John Kerry On

[BigBank_Hank]

Kerry is calling far Secretary Rumsfeld head for the Iraqi prison situation. Here is a direct quote from Senator Kerry about what he did in Vietnam.



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.

[vidcc]

i haven't heard this particular quote from Kerry so i don't know what context the snippet came from, but saying that it seems to be about what his orders were in vietnam, and not what he chose to do off his own back. If a group of soldiers attack a villiage under orders (doesn't matter which conflict) are those soldiers responsible for that attack or are the leaders that give the orders ?
Should Kerry have refused to carry out his orders would he be branded a traitor, just as people that are refusing to go to iraq be it for the first time or for a second tour of duty (in at least one case) ?
The statement seems to be more about distaste rather than pride for some of the things he had to do under order.
I can't imagine that Rumsfeld actually ordered the abuse of the prisoners, but in the world of politics if something like this can be glued to the back of your opponent then it's fair game.....the buck stops with the people at the top.

[3RA1N1AC]

what's your point, hank? :huh:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 May 2004 - 17:56
If a group of soldiers attack a villiage under orders (doesn't matter which conflict) are those soldiers responsible for that attack or are the leaders that give the orders ?

Both.

"Just following Orders" has not been a valid defence since Nuremburg.

This is the main reason the UK government will not prosecute the soldiers that in effect committed Mutiny in Iraq (one of the few "offences" that still carries the Death Penalty, especially in a Combat Situation).

The soldiers would state that they were illegal orders, and the court would probably back them up on that...leaving the Government in deep(er) crap.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 May 2004 - 11:18

The soldiers would state that they were illegal orders, and the court would probably back them up on that...leaving the Government in deep(er) crap.
the trick is knowing the full facts before you follow (or don't) those orders. As a soldier you don't always have that luxury until after the event. It takes a very special kind of courage to refuse a direct order, so you had better be sure you believe in your viewpoint before making that choice.

I can't really comment with any certainty on the circumstances of Kerry's case because i wasn't there with him.

[BigBank_Hank]

So the soldiers that were in Iraq should also be excused because they were just carrying out orders? No of course not. But what they did is a lot less serious than what the man that's running to be the commander and chief. At least they didn't burn the jail down.

[TROUBLE^MAKER]

That sounds like the Nazi's excuses that didn't work. John Kerry should confess all his crimes and turn him self in to the Vietnamese government to stand trial for crimes against the Vietnamese people.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@11 May 2004 - 19:26
So the soldiers that were in Iraq should also be excused because they were just carrying out orders? No of course not. But what they did is a lot less serious than what the man that's running to be the commander and chief. At least they didn't burn the jail down.

So the soldiers that were in Iraq should also be excused because they were just carrying out orders? No of course not.

The other runner is the current "Commander in Chief"

The difference is that one has come out and puts his hand up saying "Its Wrong, and im guilty of it myself"....

The other says "We didnt Know", when its bloody obvious to everyone the administration did know, and did sod all until the public knew too. He then went on Arabic TV and didnt appologise, until he was back in the Whitehouse, the Whitehouse pointed out he hadnt and did it for him.

Basically a Chickenhwk in power verses a Vet wannabe in power.

Maybe you should look at what the candidates want to achieve at home rather than abroad, neither party has a Brilliant White Rep on Foreign Policy....although i'd argue strongly that the Democratic Presidents in general (with obvious exceptions...and neither candidate is in their league) have more respect from the world at large.

[Biggles]

Hank

I think Kerry is simply highlighting the inherent brutality of war. War brutalises all that participate in it and life becomes cheap as those around you die. He is demonstrating a better understanding of the dynamics of war than those of Bush and Rumsfeld. Powell (someone else with experience) is on record trying to warn Bush of these dangers and was effectively ignored by the Administration.

Vietnam is a case in point. Enormous quanties of munitions dropped without regard for civilian life, use of chemicals (including napalm) and wanton killing of women and children.

Whilst a few lowly individuals carried the can for attrocities like My Lei, I am unaware of any senior officers or polticians who did likewise (despite a number of illegal activities like bombing Cambodia and Laos). In Nuremburg they brought the senior Nazis and those directly under them to trial. They did not seek out every pilot that dropped bombs on Coventry or London, or simple privates that mis-treated a few POWs. They wanted the authors of the policy in 1946, not the scribes.

There is a tendancy for those in power to refuse to accept responsibilty for the actions of those below them. This is true not just in warfare but in all walks of life including business - just look at the jostling for escape at Enron.

However, I do accept that it is right to pursue those who have criminally ignored orders to treat prisoners well. In this instance, if the superiors can show that this was their will and that they took steps to enforce it, then it is only right and proper that only the individuals that acted wrongly pay the penalty. This is what is encumbant on the US administration, to show that their express will was thwarted rather than obeyed.

I do find it ironic though, that Bush and Cheney have clean hands over Vietnam because they dodged the draft. There is something wryly amusing there :lol:

I haven't seen much of Kerry on TV, but the little I have seen suggests that he could do with a better team. He could, with a little sparkle, get a lot of mileage out of all this.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@11 May 2004 - 12:26
So the soldiers that were in Iraq should also be excused because they were just carrying out orders? No of course not. But what they did is a lot less serious than what the man that's running to be the commander and chief. At least they didn't burn the jail down.
No the soldiers in iraq have no excuse.It doesn't even matter what these prisoners where there for..they were unarmed and captive, they have human rights bestowed upon them and those rights were broken. but in the vien of your original post the point is that the soldiers may not have been given orders from above, but nobody from above stopped it happening. It's not even a case of them knowing about what was going on, if they didn't know...they should have, that's what being in command is about. A commander that can't control his troops is a bad commander and has no place being in that position of authority.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 May 2004 - 14:46
The other runner is the current "Commander in Chief"

The difference is that one has come out and puts his hand up saying "Its Wrong, and im guilty of it myself"....

The other says "We didnt Know", when its bloody obvious to everyone the administration did know, and did sod all until the public knew too. He then went on Arabic TV and didnt appologise, until he was back in the Whitehouse, the Whitehouse pointed out he hadnt and did it for him.

Basically a Chickenhwk in power verses a Vet wannabe in power.

Maybe you should look at what the candidates want to achieve at home rather than abroad, neither party has a Brilliant White Rep on Foreign Policy....although i'd argue strongly that the Democratic Presidents in general (with obvious exceptions...and neither candidate is in their league) have more respect from the world at large.
RF as far as I know President Bush was never in the prison so how could he have done any of those crimes?

Kerry on the other hand committed the crimes himself.

[Rat Faced]

You said it yourself...

He is the "Commander in Chief" and as such, ultimate responsibility rests with him.

If he'd acted when the administration found out, then this would be mitigated, he'd have been acting responsibly and doing his job.

He didnt, therefore by his very inaction he condoned and allowed it to happen... he is as much at fault as any perpetrator of an act that happened after the administration had been informed.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 May 2004 - 17:16
He didnt, therefore by his very inaction he condoned and allowed it to happen...
How could he allow something to happen that already took place? It was a isolated incident not widespread.

Kerry on the other hand was personally responsible for his actions. He was there, he committed the crime.

[Busyman]

What crime?

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@11 May 2004 - 12:36

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.
@Busyman:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+11 May 2004 - 22:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 11 May 2004 - 22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@11 May 2004 - 17:16
He didnt, therefore by his very inaction he condoned and allowed it to happen...
How could he allow something to happen that already took place? It was a isolated incident not widespread.

Kerry on the other hand was personally responsible for his actions. He was there, he committed the crime. [/b][/quote]
You obviously havent been following the stories.

This was not an isolated incident.

The Red Cross and others have been reporting it both to the Iraqi "Governor" and directly to the administration for over a year...and by the looks of things to the UK Government too.

Mr Blair & Co are therefore just as much to blame as Mr Bush & Co.

[3RA1N1AC]

damn it, hank. this thread just turned out to be an attempt to make john kerry look like a bad guy, and to make the bush administration look like a bunch of completely innocent babyfaces, by drawing terribly inappropriate comparisons. if this were the 80s, you&#39;d be the guy claiming that ollie north created and ran the whole iran-contra operation by himself in the white house, without reagan knowing about any of it. :helpsmile:

[BigBank_Hank]

So far the only incident&#39;s to be reported is the Abu Dhabi prison and what ever prison the UK abuse took place.

@3RA1N1AC: I don&#39;t have to make John Kerry look like a bad guy, he&#39;s doing a fine job of that himself.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank
I don&#39;t have to make John Kerry look like a bad guy, he&#39;s doing a fine job of that himself.

Apparently you do, or you wouldn&#39;t have started this Kerry bashing thread. Whats the deal with all this "Look at Kerry&#33; He said he did something bad&#33; He must be a bad man&#33;" crap? What about Bush? Sometimes he says something so stupid you&#39;d think he was trying to look like an idiot.

I think we all know that Vietnam was not a nice place to be during te war, and that lots of people on both "sides" did things that they would not normally do in civillian life. I think we all know that soldiers are expected to shoot people in general and shoot people specifically that their commanders point out to them.

As vidcc said:
if they didn&#39;t know...they should have, that&#39;s what being in command is about. A commander that can&#39;t control his troops is a bad commander and has no place being in that position of authority.

[BigBank_Hank]

Alex do a search on this forum for anti Bush threads and see how many come up. People on here can bash away all they want on the President but I post a thread about Kerry and I&#39;m trying to make him look bad. I bet that you can find at whole boat load of threads bashing the President, but see how many you can find about Kerry.

This thread was about showing again how much of a hypocrite he really is. He wants someone to resign from their position in office for violating the Geneva Convention, but he openly admits to violating them himself.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@11 May 2004 - 20:54
This thread was about showing again how much of a hypocrite he really is. He wants someone to resign from their position in office for violating the Geneva Convention, but he openly admits to violating them himself.
a politician with hypocritical tendencies? or a vietnam vet who claims that he was ordered to use excessive, inhumane force against civilians during that war? the devil you say&#33; :lol:

john kerry&#39;s qualifications don&#39;t make that particular criticism of bush, rumsfeld, etc any less valid. almost every other person in the world could say the exact same thing that kerry has said about the bush administration, and you can&#39;t brush that off with "well, the bush administration should just be let off the hook since you&#39;re all a bunch of baby-killing, village-burning hypocrites."

[Alex H]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@12 May 2004 - 04:54
Alex do a search on this forum for anti Bush threads and see how many come up. People on here can bash away all they want on the President but I post a thread about Kerry and I&#39;m trying to make him look bad. I bet that you can find at whole boat load of threads bashing the President, but see how many you can find about Kerry.

This thread was about showing again how much of a hypocrite he really is. He wants someone to resign from their position in office for violating the Geneva Convention, but he openly admits to violating them himself.
Thank you Hank, I am aware of how many Bush bashing threads there are on this board. I contribute to many of them myself.

However, the point you make about Kerry not being able to criticize the Bush administration for its lack of enforcing the Geneva Conventions is still a bulshit one.

As you did not provide a link or reference to Kerry&#39;s quotation in your original post, I am (along with everyone else) unable to tell if this comment was actually made in reference to the Geneva Conventions or if was Kerry telling an old war story. I have no context in which to base that remark, so I will continue to defend my point, which also has no real base to work from. Supply us with a link to where you got the remark an we can discuss this intelligently.

Again, if John Kerry violated the Geneva Convention it was because he was obeying orders. If Rumsfeld violated the Geneva Convention is was because he was giving the orders. As it was established at Nuremburg "only obeying orders" is not an excuse. "I gave the order", isn&#39;t an excuse, it is an admission.

The U.S. Government doesn&#39;t really give a shit about the Geneva Conventions anyway. If they did, they would do something like apologizing to the people of Vietnam for what soldiers like Kerry did over there.

[BigBank_Hank]

Ok here&#39;s the link if you want to read the mess for yourself. I just love watching him talk in circles trying to defend things like this.

Story Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/)

[Biggles]

I am actually quite impressed that Hank agrees dodging fighting in Vietnam was a noble and humane thing to do. That the war was riddled with crimes and that it sucked Americans into commiting crimes of the very worst sort on a huge scale.

I am also gratified that my reservations from the early 70s were not misplaced. :) :-"

[Rat Faced]

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War):&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I conducted harassment and interdiction fire.&nbsp; I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.&nbsp; I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.&nbsp; All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:&nbsp; You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY:&nbsp; Where did all that dark hair go, Tim?&nbsp; That&#39;s a big question for me.&nbsp; You know, I
thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word.&nbsp; I think it&#39;s an inappropriate word.&nbsp; I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure.&nbsp; I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger.&nbsp; It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

MR. RUSSERT:&nbsp; You used the word "war criminals."

SEN. KERRY:&nbsp; Well, let me just finish.&nbsp; Let me must finish.&nbsp; It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don&#39;t like it when I hear it today.&nbsp; I don&#39;t like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn&#39;t talking about the soldiers and the soldiers&#39; blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them.&nbsp; But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top.&nbsp; And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions.&nbsp; There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that.&nbsp; I mean, books have chronicled that, so I&#39;m not going to walk away from that.&nbsp; But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.



I think the small snap quoted earlier, was indeed, taken out of context.

