|
"Something that's never addressed is WHY IN THE HELL you would publicly declare this crap (even if partially true) while our guys were over there?"
So, when should we have brought up VN war atrocities? After the war was over? I guess the Nazi's would have casually mentioned Auswitz after the war too (if they had won).
Kerry testified in what, '71? We didn't exit until '73. Meanwhile, how many more cases would have occurred? His testimony may not have made a big difference, but I think it was just another stake in the heart of that unjust war. It was a gutsy move, especially by someone who was so boldly (according to some) seeking a political career. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
I don't understand the anger against those who wanted the VN war to stop. Instead, the anger should be directed toward the leaders who took us there and kept us there. I realize many soldiers feel betrayed by the lack of confidence, but the blame is misplaced, just like criticism of Iraq today has nothing to do with our soldiers but with the leaders who put them there.
Iraq: 2004. Was it not acceptable to mention Abu Garib either? Tell me we should have waited until we were outa there, and only then reveal what happened. Is this acceptable?
Depending on your point of view, that's either courageous or cowardice.
Sherwood
|