John Kerry has admitted that he commited war crmes and attrocitys in vietnam, how come this doesnt seem to concern all the people who flew off the handle at the iraqi naked prison pictures? John kerry admitted to shooting innocent peoples villages up. why is it that the same people that get so upset about how we interrogate prisoners seem just fine nominating a guy who admits to taking part in attrocities while he served in vietnam? why is the left so freaking contradictory about every single thing they stand for???? It is maddening! :mad: :mad:

There's a big difference between killing people that are threatening you or even remotely threatening you and dragging completely innocent 12 year-olds off the streets for torture, rape and sacrificing to the white man's god in the name of western christian supremecy.

One may be a war crime as described by the courts. The other is outright heinous. I'll let you figure out which is which.

Dop

Originally posted by Travh20
why is the left so freaking contradictory about every single thing they stand for???? It is maddening! :mad: :mad:

Why is it that you constantly rant and exaggerate about the "left"? :rolleyes:

To answer your question Trav, Kerry's not "getting a pass" for his war crimes.

These "crimes" happened 30 years ago.

He was never charged with committing any "war crimes".

You may call them "war crimes" all you want in a desperate attempt to smear Kerry, but in doing so, you are smearing many other soldiers who may have participated in the same war. It was a brutal guerrilla war Trav, and I'm sure that many "crimes" were in fact committed.

As to why I might be more outraged by what's happening in Iraq than what happened in Vietnam...let's see...

First, as I said in the previous sentence...there are atrocities that happened and there are atrocities that are happening...which ones do I think should be prevented?...the ones that are happening of course...

Second, as Dop said, what happened in Vietnam was a direct response to the fact that we were fighting a guerrilla war. Sometimes whole villages would be destroyed and all the inhabitants killed, in a misguided attempt to get the Vietcong, or destroy their rural base of support. What we weren't doing was putting people in prison and then committing atrocities upon them.

Third, what John Kerry may have done while a soldier 30 years ago is not nearly as important as what George Bush may have done as President 3 months ago.

You are fond of complaining about the fact that democrats like to flaunt Kerry's war record, which you say isn't important and shows hypocrisy because the democrats tried to ignore Bob Dole's record or some other such nonsense.

While it may be true that the democrats certainly had nothing to gain by heaping praise on Bob Dole, which I think we both know is just politics, at least the democrats didn't try to make Dole look bad because of his war record. You constantly whine about Kerry's war service by saying it was only 3 months, and how he falsely was awarded 3 purple hearts. You conveniently fail to mention his Silver Star, and Bronze Star, because you can't dismiss those as easily. They are won for valor in combat Trav, and you can piss and moan all you want, but those aren't just ceremonial ribbons. You can dismiss the Purple Hearts if you want to, and I'll admit that by themselves all they show is that he was wounded, they say nothing about his prowess as a soldier. In fact one might even say that the best soldiers are those who can engage in combat and avoid getting wounded., since after all, the object is to wound the enemy. What you can't say, with any credibility whatsoever, is that a man who engages in combat for only 3 months and wins 3 Purple Hearts, and the Silver and Bronze Stars, in that short time, is anything but a fine soldier.

BTW Trav, I don't believe that Kerry has admitted to personally committing war crimes. Here is alink to a site with a transcipt of his statement to a Congressional hearing in 1971.

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

Trav, another thing you fail to understand is that John Kerry was attacking the polices our Government had during Vietnam. It was our Government forcing people like John Kerry to take their troops into villages and kill the innocent and burn villages. So why would John Kerry get charged for a war crime he was forced to commit?

Originally posted by Overdose
Trav, another thing you fail to understand is that John Kerry was attacking the polices our Government had during Vietnam. It was our Government forcing people like John Kerry to take their troops into villages and kill the innocent and burn villages. So why would John Kerry get charged for a war crime he was forced to commit?
Exactly! He didn't go out of his way to commit war crimes. He followed orders, commiting the same crimes that every vetran at the time did. He never blamed his fellow soldiers, he only blamed the crooked policies of the government at the time.

let me tell you all a little about exactly how john kerry commited a war crime and is a cold blooded murderer. In war there is a thing called a double tap. a double tap is when you shoot a wounded enemy after the fact. As an infantryman you learn that as you cross the objective, you can shoot the crap out of the enemy, but once you get across the objective, and you come back across to gather intel and secure prisoners, you cant go around shooting the wounded enemy. John Kerry got a medal for doing a double tap on a wounded gook. One of his gunners shot the guy. the guy was down and out, wounded, John kerry left his boat and shot him dead as he lay there bleeding. that my friends is called murder. It is a direct violation of the geneva convention. "finishing off" an wounded enemy soldier is murder. I Know it sounds crazy to say that killing someone in a war is murder, but it is. I thought it was stupid too, but the law is the law. Ted Kennedy and all the other democrats want to go on and on about the geneva convention relating to the "attrocitys" commited at Abu Barib better take notice: their nominee not only broke the geneva convention by double tapping that wounded gook, he got a medal for it.

Any links to back up your claim? And why would they give him a medal if he broke a law? I find that ironic, and unbelievable.

well, considering you dont accept anything I link to as anything but a load of crap why bother?

Kerry was given a Silver Star for an action on February 28, 1969:

When Kerry's Patrol Craft Fast 94 received a B-40 rocket shot from shore, he hot dogged his craft beaching it in the center of the enemy position. To his surprise, an enemy soldier sprang up from a hole not ten feet from Patrol Craft 94 and fled.
The boat's machine gunner hit and wounded the fleeing Viet Cong as he darted behind a hootch. The twin .50s gunner fired at the Viet Cong. He said he "laid 50 rounds" into the hootch before Kerry leaped from the boat and dashed in to administer a "coup de grace" to the wounded Viet Cong. Kerry returned with the B-40 rocket and launcher..

And why would they give him a medal if he committed a war crime?

when will you take off the blinders kid???? he gave HIMSELF the medals.

Again I don’t believe this, and the reason you won't give me the link is because it’s most likely from a Right Wing nut site.

And I’m not aware of how you can give yourself a medal…

I would be interested in your source for this info as well.

BTW, I've always understood the term "double-tap" to mean shooting someone twice, because it's a sure kill. I've never seen it used to refer to shooting a wounded person.

http://www.sportshooter.com/encyclopedia/DoubleTap.htm

this is how it works overdose:

To get a medal, someone higher rank then you has to witness a valorous act by you. they see this and think you deserve a commendation for your bravery. well what happens if there is no one higher ranking then you in attendance? you put yourself in for it. As long as you got guys to back up you r story there is no way the higher ups can deny it pretty much. you get the picture.

Alright, so everyone said he deserved a medal for this because of his bravery…and where is your link?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I would be interested in your source for this info as well.

BTW, I've always understood the term "double-tap" to mean shooting someone twice, because it's a sure kill. I've never seen it used to refer to shooting a wounded person.

http://www.sportshooter.com/encyclopedia/DoubleTap.htm

pagan, in my infantry unit, as well as in the entire United States Army Infantry a "double-tap" refers to finishing someone off. It may not be the term used by Navy light boat crews, but that is the term I know. It can have many meanings by many different groups, but again, this is the way I know it. Going across an objective you can shoot anyone who gets in your way, but once across, thats it. you cant shoot someone who has been shot already unless they try to kill you or one of the guys with you.

Ok fine Trav, if you don't have a credible source to back-up your accusation of murder against Kerry, I'll have to assume the story is complete bull.

Trav, your statement that a superior officer must witness an act of bravery in order for a commendation to be issued is patently false, as is your assertion that Kerry was given the Silver Star for shooting a helpless enemy.

From Snopes.com:

Kerry earned his Silver Star on 28 February 1969, when he beached his craft and jumped off it with an M-16 rifle in hand to chase and shoot a guerrilla who was running into position to launch a B-40 rocket at Kerry's boat. Contrary to the account quoted above, Kerry did not shoot a "Charlie" who had "fired at the boat and missed," whose "rocket launcher was empty," and who was "already dead or dying" after being "knocked down with a .50 caliber round." Kerry's boat had been hit by a rocket fired by someone else — the guerrilla in question was still armed with a live B-40 and had only been clipped in the leg; when the guerrilla got up to run, Kerry assumed he was getting into position to launch a rocket and shot him:

On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's boat received word that a swift boat was being ambushed. As Kerry raced to the scene, his boat became another target, as a Viet Cong B-40 rocket blast shattered a window. Kerry could have ordered his crew to hit the enemy and run. But the skipper had a more aggressive reaction in mind. Beach the boat, Kerry ordered, and the craft's bow was quickly rammed upon the shoreline. Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher.

An enemy was just feet away, holding a weapon with enough firepower to blow up the boat. Kerry's forward gunner, [Tommy] Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg. Then Belodeau's gun jammed, according to other crewmates (Belodeau died in 1997). [Michael] Medeiros tried to fire at the Viet Cong, but he couldn't get a shot off.

In an interview, Kerry added a chilling detail.

"This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for . . . I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had," Kerry recalled. "And Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."

Instead, the guerrilla got up and started running. "We've got to get him, make sure he doesn't get behind the hut, and then we're in trouble," Kerry recalled.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."

Another member of the crew confirmed Kerry's account for the Boston Globe and expressed no doubt that Kerry's action had saved both the boat and its crew:

The crewman with the best view of the action was Frederic Short, the man in the tub operating the twin guns. Short had not talked to Kerry for 34 years, until after he was recently contacted by a Globe reporter. Kerry said he had "totally forgotten" Short was on board that day.

Short had joined Kerry's crew just two weeks earlier, as a last-minute replacement, and he was as green as the Arkansas grass of his home. He said he didn't realize that he should have carried an M-16 rifle, figuring the tub's machine guns would be enough. But as Kerry stood face to face with the guerrilla carrying the rocket, Short realized his predicament. With the boat beached and the bow tilted up, a guard rail prevented him from taking aim at the enemy. For a terrifying moment, the guerrilla looked straight at Short with the rocket.

Short believes the guerrilla didn't fire because he was too close and needed to be a suitable distance to hit the boat squarely and avoid ricochet debris. Short tried to protect his skipper.

"I laid in fire with the twin .50s, and he got behind a hootch," recalled Short. "I laid 50 rounds in there, and Mr. Kerry went in. Rounds were coming everywhere. We were getting fire from both sides of the river. It was a canal. We were receiving fire from the opposite bank, also, and there was no way I could bring my guns to bear on that."

Short said there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved the boat and crew. "That was a him-or-us thing, that was a loaded weapon with a shape charge on it . . . It could pierce a tank. I wouldn't have been here talking to you. I probably prayed more up that creek than a Southern Baptist church does in a month."

Charles Gibson, who served on Kerry's boat that day because he was on a one-week indoctrination course, said Kerry's action was dangerous but necessary. "Every day you wake up and say, 'How the hell did we get out of that alive?'" Gibson said. "Kerry was a good leader. He knew what he was doing."

Although Kerry's superiors were somewhat concerned about the issue of his leaving his boat unattended, they nonetheless found his actions courageous and worthy of commendation:

When Kerry returned to his base, his commanding officer, George Elliott, raised an issue with Kerry: the fine line between whether the action merited a medal or a court-martial.

"When [Kerry] came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, 'John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post,'" Elliott recalled in an interview.

"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that," Elliott said. A Silver Star, which the Navy said is its fifth-highest medal, commends distinctive gallantry in action.

Asked why he had raised the issue of a court-martial, Elliott said he did so "half tongue-in-cheek, because there was never any question I wanted him to realize I didn't want him to leave his boat unattended. That was in context of big-ship Navy — my background. A C.O. [commanding officer] never leaves his ship in battle or anything else. I realize this, first of all, it was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there. On the other hand, on an operation some time later, down on the very tip of the peninsula, we had lost one boat and several men in a big operation, and they were hit by a lot more than two or three people."

Elliott stressed that he never questioned Kerry's decision to kill the Viet Cong, and he appeared in Boston at Kerry's side during the 1996 Senate race to back up that aspect of Kerry's action.

"I don't think they were exactly ready to court-martial him," said Wade Sanders, who commanded a swift boat that sometimes accompanied Kerry's vessel, and who later became deputy assistant secretary of the Navy. "I can only say from the certainty borne of experience that there must have been some rumbling about, 'What are we going to do with this guy, he turned his boat,' and I can hear the words, 'He endangered his crew.' But from our position, the tactic to take is whatever action is best designed to eliminate the enemy threat, which is what he did."

Indeed, the Silver Star citation makes clear that Kerry's performance on that day was both extraordinary and risky. "With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets," the citation says, Kerry "again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy . . . The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission."


This link contains factual info on John Kerry's medals.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

kerry got his silver star for the B-40 rocket incident. his bow gunner shot the man, who went down. Kerry got off the boat and killed a wounded enemy soldier, period. look it up. There is nothing saying the wounded man threatened him. While I personally dont care if he killed a wounded enemy soldier, the only reason I bring it up is because the same people who scream bloody murder about abu garib dont seem to concerned with John Kerry killing a wounded enemy soldier. if he came out and said the guy pulled a gun on him as he went to give him aide thats one thing, but nothing like that has been said. By readig the reports he simply went up to a guy with a B-40 rocket who had already been shot and finished him off. I know you dont believe me, and I really dont care.

Trav still refusing to give a link? Well that’s a shocker.

overdose, all thel inks I have given you you have said were not applicable. forgive me if you asking for a link has lost its luster for me. I gave you 2 links with insane amounts of documentation proving Moore wrong and you brushed them off. its clear you only want to believe what you believe in, nothing MOORE

Sorry Right Wing sites don’t cut it for me…

But MSNBC, CNN, USAToday, and even Fox News would be fine if you could find a valid link to support your story.

right wing sites dont cut it but Air America is just fine and dandy :rolleyes:

Everything I’ve linked from Air America has links to valid sites, unlike the sites you link. The paper I posted of Al Franken is backed by quotes that are all true…so I suggest you stop being ignorant and understand Kerry isn’t a flip flopper, and that he did serve respectfully.

Originally posted by Travh20
kerry got his silver star for the B-40 rocket incident. his bow gunner shot the man, who went down. Kerry got off the boat and killed a wounded enemy soldier, period. look it up.

I did look it up. It took 5 whole minutes to find the factual account of the incident on snopes.com, an un-biased site that de-bunks urban legends. I posted the relevant section describing in detail the incident for which he received the Silver Star.

There is nothing saying the wounded man threatened him.

Yes, there is. Read the account.

if he came out and said the guy pulled a gun on him as he went to give him aide thats one thing, but nothing like that has been said.

That's a lie.

By readig the reports he simply went up to a guy with a B-40 rocket who had already been shot and finished him off.

Another outright lie.

I know you dont believe me, and I really dont care.

Trav, you are simply ignoring the evidence presented because it doesn't back up your outrageous claims. I understand you don't care about the truth, as long as you can smear Kerry.

everything overdose links from air america are valid sites :rolleyes: I guess as long as he agrees with it Big Birds site could be valid.

pagan, its funny how your "unbiased" site dealing with urban legens has anti bush banners at the top. go look up what the DOCTOR who treated kerry said, and his C.O., and himself.

as I said, he gets a pass. I guess as long as you can convinv ourself he is not a war criminal tahts good enough

(P.S.) I personally dont think he is a war criminal, I simply bring it up as yet another show of left wing hypocrisy. they claim to be all about human rights and are filled with outrage at the abu garib prison abuse photos, but their very own candidate has admitted to commiting war crimes and has broken the geneva convention,the law of all warfare

Originally posted by Travh20

pagan, its funny how your "unbiased" site dealing with urban legens has anti bush banners at the top. go look up what the DOCTOR who treated kerry said, and his C.O., and himself.

Trav, the banner you see is an advertisement. I'm sure Snopes.com would run a pro-Bush ad as well if they were paid to do so. I've looked it up Trav, you haven't. You have posted NOTHING to back up your wild claim.

I guess as long as you can convinv ourself he is not a war criminal tahts good enough

(P.S.) I personally dont think he is a war criminal,

You don't think he's a war criminal and I don't think he's a war criminal, but I'm biased...brilliant.

but their very own candidate has admitted to commiting war crimes and has broken the geneva convention,the law of all warfare

More lies Trav...in one sentence you say he's not a war criminal, and in the next sentence you claim he is...make up your mind...

according to the ted kennedys of the world, and all the people who insist george bush resign because of the war crimes at abu garib, he is a war criminal. you live by the geneva convention, you die by the geneva convention. and snopes decided to run that ad, he could of run another one. when you see a pro bush or anti kerry banner there let me know

Originally posted by Travh20
according to the ted kennedys of the world, and all the people who insist george bush resign because of the war crimes at abu garib, he is a war criminal.

We're talking about Kerry not Bush, and I never called Bush a war criminal.

you live by the geneva convention, you die by the geneva convention.

I didn't bring up the Geneva Convention Trav, you did when you falsely claimed that Kerry had violated it.

and snopes decided to run that ad, he could of run another one. when you see a pro bush or anti kerry banner there let me know

Trav, do you suppose that the people who run the Snopes website placed the anti-Bush ad themselves and then asked the DNC to pay them, or do you think maybe they were approached by the DNC and asked to run an ad?

Maybe you believe that as a private company they are required to run an anti-Kerry ad now for free...:rolleyes:

Maybe you believe that as a private company they are required to run an anti-Kerry ad now for free...

That wasn't his point, Vile...:rolleyes:

Trav, do you suppose that the people who run the Snopes website placed the anti-Bush ad themselves and then asked the DNC to pay them, or do you think maybe they were approached by the DNC and asked to run an ad?

Don't be daft. The DNC approached them for ad space BECAUSE they lean to the left. It's marketing...nothing more, nothing less. You're smart; you should realize this.

It's pretty easy to dump on a guy about his war record if one has never been in combat. And it's really easy when the only actual fighting you've ever done is trying to fight your way out of an AWOL conviction. It must be great to have a rich and powerfull daddy.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
That wasn't his point, Vile...:rolleyes:

I doubt even Trav knows what his point may have been, you certainly don't.

Don't be daft. The DNC approached them for ad space BECAUSE they lean to the left. It's marketing...nothing more, nothing less. You're smart; you should realize this.

I didn't realize you were involved in the advertising strategy decisions for the DNC. Personally, I think they bought ad space on Snopes.com because it's a popular site, not because as you claim, "they lean to the left". You're smart too Praetorian, so why do you think they would buy ad space to to run an anti-Bush ad on a site that allready leans to the left?

BTW, I would like you to back up your claim that Snopes.com has any political leanings whatsoever. It's easy to claim, but they are widely respected as a site that de-bunks urban legends, and corrects false rumors disseminated over the internet, and in the media. In short, your claim that they "lean to the left" is completely unfounded.

Fair enough, but birds of a feather and all. I thought it was a fairly safe assumption, though. Kind of like seeing an ad for McDonalds in a Burger King parking lot. Conflict of interest, maybe!?! Most commercial marketing concerns target audiences of a like nature with news that cater to that market, specifically. This is a very common marketing practice.

You did catch me, though…I didn’t reference the site. Sorry for speaking out of school.

Originally posted by Echo2
It's pretty easy to dump on a guy about his war record if one has never been in combat. And it's really easy when the only actual fighting you've ever done is trying to fight your way out of an AWOL conviction. It must be great to have a rich and powerfull daddy.

wow, that was deep! I have never heard it approached from that angle before :rolleyes:

It's pretty easy to dump on a guy about his war record if one has never been in combat. And it's really easy when the only actual fighting you've ever done is trying to fight your way out of an AWOL conviction. It must be great to have a rich and powerfull daddy.

It does leave for an apt question, though...

You're 50, so what branch of the Armed Forces did you serve under, and for how long?

Just curious.

Airforce. Six years. Sure wish I had had the sense to stay in, I could have been retired by now. So much for hind sight.

Kerry gave the following account in 1971 on NBC's "Meet the Press"
just a few days before testifying before the U.S. Senate:

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): 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-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. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.

he did admit to war crimes (AKA atroccities). Again, the way I see it he was doing what had to be done, but the democrats have fooked themselves by making such a big deal of the panties on the head thing, calling it an "attrocity" and "war crime" agaisnt the geneva convention. I ask you this, if the geneva convention is so important to them why would the nominate and honor a man who openly admits he commited war crimes an breaking the laws laid out in the Geneva Convention?

Originally posted by Travh20

he did admit to war crimes (AKA atroccities). Again, the way I see it he was doing what had to be done, but the democrats have fooked themselves by making such a big deal of the panties on the head thing, calling it an "attrocity" and "war crime" agaisnt the geneva convention. I ask you this, if the geneva convention is so important to them why would the nominate and honor a man who openly admits he commited war crimes an breaking the laws laid out in the Geneva Convention?

First of all I'd like to say thanks for finally posting something that backs up your accusation, that Kerry actually admitted to committing atrocities.

Trav, you ask a difficult question. Do I think that what John Kerry, and no doubt numerous other soldiers did, in Vietnam was wrong? Certainly. Do I think the Geneva Convention is important? Yes. I'm not going to say that I was "more" outraged by what happened at Abu Ghraib, than the atrocities committed in Vietnam because it isn't true. I'm interested in seeing those responsible for the outrage perpetrated at the Iraqi prison punished because that's happening now, not 35 years ago.

I don't think that Kerry should be legally prosecuted for his participation in Vietnam because we'd have to prosecute hundreds, if not thousands of other soldiers for acts that were initiated at a much higher level. I also don't think he should be barred from running for office absent a legal reason to bar him.

Am I happy that the Democratic nominee participated in atrocities in Vietnam? Hell no. I would much rather see the Democrats nominate someone with no baggage from his past. The sad truth is that even if Kerry did commit atrocities in Vietnam, I still think he's better than the President we have now, and I guess the main reason is that at least Kerry is willing to admit his mistakes.

All of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.

Which thus shows that he was attacking the policies our Government had during Vietnam. Why would he get in trouble for committing a war crime when it was our Government forcing people like John Kerry to commit these acts that were breaking the Geneva Convention. It should be our Government who gets tried for forcing our men to commit these atrocities.

Again, John Kerry more-so attacked our Government’s policies, then he attacked the troops of Vietnam.

if john kerry ever comes to a sudden halt ovedoses nose will go half way up his ass. LMAO, john kerry could be caught hording childrens porn and you would blame it on someone else wouldnt you? you ahve no shame in your blind loyalty to that clwon.

Trav, I’m using what you gave me. I’m using the quote you presented. Which clearly says that our Government forced our men to commit atrocities. And that is exactly why John Kerry should not be tried, because it was our Government’s orders and policies in which should be tried.

If you cannot see this, then you are blinded by your hate. I’m using his exact words, and what actually went on during Vietnam.

Here is the sentence in which you do not comprehend:
All of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down

your right, there was a political commisar there from the US government forcing kerry to shoot up villages and burn them down :rolleyes: This isnt the soviet military of WW2 overdose, there are no political officers among the troops in the US army making them do anything. As you said, kerry was in comand, he decided to do these things, just as he decided to not do anything about until he could showboat in front of the senate in his infamous speech. If he cant see that killing iinnocent people and burning down their homes is wrong something is wrong with him. when I was in the military no order from any level could have made me take an innocent life. Some things are wrong no matter what. if he doesnt have the moral courage to refuse an order to do something inhuman he is no better then those sickos at abu garib.

Wrong again, Trav. Do you understand what a policy is?
A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy.

And the policies our Government had, was to tell John Kerry to take his troops into villages and commit these atrocities as he stated in the quote you gave me. Our Government told John Kerry to take his troops and commit these acts. Just like Rumsfeld forced our troops to commit those acts in Iraq. It’s called chain of command, Trav…something you do not understand.

If it was just John Kerry thinking this on his own, why did it occur in numerous places in Vietnam, with different commanders and all of them committing the same atrocities? It seems highly ironic that all of these men would commit the same atrocities. The only conclusion is that our Government told many commanders to commit the same acts of killing the innocent and burning villages.

why are you so fucking dense? if anyone doesnt know what a chain of command is its you. If your mom told you to go shoot someone would you do it? did every single soldier in vietnam commit attrocities? you better watch what you say, in your blind defense of kerry you will piss a lot of people off kid. NOONE HELD A GUN TO KERRYS HEAD AND MADE HIM COMMIT WAR CRIMES!!! there is such a thing as NOT following orders. you know nothing of conflict. please stop being such a kid and wake up. dont defend the war crimes of one and dnounce the war crimes of another. I dont think kerry or the abu garib were war crimes, but you think abu garib was a war crime and kerry's acts were not. you dont know what the hell to think. I knew that you would latchon ththat last paragraph as the get out of jail free card for kerry, you ae so preaking predicatble.

Originally posted by Travh20
why are you so fucking dense?
Maybe because I have to deal with people like you.

Originally posted by Travh20
If your mom told you to go shoot someone would you do it?
What a fair comparison. Trav, it’s very simple. John Kerry said it was written into our polices, which he was ordered to follow and that is what happened.

Originally posted by Travh20
did every single soldier in vietnam commit attrocities? you better watch what you say, in your blind defense of kerry you will piss a lot of people off kid.
I said it happened in numerous places in Vietnam, I never said everyone in Vietnam. Get your facts straight and stop spewing lies.

Originally posted by Travh20
NOONE HELD A GUN TO KERRYS HEAD AND MADE HIM COMMIT WAR CRIMES!!!
It was written in our policies, and our Government told John Kerry to take his troops into areas and kill innocent and burn villages.

Originally posted by Travh20
I dont think kerry or the abu garib were war crimes, but you think abu garib was a war crime
If you didn’t read my last reply I said that it was the same. Our Government ordered people in Abu Garib to do these crimes as well as in Vietnam.

Anyway I’ll be back later. Have a nice day!

overdose, there is no official government policy to kill innocents and burn down villages. Kerry chose to do it. If he thought it was so wrong why did he just not do it? and why wont you answer my question: if your mom said it was family written policy to kill someone would yo do it, or would you know it was wrong and break the policy? I am sorry you just cant accept the fact you lover boy kerry is an admitted war criminal. your the one so concerned with human rights so I figured you might want to know.

Originally posted by Travh20
overdose, there is no official government policy to kill innocents and burn down villages.
Sorry, but almost all Vietnam Veterans who committed war crimes, including John Kerry all said our Government forced them to commit war crimes, because of our policies.

Originally posted by Travh20
if your mom said it was family written policy to kill someone would yo do it, or would you know it was wrong and break the policy?
Trav I personally believe that the circumstances are far different. When you are in war you do things that are far different then what you would normally do. You commit acts you would never dream of doing, because you are in war, which thus changes everything around. Which is why the comparison falls short of reality.

Originally posted by Travh20
I am sorry you just cant accept the fact you lover boy kerry is an admitted war criminal. your the one so concerned with human rights so I figured you might want to know.
Never said he didn’t commit war crimes, all I’m saying is that you fail to realize if you want to ridicule Kerry for these crimes, then you should also do so with our Government. According to his testimony it was our Government who told him to do these acts. Yes, these acts are wrong. But the circumstances he was placed under, and the polices our Government had lead him into committing war crimes.

I never denied this is wrong of him to do so, but you are failing to realize the circumstances in which John Kerry was placed under. A lot of the time our Government said these villages were spy infested, and must be taken out. I’m not condoning what he did, but in a time of war, you believe anything you are feed. Yes, he broke the Geneva Convention, but what if our Government lied and told him things that were not true, which thus made him believe it was okay to commit these acts?

"our government" what the hell are you talking about? if you are so knowledgeable of war you will realize "our government" is not there. "our government" is in washington DC, not on the battlefield. the governent does not send orders to boat captains telling them to destroy individual villages. ITs as if you think there are government officials are assigned to military units to make sure they carry out the governments orders. that is communist russia type stuff, not american military. the main problem that is that most of the stuff is not true. there was no general order to terrorize vietnam. kerry says so but 50 times more say it isnt true. In order to try and validate his wild claim he said that he to participated in war crimes on a mass scale. he was one of the few. you seem to want to believe there was some concentrated effort to commit mass war crimes in vietnam. if you know the american soldier, you know they re good people. good men can not be told to do things tehy know are wrong. if kerry just blindly followed a policy of murder and terror without question there is somethign seriously wrong with him, why cant you see that? I dont care what war you are in. you dont go around killing unarmed civilians just because someone told you to.

Originally posted by Overdose
Yes, he broke the Geneva Convention, but what if our Government lied and told him things that were not true, which thus made him believe it was okay to commit these acts?

this is the second time you have said the government mislead him. first he was mislead to believe iraq had WMD (which he believed since long before bush got into office) then he was mislead to somehow believe killing innocent civilians was somehow OK. the guy seems like an idiot to me if he just believes everything he is told. he is easliy mislead. if he gets elected whos to say some islamic dictatorship wont mislead him about their WMD and while he says we are safe we get whacked by a nuke this dictator mislead him into believing he didnt have? this is serious shit, and needs to be brought out. if he is so easily mislead I dont want him in office.

Originally posted by Travh20
"our government" what the hell are you talking about? if you are so knowledgeable of war you will realize "our government" is not there. "our government" is in washington DC, not on the battlefield.
And don’t they approve the polices that are used…?

Originally posted by Travh20
there was no general order to terrorize vietnam.
Actually it wasn’t “general” it was apparent though, and many different sections committed these acts, which means there must have been an order from the top since the crimes were being committed in many area’s with different people.

Originally posted by Travh20
kerry says so but 50 times more say it isnt true.
John Kerry says that many did, but he didn’t say that all of them committed these acts.

Originally posted by Travh20
you seem to want to believe there was some concentrated effort to commit mass war crimes in vietnam.
No, I don’t…and John Kerry didn’t say that either.

Originally posted by Travh20
if kerry just blindly followed a policy of murder and terror without question there is somethign seriously wrong with him, why cant you see that?
Sorry, but people do things they don’t normally do in war all the time, and this is just another occasion.

Originally posted by Overdose
Sorry, but people do things they don’t normally do in war all the time, and this is just another occasion.


so, going back to the original title of the thread, this is why john kerry gets a pass on war crimes. the government made him do it. its all good. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
so, going back to the original title of the thread, this is why john kerry gets a pass on war crimes. the government made him do it. its all good. :rolleyes:

No, I'm not justifying his actions, I'm simply showing you that our Government also broke the Geneva Convention by creating polices that were illegal. Which thus shows that if you want to attack John Kerry you should also attack our Government and many other Veterans…yet you don’t seem to be doing that. You do things in war you would not normally do, and when your Government tells you an order you usually follow it, especially during a war time situation when you are concerned about your safety. Again I’m not justifying it, but you have to understand the circumstances, and you can’t just simply say he’s evil because of a war crime, because it isn’t his complete fault.

none of the other veterans or people in government at that time are running for president today.

Trav, I’m going to post again, just to clarify many miss-conceptions you have about my thoughts on this issue.

John Kerry did commit war crimes; I’ve never denied this. But the question still lingers, did he commit these atrocities because he wanted to? Or because he was told to? If you fail to understand the other side of the issue, there really is no hope for you.

I know full well that you cannot escape war crimes, by just saying, I was following orders. But if you want to attack John Kerry because of these crimes, then you should also attack, question, and prosecute our Government.

I’ve heard this argument numerous times, thanks to Mr. Vilepagan. The Nazis defended their actions by saying, they were following orders, but that is not a reasonable defense, and I acknowledge this. But what about the High Officers who did not commit war crimes themselves, but forced others to do so? They were tried and thus put to death. Adolf Hitler would have been put to death, for ordering the extermination of 6 million Jews, even though he did not personally commit these acts himself. And this all concludes if you want to ridicule John Kerry for this, you should take a big look at our Government.

The Holocaust was also far different then this, in many ways to, because it was in Concentration Camps, not in full-out war. And given the circumstances, feelings of being in a full out war, you do commit and do things that your Government would say. Especially if you thought it would improve your safety. Setting that aside, it still doesn’t change the example I gave, which shows that if you want to attack John Kerry, you should be attacking our very Government.

Again, another thing you fail to recollect is that people sometimes commit and do things they would never normally do in their day-to-day lives. They go a little insane, and do things that are not normal, or logical because they are put in a position where they feel inclined to do what they are told…because of the life or death situation they are placed under. If someone was put in a position where they felt pressured, by our entire Government to commit something horrible, they might just do it, given the circumstances.

You never know if our Government was telling John Kerry the villages were being intelligence providers to the enemy, which thus made John Kerry think it was okay to go forward with these acts. I understand I may be stretching the truth here, but why would John Kerry think our Government was out to do him wrong? Give him false orders? Or for that matter, tell him to do something wrong out of a policy that was corrupt? It doesn’t make any sense, and something a lot deeper is going on here.

But setting all of the arguments for why he committed these acts, it boils down to, isn’t it partially our Government’s fault for the acts he took place in? Should John Kerry be the only Vietnam Veteran being tried for this just because he is running for President? Which is un-fair, bias and is a downright double standard.

Regardless, if you attack John Kerry for this, I would love to see your letter to our Government, and the other Veterans who took part in this.

Again, I’m not full-out justifying his actions…I’m just telling you why he may have done them, even though they were wrong. And also why you are creating this hate for him for these acts, yet not doing the same to the other Veterans and our Government.

I’ve heard this argument numerous times, thanks to Mr. Vilepagan. The Nazis defended their actions by saying, they were following orders, but that is not a reasonable defense, and I acknowledge this. But what about the High Officers who did not commit war crimes themselves, but forced others to do so? They were tried and thus put to death. Adolf Hitler would have been put to death, for ordering the extermination of 6 million Jews, even though he did not personally commit these acts himself. And this all concludes if you want to ridicule John Kerry for this, you should take a big look at our Government.

Yeah, because we're so much like the Nazi's... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Yeah, because we're so much like the Nazi's...

I never said we were exactly like the Nazis. I’m using a comparison, and if you don’t want to argue the comparison, don’t even bother posting.

What did you think I was doing Bozo! :@@:

As for your analogy, it was, without a doubt, the most ludicrous comparison made on the board thus far.
Still don’t believe me…reread it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
As for your analogy, it was, without a doubt, the most ludicrous comparison made on the board thus far.

If you fail to read my entire post, and gain something from it I’m greatly apologetic. It is not a ludicrous comparison. I’m sorry you feel the need to defend your Government, no matter if they are wrong or right. John Kerry committed war crimes, because of our Government’s policies. Which thus means if you want to attack John Kerry for these acts, you should also attack and question our Government for the acts that took place, for they are equally responsible. The Government creating polices that were illegal and forced upon our troops, and John Kerry committed them even though he knew they were wrong…making them both equally share the burden.

And the example I used was when the Nazi Officers would be put to death, because they ordered the extermination of the Jews, even though they didn’t personally commit the acts themselves. Which shows if you want to attack John Kerry, you should also attack our Government.

That's going off the assumption that we actually ordered our troops to blatantly kill everyone who was innocent. I don't buy it, and I don't think it's logical TO buy it. The majority of vets CAN'T possibly be wrong.

Good post, by the way.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
That's going off the assumption that we actually ordered our troops to blatantly kill everyone who was innocent. I don't buy it, and I don't think it's logical TO buy it. The majority of vets CAN'T possibly be wrong.

In John Kerry’s testimony he said the Government ordered him to commit these acts, as well as most other Veterans who were also ordered to commit these atrocities. The majority of Veterans deny this, because most Veterans didn’t commit these acts. But many did, and that is what John Kerry was fighting for. He never said all Veterans did, he just said many were forced to or ordered by our Government.

If you believe all of his testimony (admitting to war crimes), but not the part where he says it was our polices that told him to do so, then you are just nit-picking to fit your needs.

I believe it was true, since every Veteran (but one) who served under Kerry agrees with what he has said, and they to witnessed the few atrocities that were committed by many troops in Vietnam.