John Kerry the Betrayer: Unfit to Command, part 3

[Ned]

Originally posted by Guardian

As for the allegations of Kerry being a traitor because he spoke up against the way the Vietnam war was being fought... well, excuse me, but I was under the impression that the US was supposed to be a democracy with freedom of speech as one of its' core values. Alas, this does not seem to be the case anymore.

Guardian, why of course his testimony was privileged. But his statements still were damaging to the US and helped the enemy primarily because they were laced with half truths and outright lies.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by molly bloom


The raids were flown by B-52 bombers which, it is important to note at the outset, fly at an altitude too high to be observed from the ground and carry immense tonnages of high explosive: they give no warning of approach and are incapable of accuracy or discrimination because of both their altitude and the mass of their shells. Between 18 March 1969 and May 1970, 3,630 such raids were flown across the Cambodian frontier. The bombing campaign began as it was to go on - with full knowledge of its effect on civilians, and with flagrant deceit by Mr Kissinger in this precise respect.

......

When I divide 600,000 (the supposed number of people killed by the U.S. bombing) by 3,630 (the number of raids during the secret bombing campaign) I get 165 and some change. Are you saying that each raid killed 165 civilians on average? Even if each raid killed 1/10th of that I'd be shocked. The total number killed would amount to 8.5% of the population of Cambodia in 1975, a country which has 181,035 square kilometers. That must have been some incredibly (in)accurate bombing.

Considering that the bombing was aimed at the Ho Chi Minh trail, and no one here has made a case that maximizing the total number of civilian casualties was U.S. policy I think there is something very wrong with these numbers.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

Yes, but you miss the fact that protests widened after Cambodia and the Pentagon Papers- the anti-war movement always opposed Nixon in Vietnam, and they GOT STRONGER thanks to Nixon's actions.

The anti-war movement was not much of a force politically during Nixon's presidency. It had more of an impact in 1968 frankly. You wouldn't know this from the press coverage of the time, or from much of the history written since that time which was colored by that press coverage. But Nixon the war monger whipped McGovern the peace candidate's ass in 1972, in part I think to a backlash against the radicalism of the peace movement and the focus on that movement by the press. The movement peaked in 1970 on college campuses, but even there it was a minority movement. Many people were vaguely supportive, many weren't and few were activists.

[Ned]

The center of the "peace" movement was the SDS. That movement fractured in '69-'70, with one branch becoming the Weather underground and the other traditional communists. Neither had much appeal to the typical middle class college student as had the SDS.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It actually makes me question something else:
His balls and his willingness to say something that might displease people.

This campaign seems to be completely devoid of platforms because Kerry refuses to put daring ideas on the table, in order not to alienate any undecided voter. Kerry emphasized on the one aspect of his personality that should make everybody like him (the war hero thing).

It was a stupid move, and I think it is the greatest proof of the "flip-flopping" allegations.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Sikander

When I divide 600,000 (the supposed number of people killed by the U.S. bombing) by 3,630 (the number of raids during the secret bombing campaign) I get 165 and some change. Are you saying that each raid killed 165 civilians on average? Even if each raid killed 1/10th of that I'd be shocked. The total number killed would amount to 8.5% of the population of Cambodia in 1975, a country which has 181,035 square kilometers. That must have been some incredibly (in)accurate bombing.

Considering that the bombing was aimed at the Ho Chi Minh trail, and no one here has made a case that maximizing the total number of civilian casualties was U.S. policy I think there is something very wrong with these numbers.

Well, you have to realize how these B-52s operated at the time.

Unlike modern air campaigns, these were not surgical strikes aimed at specific targets. It was actually more like the carpet bombings of WW II, only with tremendously increased firepower. The B-52s flew in groups, targeted "boxes" of a couple of square kilometers at a time and pretty much obliterated everything within that box.

The thing is, when you wreak havoc on such a grand scale, it does tend to hurt civilians no matter what your policy is on the matter.

[Drake Tungsten]

Jesus, I go away for two days and you guys manage to not only kill the second thread, but also to get this one halfway to 500? Impressive...

[Patroklos]

However, we were not exactly bombing population centers either. We were bombing some of the most rural areas of the country. Not only that, for the most part we were bombing the same places over again.

Kerry was a reserve officer in the Navy at the time, and thus everything intellectual he produced, to include speech, is owned by the US government. Treason is the exact word to explain what he did, in a more civilized time he would have been executed.

And while you CAN get PH's for any wound, as Kerry has proven, it is a fact that you don't and shouldn't. And no PH's cannot be given for freindly fire unless it is during combat. The only reason why the instruction is vague is because what would be the criteria for a "serious" wound? That is why the awards has review for level headed responsible people to look it over. In Vietnam Kerry knew he would be the defacto review, and abused the power. Again, not damning but definetly dishonest, especailly for an award which is sacred to the fold.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Sikander
As for the bombing, I find the casualty numbers stated on this thread (5-600,000 KIA) hard to believe given the lack of metropolitan areas in the area of operation. We didn't kill nearly that many in North Vietnam which was more urban and bombed on and off for many more years. I imagine that the numbers are estimates and include people displaced / killed by the military actions of the Cambodian government forces, NVA, U.S., ARVN and Khmer Rouge over the years.

A lot of the urban areas of NV were off-limits for the majority of the war. The vast majority of the B-52 missions were flown over South Vietnam and Cambodia/Laos whilst most of the air strikes into the North were F-4's, F-105's and the like using guided weapons against bridges and other clearly identifiable targets. The reason was simply that pictures of the devastation caused by area bombing in North Vietnam would have been a gift to the communist and anti-war media whilst the same level of devastation elsewhere was either in no-one's interest to report or a South Vietnamese problem.

Only when Nixon was prepared to throw everything at NV to get a negotiated settlement were the harbours mined and the B-52's let loose with few restrictions (don't bomb the foreign embassies in Hanoi basically). He got his settlement shortly after that.


Having read this thread and its predecessor on and off I am left with only one thought - the US gets the President it deserves.

Makes me rather glad not to live in the US if this is all that goes on for one year in every four.

[Patroklos]

So, assuming that we move on from the Kerry war record thing, where will we go. As far as I can tell Kerry hasn't said a thing about anything else, besides "I will de better, trust me."

[Drake Tungsten]

So, assuming that we move on from the Kerry war record thing, where will we go. As far as I can tell Kerry hasn't said a thing about anything else, besides "I will de better, trust me."

Mickey Kaus (a Kerry supporter) has a funny quote that relates to that...

Let's assume that a certain amount of hype is standard procedure in military write-ups, especially when medals are involved. The problem is that Kerry is running for president on this official hype of a more-than-honorable record (one reason he's constantly referring reporters to his official medal citations). He's not only running on the hype but pushing it to the limit, milking it for all it's worth. That's dangerous in, yes, the Internet era! Obsessive fact-checkers can smoke out the exaggerations and get them past the ex-gatekeepers.** Unfortunately, it's more or less all Kerry's got. It wouldn't be so important if Kerry had a) a discernable ideology; b) a political message; c) a record of achievement; or d) an appealing personality!

It's funny cuz it's true.

[Spiffor]

I completely agree with the Mickey Kaus quote.

That smear campaign would be nothing if Kerry wasn't so damn empty.

Kerry should be campaigning on the grounds of "I'm not George Bush" (who has a discernable, and highly dislikeable personality), instead of lying or exagerating about things that could be easily blown away.

[Patroklos]

I think he does have the typical "coolguy" democrat personality, but other than that it is a good quote.

The ideology thing hurts him the most I would say.

[Agathon]

This will all have died out in 2 weeks.

[DinoDoc]

Not if Kerry keeps acting hysterical about it.