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.
And there has been as many statements from veterans supporting Kerry's statements. What you have to understand is that there are some very bitter Viet Nam veterans out there that lash out at anyone who dare speak against the effort in Viet Nam. When I lived in Florida I worked with and became very good friends with a Vietnamese gentleman who was a tunnel rat for the Americans during the war. He told me stories than made me lose my appetite. This was from a very peaceful man who had no axe to grind with anyone and loved America. He (correctly) reasoned that it was war and you have to do terrible things during war. I agree with that sentiment and believe that things which happen during the war should die with the war. Once the mourning period ends the war should be buried along with the dead. Those that keep bringing it up, Kerry included, are wrong IMO. You never allow a wound to heal if you keep picking the scab off.
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.
There were plenty of people who supported the claim that attrocities were taking place. Thousands of vets came back and joined the protests. And I'm not talking about embittered vets with an axe to grind, but guys who went, fought and realized the war was unjust. This is a highly respected group that was at the protest gig long before John Kerry came along.
Vietnam Vets Against War
I know you like to watch movies to get your sense of history, so try "Born on the 4th of July".
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.
I think that its already been shown that Kerry was not the only one supporting this view.
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?
WWII was a war to stop agression. It was not a battle of ideologies (not initially). People disagreed with the Nazi ideal, but the war was not launched to change the belief of those in power. That is the difference between WWII and the other engagements you discuss. Ideology and regime change has been the primary motivator of the engagements in Vietnam and Iraq.
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.
You have very screwed up views in regards to Kerry's protest of the war. Are you saying that everyone who protested the war was supporting communism? You need to understand how the Vietnam war affected the nation and ripped it up. It was not a good time for the country.
I also think you do not really have a good grasp on the Vietnam war, and that's because of your age. America did not know how to fight a war in this type of terrain and their tactics we not effective. They had to learn how to fight in this theatre all over again, and took serious casualties because of it. The protest did nothing to hurt the war from a military perspective. The flow of bodies continued and the flow of weapons continued. The thing that really hurt the war effort was the fact that it was run from an office in Washington rather than by a General on the ground. This is the same reason why Iraq has been a failure as well. The military are being directed from an office rather than from a command center.