Beyond My Lai : New Revelations of Vietnam Atrocities

How long does it take the US government to release documentation about atrocities in which US military forces killed unarmed civilians, women and children? In the case of Vietnam, it's taken almost 40 years. The 1968 My Lai massacre became public in 1969, but officials at the time said My Lai was an "isolated incident"--the same thing we hear about atrocities today in Iraq and elsewhere. After that, GIs described dozens of other My Lai-style atrocities in which they said they had taken part. Those GIs were called liars and traitors, and no one was ever punished for any of the events they described.

Now the Los Angeles Times has published a page one story, "Vietnam Horrors: Darkest Yet," based on official government documents detailing 320 incidents of Vietnam war atrocities that were confirmed by army investigators. The documentation, according to the Times, comes from "a once-secret archive assembled by a Pentagon task force in the early 1970s." This "Vietnam War Crimes Working Group" archive, 9,000 pages long, was discovered by Nick Turse, who was doing research for a Ph.D. dissertation as a student at Columbia University. Turse shares the byline on the Times report with staff writer Deborah Nelson.

The stories are terrible. "Kill anything that moves" – that's what one company of American soldiers was told when they set out on a sweep of the rice paddies on Vietnam's central coast in February 1968, according to Jamie Henry, at the time a 20-year old medic. So they shot and killed 19 unarmed civilians, women and children. When Henry got home to California, he held a news conference describing the slaughter, but there was no official response. Now we learn that the army did investigate his report -- and concluded it was accurate – but did nothing to punish the guilty.

The official line that abuses were "confined to a few rogue units" is demolished by the material Turse discovered. Atrocities were committed, according to the Times, by "every army division that operated in Vietnam." They found a pattern of "recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese--families in their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing," who were "murdered, raped and tortured with impunity" by American soldiers.

Military investigators documented seven large-scale massacres between 1967 and 1971 in which at least 137 civilians were killed. They described 78 other attacks on civilian noncombatants in which US troops killed at least 57, wounded 56 and sexually assaulted 15. They described 141 incidents of torture of civilians, including the use of electric shock.

The evidence against 203 soldiers was strong enough for the military to bring formal charges of war crimes. According to the Times investigation, 57 were court-martialed and 23 convicted – about ten percent. Fourteen were sentenced to prison for terms ranging from six months to 20 years, but most appealed and won significant reductions. The longest sentence, 20 years, went to an interrogator convicted of "committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut." He served only six months.

Army investigators came to no finding about 500 other reports of atrocities, some of which described extensive killing. One sergeant reported in a 1970 letter about a pattern of American soldiers murdering civilians in the Mekong Delta in 1970. "I am trying to tell you about 120-150 murders, or a My Lay [sic] each month for over a year," he wrote. The Times reported that "there is no evidence in the files that his complaint was investigated further." The extensive LA Times report includes details about particular incidents and online links to documents including statements by participants in atrocities and a memo from White House counsel John Dean.

Of course this archive deals only with Vietnam atrocities that the army investigated. Doubtlessly hundreds, perhaps thousands of other incidents were not reported – for example former Senator Bob Kerrey's role in killing unarmed Vietnamese villagers in the Mekong Delta in 1969, first reported in 2001.

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and official US policy require the protection of civilian non-combatants in wartime. Public opinion in the US turned against the Vietnam war in part because My Lai suggested it was a war on the Vietnamese civilian population rather than a defense of freedom and democracy, as Nixon claimed. 125 eyewitness reports of atrocities were presented at the "Winter Soldier Investigation" in Detroit in 1971, organized by Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Senator John Kerry, an anti-war Vietnam vet at the time, described those hearings in his Senate testimony in 1971.

The only recent report confirming Vietnam atrocities was the "Tiger Force" story that won the Toledo Blade a Pulitzer prize in 2004. Tiger Force was an elite unit of the 101st Airborne division that, according to the Blade, "killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage." That story also revealed that army officials failed to stop the atrocities and then failed to prosecute soldiers found to have committed war crimes. That story recently was told in a book, Tiger Force: A True Story of Men and War. The new revelations in the LA Times are much broader and deal, not with a single unit, but rather with every division that fought in Vietnam.

As for Iraq today, reports of war crimes committed there by US forces have appeared recently. The LA Times has been covering a family of four in Baghdad murdered by US military, including a 14-year-old girl apparently raped first, and her 5-year old sister shot in the head. The incident has gotten a lot of coverage in Iraq.

The records of the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group that Nick Turse discovered in the National Archives, and that provided the basis for the L.A. Times story, have now been closed to the public, on the grounds that they contain personal information exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Vietnam documents inevitably raise the question of whether we are getting the full story now about Iraq, and whether the military has changed its Vietnam-era practices of secret investigations of atrocities concluding with no punishment for the guilty. We may have to wait another 40 years to find out.

Comments (141)

1. "We may have to wait another 40 years to find out."

   When we are still in Iraq.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 08/07/2006 @ 7:40pm

2. This simply shows the essential importance of open access to government records and the natural characteristics of warfare in an asymetrical conflict. None of this is really a surprise or revelation, it has been known since the "Winter Soldier" hearings. This just confirms the stories of the soldiers who were there and tried to do what's right. Maybe they will be vindicated at last and recognized for the true American heros they have always been.

   By the way, lets here it for the historian who uncovered this too. We've been fighting practically alone for open access to government documents ever since BushCo took office and instituted their uber-secrecy regime. Time to let the sunshine in before we really do live up to BlueTexan's fears and allow these BushCo morons to keep their misdeeds and mistakes hidden for forty years.

   Posted by Stwriley at 08/07/2006 @ 7:59pm

3. it sure got to you freibaby

   Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 8:39pm

4. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/07/2006 @ 8:17pm: But an article such as this won't do anything to eliminate war, will it? It will just ignite passions on both sides of the issue. Clearly the author's dubious intent.

   What's your point, Frei? Is it better not to know the glorious things we do for freedom and democracy?

   Aren't you proud of the American military?

   Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 8:52pm

5. Its one thing to torture or commit atrocities to enemy soldiers who have done the same to our soldiers. But to civilians including women and children, it is another matter. Making matters worse during a war against an enemy who did not attack or threaten our own country. Can someone please reply with an explanation of when it would be justified to murder unarmed civilians? (Beware, this is a trick question)

   Posted by Steve100 at 08/07/2006 @ 8:55pm

6. Posted by STEVE100 08/07/2006 @ 8:55pm: Can someone please reply with an explanation of when it would be justified to murder unarmed civilians? (Beware, this is a trick question)

   I know... When you are killing unarmed civilians to bring them the glory of freedom.

   Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 8:57pm

7. Yes it wouldn't do to "ignite passions" about a little thing like war time atrocities. Let's save our indignation for the important issues e.g. flag burning and gay mariage.

   Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/07/2006 @ 9:05pm

8. Pardon my French: marriage

   Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/07/2006 @ 9:07pm

9. Frei, I'm with you. War crimes are only committed by the losers who can no longer guarantee the security of their borders against international police.

   Hmmm....What does this say about Alberto Gonzales' recent request of Congress to review the U.S. statutes concerning war crimes?

   Posted by canaar at 08/07/2006 @ 9:42pm

10. Those that forget history...

    No real suprises here is right. Except that it has been denied for years by those that love war, and think Fonda caused the defeat of the US. Just as many here deny any wrongdoing in Iraq.

    War is hell. It should be the last resort, not a poorly planned and excecuted experiment, or family revenge.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 9:54pm

11. STWRILEY, Can you write a little about succesful invasions of the recent past, say 100 years? How many "colonial" or "defensive" invasions have succeeded? I think of Viet nam, Algeria and British India but I know I am missing quite a few. Of any that worked, what did they do right? If you can do this in such a forum without Plunger size posts.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 9:59pm

12. Can someone please reply with an explanation of when it would be justified to murder unarmed civilians? (Beware, this is a trick question)

    Posted by STEVE100 08/07/2006 @ 8:55pm | ignore this person

    When you think, maybe, there might be a future threat against yourself, or there might, maybe be some kind of weapon hidden somewhere in or around their home/office/school/hospital/region or they have allowed a bad guy to roam around their village/state/nation or they are in the wrong place at the wrong time or they don't like you roaming around their village/town/city/state/nation. Democracy is messy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 10:11pm

13. Raises an interesting point...

    Mr Weiner would no doubt raise such war crimes as ...what? MORE reasons to not to war (if he's a true pacifist).

    But we've seen atrocities from the UN "peacekeepers" in Africa....and would Mr Weiner use THOSE war crimes as a reason not to use the UN or peacekeeping forces?

    I doubt it...such is the nature of war and war crimes. If it's a "war" you like, you overlook the crimes more easily. Or just realize that such things happen in peace or war, soldier or civilians.

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 10:34pm

14. In this post, I read no across-the-board indictment of members of the American military, or the military of any other country. I read a very strong indictment of military officials who have lied about the atrocities committed by certain members of the military, and who have neglected to investigate said atrocities for whatever reason.

    We deserve to know what is really happening when we send people overseas to fight, kill and die "for the defense of our country." Perhaps fewer citizens would be as eager to act as cheerleaders for misguided invasions if they had all the information. Do you feel as if we should NOT have this information, FREI???

    Posted by liveeasy at 08/07/2006 @ 10:39pm

15. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/07/2006 @ 10:28pm: Well, yes, i am proud of the american military

    Well, you have a strange way of showing it, Frei.

    i find it interesting that some here act as if military members aren't members of our society. As if the military is exempt from the very same rape and criminal activity that exists in virtually every society, US included.

    I am not sure who the "some here" is. But, I am in agreement with you. The military is not exempt from the very same rape and criminal activity that exists in virtually every society, US included.

    And, just as in ordinary society, when soldiers engage in rape and criminal activity, they should be arrested, convicted, and put in jail. Don't ya think, Frei?

    One of the interesting aspects of the post was that, in fact, most of the perps were not arrested, convicted, and put in jail. Don't you think that is wrong, Frei?

    Shouldn't someone who commits "indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut" serve more than 6 months?

    Or, do you approve of comitting "indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut"?

    And I don't mean to excuse that.

    So, I assume, that you are also outraged that the perps were not thrown in jail. Right, Frei?

    But it is typical of the left to indict all for the actions of a few, where it serves its purpose.

    Who did that? Who said that every soldier is a criminal?

    You seem to be objecting to the release of information that might be helpful in bringing the criminals to justice. Do you have a reason for wanting to cover-up for criminals so that they can reamin in the military, further despoiling its effectiveness, efficiency, and reputation?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 10:40pm

16. Posted by MASK 08/07/2006 @ 10:34pm: Or just realize that such things happen in peace or war, soldier or civilians.

    The difference is that when the rapists and murderers are civilians, they are thrown in jail. When they are soldiers, we choose to "overlook" it.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 10:43pm

17. Mr Weiner would no doubt raise such war crimes as ...what? MORE reasons to not to war (if he's a true pacifist).

    MASK, in his infinite wisdom, once again attributes a motive to the author that was not stated in the original post. And again, he uses this assumed motive as a launching point for an argument which has nothing at all to do with the main point of the original post, and which serves only to distract from a discussion about that main point (which is, by the way, in this case, that withholding information about wartime atrocities committed by our soldiers is BAD).

    Posted by liveeasy at 08/07/2006 @ 10:45pm

18. I've read some suggestions in recent weeks about getting MASK signed up for READING COMP 101...definitely a good idea. Identifying main points, making correct inferences, using what's actually written in a text to support an argument--all skills taught in 4th grade.

    Posted by liveeasy at 08/07/2006 @ 10:48pm

19. But it is typical of the left to indict all for the actions of a few, where it serves its purpose.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/07/2006 @ 10:28pm | ignore this person

    Perhaps you missed this from Weiners article; "Atrocities were committed, according to the Times, by "every army division that operated in Vietnam." "

    This was not done in a vacuum. It takes compliance from lower, as well as higher ranking soldiers for things to get this out of control. If you have never read The Blade story on Tiger Force, I recommend it. It is a chilling tale indeed. I have not read the book.

    Put on a uniform with an American flag on it, take an oath and you are no longer just a citizen. You represent all of America and what it is supposed to stand for. I KNOW this is not typical behavior. It only takes six guys in Abu Graib to lose a year of good work done by their fellow men at arms. If you think libs are incessed (hehe, he wrote incessed, hehe) how do you think the Vietnamese or Iraqis view it?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 10:48pm

20. Posted by LIVEEASY 08/07/2006 @ 10:39pm

    Apparently, to be a true believer in the Dear Leader Society, you must understand the importance of covering up for murderers and rapists, so that they can maintain their status as soldiers in the US military.

    After all, we are letting them rape and murder over there, so they don't rape and murder over here.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 10:50pm

21. I've read some suggestions in recent weeks about getting MASK signed up for READING COMP 101...definitely a good idea. Identifying main points, making correct inferences, using what's actually written in a text to support an argument--all skills taught in 4th grade.

    Posted by LIVEEASY 08/07/2006 @ 10:48pm | ignore this person

    Evelyn Woodheads spedreding corse . My reding and comprension have incresed drama-tic, drama-itic, drama-tic-cally since i began the Ev-elyn Wood..head sped reding corse.

    Thanks Cheech and Tommy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 10:54pm

22. FREI:

    Your point that these atrocities occur in every war is not in dispute. And should this fact alone invalidate our nation's involvement in any armed conflict? No. By that logic, the fact that these atrocities also occur in everyday life would invalidate our entire concept of striving for a "civilized" society.

    But the point I get from Mr. Wiener's post is that, despite the fact that we all know these things happen in war, we're not getting any better at bringing to account the dispicable people who engage in such activity. And we're also not hearing the whole story re: how these atrocities are allowed to occur - in some cases not the horrible acts of a few depraved individuals, but rather trained killers acting on orders from above.

    Posted by liveeasy at 08/07/2006 @ 10:55pm

23. Uh oh...he's babbling nonsense syllables now. Must be bedtime.

    Posted by liveeasy at 08/07/2006 @ 11:05pm

24. It isn't about being proud or not being proud of the US Military... it is about recognizing reality. The pressure of killing or being killed builds the longer one is in the field. At some point many soldiers see day to day life as "If you ain't one of us, then you one of them."

    "Them" is the enemy and the enemy is everyone who ain't you. Just a few soldiers in a unit can carry that POV to the extreme where "everybody" includes babies and grandmas. 18-19 year olds scared out of their minds yet holding the power of life and death in their hands. All it takes is a couple of leader personalities to succumb to the blood lust and once that demon is loosed it can sweep through the rest and the massacre is on. Think of "Wilding" on a much grimmer scale.

    At that point the hardest thing to do is to rein in the killers, to make 'em stop.

    It isn't amazing that these kind of atrocities happen, it is amazing it doesn't happen more often.

    Pray for the souls of our soldiers... and damn the bastards that put them in hell.

    Posted by nyknicks12 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:08pm

25. From the article:Of course this archive deals only with Vietnam atrocities that the army investigated. Doubtlessly hundreds, perhaps thousands of other incidents were not reported –

    Definition of "free-fire zone" from (Field Manual)FM 6-20: A specific designated area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters.

    In practice, this meant a US soldier, airman, Marine, or sailor could shoot anything that moved in a designated free-fire zone. Anyone who served in, or knows someone who served in, Vietnam, knows that it was common to do so in any unit near such designated zones. There were some who made an attempt to differentiate between civilians and combatants and there were some who couldn't be bothered. The brass didn't want to hear about the latter.

    The Bushalini worshippers here are funny. Just lying or don't know any better because they never got anywhere near a war zone?

    The bottom line is that all wars are bad and if you're on the wrong side of an imperialist war it's beaucoups bad. You can't get out of it clean.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/07/2006 @ 11:10pm

26. I still don't believe that is the sole intended point of Wiener's article.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/07/2006 @ 11:06pm

    I suppose we can all draw our own conclusions as we see fit. But I prefer to respond directly to points that have actually been made, rather than try to imagine what other points someone might have been trying to make. Changing the subject and hiding the truth seems to work pretty well on most Americans, however, seeing as they've twice voted in the monkeys that got us into this mess...so I guess I can't see any reason for you to stop doing it.

    Good night.

    Posted by liveeasy at 08/07/2006 @ 11:11pm

27. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/07/2006 @ 10:48pm: No, I think this is absolutely vital information.

    That would explain why your initial post read "But an article such as this won't do anything to eliminate war, will it? It will just ignite passions on both sides of the issue. Clearly the author's dubious intent."

    And, as i would of any rapist or criminal acting in any city in the world, i think those guilty should be punished to the limit of the law.

    But they weren't. Aren't you outraged that murderers and rapists were allowed to remain as soldiers in the US military?

    Are you naive enough, liveeasy, to think atrocities didn't occur in the wars i made a point to mention in my initial post?

    How does that in any way counter the importance of this story? When a rapist is caught in normal society, do you think that the "but there have been rapes throughout history" is an effective defense?

    Let me put it this way. Plenty of ghosts in dachau would argue with you.

    I am not really sure that ghosts can argue. But, if they can, I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of ghosts in dachau would favor that justice be served on murderers and rapists, civilian and soldier.

    Liveeasy, if you can truthfully read the bloggers here and not see broadbrushed indictment of the US military as a whole, not just the criminals, you are kidding yourself, in my humble opinion.

    Ah, the last resort of the whackjob debate manual. Unable to respond to the actual arguments that are presented, the whackjob resorts to responding to imaginary arguments, hopeful that no one is really paying attention.

    Which is a reasonable hope, I suppose. The logic and reasoning employed by most of the lunatic fringe does tend to quickly get tiresome.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:11pm

28. Ahh, the "If you haven't served you cannot talk" argument.

    cool, now when there is any blogging about congress we can leave Rio out. Unless you have served in the hallowed halls Rio?

    And when there is blogging about oil prices we can leave him out, unless you are a oil mogul or roustabout?

    Check your owners manual again Rio, civilian control of the military.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:15pm

29. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/07/2006 @ 11:10pm: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country" Tell us again what have you done!? CPT and many others like him are waiting eagerly for your answer!

    Gawd... Its the scared little preacher boy.

    Hi scared little preacher boy.

    Are you sayin that if I have done sumthin good for my country, then these criminals and rapists should be brought to justice?

    But, if I have never done nuthin for my country, then these criminals and rapists should get to remain as soldiers in the US military?

    You have a real strange way of thinkin bout things, scared little preacher boy.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:16pm

30. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:14pm

    So predictable. To avoid rehashing the same points over again, I gently refer you to ORWELL's 11:11 reply to FREIHEIT.

    Again...good night...this time for real.

    Posted by liveeasy at 08/07/2006 @ 11:18pm

31. Only the dates and locations change. Their vitriolic hatred for America and normal Americans remains undiminished.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:14pm | ignore this person

    This from the guy that thinks the State Dept is full of communist, hates judges and the judicial sytem, and buys his clothes from chinese child labor. HAHAHA.

    so, you support the rape and pillaging that happened and think it should go unpunished?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:18pm

32. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:14pm: This posting by Jon Weiner and the stereotypical postings by leftist hate America bloggers simply displays the moral bankruptcy, the lack of historical perspective, the moral cowardice, and the continued systematic intent by marxist/socialist malcontents to denigrate everything that America does that doesn't bow down to their reprobate minds.

    Gawd, a double header. Its the scared little evangelical tax cheat.

    Hi scared little evangelical tax cheat.

    Why would anyone who loves the military, want to see rapists and murderers remain in the military, rather than be brought to justice?

    Apparently, in hamsterland, it is moral bravery to want to keep cretins in the US military. The scared little evangelical tax cheat has no problem with interrogators "committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut.

    Praise the Lord.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:23pm

33. This posting by Jon Weiner and the stereotypical postings by leftist hate America bloggers simply displays the moral bankruptcy, the lack of historical perspective, the moral cowardice, and the continued systematic intent by marxist/socialist malcontents to denigrate everything that America does that doesn't bow down to their reprobate minds.-LUVDESPOTS

    Thats right luvvy, we lefties think bringing a rapist to trial is morally corrupt and would show cowardice.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:24pm

34. Zero

    Taking the difficulty of dragging Milosevic before a war crime tribunal my understanding is that war crimes are prosecuted in a tribunal that derives its authority from the World Court. Legally, is an atrocity that arises during the course of a war considered to be a war crime prior to a ruling of such a tribunal?

    You make my point entirely given my understanding an act committed during the course of hostilities must first be determined to be a war crime and as you noted, Israel and the United States for that matter, are very able to protect the integrity of their borders thereby rendering them immune from international war crime prosecutions.

    Posted by canaar at 08/07/2006 @ 11:25pm

35. You are just a clueless individual and should feel grateful that real men and women are willing to defend your right to be a parasite.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:22pm | ignore this person

    So, you support rape and murder of civilians? I just want to be striaght on this.

    Orwell, Are you saying LUvvy has a tax haven? To avoid paying for his war? I love it!

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:26pm

36. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:22pm: You are just a clueless individual and should feel grateful that real men and women are willing to defend your right to be a parasite.

    Not to mention your right to support rapists and murderers.

    Praise the Lord.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:28pm

37. Why do they call a congregation a "Flock"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:28pm

38. Posted by CRABWALK 08/07/2006 @ 11:26pm: Orwell, Are you saying LUvvy has a tax haven? To avoid paying for his war? I love it!

    The scared little evangelical tax cheat bragged about how he was unaffected by the rising price of gas, since he deducts all of the gas for his SUV as a business expense.

    In addition to demonstrating just what a whackjob the scared little evangelical tax cheat is, his bragging also demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding on the effects of rising fuel prices on the economy, and therefore, on him. But then, he is kinda stoopid.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:33pm

39. You are just a clueless individual and should feel grateful that real men and women are willing to defend your right to be a parasite.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:22pm | ignore this person

    So they shot and killed 19 unarmed civilians, women and children.

    They found a pattern of "recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese--families in their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing," who were "murdered, raped and tortured with impunity" by American soldiers.

    The longest sentence, 20 years, went to an interrogator convicted of "committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut."

    yep, real men and women do this stuff.

    Real men and women do their job, with honor and integrity. And they get my respect.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:34pm

40. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/07/2006 @ 11:10pm: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country" Tell us again what have you done!? CPT and many others like him are waiting eagerly for your answer!

    But Rio Blotto isn't, is he? Because the closest he ever got to military service was the "support our troops/vote for the Republican Party" march.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/07/2006 @ 11:34pm

41. The conduct of quite a few US units in Vietnam seems to have been indistinquishable from the conduct of the Waffen SS in the Ukraine dring WWII. Well, so much for "American exceptionalism."

    Posted by chimpwatch at 08/07/2006 @ 11:37pm

42. But like all mentally challenged leftists, you want to condemn all military personnel and not just those few who engaged in criminal behavior.-LUVDESPOTS

    I challenge you, preacherman, to find any statement I have made that would back your incredibly inane and childishly illogical accusation. Full post, not some picked apart pieces. ----

    So, he buys gas from the Saudis, uses it up at a grand rate, then deducts it from his taxes. Cool. I know an honest man would only deduct that which he actually used for business. So I am sure that's what he does.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:40pm

43. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:32pm: But like all mentally challenged leftists, you want to condemn all military personnel and not just those few who engaged in criminal behavior.

    Gee, scared little evangelical tax cheat, I just want murderers and rapist brought to justice.

    Like crabwalk you do not deserve the freedom you enjoy.

    Why is that, scared little evangelical tax cheat? Why would you think that people who want rapists and murderers brought to justice do not deserve freedom?

    You guys are arguing that we should let the rapists and murderers go, and imprison the people who want to bring the rapists and murderers to justice.

    It really must be hard to train your brain to think like that. Do you need to take special drugs? Or was it the shock treatments?

    Praise the Lord.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:44pm

44. I will donate $50 to my Grandfathers church if you can. (A Methodist minister that packed heat after he received death threats from other good methodists for opening a new church, weird story)

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:45pm

45. OLD NEWS RECYCLED TO WHAT PURPOSE? -RIO

    1: this is newly uncovered documentation, now covered again by chimpy.

    2: to remind us not to go to war based on faulty intelligence.

    3: to give you something to rant about on the Vast Leftwing.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:48pm

46. It really must be hard to train your brain to think like that. Do you need to take special drugs? Or was it the shock treatments?

    Posted by ORWELL2005 08/07/2006 @ 11:44pm | ignore this person

    The opiate of the masses does it too.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/07/2006 @ 11:49pm

47. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/07/2006 @ 11:36pm: The longest sentence, 20 years, went to an interrogator convicted of "committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut." He served only six months."

    Crime was satisfied with punishment!

    To the scared little preacher boy, 6 months served is more than enough punishment for "committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut."

    I mean, f*ck it. She was just some brown piece of vermin. Right scared little preacher boy? She had it coming. Living with all those other brown vermin. Hell, if they hadn't of raped her, I wouldn't have the freedom to call you a complete and total asshole.

    Praise the Lord.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:54pm

48. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/08/2006 @ 12:00am: anyway, my point in all of this was never to say wiener's post wasn't valid - and i didn't. my belief was and is, however, that his intent was first and foremost to undermine current US involvement in iraq.

    Given that you acknowledge the validity of the post, what would the post have looked like if it had been written with the proper intent?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/08/2006 @ 12:04am

49. The longest sentence, 20 years, went to an interrogator convicted of "committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut."

    yep, real men and women do this stuff.

    Real men and women do their job, with honor and integrity. And they get my respect.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/07/2006 @ 11:34pm

    Obviously, LVLIBERTY1 has a different definition of "real men and women" than most beings on planet earth. The horrors we inflicted on Vietnam and ourselves really accomplished a lot of good, didn't it? But then, I don't think good is what LVLIBERTY1 craves, is it?

    A roll call was previously taken on which posters here had ever served in the military and LVLIBERTY1 and Rio Blotto were conspicuously absent.

    LVLIBERTY1 also waxed poetic once about his wonderful church in which he is a minister and all the good things it does. He shut up though when others started asking for proof.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/08/2006 @ 12:05am

50. Same bet to you Frei.

    If you find nothing luvvy, I will expect you to write "Soldiers that act like this are despicable individuals that have no place in our military, let alone civilized society. They should be court martialed and sentenced to the maximum allowed by law. They are a stain on the good men and women that defend my right to be a homophobe and use up gas as if it was an infinite resource."

    kisses.

    "Got me a Chocolate Jesus, keeps me satisfied

    Runs like the muddy, but that's ok, wrap him up in cellophane, makes a great parfait"

    -Saint Waits.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 12:07am

51. Same old story....A Republican gets in office and suddenly the media (and other liberals) discover minorities, poor people, homeless, crime, SUV's, Military mistakes, minimum wage, etc.. again.

    I'm voting for Kucinich this time around. Just so they'll shut the hell up and tell us how good we're doing. Got your back, Dennis.

    Posted by Sliver at 08/08/2006 @ 12:09am

52. Even a future U.S. Senator can make unsubstantuated claims of criminal acts perpetrated by fellow servicemen in an unpopular war, disparage his own service and that of others, and even get to run for POTUS!

    osted by RIO BRAVO 08/08/2006 @ 12:05am | ignore this person

    theres Rio, supporting the troops.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 12:11am

53. Like crabwalk you do not deserve the freedom you enjoy.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:32pm

    The founders of our country declared all men born free and deserving of freedom but LVLIBERTY1 arrogates to himself, in his own damaged mind, the authority to decide who deserves freedom.

    Is there any question that, beyond the fact that he needs psychiatric counseling, he is profoundly un-American?

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/08/2006 @ 12:14am

54. The longest sentence, 20 years, went to an interrogator convicted of "committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut." He served only six months.

    That's "convicted" Rio. Not innocent. Convicted.

    convict verb |k?n?vikt| [ trans. ] (often be convicted) declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offense by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law : her former boyfriend was convicted of assaulting her | [as adj. ] ( convicted) a convicted murderer.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 12:14am

55. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/08/2006 @ 12:14am | ignore this person

    nope.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 12:15am

56. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/08/2006 @ 12:00am: anyway, my point in all of this was never to say wiener's post wasn't valid - and i didn't. my belief was and is, however, that his intent was first and foremost to undermine current US involvement in iraq.

    That's bad? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/08/2006 @ 12:19am

57. Rio, what I took from your words is that 6 months is a just sentence for "committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl". I disagree. He was convicted, then served 2% of the sentence. I don't find that just. Do you?

    3 strikes laws are terrible. So is letting out a murderer to make room for an addict.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 12:29am

58. Military victory is glorious. We make the fatherland proud with our bravery and honor. Onward with the fight.

    Posted by DDOcean at 08/08/2006 @ 12:36am

59. Before I received a pamphlet from the AMA linking Rev Phelps to all anti-war protestors and Shwarzes support of the new legislation, I was going to vote for a moderate repube tomorrow. Why the AMA put out this particular ad I'll never know. I do hold some conservative beliefs. Like balanced budgets, and conservation of resources

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 12:36am

60. nd left out the part where the interrogator moved to Paris became a film director and became a darling of liberals in Hollywood.Frei

    "Stewie, what are you doing?"

    Playing house, mother.

    That boy is tied up, Stewie!

    Playing Roman Polanskis house?"

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 12:38am

61. To the scared little preacher boy, 6 months served is more than enough punishment for "committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl in an interrogation hut."

    I mean, f*ck it. She was just some brown piece of vermin. Right scared little preacher boy? She had it coming. Living with all those other brown vermin. Hell, if they hadn't of raped her, I wouldn't have the freedom to call you a complete and total asshole.

    Praise the Lord.

    Posted by ORWELL2005 08/07/2006 @ 11:54pm | ignore this person

    Wrong guy, Brave.

    Do you think 6 months is a just sentence for committing indecent acts on a 13 year old girl?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 12:40am

62. Well, luvy can't seem to find anything to back up his wild accusation that I hate America and the troops, so off to bed.

    I will read your response manana Brave. Looking forward to it.

    just another unrelated note: capitalism works best in a peaceful enviroment. Markets hate disorder.

    Peace.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 12:49am

63. How about this deal?

    To avoid future atrocities...no more "Vietnams" (or "Iraqs")...

    but no more "UN peacekeeping missions in Africa", too?

    (Now watch the "Oh, that's different!" replies)

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 07:07am

64. It isn't different at all. Power corrupts, period. It doesn't matter if the one with the power - that is, the one with the better weapon - is a freaked-out American kid or a UN peacekeeper.

    The difference between war and atrocity is always defined by who won. I can't remember who said it, McNamara maybe, but he was sure that if we lost in Vietnam he'd be tried as a war criminal.

    The only question is, can the practice of warfare survive the age of instant global publicity? How can we actually see the pictures and hear the stories and not see atrocity where we once saw only glory and triumph?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 08/08/2006 @ 08:30am

65. Posted by MYPARADIGM 08/08/2006 @ 08:30am | ignore this person

    I'm afraid, MYPARA, that you might be alone in that assessment.

    On both sides of the ideological spectrum, there are those who want to "play with the tin soldiers"...whether it's a "imperialistic war for oil"...or a "humanitarian" mission, like a Rwanda or Darfur.

    And when the "tin soldiers" "go bad", the guys who wanted them sent to...Vietnam...or Somalia...or The Congo...or Iraq...say it was isolated (and maybe it was), while the ones who opposed it say it is "proof of systemic failures" (and maybe that's true too).

    Either way, whether it's saving Africans from genocide, or saving South Vietnamese from Communist encroachment (accept the definitions for a moment, okay?)...when some 14 year old girl gets raped, the opponents will highlight it and the supporters will play it down.

    But does that mean the war is "wrong"...no. It takes a much GRANDER scale of failure to mark a "bad war". I think that applies to Vietnam and Iraq, but I think it can also apply to non-accountable "international peace-keeping missions" like Congo, Haiti, Burundi, Cote D'Ivoire, etc.

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 08:58am

66. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/07/2006 @ 10:28pm

    "...the same liberals who would be correctly incessed at the suggestion that all blacks or all gays, or all asians, or all muslims should be held guilty, responsible or in suspicion because of the actions of a few. yet, you are quick to indict the entire army for the actions of a very few, or all corporations for the actions of a few."

    Excellent analogy Frei guy !

    Why just the other day I was thinking about becoming black but decided against in because of the attitudes some people still harbour against them.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/08/2006 @ 09:04am

67. I expected nothing less from the Nation, ONLY American atrocites, NO context, just accusations and drawing parellels to today.

    Vietnam? 40yrs ago, hmmm, 320 incidents.

    Let see, a division has 12-15,000 troops in it, of that it is broken down into 12 battalions, of which that is broken into 4-5 companies for each battalion.

    That is approximately 50 (combat)companies per division, and about 7-8 divisions in nam. So 400 companies of which that was broken down into 3-4 platoons per company, so 1600 platoons.

    Now 320 incidents committed by say 1600 platoons, now those platoons rotated out yearly, and NAM was from 65-72, approximately, where we were primarily invovled, now that is 7 years. So approximately 11,400 platoons or 2800 companies committed 320 atrocites.

    Now maybe i missed it, but Weiner-boy doesnt give a full out description of every single atrocity as it pertains to number of people killed in each one or the size of the unit that particiapted. It is safe to say that his example are the high end and not indicative of all 320 incidents.

    This is no indictment of US military forces in NAM nor of officials, although moral relativists seem to be behind the argument, its false and not accurate. It is misleading.

    To those who seem to be suprised that innocnet people die in war, i would tell you to wake the fuck up. Get out of that fantasyland. The Jane Fonda supported VC and NVA chose to engage in guerrilla war. That is smart stratgey you say, well fine, then the odds of innocent people dying just increased, exponentially, and THEY chose to fight that way, not us. So deal with it, i know it seems cold and hard hearted, but you play into the enemies hand by your outrage, and yet THEY are exempt from it????? Why, ask yourself.

    Where is the dissertation of the hundreds of thousands of south veitnamese killed POST fall of Saigon????????? I guess WEINER-boy would rather spend his time only proving American misbehaivour.

    Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 09:06am

68. Posted by CPT 08/08/2006 @ 09:06am | ignore this person

    You are making me hit you, not me. You are making me kill civilians, not me.

    The words and thought patterns of domestic abuse.

    The US killed millions in viet Nam/Combodia/Laos. We lost 50,000.

    We killed 100,000 civilians in Iraq, lost 2600. (so far) Add in the thousands killed because the legally obligated occupying force has not been able to bring stability. Henny Penny, the sky is falling.

    Talk about moral relativism.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 09:54am

69. "Now maybe i missed it, but Weiner-boy doesnt give a full out description of every single atrocity as it pertains to number of people killed in each one or the size of the unit that particiapted."

    Posted by CPT 08/08/2006 @ 09:06am

    No, you didn't miss it. For some reason known only to himself Wiener doesn't detail every one of the 320 incidents in his 13 paragraph article. Maybe there's still time to go back and rewrite the article, Jon, and just add a few thousand more paragraphs. Then we'd be able to pick apart every particular incident of rape, murder or torture and might even be able to quibble with some of them.

    But wait it's too late now because "the records of the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group that Nick Turse discovered in the National Archives, and that provided the basis for the L.A. Times story, have now been closed to the public..."

    Looks like Cheney's back on the job reclassifying everything that had been declassified over the last fifty years.

    Nothing to see here folks. Move on.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/08/2006 @ 09:56am

70. Or CPT could go to the LA Times and read all about it. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnam6aug06,0,635 0517.story?coll=la-home-headlines

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 10:03am

71. It is easy to see how this stuff not only occurs, but is covered up. With "people" like Luvvy, Rio, CPT in your company, who needs oversight.

    "Nope, no sir, we didn't kill no gook civilians. They had it comin' anyway, sir."

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 10:07am

72. I have been through the entire article and all the posts. The only ones making the claim that this represents the entire military are the usual trolls. Not one of "the libs" has come even close, the exact opposite actually.

    Black is white, the sky is yellow, chimpy is God appointed and libs hate America.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 10:14am

73. CRABWALK

    Ah, the wonderful world of a looney liberal, you make me hit you?

    Hey bud do you know the difference in the two, waging war and domestic abuse?

    I know the truth hurts, but when YOU chose to fight a war, by HIDING among civilians, then you are going to have innocent life taken. Oh, fucking well, such is life.

    Yet you dare not condemn those who use such tactics, why????

    Can you answer?

    RED NECKERSON

    If you are going to make board based assertion that paints all with the brush of impropeity, then yes, you had better be prepared for the retort.

    Now the Reading Comp 101 people who say that it NO way infers that all Soldiers are murders are the same ones who think Hezbollah is just a legitimate resistence group.

    WEINER-boy article would be relavent if he balanced it with communist atrocites in Nam....ooops, shhhh, as libs, we dont mention those, they were just responding to the mean ole USA.

    Weiner-boy will never do a dissertation on North Vietnamese /VC atrocities? and why? ask yourself and answer honsetly.

    Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 10:33am

74. Posted by CRABWALK 08/08/2006 @ 10:14am | ignore this person

    Well, CRAB, I think Mr Wiener IS claiming that every military division that fought in Vietnam was rife with abusers...

    "Atrocities were committed, according to the Times, by "every army division that operated in Vietnam."

    And that he's alluding to "Iraq=Vietnam"....so, except for the troops still stationed OUTSIDE of Iraq...

    Isn't he saying that "It's likely every division in Iraq is made up of abusers, just like they were in Iraq"?

    True, it's not the "entire military" he's implicating (I suppose a radar operator in the Aleutians escapes his accusations)....but it DOES seem he's implicating all the combat front-line troops!

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 10:34am

75. Correction...

    Isn't he saying that "It's likely every division in Iraq is made up of abusers, just like they were in Iraq"?

    Should be ...Isn't he saying that "It's likely every division in Iraq is made up of abusers, just like they were in VIETNAM"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 10:35am

76. FRANKGITS

    We wonder why Americans are beheaded when captured. Well during the waning days of Viet Nam, soldiers killed or'fragged' their own officers who ordered further offensives when the war was already lost. So what's the difference between a beheading and an execution by grenade or bullet.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/08/2006 @ 09:51am | ignore this person

    You are very loose with your "factually" based assertions, or you are an idiotic fruitcake.

    Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 10:37am

77. We killed 100,000 civilians in Iraq, lost 2600. (so far) Add in the thousands killed because the legally obligated occupying force has not been able to bring stability. Henny Penny, the sky is falling.

    Talk about moral relativism.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/08/2006 @ 09:54am | ignore this person

    Cops are legally obligated to bring stability and order to American cities, over 16,000 murders in the USA last year.

    So i guess in your world we ought to put the police on trial and not the ones who ACTUALLY perpatrate the crimes.

    That is moral relativism.

    Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 10:41am

78. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:14pm:

    This posting by Jon Weiner and the stereotypical postings by leftist hate America bloggers simply displays the moral bankruptcy, the lack of historical perspective, the moral cowardice, and the continued systematic intent by marxist/socialist malcontents to denigrate everything that America does that doesn't bow down to their reprobate minds.

    You are so far "out there" that it is incomprehensible. Maybe it is PTSD from you time in Nam..

    You characterize the act of speaking out against war crimes as "moral bankruptcy" and "moral cowardice".

    If that is the case, then the legal trying of war criminals (Nuremburg, for example) must be a mortal sin in your book.

    If being opposed to war crimes makes me "reprobate", so be it!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/08/2006 @ 11:05am

79. Like crabwalk you do not deserve the freedom you enjoy.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/07/2006 @ 11:32pm

    I prefer to disagree with LL and agree with Thomas Jefferson instead - liberty is not a privelege, as you imply, rather it is an inalienable right.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/08/2006 @ 11:07am

80. I LOVE PHYSICS:

    You don't understand.

    When there is evidence that a guy in uniform raped in the interrogation hut --- or, say a cluster bomb slaughters some kids, slicing the stupid chumps in two (or three or four ...) --- it is clear that the raped and killed are not victims. In fact, they deserved it. Otherwise they would not have been fixed in space and time where these events occurred. Got that? They would have been someplace else, if only they had been innocent. Ergo, God has punished them, he has firmly judged. And the greater the exent to which the rapist or the bomber is from being brought to justice, the more ... God has judged wisely.

    That's the primitive essence of rightwing grunting over how the world works to ethical specifications.

    It's this smouldering hatred of other people that makes it redundant to say "conservative terrorist" when talking about the likes of McViegh or Atta or their grotesque apologists like Bill "Bring it On (to SF/CA)" O'Rielly or Jerry "America Deserved 9/11" Falwell. "Conservarist" might be better terminology as it at least saves syllables. Massive violence, murder, rape, slavery, prejudice: conservatives viscerally love all of it, they loooovvvvveee it. And if you have any doubt about that --- since, yes, it is unfathomable to a normal person --- just read over the thread as they do not bother to hide what they are ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/08/2006 @ 11:25am

81. I know the truth hurts, but when YOU chose to fight a war, by HIDING among civilians, then you are going to have innocent life taken. Oh, fucking well, such is life. -CPT

    Lets see, Who chose to invade Viet nam? Who chose to invade Iraq? Did they come here? NO, they did not, we went there.

    They get invaded by the sole remaining super power, what would you do, go toe to toe? No, if you had a brain you would fight on your terms, guerilla war. (Rummy said it would never come to that, by the way). We should have known they would do exactly what they are doing. Our forces should be trained to handle it. The psychos should be weeded out. If you think Abu Graib and Haditha are helping, like My Lai helped, then you are indeed wacked.

    I want to look at one idea for a moment: A man rapes a small child, he is convicted and sentenced to 6 months. The right is correctly outraged and rails against the liberal judge that would do this. A soldier rapes a small child. He is given 6 months. the right rails against the hatred of the military by the liberal judge. Are you following me here?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/08/2006 @ 11:32am

82. CRABWALK

    what would you do, go toe to toe? No, if you had a brain you would fight on your terms, guerilla war.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/08/2006 @ 11:32am | ignore this person

    So it is your position that it is ok for the smaller guy to fight however he needs to in order to survive or win, BUT the bigger adversary is not allowed to fight back? Isnt that what you really want to say.

    If it is ok for the little guy to fight however he wants in order to win, then why cant the big guy fight however he must?

    Where has a Soldier been convicted of rape of small child? or is this simply an analogy.

    Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 11:47am

83. CRAB,

    Alas, you too don't understand either. You see, the key question is whether ... a 19 year old Bill Clinton was in the hut conducting the interogation (and, shockingly, this despite draft-dodging as he did not have the decency to Quayle-Bush into the "Full Dinner Jacket" rigor of the National Guard).

    Perhaps there is still a semen stain on the ... err, on the rug (or something). Congress needs to hold hearings, investigate, and if need be to retro-actively impeach. There is a r-e-a-l crime here, a dark force that could infect the body republic for generations (to paraphrase Sensenbrenner's sinisterly comic efforts to shepard an atmosphere of crisis into being, c. 1999) ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/08/2006 @ 11:48am

84. CPT writes,

    "BUT the bigger adversary is not allowed to fight back?"

    That's exactly what I was hoping you would say: "fighting back". Against ... what?

    Present one piece of evidence that either (a) the Ba'athist government in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or that (b) the US had any stake at all in Vietnam.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/08/2006 @ 11:52am

85. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/08/2006 @ 11:48am | ignore this person

    Only conservatives are disturbed ones in your world, terrorists are simply reacting to injustices brought on by the evil USA their crimes are permissible ours are unforgivable?

    Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 11:53am

86. LEMON

    You are right, we shouldnt have fought in NAM, or Korea, the North Viets were simply sponsoring the VC and allowing them safe haven.

    We should have allowed it to fall and allowed those 200,000 south vietnamese to have been killed in 65 rather than 75.

    But i guess that was just our policy of containment. We were paranoid back then right. Those commies werent aggressive or brutal, they just wanted to impose social justice.

    No one said they were connected, only liberal blogsphere, but i guess your imagination fails to comprehend how its in our interest to remove a SADDAM and a UDAY and QUSAY.

    You fail to answer the original question though, way to re-direct.

    Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 12:03pm

87. CPT,

    Below, are you trying to para-phrase the worldview as enunciated by coservaFreak Jerry Falwell (?!?!) or to elaborate O'Rielly's rants? Clarify ...

    Only conservatives are disturbed ones in your world, terrorists are simply reacting to injustices brought on by the evil USA their crimes are permissible ours are unforgivable? Posted by CPT 08/08/2006 @ 11:53am | ignore this person

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/08/2006 @ 12:04pm

88. CPT/Glenn - Stop arguing! Jeez! Why don't you both celebrate that Ned "Negotiate with our enemies" Lamont will beat Joe today? Glenn, because Joe supported the war and CPT for Ned bringing the party to the left (McGovern, baby! HA HA HA HA!!).

    Posted by woodyee at 08/08/2006 @ 12:06pm

89. GLENN C. LEMON

    Present one piece of evidence that either (a) the Ba'athist government in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11

    Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/08/2006 @ 11:52am | ignore this person

    Look at Syria, the Baathists there are sponsoring Hezbollah. Kind of blows that theroy of islamo-fundies will never work with secular parties.

    Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 12:06pm

90. Those who commit such acts should be charged, get a fair trial, and if convicted imprisoned. However, to try to paint every unit and by infrence every American soldier with war crimes is unconscionable. If this is where the far left wants to take the democrat party----then get ready to lose on a regular basis.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/08/2006 @ 12:06pm

91. WOODEYE

    Actually that is good news

    Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 12:07pm

92. Well this subject sure has sucked any pretense of rational thought out of the usual neo-con apologists.

    First we have Mask trying to draw this 'perfect parallel....

    To avoid future atrocities...no more "Vietnams" (or "Iraqs")...

    but no more "UN peacekeeping missions in Africa", too?

    (Now watch the "Oh, that's different!" replies)

    Posted by MASK 08/08/2006 @ 07:07am | ignore this person

    Uh, sure Mask, African UN peace keeping missions are EXACTLY like Viet Nam and Iraq. (rolls eyes)

    And I particularly like your next posts where you throw in the specific examples of Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, Congo, Haiti, Burundi, and Cote D'Ivoire. Why, we all remember VIVIDLY the media accounts of the atrocities that American tropps committed in those countries, don't we?....don't we?

    Well Mask, maybe should provide some links to refresh the memories of those who may have forgotten the laundry list of atrocities committed by American forces in those conflicts.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 12:11pm

93. Then we have CPT, whose brilliant logic is irrefutable in this post...

    Posted by CPT 08/08/2006 @ 09:06am | ignore this person

    I beleive it boils down to 3 separate 'defenses' of the current atrocities...

    1) The atrocities committed by American troops in VietNam weren't so bad...why, only 320 times!

    2) Innocent people die in war...which means we can dismiss the atrocities because...well...you know...in a war, 'stuff' happens!

    3) The last point is my particular favorite, the one my son used to use when he was 3...'well they started it!' The VC and NVA and Iraqi insurgents did it first...so that makes it OK for us and never mind that if we do it then WE BECOME THEM!

    Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 12:12pm

94. CPT,

    Vietnam could easily have been re-united without violence in the 1950s after expelling the cheese-eating colonists, under a government committed to such dangers as ... land reform, vital in what was a modest and pre-industrial nation.

    We should have allowed it to fall and allowed those 200,000 south vietnamese to have been killed in 65 rather than 75.

    Evidence, please. Hope you're not confusing this with Suharto's butchery at the same time ('65 coup, '75 Timor invasion).

    but i guess your imagination fails to comprehend how its in our interest to remove a SADDAM and a UDAY and QUSAY.

    Yes, CPT, you are right, it is tough to get one's head around this given the policy whiplash that emanates out of Republican DC. In the 1980s, Saddam was such a valued player that someone as prominent as the former (and future) DoD head/MC from Illinois/CEO of Sears Dumsfeld is dispatched to Baghdad to hobknob with Saddam. The Reagan admin makes elaborate efforts to supply Hussein's war machine even with knowledge of the hideous crimes for which he was later tried.

    So, if one follows the party line from GOP admins, it is difficult to get one's head around who the enemy is today, given the relativism on what is "Hussein".

    You are aware that, according to William Safire, Senate leader and future GOP prez candidate Boob Dole visited Baghdad in Spring 1990 to wish Hitler-by-the-Persian-Gulf a Happy Birthday and assure him on congressional support for the Ba'athists? Aaa, the relativism ...

    If, however, one rejects relativism and prioritizes human rights, it is easy to say that, of course, Hussein should never have been cultivated as a strategic ally in the 1980s --- MEMO TO ALL : watch CPT make excuses for it now --- and the US and west should have exerted external pressure to empower the well educated people of Iraq to take command of their situation. One cannot do it for them, but outsiders can be keenly, constructively supportive (as in South Africa at roughly the same time and the Soviet Bloc)

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/08/2006 @ 12:22pm

95. Look, atrocities ARE comitted in war. And, I see nobody here or anywhere, even attempting to deny or excuse the atrocities committed by the VC, the NVA, or the Iraqi insurgents. Contrary to what passes for rational thought from the usual neo-con apologists, Mr. Weiner reporting on American troops committing atrocities does NOT equate with ignoring or condoning those atrocities committed by ANYONE else...any more than CPT complaining about those 'other' atrocities means he is ignoring or condoning the American ones.

    The ugliness of was is THE main reasons that RATIONAL people think it's absolutely, morally WRONG to enter a war without just cause. The American involvement in VietNam was started on a LIE and everything that happened as a result is a product of that LIE.

    Just as the Iraq war was started on a LIE and everything that has happened since is a product of that LIE. The apologists like CPT love to talk about taking out Saddam and his sons. Yet, if that was such a GOOD thing, then why wasn't THAT presented to the American people as the rationale for starting the war with Iraq? Answer: because the American people would NEVER have approved a war for that reason. Instead, we got the 'WMD, mushroom clouds over America, they're coming to get us' LIE. And every morally reprehensible thing that has happened (and continues to happen) since is attributable to that LIE!

    /end rant

    Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 12:30pm

96. CPT writes,

    Look at Syria, the Baathists there are sponsoring Hezbollah.

    OK, I am looking at Syria. I see it now, over there it is.

    But I was asking about Ba'athists in Iraq. If that is in fact your answer to my question, then you have made my point for me, thankyouverymuch: Hussein's government was not a 9/11 player, wrong part of the strategic chess board for a horrifically costly confrontation.

    By the way, the CIA guy who wrote IMPERIAL HUBRIS --- unabashedly a man of the hard right, in my reading of the book --- makes much the same point about Iraq and 9/11 and the idiocy of invading/occupying ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/08/2006 @ 12:32pm

97. I know the truth hurts, but when YOU chose to fight a war, by HIDING among civilians, then you are going to have innocent life taken. Oh, fucking well, such is life. -CPT

    Lets see, Who chose to invade Viet nam? Who chose to invade Iraq? Did they come here? NO, they did not, we went there.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/08/2006 @ 11:32am

    You're completely ignoring CPT's rules of psychopathology- the victims are always guilty. The Lebanese are guilty because they CHOSE to live, for thousands of years, right next to the exact place where where the US, using the UN as it's sock puppet, would invent the Jews-only "state of israel" in 1948. They're also guilty because for some insane reason they want to be able to defend themselves against the constant compulsion of israel to walk all over them like they're a doormat. They're especially bad because israel was supposed to be in Beirut two weeks ago already and it's still only a few miles from the border getting it's ass kicked. Outrageous!

    Do some research on serial murderers and what they say about their victims and you'll see an exact identity with CPT's excuses for Bush/israel's homicidal career.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/08/2006 @ 12:33pm

98. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/08/2006 @ 12:22am | ignore this person

    Great post Glenn regarding the past behavior of these Republicans toward Saddam and their characterizations of him today.

    Moral relativism, indeed!

    Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 12:34pm

99. LEN MOSSE says,

    Those who commit such acts should be charged, get a fair trial, and if convicted imprisoned. However, to try to paint every unit and by infrence every American soldier with war crimes is unconscionable.

    Yes, right you are, absolutely, here here.

    But who actually disagrees? If it is, well, no one then your comment is like standing up and bellowing, "The price of bread keeps going up!" or "Tippicanoe and Tyler, too!" ... or any of an infinite variety of head-scratch-inducing non-sequiters.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/08/2006 @ 12:36pm

100. Great post Glenn regarding the past behavior of these Republicans toward Saddam and their characterizations of him today. Moral relativism, indeed!

     Thank you, LILLIAN. Sixth-graders should indeed be fluent in the facts that I have cited, as they amount to an open secret, but for the distracting white noise that cloys the media channells.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/08/2006 @ 12:41pm

101. Posted by LILLIAN 08/08/2006 @ 12:30am

     What any modestly intelligent person could deduce and what has been evincing psychopathic doubletalk from the right-wing moths here for years. The Nation is a lightbulb that they just can't tear themselves away from. We'll eventually find their expired, dried up bodies on the floor, a result of exhaustion and irrelevance.

     Posted by fromredbird at 08/08/2006 @ 12:44pm

102. The ugliness of WAR is THE main reasons that RATIONAL people think it's absolutely, morally WRONG to enter a war without just cause.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 12:50pm

103. LILLIAN

     You are rather a shortsighted thinker.

     It was always SADDAM and his sons. WMD????? who cares....China has WMD, Russia has WMD.

     What made IRAQ untenable was SADDAMs own actions, and his penchant for using them that he could not be trusted in a POST 911 world, this is what made the need for taking him out a priority.

     CENTCOMs mission statement made no references to WMD, its was removing SADDAM so that HE could never use or produce them or give them to any other entity.

     WMD was the frosting, SADDAM and his sons were the cake.

     The problem with appeasers like yourself, is that now you end up in the position of indirectly supporting these types of thugs and extremists.

     They dont see your higher moral ground, if anything they take it as weakness to be pushed and exploited. You embolden them.

     You set the conditions for future conflict.

     If those "other"(you see my point, you cant even name those that committed them) atrocites are equally bad. Why make mention of solely American outrages?

     And yes, LILLI people die in war, usually in ugly way and mainly not of their own doing, so save your outrage on those who use the tactics of murder, those who are unaccountable, for it is these people that we are fighting to the death.

     Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 12:51pm

104. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/08/2006 @ 12:22am | ignore this person

     So by that logic, we should not have dealt with Stalin in WW2.

     Hell FDR, the liberal icon, gave Stalin more weapons than any other ally, and guess what he did with it. I guess we are culpable as well in his crimes against humanity.

     "I sure like Uncle Joe(Stalin)"--FDR--

     Teach you students that.

     Nation-state politics bud, its always been that way.

     Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 1:01pm

105. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/08/2006 @ 12:33am | ignore this person

     You are living in fantasyland.

     Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 1:03pm

106. people think it's absolutely, morally WRONG to enter a war without just cause.

     Posted by LILLIAN 08/08/2006 @ 12:50am | ignore this person

     Removing a SADDAM is always just, not to mention his sons who would have caused problems for your grandkids.

     Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 1:10pm

107. Posted by LILLIAN 08/08/2006 @ 12:11am | ignore this person

     LILLIAN, what is YOUR point?

     Mine was that ideologues play up the OTHER GUYS' war crimes...and yet play down their own.

     It was quite a simple proposal....no Right Wing troop deployments AND no Left Wing troop deployments...to prevent those overseas troops from engaging in atrocities on the locals.

     So....no "Vietnams", no "Iraqs"...but no "missions to Rwanda" or "Darfur" or whereever either.

     Essentially a pure libertarian stance on military use....deal?

     Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 1:12pm

108. CPT,

     The strategic alliance with the ghoulish and depraved Stalin was forced by very peculiar circumstances and cashiered in short order, after the Soviets had heroically performed the heavy lifting in East/Central Europe.

     But what is one to say about this?

     It was always SADDAM and his sons. WMD????? who cares....China has WMD, Russia has WMD. What made IRAQ untenable was SADDAMs own actions, and his penchant for using them that he could not be trusted in a POST 911 world, this is what made the need for taking him out a priority. CENTCOMs mission statement made no references to WMD, its was removing SADDAM so that HE could never use or produce them or give them to any other entity. WMD was the frosting, SADDAM and his sons were the cake.

     On this view,

     1-Saddam having been disamred as he demonstrably was by UNSCOM actually made for ... a greater menace to his former sponsor! Go figure! Less is more, when more is not less, on the spinning merry-go-round of relativism, where words and concepts become/unbecome inoperative on winking command!

     2-If you really mean what you say and are not playing (a notably threadbare) circus act of pulling a seemingly endless chain of hankercheifs from your pocket (can you hear the calliope music?!) ... then "Mission Accomplished". Time to pack up would have been sometime around December 2003. The sons were smoked and Saddam is in the dock. If the mafiaso family was the alpha and the omega of invading and occupying Iraq, then that rationale has been long removed.

     Of course, what I am hinting at not so subtly, CPT, is that you don't believe a word of what you are saying.

     So why the hell should I?

     Over & out, later ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/08/2006 @ 1:16pm

109. And yes, LILLI people die in war, usually in ugly way and mainly not of their own doing, so save your outrage on those who use the tactics of murder, those who are unaccountable, for it is these people that we are fighting to the death.

     Posted by CPT 08/08/2006 @ 12:51am | ignore this person _________________________________________________________________ Dude: that's the point. When the good guys (us) do the same stuff as the bad guys (them), by definition we become equivalent to the bad guys. Liberals don't want to be the bad guys. Apparently conservatives have no problem with it.

     Posted by cliffy at 08/08/2006 @ 1:17pm

110. LILLIAN

     You are rather a shortsighted thinker.

     It was always SADDAM and his sons. WMD????? who cares....China has WMD, Russia has WMD.

     So what was Condi's 'mushroom clouds' speech again? Colin Powell's laundry list of weapons speech? If Saddam was the only reason, why did we get those speechs and not the 'we need to remove Saddam from power' speech?

     What made IRAQ untenable was SADDAMs own actions, and his penchant for using them that he could not be trusted in a POST 911 world, this is what made the need for taking him out a priority.

     Really, Saddam's own actions...in what...using the WMDs that you just said nobody cared about? Funny, this seemed to be perfectly OK with Rumsfeld et al when they were using those WMDs on Iranians. It only got twisted into an issue when the neo-cons (wrongly) tried to claim they could use the WMDs on us. I beleive the term for this is 'moral relativism'.

     CENTCOMs mission statement made no references to WMD, its was removing SADDAM so that HE could never use or produce them or give them to any other entity.

     Wait, wait, wait...you just said the WMDs didn't matter...remeber "who cares"? And again, why the 'mushroom cloud', 'laundry list of WMDs' speeches?

     WMD was the frosting, SADDAM and his sons were the cake.

     The problem with appeasers like yourself, is that now you end up in the position of indirectly supporting these types of thugs and extremists.

     Oh, so now I'm an 'appeaser'? And I'm "supporting these types of thugs and extremists"? I guess the other day, when you denied making these kinds of generalizations about those who oppose the war, you weren't being exactly honest, were you?

     They dont see your higher moral ground, if anything they take it as weakness to be pushed and exploited. You embolden them.

     Oh I see. In your view, having the "higher moral ground" is a bad thing! And a weakness. If only we would start publicly beheading Iraqis, why, then they'd RESPECT us stop all this insurgency business. Never mind that if we give up the "moral high ground" and adopt their ruthlessness WE BECOME THEM!

     You set the conditions for future conflict.

     In the ME?!?! I set the conditions for future conflict?!?!? You mean if people like me didn't voice opposition to the Iraq war, there'd be NO conditions for future conflict in the ME?!?!?!

     If those "other"(you see my point, you cant even name those that committed them) atrocites are equally bad. Why make mention of solely American outrages?

     Actually, your point is 'pointless' as I DID mention and even NAMED the Iraqi insurgents committing atrocities. Perhaps you need to re-enroll in Reading Comprehension 101...the last time through seems not to have taught you much. Or was just that you were blinded by your knee reflexively jerking up into your vision as you read?

     And yes, LILLI people die in war, usually in ugly way and mainly not of their own doing, so save your outrage on those who use the tactics of murder, those who are unaccountable, for it is these people that we are fighting to the death.

     I will express my outrage in whatever way I choose, thank you CPT. In this case, it is directed towards ALL of those, Iraqi aAND American, who have committed war crimes...as well as the neo-con chicken hawks you created this conflict on the basis of a LIE!!

     Posted by CPT 08/08/2006 @ 12:51am | ignore this person

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 1:28pm

111. So....no "Vietnams", no "Iraqs"...but no "missions to Rwanda" or "Darfur" or whereever either.

     Essentially a pure libertarian stance on military use....deal?

     Posted by MASK 08/08/2006 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person

     Actually, Mask, christians have struggled with this concern for some time. You see, while there exists the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" there also exists the prospect of killing to stop and/or prevent a much more unspeakable evil. To address this very real issue, and guide christian response in this area, the Pope developed the "Just War Theory" and doctrine. In the case of current and future conflicts, I think it provides an excellent guidelight.

     http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/

     So sorry Mask...no 'deal' with you...I already have one with the Pope and it both precludes and supercedes the terms of yours!

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 1:41pm

112. Posted by LILLIAN 08/08/2006 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person

     Hmmm....okay. And when an opponent of a war YOU think is "just", starts pointing out atrocities committed by troops fighting your just war....???

     Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 1:50pm

113. Hmmm....okay. And when an opponent of a war YOU think is "just", starts pointing out atrocities committed by troops fighting your just war....???

     Posted by MASK 08/08/2006 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person

     I'll condemn the commission of those atrocities exactly as I've done here.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 1:53pm

114. And BTW Mask, now that you've chosen to side with CPT and Leave Liberty on this issue...I noticed that, when you mentioned Rwanda and Darfur, and openly advacated that the we NOT get involved, you made no condemnation of the atrocities being committed there.

     You do realize that your allies in this discussion equate that to 'appeasment' and "condoning their atrocities", don't you?

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 2:02pm

115. LVL,

     And my unwavering opinion of you and your ilk that have allowed terrorism to terrify us into abandoning our constitutional convictions are the America haters.

     So you get to come to the Nation to air out your opinion with the liberals.....can you direct me to a place where I am FREE to tell your ilk how I feel about them. I've tried a few places, but they don't like actual debate so they generally prohibit an alternate position from posting.

     And which side sounds more AMERICAN to you? The side that allows your opinion equal time or the side that supresses my opinion?

     You traitor!

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/08/2006 @ 2:03pm

116. But it is typical of the left to indict all for the actions of a few, where it serves its purpose.

     the same liberals who would be correctly incessed at the suggestion that all blacks or all gays, or all asians, or all muslims should be held guilty, responsible or in suspicion because of the actions of a few. yet, you are quick to indict the entire army for the actions of a very few, or all corporations for the actions of a few.

     and you think most americans don't see through you?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 08/07/2006 @ 10:28pm

     But it is typical of the right to indict all of the left for the actions of a few, where it serves its purpose.

     the same neocons who would be correctly incessed at the suggestion that all blacks or all gays, or all asians, or all muslims should be held guilty, responsible or in suspicion because of the actions of a few. yet, you are quick to indict the entire left for the actions of a few.

     and you think most americans don't see through you?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 2:11pm

117. Many Christians with a differing viewpoint would cite the original Christian writers on Just War theory, Augustine and Aquinas as lining up with President Bush's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/08/2006 @ 2:02pm | ignore this person

     Ah yes, Augustine and Aquinas. In the Catholic church, we refer to them as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and revere them as Catholic priests, theologians, and saints. I'm sure your "Many Christians with a differing viewpoint" would be much better qualified to interpret their writings than the Pope

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 2:12pm

118. THE POPE!!

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 2:13pm

119. Posted by LILLIAN 08/08/2006 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person

     Didn't ask what YOU would condemn, LILLIAN. I asked, "when an opponent of a war YOU think is "just", starts pointing out atrocities committed by troops fighting your just war?"

     Mr Wiener (and others) want to use the atrocities of Vietnam and Iraq to say the wars should not have been fought (rather than argue against them on general principles or their merits or even strategies employed).

     So...if some future "Lillian justified war" pops up and SOME troops engage in war crimes, and the opponents of YOUR war want it ended or even declared "false and immoral"....same principle, no?

     Concrete example? Okay, say LILLIAN says sending troops into Darfur is right and proper and supports it. And some "evil right-wingers" oppose it. And the troops go in, and a year or so later, we learn that 5 GIs raped some 15 year old Sudanese girl. (Unlikely) And say the right-wingers say "See, see, those UN 'peacekeeping mission' are nothing but an excuse for troops to abuse local girls!!!"

     Silly,huh? Yet, oddly, the troops in Vietnam or Iraq aren't accused of "fighting a ill-chosen or ill-conceived war" by Mr Wiener here...but for "automatically" becoming abusers and war criminals by merely BEING in such a war.

     So...to prevent our troops from becoming serial rapists and mass murderers...I think it's safer for them to stay at home...out of Iraq and Vietnam.....or Rwanda and Darfur (or the Congo, Burundi, Cote D'Ivoire with blue helmets on!) and nobody will "get hurt".

     Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 2:31pm

120. with one sentence LVLIBERTY1 can get your heads spinning like little tops! funny! you are suddenly like rabid dogs crashing against the chain link fence. green vomit and all, as you team up to insult and cut. all part of the fun here.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 08/08/2006 @ 12:00am

     A roll call was previously taken on which posters here had ever served in the military and LVLIBERTY1 and Rio Blotto were conspicuously absent.

     LVLIBERTY1 also waxed poetic once about his wonderful church in which he is a minister and all the good things it does. He shut up though when others started asking for proof.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/08/2006 @ 12:05am

     Frei -

     Because he is so repugnant that he incites vitriol - I think it's pretty funny, too, but not for the reasons you do.

     And From -

     I've asked him for his church's address a half dozen times - no luck. He is petrified I might come there and hand out flyers with all of his hateful comments printed out on them for his flock.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 2:34pm

121. However, to try to paint every unit and by infrence every American soldier with war crimes is unconscionable. If this is where the far left wants to take the democrat party----then get ready to lose on a regular basis.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/08/2006 @ 12:06am

     No one has done this. Hollow argument. Nice try at whitewashing the left as a whole again.

     It's amusing how you guys never seem to understand your own innate hypocrisy when you paint with so wide a brush....

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 2:49pm

122. FREEDOMPLEASE (from religion) begs LVL to stop his selective bible drivel (yet again).

     By the way, where's that Conservative site where I can tell your ilk what anti-constitution America haters they are?

     Posted by freedomplease at 08/08/2006 @ 2:55pm

123. Posted by MASK 08/08/2006 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person

     Mask, this is perhaps the most childish post I've seen yet from you.

     "Lillian justified war"..."YOUR war"..."LILLIAN says sendingtroops into Darfur..."

     I guess I must have really gotten under your skin, huh?

     Look, you're once again spinning hard to try to craft a moral equivalence where none exists. Try as you might, you simply CAN'T paint Rwanda and Darfur with the same brush as Iraq and Viet Nam.

     You say "Concrete example?" and then craft something totally from your imagination and seem not to notice how completely idiotic that is! And your assertion that Mr. Weiner has claimed that American military personnel are "automatically" becoming abusers and war criminals by merely BEING in such a war" is equally absurd and again exists only in your imagination.

     Here's a news flash for you Mask...straight from the real world where the rest of us live...Viet Nam and Iraq were both wars started on a LIE. Atrocities were committed by American troops in both wars...and writers like Mr. Weiner have noticed and reported it.

     Last I checked, American troops have NOT been involved in Rwanda or Darfur and have NOT been involved in committing war crimes there.

     And your atempts to paint some different picture of what got reported br Mr. Weiner have gone from the absurd to the ridiculous.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 2:59pm

124. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/08/2006 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person

     You know Leave Liberty, it's not that I don't appreciate the lecture on your brand of 'christainity', it's just that I prefer to take my religeous lessons from someone who has NOT so clearly demonstrated himself to be an egomaniacal Pharasee.

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 3:07pm

125. LILLIAN

     I suggests that you re-take that Comp 101 class.

     It was always SADDAM, despite your manical rantings, it is the person behind the gun that makes you worry.

     WMD was the gun, so what if we didnt find it, i am glad we didnt, but we do know NOW according to the Duelfer report, that he possessed the capability to make them. Why do you think he did this?

     It doesnt diminish the war or effort regradless, SADDAM is gone, and he aint coming back.

     FACE IT the world is better off without SADDAM.

     And if we who support the war are apologists, then it stands to reason that you can certainly be an appeaser.

     Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 3:27pm

126. Last I checked, American troops have NOT been involved in Rwanda or Darfur and have NOT been involved in committing war crimes there.

     Posted by LILLIAN 08/08/2006 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person

     Oh, GEEZ...I forgot. I have to explain EVERYTHING to you in detail.

     Okay, back to simple...I was POSTULATING LILLIAN over a POTENTIAL "just war" (or "humanitarian peacekeeping mission").

     Although I WAS basing it on the recent atrocities committed by U.N. "peacekeepers" in The Congo, etc.

     You see, IF American troops were sent into some "Darfur" (a "just war" by YOUR definition, I assume)....THEN if they commit some atrocities, the critics can use that to say the whole thing was wrong (instead of argue its merits or drawbacks on a more general basis).

     Only thing "getting under my skin" is your obtuseness. I wasn't comparing US troops in Vietnam to the Sudanese troops in Darfur.

     I was referring to a HYPOTHETICAL incursion by US troops as part of a "UN peacekeeping mission".

     Or put it another way, why use "Vietnam atrocities" or "Iraq atrocities" as an attack on the justification or morality of those wars (as Mr Wiener SURELY was)....and NOT use the UN peacekeeper scandal as an attack on UN missions to Africa???

     Posted by Mask at 08/08/2006 @ 3:32pm

127. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/08/2006 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person

     You are a fool of the highest order.

     You posts makes no sense whatsoever.

     What did you think would happen once SADDAM was removed, well lets pack up and go home? You assertions are laughable.

     You rely on the myth that we sponsored SADDAM??????

     This is the most ridiculous notion of the looney leftists, sorry.

     IF we "sponsored SADDAM" like you say we did, why is equipped with EXCLUESIVELY, Soviet weapons: T-72s, BMPs, BRDMs, PKM machinguns, RPGS, AK-47s, ZSU-9s, MIG aircraft, and SCUDS.

     These are NOT in ANY US inventory oh deluded one.

     What i am hinting at, not subtley, but bluntly stating is that you are unhinged. FACE the reality that SADDAM was not ours, yes we took his side over Iran, remember the whole hostage thing, we didnt like Iran.

     And as far as Stalin goes, its ok for FDR to practice nation-state politics, but not anyone else?

     Moral relativism, the false and empty argument of the left...a lazy mans tool to justify doing nothing.....because all are fallible.

     Wrong, some are MORE fallible than others.

     Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 3:43pm

128. As to local church sites; I no longer pastor a particular church. I oversee the various churches in Nevada, the Philippines, Mexico, and the Bahamas. I preach at various times at these churches, at Sommerhaven, and as a guest speaker at other ministries around the US and the world. Additionally, I train pastors, evangelists, and missionaries. I still travel occasionally to different countries to establish new churches.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/08/2006 @ 3:27pm

     As disturbing as the idea of you teaching anyone anything about Christian decency is, I am almost positive (but don't crae to bother searching - someone else will out you, I'm sure) you have repeatedly used the phrase "my church".

     Lie or misrepresentation?

     And from what I'm reading about this Sister Agnes woman, she doesn't seem like you at all. Her focus seems to be the poor and needy, and not once have I seen anything from her that would denigrate liberals or support war....

     Care to give us some quotes from this wonderful woman hating liberals or supporting death and bloodshed?

     Further, anyone who claims that they are hearing voices, let alone from God, is clearly delusional.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 3:48pm

129. Posted by CPT 08/08/2006 @ 3:43pm

     Hey, proxy-boy, check it out - you made a point - the U.S. did not arm Iraq...

     Please spin your way out of this:

     http://www.counterpunch.org/green02242003.html

     And what about Iran?

     http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

     Frei made some snide comment earlier about the left spinning like tops over Liberty, a poster on this board...

     What's funny is that the rightward guys here do this about all of the issues and individual posters...

     If we're tops, you guys are centrifuges for spin.

     Nyah nyah.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 3:56pm

130. Here, Cpt -

     More for you to chew on.

     http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

     http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/IraqHypocrisy.html

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 4:01pm

131. NEW DAWN

     Counterpunch.com

     Created by Alexander Cockburn, the anti-Semite? Ok, yes, yes we gave SADDAM aide, he was fighting IRAN, never aid we did not help him.

     But to the extent you leftys suggests, it was a token amount to fight IRAN.

     The concept of nation-state politcs is really lost on your guys isnt it.

     But tell me, if we did arm him as you suggest, why did he have Soviet style weapons? Spin the T-72s? the RPGs? The MIG aircraft? The HIND Helios? Those arent spin, they are abject facts. Something you guys tend to have a problem with.

     I am waiting to see what you will try to uncover....from the most dubious of websites. counterpunch.com......might as well go to a neo-nazi site to find out facts on Israel.

     Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 4:08pm

132. NEW DAWN

     Sorry....the Nation is about as far left as i go.

     You subsrcibe to moral relativsm......i dont. Simple.

     Foriegn policy will never be conducted in strict adherence to moral principles. Too unrealistic

     Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 4:12pm

133. A classic case of shooting the messenger, and Cockburn didn't even write the articles I posted.

     And I notice that now, I also fall under your heading of subscribing to moral relativism - whassamatter, you give up on trying to call me an appeaser? What's the next convenient label you'll ascribe to me, no matter what I write or link?

     And I didn't "suggest" that we armed Saddam - you suggested we had no hand in arming him, I refuted you.

     You don't even pay attention to what you write, for Christ's sake, and we're supposed to debate you?

     You're an idiot, CPT, plain and simple. And for all of your bullshit bluster about facts, they will never get in the way of your irrational hatred of all things left.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 4:41pm

134. Liberty -

     So, you want to be obtuse? Okay, I'll play.

     YOU said:

     "I think if you go there you will find that Sister Agnes is perhaps even stronger in her feelings towards liberals than I am.

     http://www.sommerhaven.com/mission.html [url]"

     Then you vacillate:

     "Your comment about Sister Agnes not having any words on her website about liberals is rather inane. Do you honestly think that would be a focus of the ministry. She likewise believes strongly in her rights as a citizen. It is her private citizen beliefs I was referring to. I just assumed that someone like yourself was bright enough to cross that logical train of thought. My apologies if I overestimated."

     Liberty, I'd call you a bullshit artist, but that would be like calling a canvas with bullshit thrown on it, art, and it would be an insult to bullshit. You are transparent, and stupid to boot. Everything on that page is liberal, you fucking moron. I also get a kick out of your Christian, loving decency towards me when you continuously try to say you "overestimate" my intelligence. What an asshole. Just be blunt - I can take it. Stop trying to sound sorry for me.

     And this makes me want to vomit:

     "First of all, the churches I oversee are like my children. I am not my children but I call them my children because I helped to birth them and raise them up. It is a term of endearment and at the same time, one of responsibility. I like any father, need to nurture, teach and guide them into their full range of mature opportunities."

     "Teach" them to hate liberals and all things left; "guide" them to imply mental retardation and mental imbalance on those they don't agree with instead of making salient arguments; teach them killing is okay, and should be cheered and celebrated; teach them that Hell awaits those who don't subscribe to Liberty's beliefs.

     Some father. Can we all feel the love radiating off of the preacher-man?

     Then you write:

     "Secondly, I have on several occasions tried to explain to hard headed leftists that my political views are those of a citizen and not that of a pastor or even as a Christian. As a citizen I have the right to hold views on a variety of issues that have nothing to do with my faith. Everyone has opinions that are shaped in part by their faith or no faith."

     And then you immediately contradict yourself, or at the very least, display the most lily-livered, weak-kneed, wobbly, have-it-both-ways logic:

     "For instance, I can find justification for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by my political world view alone. It is further justified in part by my faith because of the Christian teaching in Romans that governments bear the sword to execute justice on evil in the world. This passage helped shape Augustine and Aquina's views on a Just War as previously cited."

     And finally, you sum up with a bunch of scripture and your own twisted interpretations of it.

     So, explain to us, Liberty - every person (including all Jews and all Muslims) who believes that the Christ was a prophet and not the son of God, or God personified, is going to hell, right?

     And you should condemn them and celebrate their imminent descent as a good Christian, right?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 4:59pm

135. So you as an unbeliever may label Christians as delusioned. However we do enjoy and will continue to celebrate our intimate relationship with Jesus that involves regular communication. If you find that crazy, it is of no concern to us. It is your loss.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/08/2006 @ 4:41pm

     Are you telling this board that you have ever heard an actual voice from God or Jesus in any circumstance?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 5:01pm

136. NEW DAWN

     I never suggested that never aided SADDAM, but rather in response to GLENN C. LEMONs inference that we gave armed him to the hill.

     You need to pay attention to what I am responding to, maybe you wouldnt get so angry.

     All things left, not all things, very specific attributes and tendencies.

     Posted by CPT at 08/08/2006 @ 5:05pm

137. I'll be back for that later, CPT - for now, back to work.

     And by the by, I will hold you to that last sentence, there:

     "All things left, not all things, very specific attributes and tendencies."

     The next time you use the word "left" as nebulously as you usually do, I will definitely call you on it.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 5:10pm

138. Mr Wiener (and others) want to use the atrocities of Vietnam and Iraq to say the wars should not have been fought.

     Yet, oddly, the troops in Vietnam or Iraq aren't accused of "fighting a ill-chosen or ill-conceived war" by Mr Wiener here...but for "automatically" becoming abusers and war criminals by merely BEING in such a war.

     Posted by MASK 08/08/2006 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person

     "...why use "Vietnam atrocities" or "Iraq atrocities" as an attack on the justification or morality of those wars (as Mr Wiener SURELY was)...."

     Posted by MASK 08/08/2006 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person

     Mask, the entire substance of what you are trying to pass off as a 'point' here, rests soley and entirely on these satements, that somehow Mr. Weiner (and I?) have stated that the commission of atrocities determines the morality or justness of the war. But once again, you have created out of whole cloth, an 'argument' that the author DIDN'T make, in order to rail against it. Mr. Weiner's article runs 12 paragraphs and details that fact the government has, for 40 years, been keeping the details regarding the extent of the atrocities committed in Viet Nam a secret. He only even mentions Iraq in the tenth and last paragraphs and only to wonder if the same thing will happen regarding attrocities in the Iraq war. He never once mentions the morality of either of those wars, nor any correlation between those wars and the atrocitices committed in them! To claim his article was "an attack on the justification or morality of those wars" is to once agin proclaim the triumph of your imagination over what the author actually said.

     Of course, you can't admit that the author wasn't trying to make that point because then, everything else you've been trying to say devolves into so much incoherent babbling about 'hypothetical situations' and 'I know he said that, but what he really meant was something different'!

     Posted by Lillian at 08/08/2006 @ 6:27pm

139. CPT -

     First, you said:

     "You rely on the myth that we sponsored SADDAM??????

     This is the most ridiculous notion of the looney leftists, sorry."

     Then you changed your tune:

     "I never suggested that never aided SADDAM, but rather in response to GLENN C. LEMONs inference that we gave armed him to the hill."

     So it isn't looney when you say it, or rather, when you agree with it...

     Maybe if you weren't so clearly full of shit, I wouldn't get so angry.

     Hey, by the way, how is the chewing going on all of the other links I provided? You spit out the name "Cockburn", then just bailed on all of the other info...

     Not enough time to check them out, or are you reloading to shoot more messengers because you don't like their messages?

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 6:31pm

140. Posted by LILLIAN 08/08/2006 @ 6:27pm

     That's Mask for you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 08/08/2006 @ 6:31pm

141. Amazing what propaganda can do. For the last 50 years the world has believed in the myth that America was the bastion of freedom and democracy, a leader in human rights. Now we see that America is in fact worse than the Nazis. Committing crimes against humanity from Vietnam to Nicaragua and from Korea to Iraq with impunity. At last we can see clearly that the real axis of evil is made up of the US, the UK and Israel.

     Posted by Macreb at 08/09/2006 @ 02:51am