 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Drach, I would like you to refer to Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." There you will see quotes from the NV negotiators to the US that prove that Kerry and Jane Fonda provided them encouragement to continue on without an agreement |
If this were true, why didn't the U.S. government prosecute them for conducting private diplomacy? If they clearly broke the law, as Kissinger said they did, then the Nixon WHite House, who saw them as a threat, surely would have tossed them in prison.
Anyway, since we were the ones who lied to our own people to get invovled in a war to prop up an illegitimate dictatorship that refused to allow its own people to vote on whether or not they wanted to reunify Vietnam, we were the ones in the wrong. Being able to protest your government when it is in the wrong is what America is all about. But you conservatives have never believed that. You think Freedom is so precious, it needs to be kept locked away.
We think freedom is meant to be used. When your government is wrong, you have to protest and try and stop it from doing wrong. If that means giving a moral boost to our "enemies," then so be it. Otherwise, there's no freedom whatsoever. The government will do what it pleases without worrying about whether or not it's in the wrong or whether the American people want it.
Why do you hate freedom and America?
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 18-10-2004 at 23:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He did nothing because he could do nothing. They didn't do what you accuse them of. |
Funnny because according to the congressional record, Kerry himself implies that he did indeed negotiate.
quote:
The CHAIRMAN. The Congress cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system we can advise the President. We have to persuade the President of the urgency of taking this action. Now we have certain ways in which to proceed. We can, of course, express ourselves in a resolution or we can pass an act which directly affects appropriations which is the most concrete positive way the Congress can express itself.
But Congress has no capacity under our system to go out and negotiate a cease-fire. We have to persuade the Executive to do this for the country.
EXTRAORDINARY RESPONSE DEMANDED BY EXTRAORDINARY QUESTION
Mr. KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things. But what I am saying is that I believe that there is a mood in this country which I know you are aware of and you have been one of the strongest critics of this war for the longest time. But I think if we can talk in this legislative body about filibustering for porkbarrel programs, then we should start now to talk about filibustering for the saving of lives and of our country.
|
A bunch of interesting tidbits and miscalculations I particularly find the inevtitable under representation which ultimately lead to the the great US betrayal.
Only off by 3 orders of magnitude. Whoopsie.
quote:
Senator AIKEN. I think your answer is ahead of my question. [Laughter.]
SAIGON GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE TOWARD COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL DATE
I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government would be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by October lst, and be completely out of there -- air, sea, land -- leaving them on their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon government under those circumstances?
Mr. KERRY. Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face this question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country --
ATTITUDE OF SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY AND PEOPLE TOWARD WITHDRAWAL
Senator AIKEN. I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam aFter the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vietnamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?
Mr. KERRY. Well, Senator, this, obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years.
If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic bombing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.
The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can't go around -- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?
We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capability. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
|
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He was probably in the reserves.
Anyway, your quotes don't prove he broke the law. Meeting with the North Vietnamese is not the same thing as conducting private diplomacy.
Again, the proof is in the pudding. Had Kerry broken the law, the Nixon Administration, which was out to discredit and silence Kerry, would most definately have thrown him in prison. They had no problem doing it to other prominent antiwar leaders. Kerry would have been no different, had Kerry actually broken the law. |
An admission doesn't cut it?? (Yes, I recognize Kerry being the master of nuance wouldn't come right out and say it) But this is about as clear a statment as Kerry is prone to make.
He gives no defense other than to say it was justified. That smacks mightily of the old "I may have done it, but damnit, it needed to be done!"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
|
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Again, if Nixon didn't prosecute, then there was no evidence Kerry broke a law, because Nixon would have prosecuted him. Nixon hated Kerry and wanted him out of the way. Had Kerry not been related to the Kennedys, I suspect Nixon would have had something invented, but you can only do that to people who don't have connections.
As Kerry said, it was on the border. Apparently is was on the side of law, because Nixon never tried to go after him on this. Unless you believe that Nixon wasn't the kind of guy to use everything against his enemies that he could, in which case I'd have to say you were mental. |
Let me see if I understand your logic. An admitted murderer who doesn't get prosecuted isn't in fact guilty of a crime? (I realize I exaggerate as Kerry nuanced)
Similarly, I realize you may think I am presuming guilt, but in fact what I really am is alleging charges against him that were never taken to their logical conclusion hence no means to say if guilty or innocent. Until they are decided one way or the other he stands charged in the book according to Ogie (unfortunately not the same as US law  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Kerry was in the reserves and hence the rule of military law that active members of the military can't meet with the enemy the way Kerry did doesn't apply. The military itself said so, as anyone that gave it even a cursory look would have found out.
Kerry did say that numerous atrocities happened in Vietnam at the hands of U.S. troops, though he wasn't able to bring forth any evidence of this. The fact is that there is a decent amount of evidence to suggest such things did happen.
Vietnam is certainly a black point in American history. We propped up an unpopular government that the vast majority of people didn't want. This government was in not really all that better than the one we opposed, and it was agains the will of the people. The administration gave misleading reports on how well we were doing, because of the tactics we had to emply we had no chance of winning over the will of them majority there.
Kerry was right in opposing continued conflict in Vietnam, and almost everyone who is all that sensible about that war acknowledges we should have pulled out sooner. There was no chance we were going to win, and all that happened by staying longer was the further loss of human (both American and Vietnamese) life.
So yes, Kerry wanted to find a way to peace, he wanted to find a way to get back all the POWs from Vietnam too (that was one thing he inquired about). He did not in any way give aid to the enemy though. He merely wanted American out of a war that helped neither side, and served to damage America's image; a war we were never going to win.
Make no mistake, Vietnam was a mistake. If anything it speaks of Kerry's bravery and honesty to note that he both served in the war, and when he came back, he sought to end it as soon as possible. If desiring the end of unnecessary wars does not make you a traitor, it does not make you unpatriotic. Fighting for what is right for your country, and for what will help your country in the long run; fighting for policies and practices that enhance the fairness and justice of your home country are the true acts of a patriot.
People that say otherwise are the same sort of democracy-challenged fools that say you should never question the President or the current administration*. I am ever thankful that this sort of attitude is something that is more and more being recognized as pure foolishness and as a burden to honest and true journalism and citizenship; I can only hope the recognition continues to grow.
-Drachasor
*Usually this only applies when they like the current people in charge though.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-10-2004 23:25
|