It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Swift Boat account defends Kerry

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
It seems the SBVfT story has just taken another hit:

www.msnbc.msn.com...



Swift Boat crew member Robert Lambert, Wednesday, says he is no supporter of John Kerry, but backs up Kerry's version of the now-disputed events that led to Bronze Stars for both men in Vietnam.


Bush supporters better find something new to hold against Kerry, because this SBVfT issue is fading fast. This man doesn't even like Kerry, which makes it all the more believable.


[edit on 27-8-2004 by 27jd]




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Man are you so far out in left field, This is not a Bush supported thing. Sure, he is the benefatcor if this kills Kerry, but this would have came up if it had been McCain Vs. Kerry. The Veterans have a long memory, they have lost friends, been villified by the America we love, and feel they have been unjustly stabbed in the back. Rather Vietnam was just or not, America lost because of all the protesters back here in America who were dopped up and spreading anarchy at every level. We lost heart, and with that we lost the war. Kerry took a leading role in that, it's about him, not about being a Democrat, If Kerry were a Republican, you'd see the same thing happening. Wake-up and throw off that partician blanket you are wearing and look at what the Veterans are saying. Last I knew the 1st Amenment was still in the American legal system.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 06:55 AM
link   
We "lost" Vietnam because of Kerry jrsdls?

Does that mean if it weren't for Kerry, we'd still be in Vietnam "winning?"

By your logic, how many years did Kerry take off the end of the Vietnam war? How many American lives did he save?

Had Kerry never spoken, how would Vietnam have changed in any measurable way? Explain this vision of total victory for me in terms of outcome, additional years in quagmire and American lives lost.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I did not mean to say that Kerry lost the war. I'm saying that all the Anti-war protesters lead to the lost. it gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese. Thier own General credited the American Anti-War movement with the victory. It took America off focus, it caused discord within the ranks and it took the heart away. I firmly believe that the war would have ended sooner rather than later. the North was ready to capitulate until all of the domestic violence and discord occured. So maybe you should ask how many American lives were lost because of the Anti-war movement.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   
anti-war protesters may have helped turn the tide of public sentiment against the war (although i have a feeling the body bags did a whole lot more). but, why should america fight a war that's against public opinion? were we not a democracy then? saying "we might have won, if we had public support" kind of defeats the purpose of calling america democratic. what, exactly, would we have been fighting FOR if the bulk of the people didn't support the war in the first place? the right of our government to do what it pleases despite the will of its people?

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
anti-war protesters may have helped turn the tide of public sentiment against the war (although i have a feeling the body bags did a whole lot more). but, why should america fight a war that's against public opinion? were we not a democracy then? saying "we might have won, if we had public support" kind of defeats the purpose of calling america democratic. what, exactly, would we have been fighting FOR if the bulk of the people didn't support the war in the first place? the right of our government to do what it pleases despite the will of its people?

-koji K.


koji, you asked why should America fight a war that's against public opinion, let me ask, How old are you? not trying to disparge you, but just wondering. just prior to both World War I and World War II, most Americans were aginst getting involved in a european affair. The Same can be said today about Iraq. however, sometimes, you can't turn your back on people that need help. Hitler's aggressive moves against europe were analgous to the North Vietmanese move on the South Vietmanese. Should we have gotten involved? not my place to say, but I will say that Vietnam was a political war for politically. If the military commanders had thier way, we would have won. If we fought Vietnam like we fought Hitler we would have won. But the Anti-War effort changed the way the military prosecuted the war. ultimately, the President as commander-in-chief makes the descision on how the war will go. Also, remember, during our own Civil war, Most northerners did not have want to fight a war over states rights, that's why you had so many draft riots in New York, but once Linclon claimed that the war was to free the slaves did the north become fully behind the war.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Read General Gaip's book the NVA was about to collapse the Vietcong were spent after Tet. The OIC of all North Vietnamese forces admits with only slightly more pressure the Whole North would have fallen. The war was "lost" politically not militarily, but don't believe be here is a quote from newsmax.

Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S.

The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.

In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.

That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face."

"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.

"The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.

"John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said.





Originally posted by RANT
We "lost" Vietnam because of Kerry jrsdls?

Does that mean if it weren't for Kerry, we'd still be in Vietnam "winning?"

By your logic, how many years did Kerry take off the end of the Vietnam war? How many American lives did he save?

Had Kerry never spoken, how would Vietnam have changed in any measurable way? Explain this vision of total victory for me in terms of outcome, additional years in quagmire and American lives lost.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
hehehe... Oliver North says Kerry aided and abetted the enemy! Oliver "arms for hostages" North!

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
hehehe... Oliver North says Kerry aided and abetted the enemy! Oliver "arms for hostages" North!

-koji K.


One big point here koji, We were not at war at that time. What North did was wrong, but he stood up and faced the charges like a man, unlike Kerry who refuses to discuss anything about his lies.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls

Originally posted by koji_K
hehehe... Oliver North says Kerry aided and abetted the enemy! Oliver "arms for hostages" North!

-koji K.


One big point here koji, We were not at war at that time. What North did was wrong, but he stood up and faced the charges like a man, unlike Kerry who refuses to discuss anything about his lies.


ah yes, if standing up and facing your charges like a man is accomplished by lying to congress in an attempt to cover your ass.... north, unlike kerry, was actually indicted on charges of 'aiding and abetting' a fraud before congress! seems like he harmed the country himself there.

and let's face it... what's the bigger crime? lying to congress and selling arms to our enemies, or not showing some solidarity with the people who happen to have your view?

-koji K.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by jrsdls

Originally posted by koji_K
hehehe... Oliver North says Kerry aided and abetted the enemy! Oliver "arms for hostages" North!

-koji K.


One big point here koji, We were not at war at that time. What North did was wrong, but he stood up and faced the charges like a man, unlike Kerry who refuses to discuss anything about his lies.


ah yes, if standing up and facing your charges like a man is accomplished by lying to congress in an attempt to cover your ass....

-koji K.


Well using your logic, either Kerry lied to Congress or his a war criminal. Do YOU want a war criminal as President?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apollyon
Read General Gaip's book the NVA was about to collapse the Vietcong were spent after Tet. The OIC of all North Vietnamese forces admits with only slightly more pressure the Whole North would have fallen. The war was "lost" politically not militarily


So 15 years from now, when the communist regime of Vietnam joins the rest of the failed communist regimes in the scrap heap of history, we will talk about who really won. We didnt lose we just changed tactics, thats all.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
When Kerry testified before congress he said in his testimony that in a meeting with over 100 veterans, many high decoracted they recounted those stories for him. In other words it was heresay, plain and simple. the swift boat vets fail to put that part in their ad, instead trying to make you think he did those things. Now I think he did admit he did some things like firing on villages, etc. Guess what? My father who served 2 tours in Vietnam as part of an elite Marine force says the same thing. He said the policy was the destroy villages and then rebuild if there were enough people left. We had a really rough policy at the time towards the citizens there mainly becuase we could not tell enemy from friend.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
When Kerry testified before congress he said in his testimony that in a meeting with over 100 veterans, many high decoracted they recounted those stories for him. In other words it was heresay, plain and simple. the swift boat vets fail to put that part in their ad, instead trying to make you think he did those things. Now I think he did admit he did some things like firing on villages, etc. Guess what? My father who served 2 tours in Vietnam as part of an elite Marine force says the same thing. He said the policy was the destroy villages and then rebuild if there were enough people left. We had a really rough policy at the time towards the citizens there mainly becuase we could not tell enemy from friend.



Yeah, but if someone has the guts to speak out against our policies that may be wrong, like burning villages, they will be equated with aiding and abetting the enemy. How outrageous is that?! One cannot be against a war without being against the troops? It's not the troops faults, it's those making the decisions. With all due respect to the Veterans of Viet Nam who have taken offense that Kerry spoke out against the war, I believe you are wrong to do so, because the soldiers were not responsible for the war, and should not believe he was speaking out against them. Republican Viet Nam Veteran McCloskey was also an anti-war activist when he returned, who still stands by Kerry, and still believes the war was wrong, but does NOT blame the soldiers and believes Kerry was not either. It is entirely partisan and shameful to drudge up this war, again, for Bush's political gain, most Vets (including McCain) are unhappy with this. And for those who are using this as an issue, how could serving and having the guts to stand for what you believe be, in any way, worse than using your family status to avoid the war, then when in the office of President (somehow), call yourself a "wartime" President and send kids to die, when you yourself have no idea what it's like to be shot at? Anybody who has seen war would be less likely to send kids to it, than somebody who seems to have something to prove and is using Americas sons and daughters to prove it.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Bush did not bring this war up, Kerry did, when he reported for duty. Face it, If Kerry were a Republican, the Swifties would still do this, as well as Veterans against Kerry, Special Forces against Kerry, POW/MIAs against Kerry. It not a partisan attack, It a personal one. hard to vote for someone who turned thier back on you.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
Bush did not bring this war up, Kerry did, when he reported for duty. Face it, If Kerry were a Republican, the Swifties would still do this, as well as Veterans against Kerry, Special Forces against Kerry, POW/MIAs against Kerry. It not a partisan attack, It a personal one. hard to vote for someone who turned thier back on you.


What about the Vets standing WITH Kerry, it's Veteran against Veteran, you can list as many PARTISAN organizations (say what you will, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck) as you wish, but the fact still remains he has his own PARTISAN Veteran support. So it's brother against brother, kinda ugly. And can you not say Bush turned his back BIGTIME on you when he tried so hard to avoid serving with you? The fact remains, Kerry WAS there, in the line of fire, Bush managed to avoid it at the cost of whomever was bumped off the waiting list for the TX guard, yet claims to be a wartime President, how can you support that?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
koji, you asked why should America fight a war that's against public opinion, let me ask, How old are you? not trying to disparge you, but just wondering. just prior to both World War I and World War II, most Americans were aginst getting involved in a european affair.


The U.S. entered WW I bc:

Wilson demanded an apology from Germany and stayed his neutral course as long as possible. Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare, however, was an intolerable affront to America's dignity and honor. At the start of 1917, British intelligence intercepted the Zimmermann telegram, a secret German communication to Mexico promising United States territory to Mexico in return for supporting the German cause. On April 2, 1917, Wilson finally asked Congress for a formal declaration of war.

Congress Declared War

The U.S. entered WW II bc:

The United States was thrusted into war when Japan launches a devastating surprise attack on the U.S. Naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. President Franklin Roosevelt will ask the Congress to declare war on Japan the following day, December 8th.

Congress Declared War

The U.S. invaded Iraq bc:
presumed WMDs and later on to liberate Iraq of the evil regime.

Congress DID NOT Declare War



Point is, Americans were supposrtive of both World Wars after there were clear threats made against them (the Zimmerman telegram & Pearl Harbor)
To this day there have not been any WMDs in Iraq. Bush kept riding the idea of a "smoking gun", when there was no gun to begin with.

[edit on 8/27/2004 by s13guy]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls


Well using your logic, either Kerry lied to Congress or his a war criminal. Do YOU want a war criminal as President?


i don't really understand how that's a reflection of my logic, but i'll say i would rather have a man who fought for his country and then showed remorse for the horrors he saw committed by men in his own uniform than a man who instigates pointless wars under false pretences having never seen the face of war himself.

kerry has seen how brutal war can be, and how fine the line is between righteousness and barbarity. i would rather vote for him than for our current president, who spent his time in that war awol drinking champaigne and then 30 years down the line sees no problems with promoting that same barbarity kerry was so shocked by, putting US troops at risk from the safety of his oval office by publicly renouncing the geneva conventions, because it makes him look tough in the eyes of his gung ho supporters.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   
kerry has seen how brutal war can be, and how fine the line is between righteousness and barbarity. i would rather vote for him than for our current president, who spent his time in that war awol drinking champaigne and then 30 years down the line sees no problems with promoting that same barbarity kerry was so shocked by, putting US troops at risk from the safety of his oval office by publicly renouncing the geneva conventions, because it makes him look tough in the eyes of his gung ho supporters.

-koji K.

Show me the proof that Bush was AWOL, and I don't want to see Micheal Moore documents. I want to see where Bush was charge with being AWOL. you use baseless banter to bring discredit upon the president, which is your choice, but you have no proof. We know that Kerry lied about Cambodia, lied about his purple hearts. What proof do you have?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
Show me the proof that Bush was AWOL, and I don't want to see Micheal Moore documents. I want to see where Bush was charge with being AWOL. you use baseless banter to bring discredit upon the president, which is your choice, but you have no proof. We know that Kerry lied about Cambodia, lied about his purple hearts. What proof do you have?


Where is YOUR proof that Kerry lied about his purple hearts? And we don't want to see Swift Boat Liars for Mistruth documents. Where are the official military documents? Oh wait, they all SUPPORT Kerry, I guess the official documents support our baseless banter there too.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join