Star and a Silver Star in a three month tour. I'm sorry it is simply impossible unless he was writing his own AAR's and recomending himself for medals. If this was not the case then why will he not sign the form 180 and release ALL his service records rather than the 6 pages that people can see? Mr. Bush released his records in his forst campaign. Mr. Kerrey is hiding something

I could write more on this issue. But I feel that those who agree allready agree and those who do not cannot be convinced

First, Kerry never accused all soldiers. Show me where he did, and I will eat my words. See the transcript I linked above.

As to his medals. The Navy conducted a full investigation. If it were indeed impossible, as you state, then why would the Navy verify that they were justly awarded, especially when they had access to every single document ever written about Kerry while he was in Vietnam?

Bush did not release all his records. New ones trickle in from time to time, and it took a court order to get even that much cooperation.

Kerry did release his records. Reporters who have seen them speak of a stack 12 inches high that contains not a single condemning remark. Kerry only reproduces those 6 pages on his website.

Transcript, please?
I would like to talk, representing 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, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082204F.shtml

Oh wait, Kerry does have his full record on his website. Here you go. Enjoy all 200 pages.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

This is for those of you who think that the Swift Boat group is correct in calling Kerry a traitor:

Do you believe that american troops in Viet Nam did not commit war crimes? I am not talking about all of our soldiers, sailors, etc. or even most of them, but not about a few "normal abberations" either. Many who have returned have said that war crimes were commonplace on both sides. What do you think?


yes, I believe that some American troops commited war crimes in vietnam, but that is neither here nor there for two resons

#1 - every war has war crimes, john kerry should not have stepped outside the chain of command in calling these in, all his action served to do was break down moral and create a rift between civilians and veterans not fix the problem (and of course it served as the foundation from whenst he build a political career, something I believe he was thinking about at the time)

#2 - SBVT isn't about wether or not American troops commited war crimes or not its about the fact the john kerry lied about his military service and needs to face the consequences

yes, I believe that some American troops commited war crimes in vietnam, but that is neither here nor there for two resons

#1 - every war has war crimes, john kerry should not have stepped outside the chain of command in calling these in, all his action served to do was break down moral and create a rift between civilians and veterans not fix the problem (and of course it served as the foundation from whenst he build a political career, something I believe he was thinking about at the time)
its super politclaman kerry again, this time causing the destruction of moral for an entire group of people with a single appearance before congress!

#2 - SBVT isn't about wether or not American troops commited war crimes or not its about the fact the john kerry lied about his military service and needs to face the consequences
thats right, SBVfT are about defaming, slandering, and commitintg libel against senator john kerry.

thats right, SBVfT are about defaming, slandering, and commitintg libel against senator john kerry.

was john kerry in cambodia?

how did he get those medals?

why did he only serve 4 months?

these guys are credable source and they deserve to be herd

was john kerry in cambodia?

how did he get those medals?

why did he only serve 4 months?

these guys are credable source and they deserve to be herd

He got those medals fairly, as the Navy themselves stated. He only served 4 months because once you get 3 purple stars (which the Navy authenticated,) you have the choice to go home.

see factcheck.org (endorsed by Cheney!) to see the refutation of the SBVT.

Evidence, my friend, carries more weight the hearsay.

was john kerry in cambodia?

how did he get those medals?

why did he only serve 4 months?

these guys are credable source and they deserve to be herd
He tells and the navy tells how he got medals.
He was around the border of cambodia, it could be a exaggeration to say he crossed but its hard to see borders in real life.

He was injured enough to be sent home. Yes there were guys injured more but legally he needed to be sent home if he was injured enough to get 3 purples.
Swift boats are not a credible source... So maybe they shouldn't be heard?

Every network and newspaper has shown that they exaggereated and lied multple times.
The guy who says he was a doctor for kerry wasn't.
The guys who say were on same boat weren't.
Serving with kerry means in same Country apparently.

So with all these uncredible words they say...why are they credible?

was john kerry in cambodia?
now thats an interesting, VERY interesting, problem no one can answer.

how did he get those medals?
shrapnel to the leg, shrapnel to the arm, another shrapnel to the leg

why did he only serve 4 months?
3 purple hearts

these guys are credable source and they deserve to be herd
and i rest my case alot of republicans are dumbasses

Swift Voters seem to simply be closet Republicans. The latest saying how Kerry's testimony an insult. Are they trying to call him a liar? Demoralizing troops in Vietnam? Seems like a standard song with what they are saying about his comments regarding Iraq. What SV's are saying are so malicious that I want to change the channel when the commercial comes on. Ohio being a battleground state I get to enjoy the commercial more. Great.

I'm still looking for the part about the "President and Pentagon ordering the very war crimes that occured each and every day in the field."

Anybody?

Ask a Viet Nam veteran who served tours both before and after the testimony. There's your answer.

Ask a Viet Nam veteran who served tours both before and after the testimony. There's your answer.

So, you're saying that the words of Kerry had more effect on morale than the worsening conditions in Vietnam?

Do you believe that american troops in Viet Nam did not commit war crimes?

Of course they did, it's been proven!

now thats an interesting, VERY interesting, problem no one can answer.
Maybe John Kerry can? It was 'seared' into his memory, after all...

So, you're saying that the words of Kerry had more effect on morale than the worsening conditions in Vietnam?

Not field morale, treatment of the soldiers at home. It's a matter of feeding the already-so-inclined media versus actually attempting to solve problems.

Of course they did, it's been proven!

It's been proven in Iraq, too.. but if some guy serving 200 miles away from the scene appointed himself spokesman for the Abu Ghraib prisoners and exagerrated the case, based on rumors, that atrocities were going on 'on a daily basis,' all from a hotel in Boston, you might object.

It's been proven in Iraq, too.. but if some guy serving 200 miles away from the scene appointed himself spokesman for the Abu Ghraib prisoners and exagerrated the case, based on rumors, that atrocities were going on 'on a daily basis,' all from a hotel in Boston, you might object.

Not if the guy actually spoke to the Abu Ghraib guards and the guards elected him as spokesman (as is what happened in 1971.)

Sigh. Read the motherf**king source from CSPAN I linked earlier or shut up.

Here it is again

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

It's been proven in Iraq, too.. but if some guy serving 200 miles away from the scene appointed himself spokesman for the Abu Ghraib prisoners and exagerrated the case, based on rumors, that atrocities were going on 'on a daily basis,' all from a hotel in Boston, you might object.

Kerry clearly said in his testimony in 1971 that he was quoting what "others" had told him. He made that quite clear. These highly decorated vets wanted the "truth" to come out. Kerry was only interested in stopping the war, there is no objective evidence that suggests that Kerry made life worse for any vets. That's pure speculation and partisanship on the part of Republican vets.

there is no objective evidence that suggests that Kerry made life worse for any vets. That's pure speculation and partisanship on the part of Republican vets.

I doubt even a liberal vet would agree with this. Kerry's lies made him a national celebrity until his successor was found out not to be a veteran at all. Fraud brought down his organization, VVAW, but Kerry put it on the map, and the lies multiplied on their own, above and beyond Kerry's

I doubt even a liberal vet would agree with this. Kerry's lies made him a national celebrity until his successor was found out not to be a veteran at all. Fraud brought down his organization, VVAW, but Kerry put it on the map, and the lies multiplied on their own, above and beyond Kerry's

A) the fact that the organization fell apart after Kerry left is not a reflection of him. He left because it had become too militant for him. I fthe subsequent leaders proved fraudsters or incompetent is THEIR problem - not his.

as to your argument that even "liberal" vets don't agree that his testimony made life more dificult for the vets, I would point out that when interviewed on Hardball the POWs levelling these complaints admitted that none of them were tortured for Kerry's comments.

from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5962170/

Nobody had been tortured, to my knowledge, since September of ‘69, when Ho Chi Minh died. But still, we didn‘t know that it was official policy that it was over. We didn‘t know that. And when he starts connecting the word “punishment” with what he says are alleged war crimes, I have in my mind, Maybe we‘re getting ready for my trial. Maybe I‘m going to be executed.


