Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 59
  1. #1
    BOUNCER is offline Retired Vet
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    IRELAND.
    Posts
    7,772

    Although I think Bush is an idiot...

    I think he's the man to lead the war on terror. If I was a frightened American I'd be giving ol' Dubya my vote. Anyone else fearfull of Kerry's leadership abilities in the war on terror?.

  2. #2
    BajanBastard is offline VET Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    barbados
    Posts
    6,418
    I just started work on my under-ground bunker just in case kerry gets in...think i'll add a gym too.

  3. #3
    BOUNCER is offline Retired Vet
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    IRELAND.
    Posts
    7,772
    Quote Originally Posted by big k.l.g
    I just started work on my under-ground bunker just in case kerry gets in...think i'll add a gym too.

    LOL, says it all.

  4. #4
    chicamahomico's Avatar
    chicamahomico is offline Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hoss's Moms bedroom
    Posts
    2,993
    I am not a GW fan at all but I wouldn't vote for Kerry.

  5. #5
    damiongage's Avatar
    damiongage is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Pergatory
    Posts
    3,454
    Quote Originally Posted by BOUNCER
    I think he's the man to lead the war on terror. If I was a frightened American I'd be giving ol' Dubya my vote. Anyone else fearfull of Kerry's leadership abilities in the war on terror?.
    I do not know I would call him an idiot. He may not come off as the most intelegant person. but being the most ntelegent person does not directly affect ones ability to run a nation ......and i do think he is the better choice.

  6. #6
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    Kerry, would have the UN making our decisions for us, I'm not in favor of that.

  7. #7
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Bush's way of dealing with the terrorist threat is one of the big reasons why I am (most likely) going to vote for him. All I see Kerry doing is bartering our sovereignty for the favor of other countries, and not being willing to make the right decision if it will make him less popular. His voting record in the senate is a joke......As 1victor said, he would be having the UN make decisions for us.....so nothing would ever get done.

    Bush has dropped the ball a few times, but that doesn't mean its a good idea to give it to Kerry.

  8. #8
    JT2k's Avatar
    JT2k is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    405
    If only Mccain would run as an independent......... the man is awesome, straight talker too.

  9. #9
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by chicamahomico
    I am not a GW fan at all but I wouldn't vote for Kerry.
    My opinion exactly.

    chance

  10. #10
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by JT2k
    If only Mccain would run as an independent......... the man is awesome, straight talker too.
    The only thing I dsilike about McCain is he's sucking up to Bush now.....after all the bad things Bush said about him in the primaries......tsk tsk.....McCain should keep himself unstained by the Bush slop.

  11. #11
    saboudian's Avatar
    saboudian is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan State University
    Posts
    1,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    The only thing I dsilike about McCain is he's sucking up to Bush now.....after all the bad things Bush said about him in the primaries......tsk tsk.....McCain should keep himself unstained by the Bush slop.
    McCain is soldiering it, just like all the dem candidates had to write speeches praising kerry. You can tell McCain isn't thrilled to be supporting Bush. How Bush ever beat McCain is beyond me.

  12. #12
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by BOUNCER
    I think he's the man to lead the war on terror. If I was a frightened American I'd be giving ol' Dubya my vote. Anyone else fearfull of Kerry's leadership abilities in the war on terror?.

    It's one thing to be able to lead a war on terror, it's quite another to be able to keep the country from being a target of terror in the first place.
    -Tock

  13. #13
    BOUNCER is offline Retired Vet
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    IRELAND.
    Posts
    7,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    It's one thing to be able to lead a war on terror, it's quite another to be able to keep the country from being a target of terror in the first place.
    -Tock
    WTC (America)
    Bali,
    Spain,
    Israel,
    Russia....

    America is not being singled out, if Islam wants a d*mn religious war lets unleash hell on them

  14. #14
    hung-solo's Avatar
    hung-solo is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    HEELS 2005!!
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    Kerry, would have the UN making our decisions for us, I'm not in favor of that.
    kerry doesnt want the u.n. to make our decisions for us. that has been twisted all around. he want them to play a bigger role in the threat on terror unlike g.w. bush, b/c he wants all the credit. we all agreed to a united nations after ww2. we helped create it for these reasons. an international peace keeping\ policing force. imo bush wants the u.s. to play that role and to me that is wrong because we are stepping on a lot of toes to get there..
    bush mentioned that he will win the war on terrorsim in the next 4 years.. hahaha bad call on his part. the war on terrorism is just now getting on the way.. it will take years and years to accomplish this. no matter who the president is
    Last edited by hung-solo; 09-03-2004 at 08:10 AM.

