|
|
|
Posted May 11, 2001 Forced Trade …I must respectfully disagree with [Justin Raimondo's] recent defense of "forced trade", i.e., the system wherein the American taxpayer is forced to provide political risk insurance, below-market loans, and bailouts . . . to allow a handful of wealthy people to ship American industries to unstable, low-wage countries. ...Now [that] we have our own industries located overseas, the most wealthy and powerful Americans . . . have much to lose if any . . . of these third-world governments either collapses or becomes unfriendly to U.S. interests. This will drag America into foreign domestic matters and conflicts… With respect, and I still greatly enjoy J. Raimondo's columns, ~ Timothy Gawne
Kerrey, Part 1 [To Justin Raimondo:] I
read your site every day and look forward to your columns. Unfortunately,
[regarding your Is
Bob Kerrey a War Criminal?] you are going to alienate millions
of Vietnam veterans like me who served honorably. Yes, Kerrey is a war
criminal and should be prosecuted. The vast majority of us never behaved
in that manner and performed remarkably well considering we were teenagers
serving under maniacs. We usually disregarded officers.
...To continue to refer to Vietnam as "immoral" and atrocities as the norm is yellow journalism, something I believe you are above. I think we had a right to fight communism, but do not believe that was the right way to do it… ~ David Moore Kerrey, Part 2 [To Justin Raimondo:]
…[Regarding The Spin Begins,] thanks for pointing out that Kerrey is hiding behind and dragging down the rest of us Vietnam veterans. I wrote to you earlier about alienating us readers by not pointing this out.
I do not come with clean hands, though, and know of a similar – but justifiable – incident. I was in H Co., 75th Rangers when Team 73 killed two "civilians" in a free fire zone in January 1972. You can read about it in Stanton's book Anatomy of a Division on page 233. …The killings by Team 73 were questioned by the Vietnamese... This was all ended when a general came, gave everybody involved Bronze Medals (how familiar), said, "You're my boys" (seriously), and that was that. A week does not go by that I [don't] reflect on what happened. This is why I know Kerrey is a liar. His mission was compromised the moment he landed and he should have left. I do not feel his team was in danger; I mean automatic weapons can be heard for miles. I am also amazed by the weapons they carried: M79 grenade launchers and M72 LAWs. Rangers carried light weapons, 15 mags, 4 frags, and 2 claymores. Granted Rangers had a different mission, but I think you get the point. My convoluted point is this. What Team 73 did was understandable as they had just landed in a free-fire zone and ran into a group [of people], one of whom was armed . . . What Kerrey did was deliberate, was thought over, and an order [was] given. He is a sociopath who only feels his own pain. (My heart goes out to Klann.) Thanks for pointing out the difference… ~ David
Moore Non-Democrat Says, No Rules in War I am not even a Democrat and I love Raimondo's style but in Kerrey's case I think he's wrong. At night, being shot at, you cannot tell the difference between VC (who where dressed as civilians most of the time) and regular civilians. In a war situation everybody is a combatant and one never know when a 5 or 6-year-old child, an 85-year-old woman, or a man will throw a grenade at you or pull out a gun and shoot you. This whole new "investigation" of something that happened 31 years ago in a war with no rules is absolutely ridiculous. ~ H. Bensimon Mr. Raimondo's column does not argue that Mr. Kerry should be investigated because he accidentally killed civilians while being fired on at night; it argues that Mr. Kerry should be investigated for war crimes because he (allegedly) knowingly killed (or ordered his men to kill) unarmed civilians. ~ SK |