"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

(Scott MacEachern) wrote:

:"Kevin Brooks" wrote...
:
: A darned lot more than "some".
:
:And a darn lot less than 'all'. In some cases... the uses of
:unobserved harassmment and interdiction fires in populated areas, for
:example... he's probably right, as well. take a look at Protocol 1
:Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, Article 57.

You mean the one the US isn't a signatory to and that was enacted some
years AFTER the remarks of Mr Kerry? Talk about your revisionist
history, Scott! Vietnam was BEFORE that.

: Can you name any defense programs he actually *supported*?
:
:Sure, that's easy. Go to
:http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/leg...sers/votes.htm
:and actually look at his voting record. It's fairly straightforward --
:I just searched for 'defense' and then looked at the voting records.
:You'll see a variety of (a) defense appropriation bills and (b)
:specific programme appropriation bills that he voted for.

And what programs were those? 'If you go hunt you can find some'
isn't exactly a defense of your position. Neither is "well, he
eventually voted for a Defense Appropriations Bill".

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall wrote:

You mean the one the US isn't a signatory to and that was enacted some
years AFTER the remarks of Mr Kerry? Talk about your revisionist
history, Scott! Vietnam was BEFORE that.

(Shrug) Fair enough. then take a look at Convention IV of the Hague
1907 treaties, which limits th emeans of carrying out attacks --
especially Articles 24 and 25. Take a look as well at the discussion
of the 1977 Conventions, and especially the discussion of Article 51,
which prohibits indiscriminate attacks, at
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f...1?OpenDocument

"...1923 Article 51 is one of the most important articles in the
Protocol. It explicitly confirms the customary rule that innocent
civilians must be kept outside hostilities as far as possible and
enjoy general protection against danger arising from hostilities..."

And what programs were those? 'If you go hunt you can find some'
isn't exactly a defense of your position. Neither is "well, he
eventually voted for a Defense Appropriations Bill".

Why not, in either case? If he were as reflexively anti-military as
some people are making out, neither would be the case -- he wouldn't
be voting appropriations nor would he be supporting particular bills.
And why not go looking? So far, what I see is a cut 'n pasted list
from conservative magazines of some programmes he voted against at one
point, identical down to the commas. If I were trying to assemble a
picture of how he actually voted, I would go to the source, wouldn't
you? And you can take a look at
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...1&vote =00143
and
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...1&vote =00263
for a couple of the cases I'm talking about.

Scott

Subject: "The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al
From: (Scott MacEachern)
Date: 2/17/04 8:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

You mean the one the US isn't a signatory to and that was enacted some
years AFTER the remarks of Mr Kerry? Talk about your revisionist
history, Scott! Vietnam was BEFORE that.

(Shrug) Fair enough. then take a look at Convention IV of the Hague
1907 treaties, which limits th emeans of carrying out attacks --
especially Articles 24 and 25. Take a look as well at the discussion
of the 1977 Conventions, and especially the discussion of Article 51,
which prohibits indiscriminate attacks, at

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f...6/5e5142b6ba10
2b45c12563cd00434741?OpenDocument

"...1923 Article 51 is one of the most important articles in the
Protocol. It explicitly confirms the customary rule that innocent
civilians must be kept outside hostilities as far as possible

"....as far as posssible..." That is the loophole that makes it all
meaningless.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer