posted on February 16, 2004 11:05:30 PM new
"You also state "It's the same thing going on now as went on when the democrats did it to Bush 2." Then you go on to name CNN, NBC, Newsweek, CBS, Stone Phillips, and Jonathan Alter. I have always thought these were news agencies and media representatives but I now find out they are Democrats."
LMAO at your naivete about Linda, Getalife! (She's never gotten over the demise of the Volkisher Beobachter ... )
posted on February 17, 2004 05:56:41 AM new
Fred, First, you charge a decorated vietnam veteran with being anti-war and now you fault him because he behaved like a soldier to defend himself and his buddies while in that war. What a pathetic effort to smear a vietnam veteran. You, who have really been involved in such combat should understand.
posted on February 17, 2004 09:32:29 AM new
Fred - shame, shame, shame on you for being so bold as to post DIRECT QUOTES from Kerry's own mouth. How dare you.
And yes....on the 200,000 vets.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on February 17, 2004 11:34:03 AM new
"You, who have really been involved in such combat should understand."
Yes I understand combat Helen! I didn't charge Kerry with anything. His own words did. Kerry and others like him should be charged with war crimes. They are guilty from their own mouth & Actions
Decorated does not make a hero. Honor does and John Kerry has no Honor or my respect.
I and others like me have that right to say that. We earned it on the Battle field. We did it with Honor.
posted on February 17, 2004 12:47:06 PM new
My answer Helen. Kerry His own words.
"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others," he told the network, "in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions and burned villages." If those 9000 died under those conditions. Those involved should be charged with War crimes. As Kerry should be.
posted on February 18, 2004 03:53:49 PM new
Fred, you failed to answer my quiestion.
My question again...How do you kill this many innocent people with "honor"...anybody know?
War crimes in Iraq
Thursday January 22, 2004
The Guardian
Professor Bowring et al's submission to the International Criminal Court (UK should face court for crimes in Iraq, January 21) has our ringing endorsement. We submitted a notice in October last year, asking the ICC to investigate war crimes against Iraq. This was followed by a petition signed by prominent people last December, which the ICC has acknowledged.
Our petition asserts that "shock and awe" bombing raids indiscriminately killed 15-35,000 people and injured untold others. This is an offence under article 8, schedule 6 of the ICC statute, enacted by the UK in 2001, which outlaws: (a)(iii) "wilfully causing great suffering"; (a)(iv) "extensive destruction and appropriation of property"; (b)(ii) "intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects" and; (b)(iv) "launching an attack in the knowledge that it will cause incidental loss of life".
Tony Blair admitted in parliament (Hansard, March 23 2002): "If there is conflict there will be civilian casualties", proving he knew the attack would kill or injure civilians.
We also allege that the invasion may constitute part of a genocidal campaign against Iraq which began with punitive sanctions in 1990. This blockade starved people of everything, including water purification facilities, to force Iraq to destroy weapons we now know Unscom destroyed in 1991-92. Madeleine Albright proved genocidal intent when, told that 460,000 children had died as a result of sanctions, she said: "It is a price worth paying." The US and UK governments continued the policy in this knowledge. To exacerbate such a tragedy by bombing raids is an offence under article 6, schedule 8 of the ICC Act.
These crimes must be prosecuted by the ICC as the attorney general, the CPS and the police have refused to even investigate.
Michael Mansfield QC and Dr James Thring
Legal Action Against War
The all-party parliamentary group on war and the law is looking at the laws relating to the use of military force and particularly the exercise of the royal prerogative. Several prominent MPs have expressed an interest and a cross-party representation attended a meeting on January 20, chaired by myself. The joint vice-chairmen are Bob Marshall Andrews QC MP (Lab) and Douglas Hogg QC MP (Con), Alan Simpson MP (Lab) is secretary and Lembit Opik MP (Lib), treasurer.
posted on February 18, 2004 04:19:29 PM new
9,000??? Maybe sometime we'll see what source that figure comes from.
---------
Imo, since Kerry blamed the vets of horrible killing crimes, after he returned from his 4 month combat time, then he too is quilty of those same crimes he accused his 'brothers' of committing. Especially since he admitted doing the same.
Think he'll be charged with war crimes like he suggested OUR government should?
His wanting to give US military control over to the UN rather than our making our own decisions.....will never set well with me.
Actually the figure is even higher than 9,000 according to the submission to the International Criminal Court noted in the story above which indicates 15 - 35,000.
linda, you know that Kerry didn't "blame" or "accuse" his fellow veterans of committing crimes. Kerry was describing the horror of war - especially, unecessary war. All killing is horrible. You would have to know the circumstances of each situation in order to judge criminality and you do not.
posted on February 18, 2004 04:46:08 PM new
Helen - The link I provided of Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress....is in Kerry's own words.
Are you saying that you would like to see the US tried for war crimes you feel we've committed against Iraq since 1990?
I just want to be clear on this.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on February 18, 2004 05:33:49 PM new
Linda,
I see you that you haven't taken responsibility for misquoting Kerry. I can't believe a thing that you say, Linda.
I certainly do believe that we should give the U.N. authority in Iraq and involve NATO.
This is the correct position of Kerry
Priorities
Return to the International Community and Offer a Real Partnership to Rebuild Iraq
John Kerry believes that we must obtain a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding of Iraq and the development of its new Constitution and government. He would:
Transfer Responsibility to the UN for Governance. Kerry will go to the UN with a proposal to transfer responsibility to the UN for governance and the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq. The UN would succeed the Coalition Provisional Authority and the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General would become the overall international leader in Iraq. The UN would work with the Iraqis on the substance and process of the Iraqi government and the electoral process to give it legitimacy and to organize the writing of the constitution. Kerry cautioned that this cannot happen overnight and that the CPA will have a key role in ensuring a smooth turnover.
