Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bobkoure
He claimed that he and his peers were war criminals - and that they had no choice but to be, given things like "free fire zones".
Kerry also claimed that both the Vietnamese peasants and the GIs we sent there were victims. As far as I can tell, he was trying to reduce the number of future victims (which I would have been one of - was in high school during the famous "war soldiers" gatherings) and there very definitely was a draft.)
He was a very angry guy - and I don't blame him. He was also pretty eloquent about the war (heard him once in '67 or '68). It was very clear that he felt used. He and his buddies gave everything and they got used - and were pissed (those that lived, anyway).
So... what part of the "way he went about it" makes him a bad guy? And how could he have gone about speaking out about what was going on in 'Nam and not been a bad guy in your eyes? Wait for Nixon to complete "Vietnamization"? How was that a solution? If you believe (as I think Kerry did) that both sides of the war there were victims, then that would just make for more victims.
My own personal take at the time (which hasn't changed much over 30+ years) was that not only were we involved in a civil war, but we were on the side of the "bad guys". Read John Paul Vann's book as it pretty much sums up my thinking in '68 - and now.
From another angle, you have to figure that JWB agreed with him at the time - at least about 'Nam being a bulls**t war - why else would he have gone to so much trouble to avoid it? And you have to ask - what is the best way to "go about" a bulls**t war:
1) go, fight, come home, protest
2) avoid (dad's in congress, so get a Guard pilot slot)
Of course, picking a president based on something he did or didn't do 30+ years ago is pretty dumb.
Yes, Kerry was the first one to bring it up, but the Bush camp, by responding as they have, made it a perfectly legitimate place to examine both candidates. You really think what GWB did was the right way to deal with a war like that? Make use of place and wealth to not be inconvenienced? Let the lower class guys go and maybe die? And Kerry's approach was wrong? His family wasn't rich but they had enough connections that he probably could have gotten a place in the guard...
Sorry - you got me started - guess I'm still pissed about 'Nam, too - thought I'd let that one go...
|
Well first I am sick of both side on the whole Vietnam issue...it is a purely academic study for my generation of warriors. I agree the Vietnam War was largely a nationalist civil war but do not kid yourself into thinking the communists were peace-loving peasants. After all, they were the aggressors.
Now as to the issue of Senator Kerry’s statements to Congress, yes he was articulate. However, a few fine points that make is statements fallacious. A free fire zone or what is now called a free fire area (FFA). Is a coordination measure established by a higher headquarters in order to prevent fratricide, it not a license to kill everything you see. In fact, you are still required to establish that you are engaging enemy combatants. This coordination measure simply allows you to aggressively engage enemy targets without asking permission first.
He also commented about seek and destroy missions, which is now known as close with and engage. Moreover, he presented it in a way that would have you think it was something that willfully involves the killing of non-combatants. The truth is that the primary mission of most combat units is to close with and engage the enemy at a time a place where you have the advantage. This defines the very essence of warfare from ancient warfare to the present.
If John Kerry went around killing civilians and non-combatants then he is a truly a war criminal. However, he can't blame his superiors for those crimes. The Nuremberg Trial clearly establishes that every warrior is responsible for his or her own actions. Further, he was a company grade officer his moral obligation is to prevent war crimes by his men at the time when they are occurring.
Look the Senator made statement that fit the ethos of a young man of his time. Let’s face it being an establishment supporter in the late 60’s early 70’s was not very sexy and not likely to help him get elected to any office in Massachusetts during that period.