| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2004/8/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33032 Activity:high |
8/20 I didn't delete the Vietnam thread, I was going to reply to the
guy who likes calling Kerry a traitor. Anyway, you tried to refute
my argument by saying Kerry was responsible for Vietnamese deaths
by his anti-war actions. This is quite a stretch. By this measure,
every anti-war protestor is responsible for Vietnamese and American
deaths by protesting the war -- in your view, they are only responsible
by different amounts.
Kerry was a symbol of the anti-war movement to some vets, and Kerry
strengthened the movement by being an ex-soldier, and eloquent. These
vets feel that the anti-war movement left them as soldiers without a
purpose -- unwanted at home, wanted dead in Vietnam, with no end in
sight. They incorrectly believe Kerry labels all U.S. soldiers as war
criminals, when instead, Kerry said to the Senata in 1971: "We are
angry because we feel we have been used it the worst fashion by the
administration of this country." To these veterans, Kerry was a traitor
to his fellow soldier. However, they shouldn't be blaming Kerry for
being right.
\_ Your understanding of the history of the war is wrong.
Read the article below for a concise explanation of what I
have been saying. It's important to emphasize Kerry was
not a civilian during his activities, he was on active duty.
http://www.federalist.com/alexander/edition.asp?id=263
\_ Actually, why don't you offer a concise explanation of what
you are trying to say. You have the article right in front
of you, and you know your point.
\_ Your'e right, just read the last five paragraphs.
\_ Why don't you summarize it in one paragraph. I did,
in two.
\_ Well I don't understand what you're saying. Kerry
gave comfort to the enemy. His propaganda was
repeated to John McCain in the Hanoi Hilton. One
question, would it bother you if Michael Moore
negotiated truce terms with Al Sadr or Bin Laden?
\_ Don't you understand? By your definition,
all anti-war protestors, by calling the war
immoral, wrong, or just not worth it, are giving
"comfort to the enemy"? Your view, is that
Kerry just did it more than the typical anti-war
protestor.
About bin Laden: Don't you recall my previous
post? This is not WW2, where Japan preemptively
attacked Pearl Harbor; this is Vietnam, where
the U.S. carpet-bombed, 4 million Vietnamese
civilians died to 1 million enemy soldiers, and
we were wrong in the Tonkin incident.
\_ Upwards of 3 million died in Korea - good or
bad?
\_ Are you able to formulate a coherent response?
\_ The implication is obvious. You cite
4 million deaths to impugn the character
of the war. So I repeat, 3 million died
in Korea, do you see this as good as
bad through your Red colored glasses?
I have no problem with protesters, nor
would I elect a member of their
leadership to CIC. Are you aware of
all of Kerry's antiwar activities - from
the sounds of it I don't think you are.
\_ Fallacy of equation. While I think the
Vietnam war was fought "wrong", but on
some good premises, the Korean war had
UN legitimization. I think your debate
partner's argument that "war is always
bad because people die" is wrong. But
he is correct to say that a democratic
society should not equate opposition to
said war with treason. -John
\_ Fair enough, familiarize yourself
with Kerry's post war, FBI
documented activities; then you
decide. To me, (1) penning an
anti-war, hate america scribe with
a cover that mocks Iwo Jima with an
upside down US flag, and (2)attending
a meeting where assissinating
US senators is discussed, and
continuing to associate yourself
with that group, crosses the line.
Maybe one allows that kind of behavior
but you sure as hell don't
condone it by electing the person
as CIC.
\_ I have zero interest in whether
John Kerry should be pres or not.
I was simply pointing out the flaw
in the above argument. As for
"fit to be CIC", that is not for
you or me alone to decide, but the
electorate. The limiting factors
for Presidents are laid out very
clearly in the Constitution. -John
\_ And as for 'these' soldiers he consorted with, you do realize
a large percentage or majority of them were later proven
to be frauds, e.g. Al Hubbard? Kerry purjured himself
in front of Congress for political gain - this is not a
problem for you?
\_ You do realize that there were hundreds of wartime violoations
officially prosecuted by the miliary?
