How is Kerry losing the Vietnam 'battle'?

[vulturesrow]

Did you know that SBVFT offered to immediately pull all their ads if Kerry issued an apology for his characterization of their service in Vietnam? Do you think it was unreasonable for Kerry to do something like that? Heck even Jane Fonda did it? Im not trying to snipe, I would genuinely like to know if you think that is too much to ask of Kerry.

[anatta]

Kerry apologized for his choice of words. He has explained that people think, understandably, that his words mean he was accusing every soldier of war crimes. He was saying that some commited horrific war crimes, as the Winter Soldier testimony revealed. He was also saying that many other, including himself, were ordered to do thing by superiors that were not in accordance with the Geneva convention. I believe that free fire zones defined so broadly that civilian deaths, close to a million, is part of this violation.

As for the rest of his testimony, I don't think he should apologize for being a leader in ending an ATROCITY. Kerry saved his men's lives in Vietnam, and saved many more lives afterwords in Washington, DC. Colson's boy, O'Neil, was a skinny prick then, and he's a big fat dick now.

[vulturesrow]

Wow some apology. Im sorry I used the wrong words. Im sure that a POW who was being tortured and read Kerry's testimony feels so much better that Kerry used the wrong words. As for the Winter Soldier thing, it was shown to be a fraud. Kerry can prance around his words all he wants. The fact is that his testimony led to a widespread misperception that Vietnam veterans as a whole were routinely complicit in committing atrocities.

[1111]

What does a tortured POW have to do with Kerry apologizing for speaking out for a war he thought was wrong and needed to end, and for pointing out that the behavior of many US soldiers was less than noble? I think what Kerry did took an enormous amount of courage and that there is absolutely no reason for him to apologize. If people insist on misinterpreting what he said and believe he was talking about all soldiers, then ignorance is their issue, not outrage or a sense of betrayal.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
What does a tortured POW have to do with Kerry apologizing for speaking out for a war he thought was wrong and needed to end, and for pointing out that the behavior of many US soldiers was less than noble? I think what Kerry did took an enormous amount of courage and that there is absolutely no reason for him to apologize. If people insist on misinterpreting what he said and believe he was talking about all soldiers, then ignorance is their issue, not outrage or a sense of betrayal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no issues with Kerry's choice to protest the Vietnam War. The way he went about it is the issue, and while his words were carefully crafted (with assistance from an outside source), his implications were clear: that by and large, atrocities were routine and were a matter of command policy. And his testimony to Congress was based upon the Winter Soldier investigation, which as I said was shown to be a fraud. I think that the Vietnam vets who object to Kerry have every right to be outraged and I think its sad that you characterize their feelings as ignorance.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you know that SBVFT offered to immediately pull all their ads if Kerry issued an apology for his characterization of their service in Vietnam? Do you think it was unreasonable for Kerry to do something like that? Heck even Jane Fonda did it? Im not trying to snipe, I would genuinely like to know if you think that is too much to ask of Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty sad, I wonder why he wouldn't agree. You would think that the SBVFT ads hit Kerry worse than a public appology would.

[1111]

My comments about ignorance were clearly directed at those who believed that Kerry's statements somehow condemn all Vietnam soldiers. It is clear by his words that atrocoties were taking place, often with official knowledge or instruction, and that this information needed to be made public, but not that they were taking place everyday. He did not condemn all soldiers, in fact he was doing them a service in the hope of expediting the end of the war. If anyone deserves to be condemned it is the power structure that was responsible for both starting and dragging out the senseless affair. Also, as an aside, I do understand that the Winter Soldier investigation was questionable in its content, however, I also believe that what Kerry stated about atrocities not only took place in Vietnam, but that they are in fact part of the definition of the word "war."

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
My comments about ignorance were clearly directed at those who believed that Kerry's statements somehow condemn all Vietnam soldiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what Kerry had to say in a Meet the Press interview on May 18,1971.

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: 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 conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre 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. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

In Kerry's own words he states that thousands of U.S. soldiers are war criminals in committing atrocities. Many Vietnam vets didn't see it that way and believe they actied honorably in combat. Also when the Vietnam vets returned from serving in the war IMO their reception was indifferent at best and disdainful at worst. There is a significant group of veterans that hold people lik Kerry responsible. Your attitude is typical of what I see a lot on this forum, those Vietnam vets the feel Kerry stabbed them in the back have no right to feel that way so Kerry's done enough. The problem with that attitude is that it does nothing to reconcile the differences that these vets have with Kerry and its not just the swift boat vets group. Sure Kerry can choose not to reach out to these vets but on the other hand there should be no expectation that any of their problems with Kerry will be resolved even if their stance is unreasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, as an aside, I do understand that the Winter Soldier investigation was questionable in its content, however, I also believe that what Kerry stated about atrocities not only took place in Vietnam, but that they are in fact part of the definition of the word "war."

[/ QUOTE ]

Those that commit war crimes can't be absolved by stating that the were "just following orders" and the Vietnam vets realize this including Kerry. We could split hairs on when an atrocity rises to the level of a war crime but clearly Kerry in his statements is talking about atrocities that do rise to the level of war crimes.

[adios]

It's a stupid battle to wage but it's a battle that Kerry has promoted. There have been many items in Kerry's record that have been found to be questionable as well as outright lies and Kerry refuses to release all information about his service. Also disparaging Bush's service in the Air National Guard as you've done has back fired on the Democrats. Planes from Bush's National Guard unit flew missions in Vietnam and Bush voluteered to serve in those missions himself. Bush is two years younger than Kerry and when viewing the history of the Vietnam war it's easy to see that U.S. troop committments in Nam declined during Bush's stint in the Air National Guard. During the later years of Bush's stint, U.S. involvement waned significantly and the U.S. had more enlisted servicemen than they needed. During Kerry's tour of duty, the Vietnam war escalated to it's highest levels of troop committments. It's clear from Kerry's volunteering for the Navy (an option available to Bush as well btw) and Kerry's own statements about his volunteering for Swift Boat duty that Kerry had no desire to seek combat duty in Vietnam which is totally at odds with the Democratic party spinning of his service. People tend to resent such hypocrisy.