  15. #15
    hung-solo's Avatar
    hung-solo is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    HEELS 2005!!
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by saboudian
    McCain is soldiering it, just like all the dem candidates had to write speeches praising kerry. You can tell McCain isn't thrilled to be supporting Bush. How Bush ever beat McCain is beyond me.

    agreed! bush is playing the "king" role.. the almighty terrorist stopper when in fact he just stirred the hornet's nest.. terrorism is on the rise.. i just hope it stays across seas and not here in the us. do i think kerry is a better solution, i dont know. but imo i think we need a change...

  16. #16
    Rak_Ani's Avatar
    Rak_Ani is offline Queen of Zion
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,726
    Quote Originally Posted by BOUNCER
    WTC (America)
    Bali,
    Spain,
    Israel,
    Russia....

    America is not being singled out, if Islam wants a d*mn religious war lets unleash hell on them
    You left out a few....

    Turkey (Muslim country)
    Saudi Arabia (also)
    Kenya
    Pakistan
    Tunisia
    Yemen
    Tanzania
    Philippines....
    And these are just some of the countries targeted by ONE terrorist organization - Al Qa'ida.

  17. #17
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Rak_Ani
    You left out a few....

    Turkey (Muslim country)
    Saudi Arabia (also)
    Kenya
    Pakistan
    Tunisia
    Yemen
    Tanzania
    Philippines....
    And these are just some of the countries targeted by ONE terrorist organization - Al Qa'ida.
    Thank you, BOUNCER convinently left out the muslim countries that are victims to terrorism.

    Including Morocco and even India.

  18. #18
    Jdawg50's Avatar
    Jdawg50 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    3,095

    This is the bottom line

    Quote Originally Posted by BOUNCER
    I think he's the man to lead the war on terror. If I was a frightened American I'd be giving ol' Dubya my vote. Anyone else fearfull of Kerry's leadership abilities in the war on terror?.

    Social issues are important, however if a nuke goes off in New York we have a lot more to worry about. YOu can forget the entire social agenda. The war on Terror trumps all in my eyes, and Bush is much better suited to fight it.

  19. #19
    singern's Avatar
    singern is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago/Israel
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdawg50
    Social issues are important, however if a nuke goes off in New York we have a lot more to worry about. YOu can forget the entire social agenda. The war on Terror trumps all in my eyes, and Bush is much better suited to fight it.
    That's a little pessimistic, but Ah-Men brother.....

  20. #20
    hung-solo's Avatar
    hung-solo is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    HEELS 2005!!
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by singern
    That's a little pessimistic, but Ah-Men brother.....
    just wish he had the same attitude when he was supposed to go to vietnam but pussed out, but hey he is not in the war zone is he??

  21. #21
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by hung-solo
    just wish he had the same attitude when he was supposed to go to vietnam but pussed out, but hey he is not in the war zone is he??

    Yeah....he's good at spilling the blood of everybody else's kids.....then he has the nerve to put the flying gear on and land on the carrier.....he thinks life is one big video game

  22. #22
    Rak_Ani's Avatar
    Rak_Ani is offline Queen of Zion
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,726
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    Thank you, BOUNCER convinently left out the muslim countries that are victims to terrorism.

    Including Morocco and even India.
    No he hasn't. He was giving 4 examples. I was expanding on that. The fact these Muslim countries were targeted too is because they have relationships with the west. The problem this brings out is that the Muslim terrorists are in a war against the WEST and not against the US or Israel. They don't mind attacking other Muslims who in their opinion aren't religious enough (Turkey) or are too friendly with the West. No president or prime minister can ensure his country doesn't become a target for Muslim terrorists, as Tock said he wanted, unless that president or prime minister takes his whole country population and converts them to Islam.

  23. #23
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Not at War with the West, they want the West to stay out of their regions and their countries.

    They dont want Western Influence in their countries, just as the West doesnt want Islamic Influence in their countries.

  24. #24
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Quote Originally Posted by BOUNCER
    I think he's the man to lead the war on terror. If I was a frightened American I'd be giving ol' Dubya my vote. Anyone else fearfull of Kerry's leadership abilities in the war on terror?.
    If Bush wins he probably cant go on another WAR, unless they attack first, namely Iran and North Korea.

    Cause if he attacks another country, there will be more outrage than there was with the Iraq war, and it will make Bush look like a person going on an all out war, after Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But if Kerry wins, he can go to WAR, cause he has a clean slate, and hasnt gone to WAR before, and it would be less pressure, since it will be his first war.

    If that made any sense...

  25. #25
    BOUNCER is offline Retired Vet
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    IRELAND.
    Posts
    7,772
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    Thank you, BOUNCER convinently left out the muslim countries that are victims to terrorism.

    Including Morocco and even India.
    Actually I didn't ''convinently'' leave out Muslim countries. I just didn't remember them when I was speedly posting from work earlier.

  26. #26
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    If Bush wins he probably cant go on another WAR, unless they attack first, namely Iran and North Korea.

    Cause if he attacks another country, there will be more outrage than there was with the Iraq war, and it will make Bush look like a person going on an all out war, after Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But if Kerry wins, he can go to WAR, cause he has a clean slate, and hasnt gone to WAR before, and it would be less pressure, since it will be his first war.

    If that made any sense...
    It does make sense in a round about way. I just don't think Kerry has the balls to actually take it as far as a war. He doesn't have the conviction or the backbone.

    JMO

    chance

  27. #27
    Anhydro78's Avatar
    Anhydro78 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,439
    It wouldnt make any sence to vote an Anti-War protestor to be the president of the United States. I could understand how you guys could support him if just his Veiws were different. But Kerry went far out of his way follow an Anti-War movement.

    Hung Solo, Its the Democratic party that made claims that we were going alone and that we should have only went with the U.N. approval. Thats Propaganda went sour. That dont make any sence to ask permission from the people that armed Saddam with thousands of Chemical and Biological warheads to go look for them. Of course they are gonna be against it.

    I love when everyone follows along and copys Gore saying we stirred up a hornets nest. Like there is a more politically correct way to deal with this problem.

    Al Sader is an excellent example why you cant allways trust diplomacy.

  28. #28
    biglouie250's Avatar
    biglouie250 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,401
    why is a pro-war president better than an anti war president??


  29. #29
    JT2k's Avatar
    JT2k is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by BOUNCER
    WTC (America)
    Bali,
    Spain,
    Israel,
    Russia....

    America is not being singled out, if Islam wants a d*mn religious war lets unleash hell on them

    Amen, the $hit stops when the hammer drops bro. I just had my bloodtype tattooed on my neck just incase the tape comes off my boots. I'll be returning to hell soon.

  30. #30
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Anhydro78
    It wouldnt make any sence to vote an Anti-War protestor to be the president of the United States. I could understand how you guys could support him if just his Veiws were different. But Kerry went far out of his way follow an Anti-War movement.


    Ok . . . you can persuade me to vote for Bush -- IF -- you can persuade me that the Vietnam War was not a big mistake, that it was well worth the 55,000 American lives it cost, and why a reasonable person should not have raised their objection to that war.

    And then you can explain to me why sending 1000 more Americans to die in Iraq to remove Saddam from office, when he was NOT connected with the Al Quaida or 9/11 terrorists, is a good idea.

    Wanna give it a try?

    -Tock

  31. #31
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Ok . . . you can persuade me to vote for Bush -- IF -- you can persuade me that the Vietnam War was not a big mistake, that it was well worth the 55,000 American lives it cost, and why a reasonable person should not have raised their objection to that war.

    And then you can explain to me why sending 1000 more Americans to die in Iraq to remove Saddam from office, when he was NOT connected with the Al Quaida or 9/11 terrorists, is a good idea.

    Wanna give it a try?

    -Tock

    What you are saying makes complete sense......but I do have a question for you: Do you really think Kerry will do a better job than BUsh cleaning up the current mess that is Iraq?

  32. #32
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    Ok . . . you can persuade me to vote for Bush
    Come on don't tease people

    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    you can persuade me that the Vietnam War was not a big mistake, that it was well worth the 55,000 American lives it cost, and why a reasonable person should not have raised their objection to that war.
    It was a big mistake, it wasn't worth a single American life, and a resonable person could reasonablly be expected to raise objection.