Build an International Coalition. Kerry will reach out to the European nations to build a coalition in support of operations in Iraq. He will eliminate Bush’s discriminatory contracting procedures and offer a genuine partnership of responsibility in return for a genuine partnership of burden sharing – troops and money.
Internationalize the Troops in Iraq
John Kerry will work to expand participation and share responsibility with other countries in the military operations in Iraq. Kerry will also increase the size of the U.S. Army in order to meet the needs of a new century and the new global war on terror. The Bush Administration is overstretching the American military, and in particular the U.S. Army. There is a critical shortage of combat troops facing the country. General Keane, then acting Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last summer that the Army is undermanned by about 40,000 personnel. This shortage is placing an unfair burden on soldiers and their families and is undermining our efforts around the world.
40,000 Active-Duty Troops. Kerry is calling to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty Army. The United States should add the equivalent of a current division, about 20,000 combat troops, to the active duty Army. Under Kerry’s plan the United States should also add an additional 20,000 individuals to the active force with specialties in post-conflict skills, such as civil affairs and the military police in order to relieve the excessive burden on our reservists.
Relieve Pressure on Service Members. The buildup, which will require time to implement, will relieve the mismatch between active and reserve capabilities and also allow us to thank returning reservists when they rotate out of Iraq in 3 to 9 months—not just with our gratitude but with a reasonable assurance that they will not have to again deploy to Iraq in the immediate future.
posted on February 18, 2004 06:19:44 PM new
helen - You didn't answer my three questions above. Are you unwilling to?
Are you saying that after reading Kerry's 1971 speech to Congress that you didn't read where he accused US soldiers of war atrocities? If you are saying that, I'll go to that link and post them.
He did. So I'm not clear why you're saying what I say can't be believed. Maybe you'd like to explain that one to me.
------------
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) -- Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry called for United Nations control of the U.S. military in an interview 34 years ago with Harvard University's student newspaper.
Kerry was a long-shot congressional candidate in Massachusetts when he was interviewed by The Crimson in February 1970. He was also a 26-year-old Vietnam veteran fighting against the continuing war.
He described himself as "an internationalist" and said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity."
:::BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY TO ME: "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations," Kerry said.
His statement is quiet clear and his voting history backs up that he still is.
In 1984 he called for a freeze on NW.
He voted against Persian Gulf war.
He tried several times to cut spending fo US intelligence.
And while voting for the Iraq war this time, he voted against needed funding for our troops.
Sure looks like an anti-war, Internationalist to me....hasn't changed since the 70's.
posted on February 18, 2004 06:23:20 PM new
Really, Helen, don't you know anything? The great fear of UN-backed military forces has its roots in The New World Order conspiracy, which says that we're being alternately eaten alive or turned into mindless zombies by several secret cabals -- the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Tri-lateral Commission, Freemasons, the United Nations, Skull & Bonesers, etc. -- all of which have overlapping membership rosters and are committed in one way or another to The Forces of Darkness and total domination of the many by a very chosen and interconnected few. The best sites about this global, secret, fascist network have a Christian bible-based theme. ( -Really, if you want to laugh your a$$ off some time, Google up a search for 'New World Order secret society bible prophecy'. Some of the LoonyToons out there are hilarious in their paranoia, and they so skew what Matthew, Mark, etc., wrote that one feels compelled to reread the bible.) Hey, maybe THAT's the REAL conspiracy, eh?! )
Now, I'm not gonna speak for Linda cuz she can do that herself, but I've read enough to know that people who oppose the UN are usually afraid of it for the most far-fetched (but perfectly paranoid) reasons: "The UN will take my guns!" "The UN wants to run the world!" "The UN is Satan's tool!"
If you have read
that and don't read where he directly speaks of the war crimes the vets committed....I don't know what to say. He's blaming them.....and he committed war crimes himself, according to those same 'rules' he applied to our Vietnam vets then, while he served in Vietnam.
Wouldn't look to good to have a President of the US convicted for Vietnam war crimes under your international investigative group would it?
-----
There are millions of American's that believe this country fought for it's independence NOT to turn around and give it's souventry up to the power of the UN.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 18, 2004 06:39 PM ]
I understand the basis for your question about internationalism was reported by Newsmax...a quote made in 1970 taken out of context. Why don't you post the story or any supporting information that you may have.
I don't intend to answer any of your questions because I doubt the veracity of your information. It's just that simple. I don't intend to spend the rest of the evening researching everything that you tell me.
posted on February 18, 2004 06:45:22 PM new
"There are millions of American's that believe this country fought for it's independence NOT to turn around and give it up to the power of the UN."
Who has suggested that America's independence be given up to the power of the UN? Kerry has proposed that UN forces under American control be dispatched to Iraq.
How is that a loss of independence or control over the rebuilding of Iraq?
Are you really happier footing the bill with our soldiers' lives and every last tax-dollar you have?
Lastly, I want to see some proof -- and not from Pat Robertson's CBN -- that there are "millions" of Americans who believe as you do, Linda.
posted on February 18, 2004 06:45:38 PM new
Helen - There's no reason that I can see that you can't answer my three questions, above, without my links. YOUR position has nothing to do with any links. I'm asking where YOU stand on those questions, not according to whether or not you think Kerry holds that position.
YOUR answers.
--------
Kerry has been quoted all over the internet as saying himself, he was an Internationalist. You google well....pull a few up for yourself.
You'll see him quoted there. I'll get just one for you. But I doubt that if it's wasn't printed in the NYTs you still won't believe he said it anyway.
Re-elect President Bush!!
