OT - US Presidential Candiates Arrested!

[Krsqk]

alarikf said:
Oh my god, he CHANGED HIS MIND!

No, but seriously, there is no contradiction between being proud of what you are doing at the time and not in favor of the larger policies. When I was in Iraq, I took photos. Can you read my mind as well as yuo can read Kerry's and tell me why? I didn't think so.

EDIT: let me add some words that I think better explain what I mean: There is a world of difference between doing one's duty and trying to right wrongs. When he (or anyone) volounteered to go to Vietnam, to fight and perhaps die for his country, that's a powerful oath you take. You have a duty. It's not just pride in one's work, it's a calling. But, frankly (speaking from personal experience), almost getting killed tends to focus one's mind really well on what is important in life and what is not. And, I would guess that when his duty was over, he felt that he could then move on to dealing with issues or what he heard. A soldier or a marine or a sailor, is not going to disobey, be derelict, or otherwise bring shame upon their oath or their service. But when that is done, then they can reflect on what it was they were asked to do. Again, it takes a courageous man to do such reflection and come to the conclusion that the way the war was waged was wrong. END EDIT

And, perhaps he had an epiphany of sorts. When you're in-country for months and you see just one side, and then you get out and you talk to others and they tell you that they committed atrocities, that certainly could change someone's mind. And, hopefully, it *would* - again, I have a lot more respect for someone who can change their mind, especially on something of vast importance, than for someone who is going to stubbornly cling to some erroneous beleif.

That's why I can't have respect for anyone who says, at *any* point in their life, "Mistakes? I can't recall any I've made..."

That is not the type of person I'd like to be having a beer with.

I don't claim to be able to read his mind. His actions simply seem to indicate that he thought war was fine, or at least that being a hero in a war was fine. All right, no complaints there. But you can't say he simply just changed his mind about war, because he came back and said that he himself committed war crimes! That's not "Well, I used to think war was good, but now I've been enlightened to the evil we're doing"--by his own testimony, he was evil during his four months over there, while at the same time he was making films which promoted war. Something just doesn't add up there. If he had honestly just changed his mind, then I could handle that. But apparently, he held both of those opposing viewpoints simultaneously. Maybe he's just a little more open-minded than I am.

He didn't just "see the big picture" once he got out--he was right there involved in it (his atrocities). That didn't have anything to do with his duty or following orders. If he did commit them, why did he come back and say so? Conviction for that can bring some serious penalties, and he basically confessed in open testimony. And if he really did commit them, how can he say he is "proud" of his service to our country? That doesn't sound like something one can be proud of.

I repeat myself--either he was involved in war crimes while he was making war films, or he lied in his testimony and never saw or committed any war crimes. Either way, his motives are suspect.

[Gandalf Parker]

Krsqk said:I don't claim to be able to read his mind. His actions simply seem to indicate that he thought war was fine, or at least that being a hero in a war was fine. All right, no complaints there.

Im thinking maybe you werent around then from that. Vietnam wasnt a war you did because you thought war was fine. There was a draft on. You were pretty much GOING to go to war when your country called you. Either that or leave the country and lose your citizenship. There were various sidestepping actions you could work real hard to do but of course it wouldnt work if everyone did it so go to vietnam or go to some other country was pretty much the choice for us.

He didn't just "see the big picture" once he got out--he was right there involved in it (his atrocities). That didn't have anything to do with his duty or following orders. If he did commit them, why did he come back and say so? Conviction for that can bring some serious penalties, and he basically confessed in open testimony. And if he really did commit them, how can he say he is "proud" of his service to our country? That doesn't sound like something one can be proud of.

I guess I can see how that might be confusing. All I can say is that its not confusing at all to me. I was, and am still proud of being a VietVet. Instead of ducking out of the country I plowed right in and volunteered. On the other hand Im not proud of that war, or what was done there by many. Im not glad that the US fought it.

And technically, unless a military man specifically signed a secrecy statement about a particular mission, then it IS his military duty to speak up about atrocities when he returns.

[AMF]

I don't think he ever said he committed atrocities, right?

Nor would I say that making movies while over there qualfies as "promoting war" - maybe tourism, but not much more than that.

When you're in the service, at war, whether you think war is good or bad is irrelevant. He was serving his country, and he might have thought it wrong what his countryt was doing. I did the same thing in Iraq. If you'd met me over there, and I thought I could speak my mind to you, I would have told you that I thought that war was stupid as heck, but that had NO bearing on whewther I was going to do my duty or not. Now, that's easy for me to say since I was just an analyst, but the concept is ever stronger I would surmise for combat troops. You're over there, whether you agree with the war or not is irrelevant, you have a job to do. Raise your voice when you get out of country, but you don;t do it while in country - that would be probably be illegal under the Uniform Code but would also be very difficult on you and your mates - since you're in combat. I really see no contradiction here. Maybe I'm just being obtuse. Happens a lot.

And, if he did committ atrocities (can you get me a reference?) I think that your statement that " That didn't have anything to do with his duty or following orders." IS FALSE. A lot of atrocities were committed over there, it is EXTENSIVELY documented and it is also very clear to a lot of people that it wasn;t just "spontaneous" - it was condoned or in some cases ordered by superiors. (remember My Lai?)

I really don;t recall him committeing atrocities, so your statement that "And if he really did commit them, how can he say he is "proud" of his service to our country?" seems irrelevant to me, but even if it were true one can certainly be proud of serving one's country, even if one didn't serve it "gloriously" - my own, meager, experience bears this out. And I met a lot of Marines over there who thought it was a damned stupid war - but they were going to serve their country proudly and honorably and they are some of the best people I have ever known (I usually disagree with their politics, but that's another story).

As someone above said, walk a mile in their shoes first...it's easy to second guess someone thirty years after the fact, and about what they did in war...

In any case, I am VERY interested in getting some references that say Kerry himself committed atrocities. Can you point me towards some?

thanks,

Alarik

Krsqk said:
I don't claim to be able to read his mind. His actions simply seem to indicate that he thought war was fine, or at least that being a hero in a war was fine. All right, no complaints there. But you can't say he simply just changed his mind about war, because he came back and said that he himself committed war crimes! That's not "Well, I used to think war was good, but now I've been enlightened to the evil we're doing"--by his own testimony, he was evil during his four months over there, while at the same time he was making films which promoted war. Something just doesn't add up there. If he had honestly just changed his mind, then I could handle that. But apparently, he held both of those opposing viewpoints simultaneously. Maybe he's just a little more open-minded than I am.

He didn't just "see the big picture" once he got out--he was right there involved in it (his atrocities). That didn't have anything to do with his duty or following orders. If he did commit them, why did he come back and say so? Conviction for that can bring some serious penalties, and he basically confessed in open testimony. And if he really did commit them, how can he say he is "proud" of his service to our country? That doesn't sound like something one can be proud of.

I repeat myself--either he was involved in war crimes while he was making war films, or he lied in his testimony and never saw or committed any war crimes. Either way, his motives are suspect.

[Krsqk]

Gandalf Parker said:
Im thinking maybe you werent around then from that. Vietnam wasnt a war you did because you thought war was fine. There was a draft on. You were pretty much GOING to go to war when your country called you. Either that or leave the country and lose your citizenship. There were various sidestepping actions you could work real hard to do but of course it wouldnt work if everyone did it so go to vietnam or go to some other country was pretty much the choice for us.

I understand the draft, but I'm not talking about his participation in Vietnam. I'm talking about his apparent desire to depict himself as the hero in Vietnam. The way it was done, it looks like he used the situation of the war as long as it was useful to him (the films), then got back and decided his films wouldn't be worth as much as the anti-war crowd. I realize there were plenty of people in combat who disagreed with the whole thing, but most of them weren't playing war in front of cameras in their spare time.

I guess I can see how that might be confusing. All I can say is that its not confusing at all to me. I was, and am still proud of being a VietVet. Instead of ducking out of the country I plowed right in and volunteered. On the other hand Im not proud of that war, or what was done there by many. Im not glad that the US fought it.

And technically, unless a military man specifically signed a secrecy statement about a particular mission, then it IS his military duty to speak up about atrocities when he returns.

But you never took part in any of what Kerry and VVAW were accusing the US of. Kerry said he did--and now says he's proud of his service. That doesn't seem to match up to me, unless he has an easier time dropping off to sleep at night than I do.

alarik:

The statement most quoted seems to come from an appearance by Kerry on Meet the Press on April 18, 1971:

John Kerry said:
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.

Links would include http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html and www.wintersoldier.com (redirects to another site).

And, although I must reserve comment on it since I haven't checked it out yet, I guess I should post this link in case anyone hasn't heard of it yet: www.stolenhonor.com.

To briefly respond to the rest of what you said:
- I think the films don't necessarily show that he supported the war, but they do show that he thought it was a good enough opportunity to promote himself. My reply to GP would go here, too.

- Whether or not he was allowed to speak up about atrocities while in Vietnam, he did not need to take part in them. Note that I am not saying that would have been the easy route--it's not easy under any circumstances to stand up to a superior. But what would have happened? His CO can't just shoot him on the spot. Throw him in the brig? Court-martial him? Any retaliation against him would have made it more likely for the truth to come out. The fact that he didn't is admittedly less of a reflection on him than on the moral fiber of the average American of the time (and of this time, truth be told). As for reporting atrocities causing problems among one's unit, what about continually being subjected to seeing them committed, or even being ordered to? It seems that would be worse for morale than getting bad COs or non-coms removed.

And just as a completely unrelated side note, I found it interesting that a young F. Lee Bailey was involved in the trials for My Lai 4--for the defense. Always new tidbits of information out there that I never knew.

[Gandalf Parker]

Krsqk said:
I understand the draft, but I'm not talking about his participation in Vietnam. I'm talking about his apparent desire to depict himself as the hero in Vietnam. The way it was done, it looks like he used the situation of the war as long as it was useful to him (the films), then got back and decided his films wouldn't be worth as much as the anti-war crowd. I realize there were plenty of people in combat who disagreed with the whole thing, but most of them weren't playing war in front of cameras in their spare time.

You make it sound like a weekend event. Its like saying you can either be proud of making the honor roll in school, or ashamed of some of the things you did in school, but not both. You cant say "I earned a letter in track" and also say "I beat up a kid for being for the other team" at the same time?

If he got a purple heart then he got a purple heart. Now if he had gotten a silver star SPECIFICALLY for what he felt at the time was an atrocity and tried to claim both at the same time then I could see it being hypocritical.