Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Abu Ghraib prison are type of incidents Kerry spoke out against in 71'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
The Lone Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:42 PM
Original message
Abu Ghraib prison are type of incidents Kerry spoke out against in 71'
Edited on Thu Apr-29-04 09:45 PM by The Lone Liberal
The act of inhumanity that occurred in Abu Ghraib prison is representative of the types of things that John Kerry referred to in his congressional testimony back in 1971. Act such as occurred at Abu Ghraib are not to be tolerated and must be condemned by any human. Such acts did occur in Vietnam. To deny that they did not is to try an rewrite history. Did every young man in uniform take part in such act, no. Kerry did not say that they did. He did say that such act occurred and they did, May Lai is an example.

It is now coming out that we Americans were operating the Saddam prison with as much inhumanity as did Saddam. The photos do not lie.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/27/60II/main6140...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madmax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. LL you hit the nail on the head.
I believe most soldiers are honorable, then again there will always be a few sociopaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. I wish Kerry would condemn this.
Have not seen him comment.

Can someone please provide a link that shows he has?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Yes - he should say something...but not too much...
risky...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. He should say shitloads!
You don't want a man afraid to take a risk?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I just wouldn't want to alientate the entire military....
He's a winner on this issue all the way...it wont take too much to drive it home...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. How is anyone a winner in this fucking war?
How? Please tell me????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Nobody said he was a winner in the war...!
...but this offers him some level of vindication from his post VietNam activities...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. His post-Vietnam activities were good!
Now? Pfffftt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I agree - but many have taken issue...
...with what he did after VietNam (NOT ME - I love it) - and this offers him some vindication for those who questioned his actions...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I am more concerned with his actions NOW!!!
Which are milquetoast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Actually, Kerry was speaking of My Lais
However, we don't train our soldiers for war very well.

I did basic training shortly after the Vietnam war was over. My Lai was still fresh in the nation's conscience. There was an afternoon of training on war crimes. Perhaps that's not done any more. One might get the idea with the contempt expressed by neocons for the ICC and the erection of the latter-day Andersonville at Guantanamo that the junta does not place a value on conformity to international conventions or norms of civilized behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Abu Ghraib can be traced to the spooks
Just like most of the incidents in Nam, the CIA and Phoneix committed the most egregious acts of the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. Great Point! This weakens the gripes about Kerry's post Nam actions
This weakens their whole case against Kerry and what he did after Viet Nam...Kerry was RIGHT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think that Kerry's surrogates should begin asking the RW point men
and media pundits what they think of these outrageous and sadistic acts by modern-day US soldiers (and don't let them wiggle out on the "well, I don't know that it happened...I'll wait for confirmation" excuse. Ask them to assume that our troops have been torturing Iraqis and humiliating them in violation of the Geneva Conventions).

The RW can answer in two ways: 1) I approve of such torture and humiliation, or 2) I don't approve. If they don't approve, they've just taken the same position Kerry took in 1971. If they do approve, then they've just revealed themselves as ghouls.

Follow-up questions: if they approve of the torture, are they OK with such things happening to American troops as well?

If they think the torture and humiliation is wrong, then are they now siding with Kerry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. More here, for those who missed it last night
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is what war does to people
It does not matter what is your nationality, this is the scary transformation that occurs during wartime
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. Yeah, in 1971 Kerry actually stood for something

Too bad that since then he voted for the war, has said that he will "stay the course" as President and supports current operations to crush resistance from Shiite militias demanding elections and national indpendance. Given his vote, Kerry is directly, partially responsible for all of the atrocities being carried out in Iraq, including the prison incidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Giant leap of logic there.....
Sort of like Nader is responsible because he took votes away from Gore in 2000. Kerry stands for something now. Let me ask you this, how would you solve Iraq? Just leave them to fight it out amongst themselves? How many innocents would die then? It would be a blood bath of a civil war. Like the Balkans, before Clinton sent troops. We are in Iraq and it is a hell of a mess. We allow Bush to be reelected and we are subject to being in Syria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Easy. Leave.

The longer the US "stays the course," the more working class Americans in uniform, Iraqi resistance fighters and Iraqi civlians will die. The idea that civil war will break out is unsupported by evidence, just a scare tactic by hawks to allow Bush to continue to send their kids off to die in Iraq. As Tariq Ali has put it, "'civil war' is a phrase that has not been so much as breathed by any Iraqis." In fact, recent weeks have shown that Sunnis and Shiites are more than happy to cooperate with each other in a war of national liberation against the occupation, Fallujah and Najaf standing at one! Personally, since no one who supports democracy could disagree with the demands being raised by al-Sadr's movement for elections and national independance (things that we gained in this country a couple of hundred years ago from he British via similar means), I don't see why we shouldn't just surrender.

The idea that the war was a bad idea in the first place but has to be fought "until victory" (its not clear what that would even MEAN under the circumstances, think Vietnam) is logically incoherent. Its like responding to the realization that you're going in the wrong direction by speeding up.

I hate to come off as an arrogant bastard by quoting myself, but I'm too tired to re-formulate this all now, so I will, from an article I wrote right after the popular uprising against the occupation started and that appeared in The Michigan Socialist,
'The People of Iraq Are Not the Enemy'.

"If Bush and Bremer really wanted a peaceful transfer of power to the Iraqis, they could accomplish that with one or two phone calls. All that would be required would be an unconditional surrender to the Shiite militias, a ceasefire to which effect could probably be brokered in a matter of hours. A full transfer of power to a provisional government formed by the rebels and empowered to organize direct elections to a constitutional convention could be secured within days, and there is no logistical reason why the full, orderly withdrawal of American and "coalition" soldiers from Iraq (protected by the surrender agreement) would have to take longer than the three weeks it took them to drive to Baghdad (through heavy fighting) in the first place.....

"The movement's message to those troops stationed in Iraq should be terribly simple. "Unlike Bush and his accomplices, we truly support you, we believe that your blood is worth more than Iraq 's oil. Lay down your arms! Camp out in your bases and refuse to go on patrol. Refuse to fire on crowds of Iraqis who want what we in America ourselves gained by force of arms in the eighteenth century, independence from foreign rule. The people of Iraq are not your enemy. The people who sent you off to die for the sake of oil profits, regional control and 'reconstruction contracts' are the enemy, in Iraq no less than in shop floor struggles for better wages and working conditions back home.

"Being a soldier does not make you less a citizen entitled to equal protection under the law. According to the U.S. Constitution and foreign treaties signed by the United States government, thereby becoming supreme law according to that constitution, you have no legal obligation to follow immoral, illegal orders to fight in Bush's dirty war of counter-insurgency....."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. I do not believe we can leave them without some form of government.
We tore the society apart...now we just leave them to their own devices? Do we leave them to the Islamic fundamentalist. Damn, that would be worse than Saddam. A vacuum would be filled with something, I want to at least give them a fighting chance. There must be another way other than what we are currently pursuing, or just bugging out.

I don't want another Cambodia on my soul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. That's a stupid thing to say
really dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Wow!

I think that this is what logicians call "Modus Kindergarden-us," the stunningly effective rational argument that says, "yeah, well, you're stupid!" The fact that Kerry did in fact vote for the war, and supports its continuance despite the fact that by its very nature as a war of counter-insurgency against the people of Iraq it involves these kinds of atrocities, does make him partially responsible for these atrocities. Hell, based on the kinds of things he said in his testimony to Congress, 1971-Kerry would have probably agreed with me. (I'm thinking particularly of his comment about all the people responsible for My Lai.) You have no argument, so we're down to, "you're stupid!", "no, you're stupid!" Come back when you come up with a way that, as some one in a position of power who voted for the war, Kerry is not partially responsible for all of the horrible and entirely predictable shit that the war has involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Even if he had voted against the war...
...wouldn't he still be partially responsible? Because he is in a "position of power" and could not create a anti-war constituency.

Not that great - but that's the best I can come up with...

Obviously this has been a problem issue for him. I'm not that troubled by it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debsianben Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Maybe, but there's a difference.

Under the scenario you outlined, maybe you could make a case that he's "indirectly responsible," although that's a separate issue and I tend to think that getting into that kind of thing too much leads to the "every one is guilty, so no one is guilty" mindset. However, since he voted for the damn war, there's really no ambiguity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. But given the high-BushCo approval numbers...
Edited on Thu Apr-29-04 11:17 PM by hexola
But given the high-BushCo approval numbers...by voting for the war...would he not really be just honoring the wishes of his constituency?

And remember - the planes that hit WTC took off from Boston...so he is in a unique situation, politically.

Kerry is in tough position because he has been both a man of peace, and a man of war...

Now he is running for job where he needs the experience from both ends of this dichotomy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
23. Waiting for him to say something in 2004.
And he better start quick if he expects support from an absolutely APPALLED anti-war crowd.

I may vote for Kerry but I will not lift a finger until he realizes that his votes of the last 10 years have obliterated any admiration I have for what he stood for in '71.

The ball is in Kerry's court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Lone Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Okay, lets write Kerry off.... What now?
Bush?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. The ball is in Kerry's court
Bush alone does not bear the full brunt of my anger over Iraq. Everyone who enabled that idiot child by voting to hand him that blow-torch is responsible for this. People like Kerry were supposedly the adults in charge and I don't buy his excuse that he was fooled (because the best that says is that he is not bright enough not to get fooled again and the worst it says is that he, who pushed the stories about WMDs for 14 straight years and wanted Clinton to attack Iraq, was not fooled). Many men were not "fooled", why should I vote for someone who was? I read Hamza's testimony- it was so ludicrous that it was ridiculed by people like Kucinich and Feingold. Byrd spoke out loud and clear begging those DLC clowns not to do this. How did Kerry miss all of that?

I realize my back is plastered flat against a wall and I do not appreciate the collaborating DLC's heavy tactics in getting one of their PPI guys elected when they know how angry enough Americans are over this war.

If I do vote for Kerry because something better doesn't miraculously happen and there are no recent slaughters in Iraq to remind me of his votes, no huge corporate takeovers of little countries, or coups in Oct/Nov; it will be a vote along the lines that Chomsky's advocating- vote for him but hound him and hold his feet to the fire.

I hope you don't think for one minute that this is not a great dilemna for many of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arianrhod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I find it very interesting
that, after Dean produced a huge grassroots following and raised more money in a single quarter than any Democrat in history, all of a sudden Kerry is "the man". I had no intentions of voting for him in the primaries, and I don't particularly appreciate having to vote for him for President. He says a few good things--when he bothers to speak at all (notice how his fire died after he was all but anointed?)--but Dean said them first and better. Kerry is mainstream all the way, IMO. It's not enough to say that he's a better choice than *. A lizard is a better choice than *.

I will vote Kerry, make no mistake of that. We must stop the utter and blatant destruction of the country, and Kerry will at least slow it down. But if we don't get someone in office soon who actually believes in the values we on DU are pursuing, we may as well say goodbye to democracy altogether. If it's not too late already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. That's about how I feel
And I wasn't even a Dean fan but I do feel he was the people's choice and I find Kerry's win very interesting as well.

Your words echo my sentiments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-04 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. I will vote for him with a clothespin and a bucket....
...maybe also an adult diaper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
32. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 26th 2014, 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC