Cspan showing entire Kerry testimony

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: rextilleon
Cyclo---LOL--you people are shameless---Did this "liberal " teacher tell you about Uncle Ho asking for our help? Did he tell you that after South Vietnam fell , the rest of Asia did not--thus destroying the raison d'etre of the cold warriors--the discredited "Domino Theory"

Good... I like the 'you people' part particularly, but you left out your explicit right-wing conspiracy statement this post.

Anyway, I already stated what I think about the domino theory:

Because the general public didn't understand what was going on or what was at stake, and maybe we still don't. I, for one, hold the opinion that it was pre-emption: stopping the spred of communism (really, the spread of Russian power) into Korea and Vietnam cost the USSR more than it could afford and convinced them to stop trying to spread its empire.

LMFAO. Both you and your history "revisionist" teacher are wack.

First of all, Vietnam was back by the Chinese and probably wouldn't have been able to win it without them. Back then there were splintered relationships between the Soviets and the Chinese.

The domino theory has been long discredited.

Robert S. McNamara, the intellectual staunch neocon hawk of his era, himself admited that the war was immoral and a HUGE mistake.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

His testimony and others like his from returning Viet Nam Vets helped legitamize the Anti War movement which enabled those POWs to be released from those POW camps years sooner than they would have been.

aide the enemy in torturing our POWs, as long as it ends a war sooner?

good logic.

Well according to your logic anyone who spoke out against the war aided the North Vietnamese in torturing POWs. Also according to your logic the American Free Press also aided the North Vietnamsese in torturing our POWs by reporting the May Lai Massacre too:roll: So in conclusion according to your logic our right to free speech and free press amounted to treason as the North Vietnamsese were able to the truth to torture our POWs. You would have loved Nixon if you were around back then!

We'll show those protestors!!

 

[arsbanned]

Well according to your logic anyone who spoke out against the war aided the North Vietnamese in torturing POWs.

The implicit suggestion is that we should never question our government, which clearly goes against the ideas this land was founded on.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Well according to your logic anyone who spoke out against the war aided the North Vietnamese in torturing POWs.

The implicit suggestion is that we should never question our government, which clearly goes against the ideas this land was founded on.

Important issues like war, shouldn't be questioned because we need to stand together, and that is more important than finding out wether we're doing the right thing or not.

 

[Thump553]

Cyclo, with all due respect, your so-called liberal teacher has sold you a bill of goods which you apparently bought hook, line and sinker. Do some research on your own to dig out the facts. It could be as simple as talking to relatives who lived through that era, especially 80+ year old ones-the people that were youths during WWII. I came from that era and I can unequivocally set to you that the percentage of those people who now feel Vietnam was not a horrible mistake for the US is probably equivalent to the percentage of people who claim the Holocaust never occured-and they usually display the same degree of rationality.

 

[arsbanned]

Important issues like war, shouldn't be questioned because we need to stand together, and that is more important than finding out wether we're doing the right thing or not.

Bush Doctrine 101.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's far more passionate and moving than any speech he's made since.

...unless the person is purely anti-war.

You're pro-war?

I think it should be used only as a last resort, after all other means have been exhausted. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq meets those conditions. So color me anti-war I guess.

So 12 years of failed "inspections", sanctions, and excuses don't seem like exhausted avenues to you?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's far more passionate and moving than any speech he's made since.

...unless the person is purely anti-war.

You're pro-war?

I think it should be used only as a last resort, after all other means have been exhausted. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq meets those conditions. So color me anti-war I guess.

So 12 years of failed "inspections", sanctions, and excuses don't seem like exhausted avenues to you?

Nope. When it comes to war, especially with a nation that poses no risk to us and barely any risk to it's nieghbors time is never an issue, especially when it results in thousands of deaths, close to a thousand American fatalities, thousands of Americans maimed, billions of dollars spent, the world made unsafer and relationships with friends and allies strained to the breaking point

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's far more passionate and moving than any speech he's made since.

...unless the person is purely anti-war.

You're pro-war?

I think it should be used only as a last resort, after all other means have been exhausted. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq meets those conditions. So color me anti-war I guess.

So 12 years of failed "inspections", sanctions, and excuses don't seem like exhausted avenues to you?

Failed inspections? Didn't Kay and Blix, themselves, state that the inspections following the first Gulf War destroyed more WMDs and dismantled programs than the bombings during the war? And Kay stated that Iraq had no coherent WMD programs before the 2nd war. Kay also stated, in regards to WMDs, "we were wrong."

The fact that no WMDs have been found supports the inspection program's effectiveness.

 

[bebrewer1]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
I agree with it completely. It was an immoral and unnecessary war. Even McNamara (one of the architects of the direction the war took) now admits it was folly and to do it again he would not send troops to Vietnam.

OK, following your line of thought that Vietnam was an immoral war...What justification did JFK have for sending US forces there? That's right, we would not have even been in Vietnam if it had not been for Teddy Kennedy's brother sending us there back in the early 60s. So the Democrats sent the US to war in Vietnam and then have the gall to protest it a few years later after a Republican administration is stuck with the mismanagement of the crisis from the previous administration.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bebrewer1

Originally posted by: arsbanned
I agree with it completely. It was an immoral and unnecessary war. Even McNamara (one of the architects of the direction the war took) now admits it was folly and to do it again he would not send troops to Vietnam.

OK, following your line of thought that Vietnam was an immoral war...What justification did JFK have for sending US forces there? That's right, we would not have even been in Vietnam if it had not been for Teddy Kennedy's brother sending us there back in the early 60s. So the Democrats sent the US to war in Vietnam and then have the gall to protest it a few years later after a Republican administration is stuck with the mismanagement of the crisis from the previous administration.

:roll: They protested the War when LBJ was President too!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Cyclo, with all due respect, your so-called liberal teacher has sold you a bill of goods which you apparently bought hook, line and sinker. Do some research on your own to dig out the facts. It could be as simple as talking to relatives who lived through that era, especially 80+ year old ones-the people that were youths during WWII. I came from that era and I can unequivocally set to you that the percentage of those people who now feel Vietnam was not a horrible mistake for the US is probably equivalent to the percentage of people who claim the Holocaust never occured-and they usually display the same degree of rationality.

I have done my own research, and I have talked to people who fought in both WW II and Vietnam. I wasn't around during either, so I can only go on my research. As I was trying to convey, it seems likely to me that the spread of communism throughout Asia was prevented by actions like Korea and Vietnam. It's easy to say that the domino theory has been discredited because it never came to fruition. Quick action to counter communist aggression likely prevented it, in my opinion. Once a country starts invading other countries with the intent of occupation, they're singularly unlikely to stop until they run into something they can't handle or they get too big for the government to handle (like the Roman Empire). Also like the Roman Empire, subject countries may be pressed into military service and used as fodder against anyone who would get it in their head to stop them (this is backed by Kerry's testimony, actually). Of course, I'm no historian, but this is how I see it.

 

[bebrewer1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
:roll: They protested the War when LBJ was President too!

Duh, no crap. I think you would be misinformed to believe that the REAL protesting started during LBJs term and not Nixon's administration.

 

[Mathlete]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

How old was he in 1971?

Wasn't that like 33 years ago?

Bush was snorting cocaine and getting drunk driving tickets back then -- and he was a boy from a wealthy and powerful family.

yea, at 22 no one has their crap together.

the difference is that Kerry is trying to say that his not having himself together makes him more qualified for president than bush. Did he have his more together than bush when he aided and abided the enemy in the torture of our POWs?

Not to get off the topic but I find it amusing that you capitalize Kerry's name and not bush's

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: bebrewer1

Originally posted by: arsbanned
I agree with it completely. It was an immoral and unnecessary war. Even McNamara (one of the architects of the direction the war took) now admits it was folly and to do it again he would not send troops to Vietnam.