I believe he was trying to get the people responsible for giving the orders that made so many commit crimes, put on the Dock...

A noble effort, in my opinion.... although it would have been nobler (but much harder) to just refuse to follow those orders in the 1st place.

[BigBank_Hank]

You may see it as taking it out of context but it still doesn&#39;t change what he did. The other paragraphs are just him trying to cover his ass



MR. RUSSERT:&nbsp; You committed atrocities.

SEN. KERRY:&nbsp; Where did all that dark hair go, Tim?&nbsp; That&#39;s a big question for me.&nbsp; You know, I
thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word.&nbsp; I think it&#39;s an inappropriate word

I wouldn&#39;t be making light of this issue if Kerry wouldn&#39;t keep reminding us that he served in Vietnam. He can&#39;t do a radio or TV commercial without mention that. That&#39;s all he&#39;s got to run on.

[Rat Faced]

Well if you get Hugh Thompson, a real hero in my opinion, to run... i&#39;ll support him.


The point is though that Kerry did actually serve out there, getting shot at etc etc

Unlike some, that didnt, but still claim they&#39;re "vets"....



I dont know why any of this is a big deal in the USA.

In the UK we dont give a crap whether someone was in the forces or not, and as such, its never mentioned by politicians.

Maybe its a Gung Ho mentality or something over there, i dunno..... I just think its all weird :blink:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 May 2004 - 19:53
Well if you get Hugh Thompson, a real hero in my opinion, to run... i&#39;ll support him.


The point is though that Kerry did actually serve out there, getting shot at etc etc

Unlike some, that didnt, but still claim they&#39;re "vets"....



I dont know why any of this is a big deal in the USA.

In the UK we dont give a crap whether someone was in the forces or not, and as such, its never mentioned by politicians.

Maybe its a Gung Ho mentality or something over there, i dunno..... I just think its all weird :blink:
I somewhat agree.

Just because you served, it doesn&#39;t make you a good person.

[BigBank_Hank]

The point is though that Kerry did actually serve out there, getting shot at etc etc


So I guess that gives him the right to break as many rules as he wants. He torches villages and mows down people with the 50 cal. but that&#39;s ok.



I dont know why any of this is a big deal in the USA.

It wouldn&#39;t be if he wouldn&#39;t keep on ramming it down our throats that he&#39;s a Vietnam vet. Kerry is the one who brought the whole issue of military service out. So now when he gets hammered on it he keeps saying that its a non issue.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@13 May 2004 - 00:09
It wouldn&#39;t be if he wouldn&#39;t keep on ramming it down our throats that he&#39;s a Vietnam vet. Kerry is the one who brought the whole issue of military service out. So now when he gets hammered on it he keeps saying that its a non issue.
Forgive me if im wrong...

But i sort of got the impression that it had been an issue that was never cleared up since Bush ran for Governor of Texas.

You really cant blame Kerry that far back.


How something like this becomes an issue in the 1st place, is what confuses the rest of the world...

[BigBank_Hank]

It shouldn&#39;t matter at all. I could care less if the person running for office was or wasn&#39;t a veteran of some war.

He&#39;s keeps bringing it up because he has nothing to run on. Even some in the democratic party are calling for him to step down.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@12 May 2004 - 17:21
It shouldn&#39;t matter at all. I could care less if the person running for office was or wasn&#39;t a veteran of some war.

He&#39;s keeps bringing it up because he has nothing to run on. Even some in the democratic party are calling for him to step down.
as far as i&#39;m aware the issue started to be raised loudly only when the bush campaign started to question Kerry&#39;s abilities to protect the country from attacking foes.
It&#39;s funny also that Kerry seems to be more ashamed of his time in vietnam than bragging about it.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@12 May 2004 - 22:15
It&#39;s funny also that Kerry seems to be more ashamed of his time in vietnam than bragging about it.
You have got to be joking? You don&#39;t honestly think that do you?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+12 May 2004 - 21:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 12 May 2004 - 21:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@12 May 2004 - 22:15
It&#39;s funny also that Kerry seems to be more ashamed of his time in vietnam than bragging about it.
You have got to be joking? You don&#39;t honestly think that do you? [/b][/quote]
well throwing away or saying one threw away ones "medals/ribbons/pat on the back" doesn&#39;t exactly say to me "i was proud of this conflict".
Criticising the conflict doesn&#39;t say to me "i was proud of this conflict".

He seems proud that he Actually did stand up and serve and not back away and take an "easy option" but he doesn&#39;t seem proud of what went on in Vietnam.