Perjury also means you are aware of falsehood when you testify.
You have not shown this at all.
\_ Well we have different perceptions of what took place.
Every thing I have read says yes they took place, but not on
the scale you believe, and they were prosecuted. However,
Kerry himself admitted to committing the atrocities.
Furthermore, its a warzone, atrocities happen. You haven't
heard stories about the Korean war and WWII? That doesn't
justify invoking the atrocities to demoralize our war
effort. After all the Vietnan War was won, the South was
free for two years. Did Kerry violate UMCJ and US statutes and
Constitutional provisions on treason or not? I think he did,
and someone of that character does not belong as CIC.
\_ By your reasoning, newspapers shouldn't be publishing
the Abu Ghraib abuse photos, as it demoralizes our war
effort. If Kerry clearly violated provisions on treason,
he would have been prosecuted for it, but he wasn't.
\_ I am asking one question. Did he or did he not
violate the statutes cited in the article? Gen.
Giap seems to indicate he did. He purjured himself
in front of Congress.
\_ I ask you one question. Did Vietnam anti-war
protestors violate the "give comfort to the enemy"
clause in the Constitution?
As for being against the war while you are serving,
we have a modern example of that. There is a
military intelligence analyst who wrote a letter to
a local newspaper criticizing the war. Someone
forwarded this letter to the military. The guy
was discharged. That's the punishment you get,
typically. Even this didn't happen with Kerry, and
your bringing it up now and associating it with
treason is quite a stretch.
\_ I think it is. Court martial proceeding were
already underway, Congress knew about it months
in advance. I sure as hell would not elect the guy
CIC.
\_ Read about Operation Pheonix. The US assassinated literally
thousands of civilians.
\_ Honestly, what would be point of sending highly trained
special-ops and snipers to kill civlians. You can't
be serious.
\_ Have you read about Operation Pheonix? The CIA
recently declassified the project, it is no longer
a matter of conjecture, but historical record.
We assassinated any political leader that we thought
might by sympathetic to the North Vietnamese cause.
As for the likelyhood of a highly trained US military
sniper being used to kill civilians in a foreign
land, I knew a guy who had done this in Nicauragua
and was dealing with the psychological afteraffects.
He was kind of messed up about it.
\_ How is this relevant to Kerry? Shit happens in
war. Are you familiar with the NVA and Vietcong
techniques for population control? Doesn't
it strike you as odd as you are now defending
the Communist side in this war,given the aftermath
of communist insurrections around the globe?
\_ Sure the other side was worse, far worse in
fact. I am not defending Communism, just the
historical record from those who wish to
rewrite it for political gain. If you don't
learn from your past, you are doomed to
make the same mistakes again and again.
\_ Vague platitude. History emphatically
vindicates the staunch anti-communists.
Kerry does not fall into this category.
\_ You are not doing yourself any favors
with the phrase "history emphatically
vindicates the staunch anti-communists"
without further explanation, when
history is replete with commentaries
about how Vietnam was a quagmire, and
the first war that the U.S. lost.
\_ Vietnam was won. How is that
a quagmire? If you want to
believe this myth created and
perpetuated by leftists, feel free.
Please, list for me the major
military battles lost in the war.
\_ Vietnam was won? Which side are
you on???
\_ LOL what were the terms of
the treaty of Paris in 1973?
I really don't think you know
what you are talking about.
I think a free S. Vietnam
(until 1975 anyways)
is a victory, don't you?
Or was Korea
not a victory either?
\_ The ToP was a good alibi
for us to disengage from
a badly conducted war,
fought for good reasons but
for a dodgy client. It was
not a victory. -John
\_ It was a victory! Until it
was a loss!
\_ Because anti-war
elements in Congress
rescinded all financial
and military support.
\_ I like how this guy twists your words into
"now defending the Communist side". This
truly is a case of "if you're not with us,
you're against us", which is one of the
problems the vets have.
\_ I like how you say "shit happens in war", as
if we are a bunch of naive idiots who didn't
know this already.
