slam,

I understand now. By the way, I’ve heard that gays are all child molesters, blacks want to sit back and collect unemployment and liberals are really socialists. I don’t have any names, but I’ll bet somebody knows people like that.

I think Kerry got what he had coming and the rest of us, no matter how we feel, should stay out of it. The military prides itself on being a big family. Yeah, we may not all like each other and we may fight against amongst ourselves, but unless you’re in the family, stay out of it. This whole thing was brought on by what he said about the men he served with. They waited to hit him back and they did. Oh well, should have kept his mouth shut and handled it differently. Alot of folks won’t like that answer but it’s still true.

What do you mean “may” hp? It’s either true or it isn’t. If it isn’t true, why would they be thrown in the stockade for it? You’re implying that the US armed forces jails servicemen for crimes they didn’t commit. The US is much more likely to coverup than to invent, although they’ve done both. The inventions are usually coverups themselves, as in the case of the Iowa. This is one of my problems with the SBVFT and other groups. They slam the gov’t and American soldiers unfairly and then whine about others telling the truth. Americans who expose atrocities and crimes by Americans, regardless of whether the perpetrators wear uniforms or not, are acting patriotically. People who try to hide the crimes, especially the ones who do it for no other reason than concern that their own reputations would suffer by association, are not.

Re 53: “Americans who expose atrocities by Americans, regardless of whether or not the perpetrators wear uniforms or not, are acting patriotically.” My response is that you are mostly correct, however, there is a right way and a wrong way to expose it. Using a bullhorn on the steps of the capitol, or in a book, are not the correct ways. If what he said really happened, he should have immediately reported it when he was in the service. By not saying anything right away, he is just as guilty of CAPITOL MURDER as the men who did the supposed act because he covered it up. Look up the law, that’s how 1st Degree Murder works.

So, is he still a hero or patriotic? Or is he an opportunist/murderer, preying on the anti-war feeling that existed, and still exists, and using it to gain political points?

By not saying anything right away, he is just as guilty of CAPITOL MURDER as the men who did the supposed act because he covered it up. Look up the law, that’s how 1st Degree Murder works.

You know, I don’t know what’s up with military law, but in civilian law, if someone has knowledge of a crime, and waits to report it, that doesn’t make them guilty of the crime they have knowledge of.

So, is he still a hero or patriotic? Or is he an opportunist/murderer, preying on the anti-war feeling that existed, and still exists, and using it to gain political points?

Since we’ve established that the person in question is not a murderer, and I’ve already said I consider them patriotic, let’s take a look at opportunistic. That’s certainly a possibility. If it’s a singular act, unaccompanied by similar preceding or following, than It’s more likely to be an act of opportunity. If the individual has a long, say, 30+ years, history of these kinds of acts, than it probably isn’t opportunistic. However being patriotic and opportunistic are not mutually exclusive. An act can be both.

Now let’s take a look at the other side of the coin. Apply your opinions to people who still seek to deny that atrocities are committed in wars, depending on the uniform worn, despite abundant evidence that those atrocities have occurred. Do you think they are guilty of a crime for colluding with the coverup? How about people who deliberately distort the statements of others trying to expose the existence of these acts, in order to derogate the source, thereby acting to continue the coverup? This is the kind of thing we see happening on this thread and other places, where statements made by Kerry and myself that a few Americans committed atrocities in Viet Nam, are distorted into a generalization about all American forces. Then we are attacked for things we did not write by the very people that invented the distortions. Is this honest on their part? Clearly not. Are they being patriotic in their dishonesty? Or are they being opportunistic, preying on pro-vet sympathies? I think the latter is more likely.

Amazed-did any of them do that?

Happy-some will, some do, some are….some

In Military AND Civilian law he could be held just as accountable as the men who supposedly did it. Especially in the military since he was more than likely the ranking person and did little to stop it. Not doing anything is the same as being a part of it. Or at least not doing anything at first, then once a civilian, then it became an issue he wanted everyone to hear about. Spare me.
God bless him for serving his country, but damn him for allowing the alleged atrocities to take place. If it truly bothered him that much, he should have done something about it then and there. War is terrible, no question. People do horrific things to one another in the name of their country. I’m not naive enough to believe the soldiers of the good ‘ol US of A are immune to such acts. The ones who break the laws of war should be punished for being the criminals they are. My problem with this issue comes when one of their supposed leaders turns a blind eye to their acts then attempts to politicize their actions later when it suited him. That my friend is deplorable.

Js, I think we agree on some things, but disagree on others. I also think that not doing anything to stop the kind of atrocities is deplorable, but not because the individual tries to correct their actions and do something about it later. It is deplorable in and of itself. The act of trying to talk about the kind of terrible things that go on in war, in order to stop more of it from happening in the future is noble, regardless of the military or civilian status of the individual doing it. If we’re talking about Kerry, it should be remembered that he was not just some Johnny-come-lately who decided to speak out when he was running for Pres. He spoke out during the war. At least he spoke out, and continues to speak out, instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet, like many of his detractors do. That, I’m sure you will agree, is especially heinous.

I’m still pretty sure you’re wrong about your take on the law. I think you have to actually be involved in a crime with the murderer to be accused yourself. However, if you can point me to the military and civilian statutes, I’ll be happy to admit my mistake.

Anyvids…

Blue chamber solution

Blue mountain cards

Blue book value boats

Blog

Blackzilla

Blacksonblondes

Blackplanet

Blacklisted sportsbook

Blackbarbara

Bird feeders

Bionicle set 2008

Bion tanning

Bingo game on the web

Bin…