Ah - so by one of the movie participants they weren't actually tortured. They just felt at risk of it. Indeed, that is the premise put forward by this documentary. As noted:

CARLTON SHERWOOD, PRODUCER, “STOLEN HONOR”: Very simply—and I think you know this, Chris—There is a reservoir of resentment out among the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans, particularly, since what John Kerry did in 1971. And I thought the best way to tell this story was through the POWs who—there were direct consequences to these men for what John Kerry...

MATTHEWS: In putting this film together, what did you learn were the consequences, if you could accumulate them right now for us?

SHERWOOD: Oh...

MATTHEWS: Of John Kerry‘s testimony. What you know for sure, not speculation, what you know for sure.

SHERWOOD: According to the POWs, what they said to me...

MATTHEWS: Well, what they know for sure, if you can tell me what that is, not what they‘re speculating.

SHERWOOD: Well...

MATTHEWS: Because they‘re just people who‘ve been through this hell.

They don‘t know what—you never see the whole war.

SHERWOOD: No. They were there. You‘re asking me direct consequences to them. The direct consequences to them was they were already in peril, and all this did was enhance their peril.

MATTHEWS: How so? Explain.

SHERWOOD: Well, they‘d taken torture to give confessions of war criminality. John Kerry went public internationally and said we were all war criminals. They...

MATTHEWS: And therefore, what did they—what did the captors do to our guys because of hearing this?

SHERWOOD: They threatened them with show trials and execution.

MATTHEWS: Because of Kerry‘s testimony.

SHERWOOD: Because of Kerry‘s testimony


But Kerry testified in '71, so this contravenes the idea that his testimony caused any undue hardship given that torture stopped in 69 according to these same vets.

Some of these vets claim that KErry's testimony delayed the end of the war and their repatriation. That seems the hardest idea to swallow - that the antiwar movement caused the war to run longer. If anything, I would suggest the opposite.

and another of the POW's stated that Kerry's testimony was NOT used against the POWs in the camp where he was interred.

PHIL BUTLER, FORMER PRISONER OF WAR: Yes. I was captured on April the 20th of 1965 and released on February the 12th of 1973, just a little short of eight years. I‘m the eighth longest-held prisoner of war in Vietnam. And I was in Camp Unity, which was the camp that was mentioned earlier, I think, after the San The raid, from November the 20th of 1970 to May the 25th of 1972. During that time, I lived in room 2 of that camp with Ken Cordier (ph). And next to me in room 3 were Paul Galante and Jim Warner for a while, and also, Bud Day (ph) and Robert Shoemaker (ph) were in room seven of that camp.

And I can assure you that in Camp Unity—there were several hundred of us there—during all that time period, from 1970 up through May of 1972, we absolutely never heard of John Kerry. And if John Kerry‘s name was used or mentioned in other camps, I can assure you that, certainly, in my opinion, John Kerry has absolutely no connection whatsoever either with anybody being tortured or with prolonging the war in any way, shape or form.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you generically, Phil, did you ever experience as a POW the kind of threats that Mr. Warner suffered, where they said to you, We‘re going to try some of you guys after this war is over, we‘re going to execute some of you guys after this war, and then show that kind of material, show that kind of propaganda, which for them was propaganda, testimony from Jane Fonda or anybody in the anti-war movement? Was anything like that ever done to you?

BUTLER: No. They never really used anybody in the anti-war movement to torture me.


So - I have a hard time discerning what material damage these POWs faced from KErry's testimony. I understand that they did not like it, or him for making it. But the claims as to it's effect on them seems dubious by their own testimony.