\_ Then why trumpet up these ubsubstantiated
charges of war crimes?
\_ you were kind of coherent for the 1st 9000 pages,
but then you lost me completely.
\_ Sorry for the long thread, but I believe the "Kerry was a traitor"
guy honestly believes his position, as many conservatives do, and
I was trying to "show him the way".
\_ I ask a third time - Kerry purjured himself before Congress
and violated several sections of US statute while on active
duty. Do you agree and is the behavior unbecoming a CIC? Almost
all Vietnam Vets say it is.
\_ how about desertion--is that behavior unbecoming a CIC?
\_ But Bush is a stupid monkey! Don't you see!? A stupid
monkey! -- aaron #1 fan |
| 5/17 |
|
| www.federalist.com/alexander/edition.asp?id=263 Patriot Shop A TownHall(TM) Member Site The Federalist Patriot (This is an archived edition of the The Federalist Patriot Digest "Top of the Fold," an excerpt from The Federalist Patriot Friday Digest. Subscribers receive the full edition of The Federalist Patriot each week free by e-mail and are able to view the full Current Edition and Recent Archives. archive) "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." Nor is it any surprise that he recently launched a campaign calling on Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld to resign after a handful of military personnel humiliated al-Qa'ida terrorists in Abu Ghraib prison while attempting to obtain actionable intelligence about their plans to kill more of our troops. These political attacks are just the latest round on Kerry's long list of black-bag antics designed to undermine America's military strength and resolve. Kerry, who fancies himself a war hero, has spent much of his political career denigrating American military personnel and the nation they defend. But his anti-American actions preceded his first campaign for Congress -- indeed, they were the platform from which he launched his political career. Like his comrade "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and so many other Leftist protagonists from the Age of Aquarius, Kerry was a child of wealth and privilege. Today, he is the wealthiest member of Congress (the "F" stands for "Forbes," after all) but don't expect that to be a central theme of his "man of the people" campaign. He socialized with the rich and famous, especially the Kennedy clan elites, where he was taken under the wing of his future patron saint, Teddy. He attempted to emulate John Kennedy's PT-109 heroics by joining the Navy and using his connections to obtain an assignment for a short tour on a swiftboat in Vietnam. Kerry then went on to collect three Purple Hearts in just two months -- all of dubious merit, but requisite for a ticket home to pursue his political aspirations. Unlike John F Kennedy, however, when John F Kerry got home, there was no hero's welcome. The nation was in turmoil over our continued role in Vietnam, the result of limited but well-publicized Leftist protests against the war. Kerry was (and remains) an effective spokesperson for his Leftist cadre. His anti-war protest period culminated with his 1971 congressional testimony, after which he told the press, "There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I used 50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. " Regarding the substance -- and source -- of Kerry's claims, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, says "KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the US Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. Vietnam was, he once told me, 'our most significant success'." As for the success of Kerry's anti-democracy protests and his leadership of the VVAW and association with Fonda's Winter Soldier Investigation, General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by such stateside protesters, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered. But the consequences of Kerry's actions should not stop with the fall of Saigon. Kerry, by his own account, violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the US Code while serving as a Navy officer, and he further stands in violation of Article three, Section three of the US Constitution. Upon entering the Navy in 1966, John Kerry signed a six-year contract (plus a six-month extension during wartime) and an Officer Candidate contract for five years of active duty and active Naval Reserve. This indicates that Kerry was clearly a commissioned officer at the time of his 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris -- in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and US Code 18 USC 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent coddling of Communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article three, Section three, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." It is for this reason -- for his record of giving aid and comfort to the enemy while a member of the US Armed Forces in violation of his oath -- that we insist John Kerry resign his seat in the US Senate. He has dishonored his family, dishonored his state and dishonored our nation. He is not fit for public office at any level of government, much less, the highest office in the land. Don't even think about ending your week without arming yourself with The Federalist Patriot's comprehensive, conservative digest of the week's most important news, policy and opinion. Compiled each week by a national editorial panel, The Federalist Patriot's highly condensed format is an informative and entertaining survey and analysis a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" |