    Unfortunately Kerry didn't raise objection to the war. He attacked his fellow soldiers and called them war criminals. If you're against a war, that's fine, but don't attack the guys who are fighting it. The very guys you are attacking are the ones that are giving you the right to object. Attack the leadership that sent them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    And then you can explain to me why sending 1000 more Americans to die in Iraq to remove Saddam from office, when he was NOT connected with the Al Quaida or 9/11 terrorists, is a good idea.
    Well, no one ever said that the reason we went into Iraq had anything to do with al Quaida. It was Saddam's continual defience of UN resolutions, the continual fight against weapons inspectors and the continued attacks on American fighters in the no-fly zone. It was threats against the US and US interests and finally the suspected continuous development of WMDs. That is why we went into Iraq.

    Did I do a good enough job to get you to not vote for Kerry? I don't care if you vote for Bush or not. I'm voting Liberatarian.

    chance

  33. #33
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    What you are saying makes complete sense......but I do have a question for you: Do you really think Kerry will do a better job than BUsh cleaning up the current mess that is Iraq?

    Actually, I don't think either one of 'em are gonna go over with a broom and clean up anything. They're gonna have teams of bureaucrats, career military, and camera-mugging politicians over there, but it will be the diplomats who talk with the opposing factions over there and build a new country. Most of them are career diplomats, except the top policy makers, and I wouldn't expect there to be that much difference between the two parties.

    But as far as working with the UN to avoid future wars, ya, Kerry wins that bet hands down. National Republican sentiment is "Fucx the UN, who needs em?" Democrat's look at world problems like, "Oh shix, let's get everyone together and see how we can solve this mess."

    I would fully expect that if the Republicans get re-elected, we'll see a reinstatement of the National Draft. The Republicans may or may not get the US into a war with Iran, but the Democrats would probably do everything they could to avoid it.
    One reason the Republicans wouldn't shy away from an Iranian war is their beleif in their interpretation of the Bible's book of Revelations. Fundamentalist theology says that "Any friend's of Israel is a friend of God," and so long as the US looks after Israel's interests, the US will win. "Have Dominion" is the term. So, those idiots are much more likely to get you guys into an Iranian war than Kerry is, because those crazy fundamentalists think God is gonna make sure the US wins.
    As I've said before, I've served my time in the military, but for y'all who haven't yet, you may as well get ready to either move to Canada or get your butts drafted over to the mideast (or maybe North Korea, or where ever those Republicans who consider UN based diplomacy is for pussies). Let us know where they send you, and we'll mail ya a care package . . .

    --Tock

  34. #34
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    Well, no one ever said that the reason we went into Iraq had anything to do with al Quaida. It was Saddam's continual defience of UN resolutions, the continual fight against weapons inspectors and the continued attacks on American fighters in the no-fly zone. It was threats against the US and US interests and finally the suspected continuous development of WMDs. That is why we went into Iraq.

    "SUSPECTED" development of WMD's?
    Is THAT a good enough reason to send 1000 Americans to their deaths?
    I sure don't think so . . .

    Seems to me that the Republicans should have spent their effort into getting Osama and the terrorists, before getting Saddam's "SUSPECTED" WMD's. I'll bet there are 1000 families out there who agree . . .

    -Tock

  35. #35
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    Did I do a good enough job to get you to not vote for Kerry? I don't care if you vote for Bush or not. I'm voting Liberatarian.

    No, but you're welcome to try again. This time focus on justifying sending 55,000 Americans to die in Vietnam. Kerry knew it was BS, millions of other Americans knew it was BS. Geez, even Bush knew it was BS--he sure didn't want to risk his life for such a stupid war.

    But ya, try again . . . who knows, you might bring up a point that other folks have overlooked . . .
    --Tock

  36. #36
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    You did your time in the military, doesn't what Kerry did after the war piss you off? Maybe I'm being emotional or stupid, but due to that alone, actually due to his speech to Congress in 1971, I would never vote for him, even if I my opinions aligned exactly with his. I fought in the first Gulf War and worked in an aide station in the middle of Southern Iraq for 6 months afterward and the very idea of calling the men you fought side by side with murders and child killers just makes me ill, especially when there is no evidence that those things ever happened or were done by anyone he was with or saw. I just wonder how you justify his behavior. Yes, you can voice your opinion that the war is wrong, that you don't believe in it, actively work against it through demonstrations and protests but child killers and murders?

    chance

  37. #37
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    You did your time in the military, doesn't what Kerry did after the war piss you off?
    Not at all.
    He was, after all, correct that the war was a big mistake.