OK, following your line of thought that Vietnam was an immoral war...What justification did JFK have for sending US forces there? That's right, we would not have even been in Vietnam if it had not been for Teddy Kennedy's brother sending us there back in the early 60s. So the Democrats sent the US to war in Vietnam and then have the gall to protest it a few years later after a Republican administration is stuck with the mismanagement of the crisis from the previous administration.

While the escalation began during JFK's afministration. IKE has alot to do with our presence in Vietnam, since it was during his administration that we took over France's commitment to the South Vietnam goverment.

Not even mentioning that if we had supported the then pro-American Ho Chi Minh back in the late 40's and early 50's, so some of it falls to Truman, we might never had a Vietnam war(in our sense).

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: dahunan
How old was he in 1971?

Wasn't that like 33 years ago?

Bush was snorting cocaine and getting drunk driving tickets back then -- and he was a boy from a wealthy and powerful family.

no he wasnt!
that was like...10 years ago.

seriously though, i think that when taken in full context, even if people dont agree with what he is saying it is certainly a more favorable picture of kerry (and especially the news organizations that are "reporting" on this story) and at the very least a more ACCURATE portrayal of what he means.
so...agree or not, i believe this full speech should be making the rounds.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I have done my own research, and I have talked to people who fought in both WW II and Vietnam. I wasn't around during either, so I can only go on my research.

I'm 62, and I was around during both WW II and Viet Nam. BTW, you left out the Korean War, in between. Whoever that teacher of yours wad, and wherever you've been looking, and whatever you've read, your research and conclusions are pitifully shallow and flawed.

I was a child during WW II. Coming from a Jewish family with grandparents from Hungary and Lithuania, I know WW II was a necessary war. Hitler was an a aggressive monster. In fact, we were arguably late in joining up the fight against Hitler's attrocities in Europe.

Skipping Korea because it isn't part of this discussion, like Bush's elective war in Iraq, we got into Viet Nam based on lies by our own government. Americans intentionally provoked the Viet Namese attack on American craft in the Tonkin Gulf that lead to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 -- and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.

The truth was very different.

Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers -- in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

"The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf -- a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.

Here's a longer read with far more details about the actual events.

By it's very brutal nature, there are always excesses in war. Viet Nam was no exception. The Mi Lai massacre was one example that brought such horrors to public attention, but it was not a unique event. Kerry's testamony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 22, 1971 starts:

Several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Later, he said:

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

As a veteran and one who felt this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used it the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

And further on, he asked:

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

It's clear that, contrary to the snipped quotes some with political agendas have used to try to smear him, he was not attacking or denegrating the honor of other vets; he was attacking the leadership that put those troops in that war for political motives based on lies... for exactly the same reasons he attacks Bush's elective, poorly planned, poorly executed attack on Iraq.

Of course, I'm no historian, but this is how I see it.

Obviously, and neither is that teacher you quote. I believe you need to go back and do a lot more homework. The strength of your beliefs is not supported by the reality of what happened.

 

[Thump553]

Clyclo, from reading your second post it is clear that either you (or your teacher) have superficially blended together the Korean Conflict and the Vietnam War. They were two completely different situations seperated (for US purposes) by 15+ years. Vietnam started as a war of liberation against a colonial power, and became a civil war. Korea purportedly was a civil war, but really involved Chinese aggression. China sent in massive amounts of troops in the Korean conflict who fought directly against the US and South Koreans.

Not only was the domino theory totally disproven subsequent to the Vietnam War, but you and your teacher avoid a major historical fact. Shortly after the Vietnamese War ended, Vietnam and China entered a major war themselves, sparked by either a border incident or Chinese invasion (take your choice). Again, the Vietnamese won-a tiny third world country that managed to defeat both the USA and China. If the domino theory had any credence whatsoever this China/Vietnam War would have never happened.

It is important that you base your thought processes on facts, and not on vague impressions based upon editorializing.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bebrewer1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
:roll: They protested the War when LBJ was President too!

Duh, no crap. I think you would be misinformed to believe that the REAL protesting started during LBJs term and not Nixon's administration.

I guess I can't believe my lying eyes! Did you ever happened to hear about the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago?