Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (62049)	8/20/2004 2:20:07 PM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 793866

Edit: I think round 3 is going to be Kerry's own admissions that he committed war crimes, and eyewitness accounts supporting those admissions, that he deliberately torched a village and ordered animals to be slaughtered. Facing this will be his hardest task, and may well feel like passing through one of the circles of hell. It will be a very, very, very cold day in hell when kerry admits any of that. Unless, he gets some retired Admiral (Crowe) to state that he ordered kerry to do it. IMO, the kerry team will go after the messengers. You know - argue the facts, argue the law or kill the messenger.

To: Ilaine who wrote (62049)	8/21/2004 10:00:36 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793866

<<<He cannot be at the same time a war hero and a war criminal. Not even John Kerry can accomplish that.>>> He was a young Officer. He volunteered for combat. He did what he was trained to do. He was trained to kill. He did some killing. He followed orders. He was, it is clear, what people termed as gung ho. He did more than was required of him. He was ambitious. He wanted to do good (in combat) and he wanted the recognition for it. When he came back he testified that war (I am paraphrasing and projecting) is hell. People do things they don't ordinarily do at home. That is why the military likes them young - 19 years of age - preferably. They will do what they are trained to do and not ask too many questions. That is the military. That is their mission - to train soldiers to kill. That is the reality of war. When young soldiers kill in the line of duty - they can not be expected to be supreme court justices and ask if those they kill are innocent or not - deserve to be killed or not. What soldiers do is understandable. John Kerry did not blame soldiers. He blamed those old people who put the young men in a position where they had to kill or be killed. To accomplish the mission and to stay alive, young soldiers had to, or in some cases thought they had to do some difficult things - just to stay alive. To think that in some cases young soldiers in those circumstances are not going to go over the line is living in a fantasy world. All soldiers in every army will behave in a similar ways. The indictment is with people who send young men to battle for no good reason. It appeared (IMO) to John Kerry that policy makers sent young men into difficult (if not impossible) situations in Vietnam - with not good enough reasons. It seemed to him and many other people - especially after the fact, that to go to war in Vietnam was not a good decision. Many of the senior military people (especially those that are well educated and held high positions) seem to agree and they are supporting John Kerry for President.