    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    . . . the very idea of calling the men you fought side by side with murders and child killers just makes me ill, especially when there is no evidence that those things ever happened or were done by anyone he was with or saw.
    Well, it turns out that some of the troops over there WERE in fact murderers and child killers.
    There was a big contoversy over the Me Lai massacre in 1969:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam...hes/mylai.html
    . . . and other stuff:
    http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1f.htm

    I understand what happened over there, and knowing what I know about human nature, I'm not at all surprised it happened. The abuse--the murder--wasn't justified, but, the American soldiers shouldn't have been there in the first place defending a conflicted American policy, they were caught between a rock and a hard place, and they lost their better senses and committed atrocitiies. Would I be different? Ya, now I would . . . I dunno about back then, though.

    Anyway, Kerry was spot-on in his condemnation both the war and the atrocities and abuse that some of the US troops dished on the Vietnamese. Actually, I have little respect for politicians back then who DID NOT condemn the war and what the military was doing. What the US did should never happen again . . . ever. The troops who went (and didn't abuse Vietnamese) are all heros, because they had the courage to do what their country called them to do. The only problem was, that the country was screwed up in what it wanted to accomplish.

    --Tock

  38. #38
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Yeah, I know about the Me Lai massacre, and I'm sure there were more. But that is not what he was testifying to. He testified that ALL American soldiers committed war crimes and that they were ALL guilty of murder, rape, and killing women and children.

    They were between a rock and a hard place. If the military leader were allowed to conduct the war instead of the politicians, there probably would have been a much different outcome.

    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I just find the blanket condemnation that he made to be unexcusable. I also find it unexcusable to make accusations and then refuse to cooperate with authorities so that they can be investigated. It's one thing to condem those that actually committed atrocities, it's another to blanketly condem all US soldiers because they were there.

    chance

  39. #39
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by chances
    Yeah, I know about the Me Lai massacre, and I'm sure there were more. But that is not what he was testifying to. He testified that ALL American soldiers committed war crimes and that they were ALL guilty of murder, rape, and killing women and children.
    While I'm not saying Kerry did or didn't say anything like that, I, personally, have not seen that quote. Got a reference that shows this? I ask because usually quotes like this are taken out of context, or never even happened.
    I have heard, though, that Kerry admitted he "may" have regretted some of the language he used to make his points . . . so there's no telling what's out there in the public record and how it's being twisted.
    In a general sense, you could say that since the Vietnam war was a bad idea and an injust war, that the US military personnel were unust themselves. It's a gross overgeneralization, and not one I'd be proud to use myself.
    But show us what ya got, and we'll see what's there . . .

    -Tock

  40. #40
    chances is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    290
    Here's a link to the full transcript:

    Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia Thursday, April 22, 1971 United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C.


    Here are some excerpts:

    I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.
    So Kerry is speaking for all veterans of Vietnam, and they would all say the same thing? We already know they wouldn't say the same thing because they are voicing their disgust for this speech, and they are saying that Kerry DID NOT speak for them.


    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.
    So these were happening everyday and everyone knew it? Making everyone a war criminal by deed or accessory.


    They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape 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 country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

    We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

    We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.
    Unfortunately, there were imposters and liars amoung those telling these stories. Soldiers who weren't even assigned overseas, weren't in the military during the war or not in the areas they claim the atrocities were commited. On top of that, none of the people who "testified" at the Winter Soldier Investigation ever provided authorities with any evidence so these atrocities could be investigated, even when the investigators promised amnesty for any personally committed atrocities.

    Here is a list of keypoints and discussion of the Winter Soldier and Kerry's speech in 1971:

    Winter Soldier - Keypoints


    We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

    We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals.
    "We" in this instance refers to Kerry's initial assertion that he speaks for all veterans of Vietnam. So not only are the veterans murders, but Americans are a callous un-caring society. This also not the last time you will see Kerry caharacterize a "free fire zone" as an area where soldiers kill anything that moves. This is totally inaccurate and explained later.


    ... the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything.
    So violations of the Geneva Conventions were a matter of policy? Again, making every soldier in Vietnam a war criminal. The fact that there are eyewitness accounts of American POWs being tortured and killed by the NVA? Where is that?

    And a link to why what Kerry says here is inaccurate based on the Geneva Conventions:
    Kerry's testimony speaks voulmes

    chance
    Last edited by chances; 09-04-2004 at 03:46 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •