open letter to Kerry from Ollie North

[dantheman]

Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?
:salute:

[grimm]

Originally posted by dantheman@Sep 3 2004, 05:25 AM
Dear John,

As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.

I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.

This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."

Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.

But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."

Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:

Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.

Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.

Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.

John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.

One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?
:salute:
IF nixon were alive, maybe hed write something similar. Advice from known public liars, scum at the hell of the president, wouldnt go far.

Ollie North lied before congress. now hes a two bit schill for fox news. His opinion doesn't hold water in my book.

[Vick]

Originally posted by grimm@Sep 3 2004, 11:02 AM
IF nixon were alive, maybe hed write something similar. Advice from known public liars, scum at the hell of the president, wouldnt go far.

Hey
Why do you have to fuck with Nixon?? :)

He's a better choice for President today than Bush or Kerry

Tan, Rested and Dead - Nixon in 2004

[Mike AI]

HAHAHA But Kerry does????


Grimm after keeping your liberalism hid for a few years, its starting to ooooze out.


Kerry lied before congress & admited to committing war attrocities!!

HAHAHAHAh

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 11:15 AM
HAHAHA But Kerry does????


Grimm after keeping your liberalism hid for a few years, its starting to ooooze out.


Kerry lied before congress & admited to committing war attrocities!!

HAHAHAHAh
yeap, Kerry with his autrocities record is less fit to lead the nation in the war than Bush who didn't kill anybody, committed no autrocities and showed exemplary behavior as a national guard!

...and if you MikeAI call me liberal, I'll bite your dick off next time I see you
;-)))

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Sep 3 2004, 11:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Sep 3 2004, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 11:15 AM
HAHAHA But Kerry does????


Grimm after keeping your liberalism hid for a few years, its starting to ooooze out.


Kerry lied before congress & admited to committing war attrocities!!

HAHAHAHAh
yeap, Kerry with his autrocities record is less fit to lead the nation in the war than Bush who didn't kill anybody, committed no autrocities and showed exemplary behavior as a national guard!

...and if you MikeAI call me liberal, I'll bite your dick off next time I see you
;-))) [/b][/quote]


Serge you are not liberal, that I know.... but your mindis not thinking clearly on these issues.

If you think Kerry would be a better President then Bush, I really feel sorry for you.....

I suggest take more more Vitamin E.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 11:15 AM
HAHAHA But Kerry does????


Grimm after keeping your liberalism hid for a few years, its starting to ooooze out.


Kerry lied before congress & admited to committing war attrocities!!

HAHAHAHAh
Bullshit...

If you actually read the transcripts or listen to the entire little speech that the swift vets cut apart for their ad. Kerry stated that he had been at a Vietnam Vets conference and that the members had told of the various war atrocities that he was talking about. He did not claim first person in any manner.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 08:15 AM
HAHAHA But Kerry does????


Grimm after keeping your liberalism hid for a few years, its starting to ooooze out.


Kerry lied before congress & admited to committing war attrocities!!

HAHAHAHAh
Mike.. you keep trying to ram down my throat that i back Kerry. you have no basis for this.

I am against traitors. Ollie North is right up there with the rosenbergs in my book.


He should be in prison, not on talk shows.


You, mike, have no idea how i am going to vote. so stop associating me with any politician when i haven't even hinted at who i am going to vote for.


and i love your argument that because i think ollie north is a traitor to his country, its more proof that i am have liberal roots. being from ohio, that hotbed of liberalism:)


Heres a newsflash.. i am a registered republican. chew on that for a while

[sarettah]

For the record. Kerry's testimony before Congress: http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.asp

Statement of John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Mr. Kerry: Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.
As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

In 1970 at West Point, Vice President Agnew said "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse" and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.

But for us, as boys in Asia, whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dated to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we can not consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to use the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We are probably much more angry than that and I don't want to go into the foreign policy aspects because I am outclassed here. I know that all of you talk about every possible alternative of getting out of Vietnam. We understand that. We know you have considered the seriousness of the aspects to the utmost level and I am not going to try to dwell on that, but I want to relate to you the feeling that many of the men who have returned to this country express because we are probably angriest about all that we were told about Vietnam and about the mystical war against communism.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals.

We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings," with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881's and Fire Base 6's and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese. ...............

[Vick]

Ah are there none so blind as those who won't see

Exhume Nixon and place him in the Office of the President

Better choice than Kerry or Bush

which no one can deny

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by sarettah+Sep 3 2004, 11:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarettah @ Sep 3 2004, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 11:15 AM
HAHAHA But Kerry does????


Grimm after keeping your liberalism hid for a few years, its starting to ooooze out.


Kerry lied before congress & admited to committing war attrocities!!

HAHAHAHAh
Bullshit...

If you actually read the transcripts or listen to the entire little speech that the swift vets cut apart for their ad. Kerry stated that he had been at a Vietnam Vets conference and that the members had told of the various war atrocities that he was talking about. He did not claim first person in any manner. [/b][/quote]


Did you see the part under quotes from Ollie. Did Ollie misquote Kerry?

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by grimm+Sep 3 2004, 11:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ Sep 3 2004, 11:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 08:15 AM
HAHAHA But Kerry does????


Grimm after keeping your liberalism hid for a few years, its starting to ooooze out.


Kerry lied before congress & admited to committing war attrocities!!

HAHAHAHAh
Mike.. you keep trying to ram down my throat that i back Kerry. you have no basis for this.

I am against traitors. Ollie North is right up there with the rosenbergs in my book.


He should be in prison, not on talk shows.


You, mike, have no idea how i am going to vote. so stop associating me with any politician when i haven't even hinted at who i am going to vote for.


and i love your argument that because i think ollie north is a traitor to his country, its more proof that i am have liberal roots. being from ohio, that hotbed of liberalism:)


Heres a newsflash.. i am a registered republican. chew on that for a while [/b][/quote]


Grimm should not be a registered republican. That shows how confused you really are.

Embrace your liberalness.... Go all the way....

It is ok, I have a lot of liberal friends - I won't hold it against you.

Look at Serge... who would have thought that he would be going soft in his old age. Must be all the sex.... I blame LL!

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Sep 3 2004, 01:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Sep 3 2004, 01:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by sarettah@Sep 3 2004, 11:51 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 11:15 AM
HAHAHA But Kerry does????


Grimm after keeping your liberalism hid for a few years, its starting to ooooze out.


Kerry lied before congress & admited to committing war attrocities!!

HAHAHAHAh
Bullshit...

If you actually read the transcripts or listen to the entire little speech that the swift vets cut apart for their ad. Kerry stated that he had been at a Vietnam Vets conference and that the members had told of the various war atrocities that he was talking about. He did not claim first person in any manner.


Did you see the part under quotes from Ollie. Did Ollie misquote Kerry?

On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed." [/b][/quote]
Where exactly is the "Lie" told before Congress ?

I will check the TV quote.

[sarettah]

Have what I think is the TV quote and once again, it is quoted out of context. Did John Keerry say he committed atrocities, yes he did. Then he went on to define the attrocities that he said he committed and they were NOT the same sort of atrocities listed in the statement to Congress. Instead he lists "free fire zones" and "burning willages, etc" as the attrocities he participated in. He did not implicate himself in cutting off heads, ears, rape, etc.

Did "free fire zones" (Zones where you just shot whatever moved in order to acheive a body count) exist ? Yes, undisputedly. Did Villages get burned, again, there is no one that knows about Vietnam that would deny that. Atrocities DID happen in Vietname, some were right there on the cover of LIFE magazine. READ about My Lai and what was discovered about the DOD's rules in Vietnam during the Court Martials.

The Quotre I found: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Quotes

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.

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

[Mike AI]

Sarettah what was Kerry doing in Paris during his time as leader of Vietnam Vets Against the War?

[sarettah]

For those that are convinced that attrocities did NOT occur in Vietname:

a little primer on MY Lai http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f.../Myl_intro.html (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.html)

a link to the tiger force site:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...FORCE/110190136 (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031020/SRTIGERFORCE/110190136)

From a story related to the Tiger Force on the Boston Globe Site:

Soldiers often cited conflicting views of commanders as a reason they killed unarmed people. Some commanders told investigators that civilians could be targeted in certain circumstances; others said they could never be attacked. During the Army's investigation, 27 soldiers said severing ears from dead Vietnamese became routine.

"There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears," former platoon medic Larry Cottingham told investigators.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...t_boston_globe/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/20/vietnam_atrocities_revealed_in_report_boston_globe/)

Quote from a 1966 book on atrocities in Vietnam:

In the bitter controversy over our Vietnamese policies which has raged across the nation since the President's decision last February to bomb North Viet-Nam, there is only one point which supporters of U.S. policy will concede to the opposition: the sheer, mindnumbing horror of the war. Despite the barrage of official propaganda, reports in the American and European press reveal that the United States is fighting the dirtiest war of its history in Viet-Nam. The weapons in the American arsenal include torture, systematic bombing of civilian targets, the first use of poison gas since World War One, the shooting of prisoners and the general devastation of the Vietnamese countryside by napalm and white phosphorus. Not since the days of the American Indian wars has the United States waged such unrelenting warfare against an entire people.

....................

Torture of prisoners and "suspects" by Vietnamese troops and their U.S. advisers is a matter of public record. "Anyone who has spent much time with Government units in the field," writes William Tuohy, Newsweek 's Saigon correspondent, "has seen the heads of prisoners held under water and bayonet blades pressed against their throats. . . . In more extreme cases, victims have had bamboo slivers run under their fingernails or wires from a field telephone connected to arms, nipples or testicles." (New York Times Magazine, November 28, 1965.)

Donald Wise, chief foreign correspondent for the London Sunday Mirror, reports that such torture is condoned and even supervised by U.S. officers. "No American is in a position to tell his 'pupils' to stop torturing," Wise writes from Saigon. "They are in no mood either. . . ." Some of the standard tortures described by Wise include "dunking men head first into water tanks or slicing them up with knives. . . . Silk stockings full of sand are swung against temples and men are hooked up to the electric generators of military HQ's." (London Sunday Mirror, April 4, 1965.)

.....................

http://www.g0lem.net/PhpWiki/index.php/VietnamAtrocities

[Mike AI]

sarettah no one denies there were some war crimes committed by US troops in Vietnam.

Kerry just has to face those veterans who are angry about the way he protested againt war, went to paris, testified and over exagerated attrocities ( which he admits). Some of these veterans were in POW camps being tourtured - refusing to sign papers that Kerry was spewing out to any mic near him.


Kerry is going to lose this election.....

start making the excuses now....

:lol: :lol:

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Sep 3 2004, 10:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Sep 3 2004, 10:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by grimm@Sep 3 2004, 11:52 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 08:15 AM
HAHAHA But Kerry does????


Grimm after keeping your liberalism hid for a few years, its starting to ooooze out.


Kerry lied before congress & admited to committing war attrocities!!

HAHAHAHAh
Mike.. you keep trying to ram down my throat that i back Kerry. you have no basis for this.

I am against traitors. Ollie North is right up there with the rosenbergs in my book.


He should be in prison, not on talk shows.


You, mike, have no idea how i am going to vote. so stop associating me with any politician when i haven't even hinted at who i am going to vote for.


and i love your argument that because i think ollie north is a traitor to his country, its more proof that i am have liberal roots. being from ohio, that hotbed of liberalism:)


Heres a newsflash.. i am a registered republican. chew on that for a while


Grimm should not be a registered republican. That shows how confused you really are.

Embrace your liberalness.... Go all the way....

It is ok, I have a lot of liberal friends - I won't hold it against you.

Look at Serge... who would have thought that he would be going soft in his old age. Must be all the sex.... I blame LL! [/b][/quote]
ill embrace whatever i feel like embracing.

tunnelvision yourself into whatever small minded, narrow focused group you want. But "libertarian" is a cop out. A good citizen will take what means most to them, and weigh how an election might effect them. It is clear that Terrorism is your #1 concern. Which is fine, if the furtherance of America by investing in its future takes a back burner seat. The policy of fear has gotten to you. you have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker, just like millions of americans.

To me, it is certainly a concern, but there are many isues that share that weight for me. I am going to die sometime. I am not afraid of terrorism. I think a policy of guarded alertness, along with technology and beefed up security will serve us well. I am concerned with the economic welfare of this country, the education systems. The decline of the family environment. The prostitution of natural resources that makes us so dependant on oil bearing nations. I worry about losing my civil liberties over something i am not afraid of.


The root of terrorism is "terror". when Terror dictates policy to an extreme end... then whats the use, the citizen has given up.


I am sick of talking about this with you. I am very aware of your views on what is important to you. Now you are just either trying to convince me (no need). or beating a dead horse.

I am a registered republican, although i did vote for clinton. I may vote for bush this time. maybe kerry, maybe santa clause;) my mind is not made up yet.

If this makes me a liberal, then i guess a liberal is an American Citizen who puts serious thought into the future of his nation. So ok, im a liberal, and proud of it.

this rhetoric has done nothing but cause eye strain;)

[grimm]

Its a generation of labels....quick everyone label yourself before someone else does:)

[Mike AI]

So ok, im a liberal, and proud of it.

Grimm I know you well enough to know I cannot change your mind. You are still running circles around me!!

I love you no matter what Grimm!!

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 11:20 AM
sarettah no one denies there were some war crimes committed by US troops in Vietnam.

Kerry just has to face those veterans who are angry about the way he protested againt war, went to paris, testified and over exagerated attrocities ( which he admits). Some of these veterans were in POW camps being tourtured - refusing to sign papers that Kerry was spewing out to any mic near him.


Kerry is going to lose this election.....

start making the excuses now....

:lol: :lol:
he is?


can you predict who is going to win the OSU game tomorrow, and throw in the spread, nostradamus? ill split it with you:)

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 02:06 PM
Sarettah what was Kerry doing in Paris during his time as leader of Vietnam Vets Against the War?
Actually Mike, he was on his honeymoon.

But he also was a member of the Vietname Vets against the war delegation (meaning more than one person, ie: a group of people). He talked about it in his testimony to Congress right after his opening remarks:



LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1971

UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Fulbright, Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case, and Javits.

Thank you. [Applause]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you properly said in the beginning.

COMMENDATION OF WITNESS
You said you wished to communicate. I can't imagine anyone communicating more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and beneficial to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.

You said you had been awake all night. I can see that you spent that time very well indeed. [Laughter.]

Perhaps that was the better part, better that you should be awake than otherwise.


PROPOSALS BEFORE COMMITTEES
You have said that the question before this committee and the Congress is really how to end the war. The resolutions about which we have been hearing testimony during the past several days, the sponsors of which are some members of this committee, are seeking the most practical way that we can find and, I believe, to do it at the earliest opportunity that we can. That is the purpose of these hearings and that is why you were brought here.

You have been very eloquent about the reasons why we should proceed as quickly as possible. Are you familiar With some of the proposals before this committee?

Mr. KERRY. Yes, I am, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?

Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by grimm+Sep 3 2004, 02:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ Sep 3 2004, 02:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 11:20 AM
sarettah no one denies there were some war crimes committed by US troops in Vietnam.

Kerry just has to face those veterans who are angry about the way he protested againt war, went to paris, testified and over exagerated attrocities ( which he admits). Some of these veterans were in POW camps being tourtured - refusing to sign papers that Kerry was spewing out to any mic near him.


Kerry is going to lose this election.....

start making the excuses now....

:lol: :lol:
he is?


can you predict who is going to win the OSU game tomorrow, and throw in the spread, nostradamus? ill split it with you:) [/b][/quote]


I have been better at handicapping elections then football games. Of course its the spead that kills me. Straight up, its a little easier!

:P

[dig420]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 02:20 PM
sarettah no one denies there were some war crimes committed by US troops in Vietnam.

Kerry just has to face those veterans who are angry about the way he protested againt war, went to paris, testified and over exagerated attrocities ( which he admits). Some of these veterans were in POW camps being tourtured - refusing to sign papers that Kerry was spewing out to any mic near him.


Kerry is going to lose this election.....

start making the excuses now....

:lol: :lol:
why do we have to make the excuses when you guys are the ones nominating an alcoholic rich boy with no qualifications, a pro-war draft dodger, a known liar and incompetent for the highest political office in this country?

Ollie North should be in the penitentiary as a traitor to the United States. I love the heroes conservatives choose, so telling...

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by dig420+Sep 3 2004, 03:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dig420 @ Sep 3 2004, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 02:20 PM
sarettah no one denies there were some war crimes committed by US troops in Vietnam.

Kerry just has to face those veterans who are angry about the way he protested againt war, went to paris, testified and over exagerated attrocities ( which he admits). Some of these veterans were in POW camps being tourtured - refusing to sign papers that Kerry was spewing out to any mic near him.


Kerry is going to lose this election.....

start making the excuses now....

:lol: :lol:
why do we have to make the excuses when you guys are the ones nominating an alcoholic rich boy with no qualifications, a pro-war draft dodger, a known liar and incompetent for the highest political office in this country?

Ollie North should be in the penitentiary as a traitor to the United States. I love the heroes conservatives choose, so telling... [/b][/quote]


CNN & Time are both reporting 11 point lead by Bush.


Still a long way to go.... Kerry better start by fried chicken and cigerettes to pass out to "voters"

:lol: :lol:

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Sep 3 2004, 11:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Sep 3 2004, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by grimm@Sep 3 2004, 02:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Sep 3 2004, 11:20 AM
sarettah no one denies there were some war crimes committed by US troops in Vietnam.

Kerry just has to face those veterans who are angry about the way he protested againt war, went to paris, testified and over exagerated attrocities ( which he admits). Some of these veterans were in POW camps being tourtured - refusing to sign papers that Kerry was spewing out to any mic near him.


Kerry is going to lose this election.....

start making the excuses now....

:lol: :lol:
he is?


can you predict who is going to win the OSU game tomorrow, and throw in the spread, nostradamus? ill split it with you:)


I have been better at handicapping elections then football games. Of course its the spead that kills me. Straight up, its a little easier!

:P [/b][/quote]
of course, without the spread id be at about 90%:)

[PornoDoggy]

So lemme see if I got this straight ... you've got a known liar (North) accusing Kerry of being a liar by misrepresenting what Kerry said. I would have given the article some credibility if it had been based on Ollie's knowledge of how people who lie before congress act or something.

Admittedly, if I had my way Ollie North (along with Kula, Fran, and Poindexter) would get out of prison a few years later than Kozinski, John Walker, Pollard, and the like. Unfortunately, his friends in Congress gave him immunity that destroyed the possibility of his conviction by a jury being enforced.

Mike ... I've asked you this before. What are your sources questioning the reason Kerry was in Paris? Are you embarassed to post them on the board?

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 3 2004, 09:23 PM
So lemme see if I got this straight ... you've got a known liar (North) accusing Kerry of being a liar by misrepresenting what Kerry said. I would have given the article some credibility if it had been based on Ollie's knowledge of how people who lie before congress act or something.

Admittedly, if I had my way Ollie North (along with Kula, Fran, and Poindexter) would get out of prison a few years later than Kozinski, John Walker, Pollard, and the like. Unfortunately, his friends in Congress gave him immunity that destroyed the possibility of his conviction by a jury being enforced.

Mike ... I've asked you this before. What are your sources questioning the reason Kerry was in Paris? Are you embarassed to post them on the board?


PD you are right, I have not seen anything solid on the Paris stuff, that is why I was asking. I had never heard anything about it before. I am hope it is cleared up soon.

[PornoDoggy]

Oh, I'm sure you're in a real hurry to have that cleared up, Mike. :rolleyes:

I personally NEVER understood how anyone could have been niave enough to think that the puppets of a Communist regime were worth meeting with. As far as I was concerned (both in 1970 and today) you could believe them less than you could Nixon and Kissenger - who I thought were lying when it could be established that they were breathing.

We blew Vietnam twice (both times before significant American troops were present). The first time was in backing the French attempt to retake their former colonies in the late 40s; the second, in the mid-50s, was in failing to establish a coalition government in the south (people from South Vietnam plus the Northern Catholic former French lackeys that became the South Vietmanese government).

For the record, I hardly think they would have needed any information a fucking LT could have given them. They were getting info on every move we made from our lackeys, er, allies in the South Vietnamese military.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Sep 3 2004, 10:49 PM
Oh, I'm sure you're in a real hurry to have that cleared up, Mike. :rolleyes:

I personally NEVER understood how anyone could have been niave enough to think that the puppets of a Communist regime were worth meeting with. As far as I was concerned (both in 1970 and today) you could believe them less than you could Nixon and Kissenger - who I thought were lying when it could be established that they were breathing.

We blew Vietnam twice (both times before significant American troops were present). The first time was in backing the French attempt to retake their former colonies in the late 40s; the second, in the mid-50s, was in failing to establish a coalition government in the south (people from South Vietnam plus the Northern Catholic former French lackeys that became the South Vietmanese government).

For the record, I hardly think they would have needed any information a fucking LT could have given them. They were getting info on every move we made from our lackeys, er, allies in the South Vietnamese military.


I cannot argue about these points.

I hope that these are slander and nothing else. I don't want to be like Nick Papagorgio and run off to Canada if Kerry is elected.

[Dravyk]

Yeah, poking my nose in here briefly, then back to my (LOL) boycott of political threads (maybe).

I just have to say I'm surprised no one has mentioned the irony of bringing up Nam, when we have a president for reelection who, by some folks definitions, is in charge of the latest "Nam". Something that seems to not end and in which soldiers are dying every day.

And to top it off, we have the world's most famous military liar for credibilty? Gee, what will the GOP trot out next? Have OJ condemn murderers? Pat Nixon talk about the dangers of Miss Cleo? Maybe drag out Al Haig and have him talk about Dems wanting too much power? LOL!

Anyway, back to the original point ... So the guy against Nam who served in Nam is less desired by you staunch Republicans and even you Republican vets? While more desirable is the Prez who didn't serve nowhere who has boys killed daily in a war in which is (ahem) over and which we (ahem) won?

Ooooh yeah, that makes total sense! Better get Nurse Rachet in here; time for a round of meds.

[XXXPhoto]

Drav,

That's something that bugs me as well... For whatever reason, Kerry showed up and was there while Bush did not, yet Dubya now pretends to be some modern aged cowboy and tries to promote this tough guy/takes no crap image... To me, this makes him a paper tiger; someone only willing to fight by proxy... Someone more concerned about their own ass than the welfare of a nation, a coward when it counted.

[Dravyk]

Exactly, Mark! How soon they forget the ruckus the tailhook landing on the carrier caused. Selective memory loss apparently. :)