quote:

One quarter of the 203 soldiers accused of harming Vietnamese civilians or prisoners were court-martialed, but only 23 were convicted

ok, now why wasn't "Christmas in Cambodia" boy at least tried?

Well I certainly personally know more than a few Vietnam vets that might take issue with the statement "They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam,". Does that mean that even Medivac divisions were committing war crimes? I'm willing to bet that this story has more sizzle as a headline than if you really got down into the details to see what all of these incidents really were. Context is also a very important variable that can be helpful in explaining the "why" behind the "what". I'd definitely be curious to see a more detailed and substantiated report.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well I certainly personally know more than a few Vietnam vets that might take issue with the statement "They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam,". Does that mean that even Medivac divisions were committing war crimes? I'm willing to bet that this story has more sizzle as a headline than if you really got down into the details to see what all of these incidents really were. Context is also a very important variable that can be helpful in explaining the "why" behind the "what". I'd definitely be curious to see a more detailed and substantiated report.

Every major division ... I don't take that to mean in every platoon or company. But to any detractors I would advise to take it up with the army. It's their report.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Every major division ... I don't take that to mean in every platoon or company. But to any detractors I would advise to take it up with the army. It's their report.

And I realize after I wrote that, that I could be coming off sounding like I was in denial. I don't mean that to be the case. I'm sure there were a lot of documented accounts of things going on that were less than kosher, but things are not always reported exactly the way they happened either. What may not have appeared as a war crime back then very well could be considered an atrocious act against humanity now. Like I said, I just think that context might be missing which might explain why innocents died. The headline impact is that most U.S. soldiers fighting in Vietnam regularly (if not systematically) committed acts that would get them the death penalty at home. War is hell and a lot of shit happens on the battlefield. If Kerry was guilty of them (by his own admission) and was, in fact, a suitable presidential nominee, then who are we to criticize the acts of anyone else that was there? Hate to be repetitive, but I think there is a lot more that we don't know about Vietnam than that which we actually do know. My dad was there in the Army for a year and I have heard plenty of stories. I have also heard many refuted claims. Forgive me if I am a little skeptical of the magnitude and pervasiveness that the article is portraying.

Any thoughts on the idea that this report is trying to make a "this sort of stuff happens in war" statement to the public as a means to defend the guys who should get the death penalty for raping and murdering the Iraqi family. Maybe by showing that similar has happened before, yet we've never taken such drastic actions to punish the offenders, they're trying to say that we shouldn't start now?

Similarly, there seems to be a lot of stories in the news lately about war-time stress and how these guys were burned out, drinking whiskey all the time, etc. The vast majority of soldiers over there should be experiencing similar stress, yet most of them aren't participating in pre-planned gang rapes and murders. In my opinion, if they find these guys guilty, they should punish them to the fullest extent, because they're even worse than normal rapists due to what they're doing to the American image. They represent our military and our national values to the rest of the world in a time when all eyes are on us, inciting further violence by those who feel that not enough punishment was doled out.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

It's not fucked up because it was war.

It's fucked up because the basis of our "civilization" is founded on the exact morals that we spit on and ignore when it conveniences us.

So thus, civilization, in its manifold dignities, is not very much better than the monsters and monkeys that we consider ourselves superior to.

Fight on, democrats and republicans. Fight on, monsters and monkeys!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And I realize after I wrote that, that I could be coming off sounding like I was in denial. I don't mean that to be the case. I'm sure there were a lot of documented accounts of things going on that were less than kosher, but things are not always reported exactly the way they happened either. What may not have appeared as a war crime back then very well could be considered an atrocious act against humanity now. Like I said, I just think that context might be missing which might explain why innocents died. The headline impact is that most U.S. soldiers fighting in Vietnam regularly (if not systematically) committed acts that would get them the death penalty at home. War is hell and a lot of shit happens on the battlefield. If Kerry was guilty of them (by his own admission) and was, in fact, a suitable presidential nominee, then who are we to criticize the acts of anyone else that was there? Hate to be repetitive, but I think there is a lot more that we don't know about Vietnam than that which we actually do know. My dad was there in the Army for a year and I have heard plenty of stories. I have also heard many refuted claims. Forgive me if I am a little skeptical of the magnitude and pervasiveness that the article is portraying.

And more or less the point was to outline the absurd attacks against Kerry with respect to what he said 20 years ago. What he said 20 years ago was in fact correct. And yet I doubt those who used his statements as a part of their propoganda attacks would ever come forward to retract their statements.

___________________
Retro ...