Illustration my main problem with Kerry's post war activities.

[vulturesrow]

Vietnamese propaganda cites Kerry (http://http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-06/10/Stories/16.htm)

Although it may seem different, I havent taken a firm position on Kerry's action in Vietnam. My criticism really stems from the activities after he was in the war. Now, I truly believe in debate and dissension in a democratic society.

Now in this day and age, the repeating of Kerry's words doesnt have much effect, rightfully so. Can you imagine being a prisoner in the Hanoi Hilton, being brutally tortured on a regular basis, and then having these words read to you? It had to be psychologically devestating to those men. I think Kerry couldve been more cognizant of the men that were still over there, being tortured physically in the most sadistic ways imaginable and then being mentally tortured by the words of their fellow American's and Veterans?

Given that I have gone through the course that trains you for the eventuality of being stuck in a POW camp, Ive placed a lot of thought into the matter and my personal conclusion that, while protest is allowable and even desirable in a democratic society, we have to weigh the negative costs of said protest in situations like that. Sorry for the stream of conciousness post.

[jokerswild]

I don't believe that you killed any VC. Probably you are a cocaine abuser,just like the deserter.

[vulturesrow]

LOL Yeah wouldve been hard for me to kill VC being that I was born in 1976. As for cocaine, no I never have used cocaine.

[Stu Pidasso]

Hey Jokerswild.

This article (http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html) is saying that Kerry's discharge was delayed 6 years. Perhaps Kerry missed a few drills of his own. I don't think we will know the whole truth until Kerry comes clean with his military records.

Stu

[natedogg]

This stuff really has nothing to do with his proposals and policies he has presented in his bid for the presidency.

Everyone changes as they grow older. We're not voting for/against 1971's John Kerry, but a lot of people want us to think so.

The 1971 John Kerry is long gone, and so is the 1971 George W. Bush. The things they were doing and stood for have little if any relevance to their present day selves.

If every election was a referendum on the candidate's youth, nobody would be in office.

I am not voting for Kerry but for much better reasons than anything to do with all this vietnam crap.

natedogg

[vulturesrow]

Nate,

I agree with you to a point. I am not so sure that we can completely ignore the issue. That being said, I agree with you in that are many more reasons to not vote for Kerry than the whole Vietnam flap. My original post in this thread was just my throwing my thoughts on the matter out there.

Chris

[jokerswild]

It's sad that so many American men have given their lives so that drug using cowards like you can be fed by the silver spoon your whole life. It's a great argument for the entire Cold War being a mistake.

[vulturesrow]

Your existence is a great argument for forced sterilization.

[CORed]

I think anyone who wants to oppose what they believe to be an unwise or unjust war faces a dilemma. Opposition to the war will inevetibly encourage the enemy and discourage our troops. OTOH, not speaking out will insure that the war will coninue, possibly causing more harm to our troops than not speaking out. On balance, I think Kerry and many antiwar leaders in the Vietnam era did the right thing. However, this does not include Jane Fonda's visit to Hanoi, nor those who insulted returning veterans.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
This stuff really has nothing to do with his proposals and policies he has presented in his bid for the presidency.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I must have slept through that part. I've heard a lot of things that he is going to accomplish, but not word one about how (except to tax the hell out of the rich). I keep hearing him say that he has a plan to end our dependence on foreign oil, and he has a plan to create more jobs, and (gag) he has a plan to wage a more thoughtful and sensitive war.

I have a plan to win the WSOP next year, and then get screwed to death by the entire cast of the Follies Bergere. The details are a little hazy, but that's my plan.

Little Bush has gotten in way over his head, and I would dearly love to have someone in the White House who could do a better job. But as an Marine vet I knew would say, Kerry ain't packing the gear.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Opposition to the war will inevetibly encourage the enemy and discourage our troops. OTOH, not speaking out will insure that the war will coninue, possibly causing more harm to our troops than not speaking out.

[/ QUOTE ]
There isn't any "dilemma" at all. If the war is merited, it should be supported. If it is "unwise or unjust," it should be opposed because sending troops to kill and be killed is obviously worse than having troops feel discouraged or demoralized. If the war is unwise and unjust, they should be discouraged and demoralized.

If the country had followed the advice of Kerry and Jane Fonda, the result would have been the same except that the lives of thousands of American troops (and countless Vietnamese) would have been saved. Those who catigate war opponents for "demoralizing" the troops are, in essence, saying that it is better to have American troops killed than to make them realize that the war is wrong. I am sure that very few families of the unecessary dead would agree.

[vulturesrow]

1. There are ways to protest than saying hateful things about your fellow soldiers who are still over there and fighting.

2. Its a little more than just demoralizing Chris. Imagine being bound in ropes in the most painful fashion imagine, being beaten, stomped on, etc. and then being read a statement where one of your fellow servicemen is accusing you of committing atrocities.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
and then being read a statement where one of your fellow servicemen is accusing you of committing atrocities

[/ QUOTE ]

They must have taken him out of context as well.

[vulturesrow]

How wrong of them. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

It is something I feel very strongly about, no doubt colored by the fact that I have the potential to find myself in a similar situation as the POWs. I have to say the more I read up on the actions of the VVAW, the weaker the argument that Kerry's comments are taken out of context. But I really dont want to start that thread for the 8,000,000,000th time /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Chris

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Vietnamese propaganda cites Kerry (http://http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-06/10/Stories/16.htm)

Although it may seem different, I havent taken a firm position on Kerry's action in Vietnam. My criticism really stems from the activities after he was in the war. Now, I truly believe in debate and dissension in a democratic society.

Now in this day and age, the repeating of Kerry's words doesnt have much effect, rightfully so. Can you imagine being a prisoner in the Hanoi Hilton, being brutally tortured on a regular basis, and then having these words read to you? It had to be psychologically devestating to those men. I think Kerry couldve been more cognizant of the men that were still over there, being tortured physically in the most sadistic ways imaginable and then being mentally tortured by the words of their fellow American's and Veterans?

Given that I have gone through the course that trains you for the eventuality of being stuck in a POW camp, Ive placed a lot of thought into the matter and my personal conclusion that, while protest is allowable and even desirable in a democratic society, we have to weigh the negative costs of said protest in situations like that. Sorry for the stream of conciousness post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your point of view. However, like most things involving the Vietnam conflict, this is a very complex issue that cannot be summed up in a few sentences.

From my current point of view, I believe the limited US involvement in Vietnam was justified in the beginning. However, the whole situation just got deeper and deeper with no real progress. LBJ should have planned things better.

Yes, if someone who is a POW is read statements from someone who was a soldier but then turned against the war, it would be devastating. But on the other hand, what would happen if every US citizen would have just silently followed in total agreement and never spoke out against US involvement?

There is a major difference between someone speaking out against a war and someone putting down the soldiers who fight it. When someone speaks out against a war, they are speaking out against their own government saying that they don't think the war is right. The troops are just doing what their told, carrying out orders, which is what they are supposed to do.

I saw some modern Vietnam war documentaries a while back discussing war propaganda and how it can work in many different ways. I grew up hearing about how soldiers returning home from Vietnam were spit on in the airports. This story is told like it was a very regular occurrence. The documentary showed interviews with veterans who were at numerous airports when soldiers were returning. All of these vets said they were not spit upon and they had no first hand knowledge of any other veterans being spit upon. I'm not saying this never happened, but it is my opinion that the whole "spitting on veterans" story is a piece of propaganda used by war supporters to discredit protesters. Spitting on vets is obviously a despicable act, so I guess this was a good piece of propaganda.

So my point here is 1) propaganda works both ways, and 2) there is a major difference between speaking out against a war and speaking out against the soldiers who fight the war.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vietnamese propaganda cites Kerry (http://http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-06/10/Stories/16.htm)

Although it may seem different, I havent taken a firm position on Kerry's action in Vietnam. My criticism really stems from the activities after he was in the war. Now, I truly believe in debate and dissension in a democratic society.

Now in this day and age, the repeating of Kerry's words doesnt have much effect, rightfully so. Can you imagine being a prisoner in the Hanoi Hilton, being brutally tortured on a regular basis, and then having these words read to you? It had to be psychologically devestating to those men. I think Kerry couldve been more cognizant of the men that were still over there, being tortured physically in the most sadistic ways imaginable and then being mentally tortured by the words of their fellow American's and Veterans?

Given that I have gone through the course that trains you for the eventuality of being stuck in a POW camp, Ive placed a lot of thought into the matter and my personal conclusion that, while protest is allowable and even desirable in a democratic society, we have to weigh the negative costs of said protest in situations like that. Sorry for the stream of conciousness post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your point of view. However, like most things involving the Vietnam conflict, this is a very complex issue that cannot be summed up in a few sentences.

From my current point of view, I believe the limited US involvement in Vietnam was justified in the beginning. However, the whole situation just got deeper and deeper with no real progress. LBJ should have planned things better.

Yes, if someone who is a POW is read statements from someone who was a soldier but then turned against the war, it would be devastating. But on the other hand, what would happen if every US citizen would have just silently followed in total agreement and never spoke out against US involvement?

There is a major difference between someone speaking out against a war and someone putting down the soldiers who fight it. When someone speaks out against a war, they are speaking out against their own government saying that they don't think the war is right. The troops are just doing what their told, carrying out orders, which is what they are supposed to do.

I saw some modern Vietnam war documentaries a while back discussing war propaganda and how it can work in many different ways. I grew up hearing about how soldiers returning home from Vietnam were spit on in the airports. This story is told like it was a very regular occurrence. The documentary showed interviews with veterans who were at numerous airports when soldiers were returning. All of these vets said they were not spit upon and they had no first hand knowledge of any other veterans being spit upon. I'm not saying this never happened, but it is my opinion that the whole "spitting on veterans" story is a piece of propaganda used by war supporters to discredit protesters. Spitting on vets is obviously a despicable act, so I guess this was a good piece of propaganda.

So my point here is 1) propaganda works both ways, and 2) there is a major difference between speaking out against a war and speaking out against the soldiers who fight the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the thoughtful reply. My point is, not that Kerry should not have spoken out. If he truly was against the war, he couldve protested in a more responsible fashion, instead doing things like staging a fake search and destroy mission or say atrocities were a routine occurrence that were implicitly approved of by the leadership. The right to free speech doesnt negate the duty to do so responsibly.

[Chris Alger]

1. Really? Let's see you try to protest war atrocities without "saying hateful things."

2. Absurdly, it follows from this that one should never protest war atrocities until the point where everyone is committing them. As for how'd I'd feel if I was being tortured in prison, I think I'd feel pretty good that there were real patriots trying to get me back home. I certainly like them more, and wish them more success, than those who lack the moral courage to face up to the issues of the war, and prefer to keep me where I am as a proxy for their absense of moral courage.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Really? Let's see you try to protest war atrocities without "saying hateful things."

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sure I could. Especially since supposedly Kerry and the VVAW were supposedly speaking against the leadership and the reasons for being there. Now if the real reason for the protests was to protest supposed routine atrocities committed by his fellow soldiers than it be harder, but I still think it could be done. Its too bad you dont think you could find the balance. FUnny how its always the conservatives who are accused of seeing things in black and white only...

[ QUOTE ]
2. Absurdly, it follows from this that one should never protest war atrocities until the point where everyone is committing them. As for how'd I'd feel if I was being tortured in prison, I think I'd feel pretty good that there were real patriots trying to get me back home. I certainly like them more, and wish them more success, than those who lack the moral courage to face up to the issues of the war, and prefer to keep me where I am as a proxy for their absense of moral courage

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please. Thats really easy for you to say here in your little cocoon here in the states. I have yet to hear of one person who spent time in POW camps in Vietnam who feel that the way Kerry and the VVAW conducted themselves was any sort of patriotism.

[anatta]

About a month ago, some tapes were released from the Nixon Whitehouse. I am a little sketchy about the exact dates, but I think it was the Summer of 1972. Nixon and Kissenger were talking about Nam and the election. They knew the war was a lost cause. The only issue was how to withdraw with the least amount of political damage. Kissenger suggested that if they withdrew in Decemeber of 1973, that would be enough time after the election. He said they could then blame the eventual fall on South Vietnamese incompetence

How anyone can fault a young man who fought in Nam for saying "How can you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?" is beyond me. Oh no, he spoke too harshly! Maybe. He said he regrets the tone, and maybe went to far. But can you blame him? He knew what was going on. HOW MANY MEN DIED FROM SUMMER OF 1972 TO THE END? These men were sacrificed, and the man who spoke out is being criticized for his excessive tone.

[Chris Alger]

1. "Now if the real reason for the protests was to protest supposed routine atrocities committed by his fellow soldiers than it be harder, but I still think it could be done."

Again, let's see you try doing this without using Kerry's "hateful" language.

2. "I have yet to hear of one person who spent time in POW camps in Vietnam who feel that the way Kerry and the VVAW conducted themselves was any sort of patriotism."

How is your preference for silence instead of protest regarding war crimes evidence of "patriotism?" Is this the standard you'd apply to Cambodian, Soviet or German dissidents critical of atrocites committed by the troops of their respective countries?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
1. "Now if the real reason for the protests was to protest supposed routine atrocities committed by his fellow soldiers than it be harder, but I still think it could be done."

Again, let's see you try doing this without using Kerry's "hateful" language.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasnt just his language, it was his (and the VVAW's)actions too. And yes I still contend he couldve done it in a more responsible fashion. BTW, what exactly was Kerry protesting? Was it atrocities or US foreign policy in Vietnam?

[ QUOTE ]
How is your preference for silence instead of protest regarding war crimes evidence of "patriotism?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to completely miss the point. I never advocated complete silence. I dont think people shouldnt protest. I just think you should do in a responsible manner and with some thought given to all the consequences of your actions, not just the ones you desire. Do you think its ok to vandalize a storefront in order to protest the WTO?

[MaxPower]

If they did not have Kerry's statements they would have made it up or taken statements from someone else. Thats what propaganda is. It would have been the same situation for the POW's even if Kerry had not made any comments.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vietnamese propaganda cites Kerry (http://http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-06/10/Stories/16.htm)

Although it may seem different, I havent taken a firm position on Kerry's action in Vietnam. My criticism really stems from the activities after he was in the war. Now, I truly believe in debate and dissension in a democratic society.

Now in this day and age, the repeating of Kerry's words doesnt have much effect, rightfully so. Can you imagine being a prisoner in the Hanoi Hilton, being brutally tortured on a regular basis, and then having these words read to you? It had to be psychologically devestating to those men. I think Kerry couldve been more cognizant of the men that were still over there, being tortured physically in the most sadistic ways imaginable and then being mentally tortured by the words of their fellow American's and Veterans?

Given that I have gone through the course that trains you for the eventuality of being stuck in a POW camp, Ive placed a lot of thought into the matter and my personal conclusion that, while protest is allowable and even desirable in a democratic society, we have to weigh the negative costs of said protest in situations like that. Sorry for the stream of conciousness post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your point of view. However, like most things involving the Vietnam conflict, this is a very complex issue that cannot be summed up in a few sentences.

From my current point of view, I believe the limited US involvement in Vietnam was justified in the beginning. However, the whole situation just got deeper and deeper with no real progress. LBJ should have planned things better.

Yes, if someone who is a POW is read statements from someone who was a soldier but then turned against the war, it would be devastating. But on the other hand, what would happen if every US citizen would have just silently followed in total agreement and never spoke out against US involvement?

There is a major difference between someone speaking out against a war and someone putting down the soldiers who fight it. When someone speaks out against a war, they are speaking out against their own government saying that they don't think the war is right. The troops are just doing what their told, carrying out orders, which is what they are supposed to do.

I saw some modern Vietnam war documentaries a while back discussing war propaganda and how it can work in many different ways. I grew up hearing about how soldiers returning home from Vietnam were spit on in the airports. This story is told like it was a very regular occurrence. The documentary showed interviews with veterans who were at numerous airports when soldiers were returning. All of these vets said they were not spit upon and they had no first hand knowledge of any other veterans being spit upon. I'm not saying this never happened, but it is my opinion that the whole "spitting on veterans" story is a piece of propaganda used by war supporters to discredit protesters. Spitting on vets is obviously a despicable act, so I guess this was a good piece of propaganda.

So my point here is 1) propaganda works both ways, and 2) there is a major difference between speaking out against a war and speaking out against the soldiers who fight the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the thoughtful reply. My point is, not that Kerry should not have spoken out. If he truly was against the war, he couldve protested in a more responsible fashion, instead doing things like staging a fake search and destroy mission or say atrocities were a routine occurrence that were implicitly approved of by the leadership. The right to free speech doesnt negate the duty to do so responsibly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now I understand your point. But it seems to me that your reasoning is purely subjective. For example, how do you define "protesting in a more responsible fashion?" What is the "fake search and destroy mission" to which you are referring? "Atrocities were a routine occurrence" could be true. What is an "atrocity?" How do you define "routine?"

When you say "implicitly approved of by the leadership", that opens a whole new can of worms. For the most part, I believe many things were "implicitly approved of by the leadership."

The Vietnam conflict started out as a noble cause, but just kept going downhill. I can't imagine what it would be like to risk my life, be shot at, etc. because the administration in power (whether it be Republican or Democrat) doesn't want to lose face or be considered "the first president to lose a war."

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
And yes I still contend he couldve done it in a more responsible fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I give up. You lambast Kerry for using "hateful" language to protest war atrocities but after three requests can't offer any example or illustration of how could mention them a satisfy whatever test you're applying. Now you're adding on the way he offered his protest. This must mean that public testimony before a Senate committee subject to cross examination by U.S. officials is too uncivilized for you.

This reflects a predominate rightist pathology: lip service to the idea of free and open debate while actually hating anyone who utters unpleasant truths or challenge received wisdom. The legacy of Smith, Burke and even Buckley has been reduced to a secular religion of brainwashed submorons who can't handle anything more taxing than "good news" about how the U.S. wants nothing more than an improved world, fighting constantly for peace, justice and freedom. Unable to address their contradiction (as you proved so well here), they rant and rave about things they can hardly articulate. Mirror, mirror, on the wall ....

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If they did not have Kerry's statements they would have made it up or taken statements from someone else. Thats what propaganda is. It would have been the same situation for the POW's even if Kerry had not made any comments.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks for the lesson on propaganda. So I guess its ok to steal that car since it is was parked in a neighborhood where it probably wouldve been stolen any way huh?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I give up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just getting too hard to be liberal demagogue huh Chris? Its pretty hard to debate when people give rational logical answers and you answer with the functional equivalent of a kid sticking out his tongue and saying nanny nanny boo boo.

[ QUOTE ]
You lambast Kerry for using "hateful" language to protest war atrocities but after three requests can't offer any example or illustration of how could mention them a satisfy whatever test you're applying.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well you never asked for examples. Here are a few off the top of my head.

<ul type="square">
This isnt America's war, bring our boys home.
The American government has completely mishandled the war.
Our troops are tired and demoralized, its time to end this senseless war [/list]

We could probably go from there, those were spur of the moment.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you're adding on the way he offered his protest. This must mean that public testimony before a Senate committee subject to cross examination by U.S. officials is too uncivilized for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite the twister of words. I can see why you are a lawyer. I actually offered a specific example of the way Kerry protested, the one of the mock "search and destroy" mission.

[ QUOTE ]
This reflects a predominate rightist pathology: lip service to the idea of free and open debate while actually hating anyone who utters unpleasant truths or challenge received wisdom. The legacy of Smith, Burke and even Buckley has been reduced to a secular religion of brainwashed submorons who can't handle anything more taxing than "good news" about how the U.S. wants nothing more than an improved world, fighting constantly for peace, justice and freedom. Unable to address their contradiction (as you proved so well here), they rant and rave about things they can hardly articulate. Mirror, mirror, on the wall ....

[/ QUOTE ]

You know whats really funny? The way that, you as soon as someone challenges your worldview and attempts to explain their view and why they think what they do, you throw up your hands and result to cleverly worded insults. Guess its that leftist pathology at work...Please let me know what I didnt articulate clearly and I will try to make it easier for you. You seem like a smart guy, its a shame you have to resort to namecalling. Maybe I am giving you too much credit.


PS You never answered my question about whether or not vandalizing a storefront is an accpetable way to protest against the WTO.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they did not have Kerry's statements they would have made it up or taken statements from someone else. Thats what propaganda is. It would have been the same situation for the POW's even if Kerry had not made any comments.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks for the lesson on propaganda. So I guess its ok to steal that car since it is was parked in a neighborhood where it probably wouldve been stolen any way huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analogy makes no sense. John Kerry did not run a POW camp.

You cannot hold Kerry responsible for the actions of the North Vietnamese.

[vulturesrow]

I think it makes perfect sense. Basically your argument was well it was going to happen no matter, so its no big deal that Kerry did it. I dont hold Kerry responsible for the actions of the North Vietnamese. I am holding him responsible for his own behavior, which was irresponsible and helped embolden the torturers of our POWs. Thats what I hold him responsible for.


PS Apologies for the snide tone of my earlier reply

[MaxPower]

I don't know if Kerry considered the effect that his statements would have on prisoners of war. Perhaps he did.

You also have to consider those soldiers who were then risking their lives in Vietnam. Kerry felt that they were being put in harms way needlessly because the US was delaying withdrawing from Vietnam for political reasons. How would you feel if you were in a soldier in a situation like that and no one at home was fighting to bring you back as soon as possible.

Obviously Kerry thought he could have some effect on US policy and might be able to help those who were dying needlessly. He could not stop the North Vietnamese from torturing POWs - that was going to happen no matter what.

You might say that he didn't have to get into the war crimes in order to make his point, but you can't effectively protest without taking a somewhat extreme position.

Al Queda probably uses George W's words to recruit members, but you don't hear me saying that he is embolding the terrorists.

[andyfox]

"This isnt America's war, bring our boys home."

"The American government has completely mishandled the war."

"Our troops are tired and demoralized, its time to end this senseless war"

I don't see these statements as hateful language. Go back and see what President Nixon and Vice President Agnew said about those who opposed their policies and you'll see hate. The war was indeed senseless and mishandled: senseless in that the explanations offered by Washington for our fighting the war were based on either lies or ignorance; and mishandled in that we had no understanding of who or what we were fighting against and we therefore made enemies of the people we were allegedly protecting.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Really? Let's see you try to protest war atrocities without "saying hateful things."

2. Absurdly, it follows from this that one should never protest war atrocities until the point where everyone is committing them. As for how'd I'd feel if I was being tortured in prison, I think I'd feel pretty good that there were real patriots trying to get me back home. I certainly like them more, and wish them more success, than those who lack the moral courage to face up to the issues of the war, and prefer to keep me where I am as a proxy for their absense of moral courage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very well stated.

[vulturesrow]

Andy,

I think you misunderstood my post. I was suggesting those should have been the themes of Kerry's (and the VVAW's) protests. I dont know a great deal about the politics of the time beyond the basics. I do agree from a military point of view, the was was completely mishandled and that can be attributed to the civilian leadership. In spite of some posters who seem to think I am some drooling neanderthal who cant think for myself and dont really believe in what I am saying, I sincerely support the right to protest. I just object to Kerry and his group's method and focus.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
This isnt America's war, bring our boys home.

The American government has completely mishandled the war.

Our troops are tired and demoralized, its time to end this senseless war

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are all valid points, but one of Kerry's main points was that the war was unjust/immoral. Sure Kerry could have made these arguments, but they represent a different argument (one which doesn't have any real teeth and is, therefore, unefective.)

[vulturesrow]

Thats fine. I just dont think they needed to present American soldiers as rampant war criminals sanctioned by the leadership. And before anyone starts in about Kerry's speech that is so widely quoted, I am talking about the totality of his goup's actions and messages, which by and large portrayed American soldiers as war criminals who committed routine atrocities.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I just dont think they needed to present American soldiers as rampant war criminals

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know that "they" did that. It sounds almost as though you are conceding that Kerry himself didn't do anything wrong, didn't accuse Americans of being rampant war criminals, but rather it was others. Because the others protested the war as did Kerry, he is now part of a "they" and is, thus, responsible for words/actions which were similar to his.

I know that it is easy to impute the acts of the few onto the many. We do it all the time.

Some soldiers committed attrocities in Vietnam. That doesn't mean that all soldiers are war criminals.

Some war protestors might very well have called all/many/most soldiers war criminals. That doesn't mean that all protestors did this.

[vulturesrow]

As a leader of the VVAW who actively supported and participated in their events, I certainly do hold him responsible and I think he did do something wrong. Let me reiterate. I dont begrudge Kerry's or his compatriots right to protest. I have issue with they way they chose to do so which helped foster a very negative attitude in the US toward US servicemen which lingered for many years.