"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

Peter Skelton wrote:

What exactly is "supporting the military?"

It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .


Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
destroying the military. Whether a statement is for or against
the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.

You are guilty of very muddy thinking.


More specifically, if you know of your fellow soldiers carrying
out "war crimes," and you fail to report it to your superiors for
investigation and prosecution (if it is shown that prosecution is
called for) YOU are in violation of both common decency and
military law. Saying it during a protest may or may not be the
right thing, but doing so after failing to report it is not only
not helpful at all (no specifics to allow any incident to actually
be identified or investigated so we can't actually know whether
any incident ever happened) but in my mind also two-faced in
that by the initial silence one allows such acts to occur and continue
and then by making general, non-specific allegations, you tar those
who are uninvolved in any such alleged actions.

Mike

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
::
::Where is your evidence for this?
::
::His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:
:There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:fence the other way".
:
:OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?

Cite?

::Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
::that's saying a lot.
:
:It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:
:Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.

Get out of my face, dumb****.

:You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
:confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
:deny it.

I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?

You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
usual abusive tactics. If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In article ,
Peter Skelton wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:51:27 -0600, "D. Strang"
wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote

What exactly is "supporting the military?"

It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .

Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
destroying the military. Whether a statement is for or against
the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.

Implying that such reprehensible behavior was the norm for American
troops in general, and standard policy supported by the officer corp in
general, as Kerry has done, doesn't meet your truth test very well.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:
:Where is your evidence for this?
:
:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.

There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
fence the other way".

:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:that's saying a lot.

It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.

Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.

"John Keeney" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: Peter Skelton wrote:
:
: :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
: wrote:
: :
: :Peter Skelton wrote:
: :
: ::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
: :
: :Where is your evidence for this?
: :
: :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
: r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:
: There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
: going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
: transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
: fence the other way".
:
: :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
: :that's saying a lot.
:
: It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
: clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:
:Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
:stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.

Wait. Are you trying to tell me that there are NOT Nazis in Area 51?
Next thing you're going to tell me that the grey lemurs are
fictional....

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:11:40 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:51:27 -0600, "D. Strang"
wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote

What exactly is "supporting the military?"

It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .

Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
destroying the military.

That would be true in cases where you know for a fact that the acts occured,
or had strong evidence that they did.

"you know they did it"

That was not the case, however, with
Kerry, whose testimony and appearance on "Meet the press" instead consisted
of parroting unsubstantiated claims from "other" sources; the military did
actually investigate the "Winter Soldier" claims, but found that (a) the
vets who made the accusations in front of the media changed their tunes when
investigators started asking for verification, and (b) that a lot of those
veterans they contacted claimed to not even have been present at the affair
to give their "testimony" (leaving one wondering whether they changed their
minds, or who the heck was using their names--either being distinct
possibilities).

"without comment on the truth"

Knowing of a war crime and failing to report it is in fact a punishable
offense--but Kerry's second/third hand accusations never really panned out.
Condemning troops for using .50 cal MG's against personnel targets? Crap,
what would he consider the use of a 106mm RCR or 105mm howitzer firing a
beehive round?


Whether a statement is for or against
the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.

And in this case Kerry's accusations did not acheive that standard of being
based in fact.


I don't want to go there, I have no access to facts, other than
anecdotal, about what went on in Viet Nam. I was reacting to the
previous poster's implication that criticism is anti-military by
definition.

I'm inclined to think we pretty much agree on this subject.

Peter Skelton

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:32:24 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
::
::Where is your evidence for this?
::
::His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:
:There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:fence the other way".
:
:OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?

Cite?

It was posted on this newsgroup less tahn a week ago, stop the BS
asshole.

::Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
::that's saying a lot.
:
:It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:
:Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.

Get out of my face, dumb****.

Why? You live to get into people's faces. Can deliver, can't
take?

:You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
:confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
:deny it.

I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?

Because you're too stupid to recognize the truth, because your
too dumb to know what you do, because you're cornered and can't
back down, choose up to three.

You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
usual abusive tactics.

You're easier to maneuver than most.


If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.

Yes I have a point. I almost always do. You should try it, you
might like it.

Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:32:24 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:::On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:::
:::Peter Skelton wrote:
:::
::::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:::
:::Where is your evidence for this?
:::
:::His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
::r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
::
::There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
::going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
::transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
::fence the other way".
::
::OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?
:
:Cite?
:
:It was posted on this newsgroup less tahn a week ago, stop the BS
:asshole.

I don't normally read pure political tripe, Peter, so I probably
skipped it. You, on the other hand, appear to live to suck ****.

:::Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:::that's saying a lot.
::
::It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
::clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
::
::Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.
:
:Get out of my face, dumb****.
:
:Why? You live to get into people's faces. Can deliver, can't
:take?

Not interested. You're perennially too stupid to bother with.

::You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
::confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
::deny it.
:
:I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?
:
:Because you're too stupid to recognize the truth, because your
:too dumb to know what you do, because you're cornered and can't
:back down, choose up to three.

Because you are such an inveterate liar. Again, you miss the facts
and try to bury them in lies.

:You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
:usual abusive tactics.
:
:You're easier to maneuver than most.

Yes, engage in your usual lying, abusive tactics and I'll point out
that you're engaging in your usual lying, abusive tactics. Flat
simple.

:If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
:have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
:the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.
:
:Yes I have a point. I almost always do. You should try it, you
:might like it.

I don't think so. However, your 'point' does explain why you have
such a problem buying hats....


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Steve Hix wrote:

In article ,
Peter Skelton wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:51:27 -0600, "D. Strang"
wrote:

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" wrote

What exactly is "supporting the military?"

It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .

Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
destroying the military. Whether a statement is for or against
the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.

Implying that such reprehensible behavior was the norm for American
troops in general, and standard policy supported by the officer corp in
general, as Kerry has done, doesn't meet your truth test very well.

you are trying to shifting the grounds for debate. Most american soldiers
never committed a war crime However just as in the Bombing of Germany and
Japan , The US military had a policy of using unlimited force to accomplish
military objectives without substantial regard for civilian casualties.
Yes, "we" i.e. the USA were baby killers in Dresden, Tokyo and Vietnam

That was one of the the major issues involved in the Vietnam war. Those
screaming to "bomb Hanoi back to the stone age" were certainly willing to
"kill babies" and everyone knew it. Free fire zones also meant you would
kill anything that moved. When protesters chanted "hey hey LBJ how many
kinds did you kill today" there were highlighting the reality that the
government, not the military was making policy. That policy was the
unlimited use of indiscriminate force.

My parents were both Naval officers. I went to High School, College and
Law School In DC and nearby Maryland from 1964-1975. I was intensely
involved in the Vietnam debate. I deeply sympathized with members of the
military who found themselves in an impossible war. Virtually all were
decent men who found themselves in a dehumanizing situation. We now know
much better just how out of touch the washington leadership was with the
reality on the ground in Vietnam.

But "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

"It is the quality of patriotism to be jealous and watchful, to observe all
secret machinations, and to see publick dangers at a distance. The true
lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the
alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief.....
Samuel Johnson: The Patriot


Vince

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
wrote:
:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
: Peter Skelton wrote:
:
: :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
: wrote:
: :
: :Peter Skelton wrote:
: :
: ::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
: :
: :Where is your evidence for this?
: :
: :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
: r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:
: There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
: going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
: transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
: fence the other way".
:
: :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
: :that's saying a lot.
:
: It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
: clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:
:Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
:stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
:
:The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
:Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
:has been constant

No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.

Oh, wait. Those probably aren't the problem. The problem is that
you're such an inveterate liar.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn