The Wounds that Never Heal

Originally posted by transient
I was referring to the words that apparently had the effect of stabbing "roughly 1.3 million veterans in the back". I just think that if he feels so strongly that kerry bore a false witness maybe he should bring up charges against him cause I believe he was under oath at the time.

With who...the American voters maybe? I think he is? As for Kerry I say a news report that JusticeWatch or something like it has called for the Pentagon to investigate.....we all watched as confronted with evidence Kerry has back pedaled from his Cambodia statement. If the pentagon starts to investigate his admission to war-crimes me-thinks the back pedal will turn into a run.

I wanted to assure Marg that this is not a 2 way posting. I am as shocked as anyone about her callousness and lack of respect. As far as the "guilty (sic) trip" is concerned, Marg needs to learn to distinguish between an emotional manipulation and a genuine reproach.

very well said Alex, and thanks for the comment earlier Grady.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
I wanted to assure Marg that this is not a 2 way posting. I am as shocked as anyone about her callousness and lack of respect. As far as the "guilty (sic) trip" is concerned, Marg needs to learn to distinguish between an emotional manipulation and a genuine reproach.

And who is going to teach me, you are? Well I guess I will have to take this as a challenge, but rest assure I don't waste my time with silliness, and for callousness yes it�s call freedom of speech, and for the emotional manipulation and genuine reproach that is something that obviously you don't know were it start and where it ends. Very funny replied and I find it very amuzing.

No, I am in ATS to post opinions and to share views, no, not to insult and call other�s names.

And for the original topic I still stand on my view of that letter just another way to call on veterans sense of patriotism to slander kerry went he just told the truth about the evils of war, but you know my father is veteran and he also knows the evils of war first hand.

marg, who are you to judge? were you in vietnam? were you a pow? how do you know anything about what you never went through, felt or can imagine?

I'm curious, are people disputing Kerry's statements regarding the manner in which the Vietnam war was fought? Or is it more the point that he broke a code of silence and sold out his brothers in arms?

Additionally, if it is the case that people are disputing his version of events, I'm curious to see what motive someone could attach to this. I know it is the in thing nowadays to not bother with a motive beyond 'they hate freedom' or somesuch. But if he made all this up surely he must have had some reason?

Well, let's compete with ideas instead of empty jibes. I don't believe that Kerry was "telling the truth about the horrors of war". Many have witnessed them; journalists have documented them; film-makers have recorded them; and we are all in this information age well-versed in them.

But Kerry was not involved in reporting; he was engaged in heavy-duty political action. His goal was to sway opinion, not to inform. What he did was to cross the line, in his zeal, from informing to polemicizing. And in doing so, he insulted many thousands of fine individuals.

Originally posted by namehere
marg, who are you to judge? were you in vietnam? were you a pow? how do you know anything about what you never went through, felt or can imagine?

No, I am not but my father is a veteran and very happy to be alive even when his brother did not made it. It's that enough for you?

Interesting op/ed piece on Kerry at MSNBC that addresses this very thing:

It's hard to criticize John Kerry these days. Apparently, every criticism of him is unfair. At least, we're not supposed to criticize his time in Vietnam -- or even what he's said about Vietnam more recently -- because that would be a "smear" (even when the Kerry campaign admits, as it has regarding Kerry's Christmas-in-Cambodia claims, that he hasn't been telling the truth). That he served in Vietnam 35 years ago, we're told, tells us all we need to know about his character.

Guess Kerry had forgotten the old political adage about "not burning all your bridges." You can criticize the press and your opponent, but don't screw with the vets. Kerry said some pretty awful things about the soldiers in Vietnam (as noted in the first post) - the vets have waited 35 years to issue a little payback.

Kerry above criticism

In fairness to Marg and anyone else who has not actually served (like me), I must agree with her that being a civilian should not deprive one of the right to hold an opinion, as disagreeable as it might be...

Originally posted by namehere
marg, who are you to judge? were you in vietnam? were you a pow? how do you know anything about what you never went through, felt or can imagine?

No, Margie is just here to cause as much havoc as she can in whatever forum she can, especially those that deal with those of us who are veterans. Her base opinions, which boarder on the ridiculous, are almost always as insulting as she can make them, and are only overshadowed by her lack of knowledge in every forum she chooses to post in and her poor use of the English language. Her constant attacks on all veterans and republicans is one of the reasons the slogan, "Deny Ignorance" was chosen for this board.

It could just as easily read, "Deny Marg"...


But I digress....


[edit on 6-9-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

I don't know why Kerry went to Paris to talk with N. Vietnamese officials. If I find out, I will let you know. I think AlexofSkye articulates pretty well why vets feel betrayed by Kerry. It's not that he broke a code of silence. It is the duty of every servicemember to report any unlawful act and no one can be prosecuted for disobeying an unlawful order.

Kerry took the word of liars and frauds as the truth and disseminated those lies. He painted the entire war effort with the same broad brush. And when he admitted to committing atrocities, he named of a half a dozen actions that are not atrocities, playing upon the ignorance of the public, avoiding any self-incrimination.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
In fairness to Marg and anyone else who has not actually served (like me), I must agree with her that being a civilian should not deprive one of the right to hold an opinion, as disagreeable as it might be...

Thanks for your honesty; at least you don�t hide behind your name some in these post claims to be vets when they are not more vets than bush claiming to be a pilot.

Originally posted by marg6043No, I am not but my father is a veteran and very happy to be alive even when his brother did not made it. It's that enough for you?

so? you arent him are you? nope, so again who are you to judge? why do you categorise critisism as republican anti-kerry slander? is there any valid critisism in your eyes? kerry isnt flawless, hes human like everyone else.

Originally posted by namehere
who are you to judge?

Okay. Let's not gang up on marg. She exhibited a considerable lack of sensitivity for a liberal, but she's entitled to her opinion. There's plenty of meat here to discuss, without taking it out on one another.

Originally posted by Kano
I'm curious, are people disputing Kerry's statements regarding the manner in which the Vietnam War was fought?

First, no one but the swift boat guys are in any position to dispute Kerry�s statements �..And if I�m not mistaken that is exactly what they are doing�.are they to be believed that is the question. Personally, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt; reason, of the roughly 250 some veterans who directly served with Kerry 60+ are on the record as giving eyewitness testimony as to him having lied�.8 are on record with him and the rest from what I have heard say he is at least unfit for the presidency. And of the 8 I don�t believe they support all of his statements. So far when confronted, he has already back pedaled from the statement that was �seared� into his memory. A part of his testimony is suspect at best. He supposedly admitted to atrocities along the lines of �mi le� (sp??) and the government just decided not to prosecute�.why? could it be because some of what he has copped to is not true, other parts are not war-crimes, I don�t know haven�t looked that hard. If it was true it would be a slam dunk and would only bolster military PR. And most telling in my belief is how it developed�.going to war is hard enough to then come home to a serial killers welcome must have been devastating for those troops, largely those troops from what it looks like were denied their deserved heroes welcome by Kerry. Now Kerry decides that he is going to wrap himself in Vietnam�.and get a war hero�s welcome for which he has denied untold numbers. I could see that spurring previously silent veterans to come forth.

Originally posted by Kano
Additionally, if it is the case that people are disputing his version of events, I'm curious to see what motive someone could attach to this.

I don�t know but if I had to guess; Politics, I believe he ran for congressional office within a year of leaving the service. During which he made the statement that only the UN should be able to send US troops anywhere, a pretty bold statement. Later he went on record as saying that it was doubly advantageous for him to have both served in and then protested the war. Obviously, the guy is somewhat politically astute no one doubts that; he also obviously had political aspirations beyond that of mayor or city council at the time that he decided the war was wrong. Something like that kind of makes sense, then there always is the alien slant.

Originally posted by marg6043


Thanks for your honesty; at least you don�t hide behind your name some in these post claims to be vets when they are not more vets than bush claiming to be a pilot.

Oh really, margie...and just whom are you referring to? What crystal ball are you looking into to come up with your statement that some of us are not veterans? If it's the one you use to come up with the rest of your trash, it's got a big crack in it....