Quote:
Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 19 2004, 05:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 19 2004, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 18 2004, 09:59 PM
Heyhey -- two for one.
No not everyone knows the atrocities were being carried out. I wonder why there are people opposing Kerry.
Okay, let me clarify. Everyone but you knows atrocities occurred.
Prove to me that they were carried out. Because there is certainly proof that he was lying be it viable or not.
You are going to hafta go back and and edit that one. It seems you are saying "there's proof he was lying, even if the proof is not actually proof".
II don't think the war was bad for America, only bad for the sense that it was dividing the nation back home.
The war was started to stop the spread of communism, and i don't see communism affectiong us today.
Hmm. They lost the war, 57 000 soldiers died, 250 000 were wounded, and it was good for America? You are a hell of an optimist, I'll give you that.
The war was started (ostensibly) to stop the spread of communism, but they lost the war, and communism spread. It wasn't a high point for the US in the Cold War. Don't try to paint it as such.
|
First of all, there has certainly been enough statements from many veterens to say that the atrocities that Kerry was talking about were lies. There is support among veterens saying the he was lying.
Question is, why don't i see anyone else supporting Kerry in his claim that the atrocities were carried out? Yes he has veterens supporting him but to my knowledge they have never mentioned Kerry's accusations against those he served with.
And everyone but me knows that the atrocities were carried out? Did everyone serve in Vietnam, did everyone see them being preformed? Too my knowledge only Kerry was the one accusing the troops of preforming them. The atrocities have been called lies more then they have been verified as truth and you said yourself that Kerry backed down from using the word. IMO maybe they weren't attrocities.
And would you call 400,000 dead in World War 2 a loss? No because we took power away from Hitler. Had the US been able to finish their job in Vietnam then the war wouldn't be looked upon with such grim being as it is. Same goes for Iraq, who's to say Iraq can't be cleaned up with the continuation of American presense?
The war was started to stop communism, had the troops be allowed to stay there it would have stopped the spread or at least helped it. Instead IMO Kerry allowed communism to continue to spread throughout the world where it eventually brought us to the brink of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. You said yourself Kerry helped stop the war, and he did with his accusations and statements before Congress. And then you also said that the US lost the War. How did they lose it, well mainly because the lack of support back home pressured the goverment to bring the troops home. And who helped pressure the governemt? Kerry did as he was one of the anti-war protesters. And even though it might be a wild connection, IMO Kerry helped allow communism to spread by complaining about the war. [/b][/quote]
You keep hammering away at his Senate appearance, but it seems you don't even know what he said. Look it up.
Anyway, atrocities were committed in Viet Nam. It happened. Rapes, massacres, beheadings, you name it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam...hes/mylai.html
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/...reher_Rape.html
http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1.htm
It's common knowledge. That war went on a long time. To believe that American soldiers didn't do nasty things is to ignore the obvious. It happens every time, in every war, with every army. So when Kerry said atrocities were being committed, he was right.
As for the war as a whole, they lost it because it was a mistake from the get-go. That's why it's such a contentious issue today. Trying to compare it to WWII is just silliness.
Like I said above, if John Kerry was as influential as you think he is, he would have been President years ago.
Instead IMO Kerry allowed communism to continue to spread throughout the world where it eventually brought us to the brink of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
Come on, now you are just being crazy. What do you think, he's some kind of superhero and he would have stopped Communism if he'd just held onto his gun and kept his mouth shut?
And even though it might be a wild connection, IMO Kerry helped allow communism to spread by complaining about the war.
It's not a "wild connection", it's a stupid connection.