> Sam wrote: > Where did the retrospect come from? Did you add it? It's implicit. As I said when the bullets start flying you'll throw the kitchen sink if you can. Once the fog of war is over you might look back and think, "Heyyy ... why was I put into that position in the first place? Isn't that considered a war crime?" That's exactly what Mr. Kerry has testified to.
> So you think what he said was true? What part(s)? The > crimes he committed or the ones thousands of soldiers > like him committed? I don't know what's true, nobody does. We can only take their word for it. Combining the outcome of the Mai Lai trials with what I've heard from, probably, 30 Vietnam vets: as soon as bullets started flying atrocities happened. Since there were thousands of troops that means thousands of "atrocities." More on this below ... This isn't just Vietnam, BTW. My Grandfather was a pilot in WWII. Once he was in Australia and a supply ship for Guadalcanal had been turned around due to Japanese. He decided he'd take as much stuff as he could carry over. When he got to Guadal he and his co-pilot opened up the plane on the runway and started trading for stuff with Marines literally walking out of the jungle; most of them had necklaces made of Japanese ears. One, though, traded a "sack of gold" for a case of whiskey. Since they were drinking and busy they never checked the loot. But later, when they dumped it out, they saw it was full of gold fillings. The point is, every soldier commits some type of "atrocity" as soon as their boots are on the ground. Anybody that's been in combat will tell you that; at least I haven't talked with anyone who hasn't. > The burning of villages was in the fog of war so it's > ok? None of it's ok, but it happens; it's combat. If we were worried about that we'd have prevented it in the first place. The worst stuff gets prosecuted, but if the worst is routine rape and disembowelment, then maybe burning villages doesn't look so bad. It's all relative. > I didn't know we were talking about the swifties, I > knew you originally referenced the testimony and > decided he didn't commit any atrocities. I didn't say he didn't commit any, just not the ones (or the majority of them) he listed in his congressional testimony. As I said, if you were in combat, you probably committed "atrocities". It's undisputed that he beached his boat, yelled, "attack, attack", hopped off, chased down a VC and shot him in the back. Atrocity or not? In combat it's one more VC that can't shoot you. To us, in a comfy chair, it may seem like something else. The whole "atrocity or not atrocity for $100 Alex" is kind of ridiculous. If you don't want atrocities then it's best not to let the shooting start, since that, by itself, is an atrocity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:131750 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
