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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: trouthead who wrote (18662)	10/7/2004 2:53:26 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I find it interesting how many liberals are comfortable stating unsubstantiated opinion as fact in the face of a plethora of evidence that proves their opinions to be based on lies, distortions & revisionist history. Since you are another in a long line of liberals to do so, perhaps you can explain to me how you folks can do this & do it with conviction. Do you actually believe that repeating known lies frequently somehow makes them true? Perhaps you can also explain how you folks can ignore credible evidence that completely destroys your baseless revisionist versions of history, yet you blithely go on clinging to alternate versions of reality? Do you folks think we are that gullible, or are you folks the gullible ones? Thanks for your honest reply. :-\

To: trouthead who wrote (18662)	10/7/2004 3:11:32 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I see. I tell you that I'm not going to buy into your unsubstantiated opinion when it has already been thoroughly been discredited with verifiable credible evidence. So how do you respond? You provide an unsubstantiated explanation of your unsubstabtiated opinion. How does that contradict already known facts contrary to your baseless opinion? "The activities described above are actions that most soldiers would have participated in. They were ordered by there superiors to do so." OK, I provided you with overwhelming evidence that Kerry's testimony about this was thoroughly investigated & completely discredited. Your response was to paraphrase Kerry's lies & restate them as fact. At no time have you provided any credible evidence to support either version of these lies. Does your version of those lies somehow revise history? Can you link me to any credible evidence to support what history has established to be Kerry's & now your baseless, unsubstantiated lies? TIA

To: trouthead who wrote (18662)	10/8/2004 12:28:27 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

They were ordered by there superiors to do so. Have you ever heard of an "illegal order"?

To: trouthead who wrote (18662)	10/8/2004 12:52:59 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

The people he is criticizing is not the soldiers, but the officers and the generals running the war. They prescribed the types of actions to be taken and history has shown they were ruthless and wrong. Yes, his objective WAS to condemn military leadership (along with the military in general, the "military industrial complex", and political leadership from LBJ through Nixon and their advisors). But he provided NO substantiation of his accusations of either pervasive atrocities or "chain of command" complicity in them. As for what "history shows" or doesn't show, I challenge you to find me a credible history of the Vietnam war that describes US "officers and generals" as "ruthless and wrong." There is, as I said above, no evidence of generals ordering atrocities as Kerry claimed and you now claim. As for ruthlessness, if you consider trying to fight a war the politicians won't let you win ruthless, then have it your way. I'd call it doing one's duty in spite of flawed political leadership. Finally, "wrong" about what? Being there or not fighting to win? Either way, that was a political failure, not a military one.