Harry, I don't normally call names, but the above post, from one who was not
even in the military, deserves it.

You, sir, are a ****ing liar.

John H

John- the overwhelming majority of our troops served honorably in VN. But are
you
saying that anyone who suggests there were any atrocities ever committed, at
any time, by anybody there is an f-ing liar?

What about the many incidents the military officially acknowledges? Lt. Calle's
crew comes to mind right off the bat...(My Lai).

Gould 0738 wrote:
Harry, I don't normally call names, but the above post, from one who was not
even in the military, deserves it.

You, sir, are a ****ing liar.

John H

John- the overwhelming majority of our troops served honorably in VN. But are
you
saying that anyone who suggests there were any atrocities ever committed, at
any time, by anybody there is an f-ing liar?

What about the many incidents the military officially acknowledges? Lt. Calle's
crew comes to mind right off the bat...(My Lai).

In what passes for Herring's mind, our side committed no atrocities in
Vietnam.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

Funny how the Republican party was started to free the slaves.

Funnier yet when you consider that such a statement is untrue. Oh, yes, the
Republicans wrap themselves in the emancipation flag today, but 140 years ago,
that was not the case at all.

Republicans fought against the extension of slavery to newly acquired western
territories. True. They did this primarily because the southern planters were
threatening to shift the base of economic and political power away from highly
capitalized, industrial NE by dominating the House of Representatives. In the
middle of the 19th Century, slaves and indentured servants
were considered 3/5 of a person- so planters with enormous holdings could
almost count on controlling a specific congressional district. The greater a
state's population, (even at 3/5 per head) the greater the number of
congressional districts and representatives.

Don't forget what the Republicans proposed to *do* with the freed slaves. "Send
'em back to Africa!" (see the history of Liberia). Things haven't changed all
that much, I'm sure there are a lot of folks in the red states who still feel
the best solution for dealing with racial diversity would be, "Send 'em back to
Africa!"

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Funny how the Republican party was started to free the slaves.

Funnier yet when you consider that such a statement is untrue. Oh, yes,
the
Republicans wrap themselves in the emancipation flag today, but 140 years
ago,
that was not the case at all.

Republicans fought against the extension of slavery to newly acquired
western
territories. True. They did this primarily because the southern planters
were
threatening to shift the base of economic and political power away from
highly
capitalized, industrial NE by dominating the House of Representatives. In
the
middle of the 19th Century, slaves and indentured servants
were considered 3/5 of a person- so planters with enormous holdings could
almost count on controlling a specific congressional district. The greater
a
state's population, (even at 3/5 per head) the greater the number of
congressional districts and representatives.

Don't forget what the Republicans proposed to *do* with the freed slaves.
"Send
'em back to Africa!" (see the history of Liberia). Things haven't changed
all
that much, I'm sure there are a lot of folks in the red states who still
feel
the best solution for dealing with racial diversity would be, "Send 'em
back to
Africa!"



Regardless of whether or not this is true, what does it matter? You folks
on the left sure seem to like to wrap yourself in old history that has
nothing to do with the present.

Can you say John Kerry? LOL!

" jim--" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Funny how the Republican party was started to free the slaves.

Funnier yet when you consider that such a statement is untrue. Oh, yes,
the
Republicans wrap themselves in the emancipation flag today, but 140
years
ago,
that was not the case at all.

Republicans fought against the extension of slavery to newly acquired
western
territories. True. They did this primarily because the southern planters
were
threatening to shift the base of economic and political power away from
highly
capitalized, industrial NE by dominating the House of Representatives.
In
the
middle of the 19th Century, slaves and indentured servants
were considered 3/5 of a person- so planters with enormous holdings
could
almost count on controlling a specific congressional district. The
greater
a
state's population, (even at 3/5 per head) the greater the number of
congressional districts and representatives.

Don't forget what the Republicans proposed to *do* with the freed
slaves.
"Send
'em back to Africa!" (see the history of Liberia). Things haven't
changed
all
that much, I'm sure there are a lot of folks in the red states who still
feel
the best solution for dealing with racial diversity would be, "Send 'em
back to
Africa!"



Regardless of whether or not this is true, what does it matter? You folks
on the left sure seem to like to wrap yourself in old history that has
nothing to do with the present.

Can you say John Kerry? LOL!



The Moron Party has spoken.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


Chuck, there is a difference between saying 'there were atrocities
committed'
and, "'Such behavior was common in Vietnam..."

You are perfectly welcome to believe Harry, and assume that we witnessed
atrocities daily, or as a 'commonplace' occurrence. You are even welcome
to
believe Harry's assertions that I committed atrocities while in Vietnam.

I think you may be bumping into a difference of opinion here. If soldiers
reasoned that it was a good thing to waste an entire household, they may
have been functioning with the best information possible. It was probably
done by quite a few soldiers, but perhaps not on the scale of My Lai. Others
may consider this an atrocity, but done it anyway because it seemed correct
at the moment.

Almost three million of us committed that one, so you can add it to the list
above. What is your point? Are you, as some did after Kerry's presentation,
calling all the soldiers who went to Vietnam, "Baby Killers"?



The "Baby Killer" epithet became common after My Lai. The My Lai massacre
predated Kerry's testimony before the congressional hearing on war crimes.
Why do you suppose there *was* a hearing to investigate war crimes? You can't
blame that on Kerry.