Uechi-Ryu.com

Here's something to ponder, related to my previous response to Ian. (post before this one)

Let's assume that Bush had not invaded Iraq. Instead, let's assume that he had devoted the bulk of those troops to Afghanistan to hunt for bin Laden. This concentration on finding this bad guy is something many Bush opponents are suggesting should have been done. Here's a few questions to ask yourself.

1) Is this a good use of military might? Consider the economic principle of the law of diminishing returns.

2) Do you think we would have found him any faster?

3) Without an Iraqi military presence and with troops instead concentrated in Afghanistan, where would all these "foreign insurgents" be? Where would Jordanian-born Zarqawi be? (The delightful chap who likes to film himself sawing the heads off of civilians) Where else would insurgents be coming from? Would al Qaeda have a weaker or stronger presence in Afghanistan today?

4) How many troop deaths would we have by now hunting for this mole in the thousands (yes, THOUSANDS) of caves in the region between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Think of all those contrary Afghan sorts who have bedeviled various occupiers of Afghanistan for century after century.

5) How stable would Pakistan be? How cooperative would they be?

6) How would we chase "bad guys" who flee from the mountains of Afghanistan to the mountainous territory of Pakistan?

7) What PHYSICAL manifestation would we see from all the post-9/11 "good will." (Talk doesn't count)

8) What would we have done to the political sentiments of the average Afghan by now?

There are more interesting questions to ask, but these are a good start.

- Bill

Point by point:

1) If Saddam's UN violations mattered that much to the USA, then the UN would have mattered. So we would have gotten the UN on board. We didn't. Dubya did not take us to war to support the UN when the UN didn't want to go to war.

2) Yes, Saddam did have WMD (we've not found any, though--meaning he either hid them very well or actualy disarmed). So does the DPRK. He did use them, as well. WMD, chemical and nuclear, were used by western powers in WW2. Conventional WMD, such as mass killing with machetes, rapes, displacement of peoples and their killings by starvation, didn't make us very interested in, say, Africa. While a mass machete killing isn't likely to be exported to the USA, neither have I seen any link of Saddam to al qaeda that suggests they were going to get nerve gas to release in NYC. Lastly we've had a bit of inconsistency in how much we help tie down nukes in the former soviet republics. They also could sell weapons to the wrong people and we didn't do as much as we could to stop this from happening. Overall, it's just not a consistent policy.

3) Saddam's uranium cake purchase would have been worrisome. Yet, Iran and DPRK HAVE this material and haven't been invaded. At last Iran could be conceived as a possible conduit to terrorist organizations. The cake-to-bomb steps aren't immediate either.

4) I don't remember hearing about shooting in the no-fly reason as a justification for war before it started. Surely, it was pretty ineffective. Would we invade DPRK if they shot at some of our planes in UN regulated no fly areas of their country?

5) We didn't go to war in Iraq because of French whores.

6) Saddam had willingness to take over the area's oil back when Bush senior decided to halt the first war. Also, Saddam did not have the CAPABILITY anymore, what with the damages to his military and the waiting forces near by. (There's a DMZ in Korea separating the south from those with the willingness to take over the penisula, though there's no oil there.)

7) I don't think we went to war to protect Israel either. Talk about diminishing returns--can the occupation of an entire country slow suicide bombings by reducing payments to family when someone convinced a kid to try to blow up a checkpoint for a few sheckles?

Osama being irrelevant doesn't mean we need to fight in Iraq. As you point out, anyway, al aqeada has spread to a bunch of places that might be great leads to reducing terrorist attacks in the US. At a minimum, Iraq occupation is giving the newly/heavily terrorist infiltrated country a great at-home target and generating a lot of resentment that could be swelling their ranks. It's also doing nothing about those splinter groups.

--We also don't necessarily need to go cave-to-cave for OBL.
--If afghanistan would look exactly like IRaq (full of beheaders etc) if we weren't in Iraq.... why doesn't it? What's stopping them? Afghanistan has turned out to be a much more appreciative, peaceful place and a more successful mission. Maybe it's because we had a ready-to-go replacement governent (the northern alliance). Maybe the people understood that war HAD to happen because of 9/11 because Taliban was hiding the baddies. I'm not an afghanistanologist, but something is different there and it's NOT that all the terrorists flights from Iraq got delayed.
--troop deaths? If OBL is irrelevant so is the cave hunt. But I would wager fewer than in Iraq! No cave war means Pakistani cooperation is a non issue, but we could alsways have asked em.
--"How would we chase "bad guys" who flee from the mountains of Afghanistan to the mountainous territory of Pakistan?" Don't know but fighting in Iraq hasn't improved this problem.
--"What PHYSICAL manifestation would we see from all the post-9/11 "good will." (Talk doesn't count)." What physical manifestation did we see in Iraq? PR drives al qaeda recruitment, maybe having Britain as our only serious ally isn't helping us out that much.
--"What would we have done to the political sentiments of the average Afghan by now?" Well, they've taken to us fairly well so far. I don't think those mountain caves are well populated, like the residential neighborhoods we find ourselves fighting in in IRaq, and they're not major religious shrines, like the pockmarked ones in Iraq. So I would say, less damage for sure, and no damage if the cave hunt is, as you claim, unnecessary.

Ian

I get a pretty good feeling that you - like many - won't (or do not wish to) understand what I am communicating. But I will try anyway.

If Saddam's UN violations mattered that much to the USA, then the UN would have mattered. So we would have gotten the UN on board.

How could you possibly make this statement after all I have communicated, Ian?

Several parties with veto power - PARTICULARLY France - were getting a whole lot of money from Saddam's oil for palaces...I mean food program. They knew what the deal was. They knew people were starving in Iraq, Saddam was diverting the money to palaces, fortifications, and weapons. And new alliances were being formed. You and others are naive to think that this payola was not going on, and isn't a major reason why France hates us so much now and is doing everything they can to undermine the effort.

Oil is money. Money is power. Saddam was paying the right people, and the U.N. was not going to follow though on the seventeen (17) violated U.N. resolutions. (Source: Condoleza Rice yesterday on Meet the Press).

We weren't going to get U.N. cooperation yesterday, today, or tomorrow. Neither would you, and neither will Kerry. In fact since the debates last Thursday evening, the leaders of both France and Germany have both come out and said they will not commit troops, no matter who is in power. (Source: Fox News this morning).

This was a recipe for disaster, Ian. If you can't see that with all of Iraq's history of seizing oil land and actually using WMDs, then you don't want to see it.

Add up the seventeen (17) U.N. resolutions, the history of seizing oil wealth, and the history of use of WMDs. Then add in Saddam's firing at U.S. and Britain planes guarding the no-fly zones in the north (to protect the Kurds) and the south (to protec the Shia). Add in his proven attempt at getting uranium cake from Africa. Add in all the possessed "dual use" technologies. Then add in funding of the families of suicide bombers, and his public proclamations thereof. What should we do, ask for another U.N. resolution? (Not) Expect U.N. action? (When hell freezes over) Bend over and grab our ankles?

And if you think that all these issues weren't mentioned before the invasion, then you're getting all your news from Michael Moore. You and others need to listen to Powell's speech before the U.N. just before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Most of that speech was correct. One part being wrong doesn't make the whole effort wrong.

North Korea and other places do not compare. We are managing these situations via other means that are as effective as you are going to get. And let's not forget the fact that NK now knows we'll attack if pi$$ed off. That has more of an effect than you are willing to admit. As the Chinese saying goes, In order to scare 100 monkeys, kill one.

Kerry wanted this too, Ian. Kerry voted for it. The person you want in office would have done the same thing, and he wouldn't have gotten a lick of support from France, Germany, Russia, or China. And if you paid attention to politics, you would know that the last German Chancellor saved his a$$ and got voted in office with a last-minute U.S. bashing campaign. And this was long before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Germany was making money on Iraq as well.

Did you see the SNL skit last Saturday night? Funny as hell. In a satire of the debate, the comedian playing John Kerry protests his characterization as a "flip flopper." He says that he was for the war when talking to pro-war groups, and against the war when talking to anti-war groups. "That's not flip flopping, that's pandering, and any fool knows the difference!"

Unlike the spoofing of GW in the skit, that line got an applause from the New York audience. Gee, I wonder why?

As for Afghanistan, you missed the point there as well. Absent activity in Iraq, all those that hate the U.S. would be fomenting anarchy in Afghanistan. There's a long history of mujahadin activity in that country. Remember? Where do you think bin Laden came from? And why do I think that Islamofascists will go where the U.S. is? Source: a friend of mine from Inda who said terrorism has dropped to nearly nothing in her country since Operation Iraqi Freedom. She says they all left her country and went to Iraq. Maybe she's right.

Things worked out better for us in Afghanistan because the Afghans took much of the fight on themselves once we loosened the hold that the Taliban had on the government. The Iraqis (Kurds and Shia) tried that as well after Desert Storm. And you know what it got them? Ethnic cleansing. So that means they don't want or need help?

Do a little more studying of the tribes living in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ian. Yes, people live there, and they don't take to outsiders. Osama may be ineffective there from the standpoint of al Qaeda, but getting him out would take many lives and cost a lot of good will. Pakistan already found that out, and backed off. And BTW, the Pakistani ruler almost lost his life over it - several times.

That's one nasty area in the world, and we are best to leave these folks to their own living. If you don't bother them, they won't bother you.

- Bill

I apologize for not getting back sooner I was away last week for a training course, so my comments my not make sense unless you go back to page 1 of this discussion.

“Hmm... "Hyperbole" would be kind. Perjury more like it.”

How do you know this was an exaggeration? I honestly don’t know. Did the 150 men he was talking about all lie? Were the crimes the men testified to not happen? Unless the things that I’ve read about the Vietnam War in college are completely wrong or these atrocities did happen (granted I too had my share of alcohol in college so I could have just missed it).

“You know... I could read about 3/4 of that as being "normal" acts of war. Nobody said it was fun. But these statements following those made in the previous quote give an impression so false as to be unforgivable. Consider this... I could be forgiving of an "average" man being "unclear." But this is a Yale grad. This guy should understand how to convey a message. And those two paragraphs convey something quite insidious of the United States, the military mission, and - most damaging of all - the men fighting in Vietnam”

Now I’ve never been to war, and I’ve never even been in the military but to say any of the things Kerry mentioned like the cutting ears off or cutting off heads to be consider “normal acts of war” is disgusting. I thought Kerry was very clear in his message. I’m not calling the guy a saint, far from it; I believe he had political aspirations for appearing in front of congress. But that doesn’t diminish his message.

“ Put yourself in the position of those North Vietnamese holding many, many U.S. soldiers captive. You think these NV were nice guys? Guess again. Our men - including a few accomplished Uechika in our midst - put up with routine torture and even murder. Imagine being buried up to your neck in sewage for days at a time until you were infected with all kinds of nasty stuff. Imagine having a Vietamese woman dance nude in front of you (sometimes more) while your testicles were fried with current. Imagine having your arms slowly pulled together behind your back with a rope apparatus so either your elbows touched or your shoulder(s) dislocated - whichever came first. And yes, there's more. Now, do you want to give the keepers of the "Hanoi Hilton" any more reason to commit atrocities on American POWs?”

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you and please correct me if I do. But are you honestly suggesting our government should have free range to do what ever it wants during a war and the public should be kept in the dark about it because of how the enemy might react to it? Should the ravages of war be kept secret to the every day person back home? I believe only a relatively small number of soldiers were involved in committing the crimes Kerry mentioned in his speech but just because it was a small number doesn’t mean it should be ignored. Plus I think people are missing the message of the speech. I wasn’t about blaming the American Soldier it was about how Our Government failed the American Soldier. If American POW’s want to blame somebody for the torture they went through during there capture all they have to do is look at the administration that put them in that position, be it Democratic or Republican.

This was an incredible lack of judgement at best. It's easily a betrayal of confidence of men "decompressing" after battle. (Do some reading on the subject if you don't understand the concept. I can give you references.) Many see this as much worse than that.

Do you feel comfortable promoting this man to Commander in Chief of our military?

The incredible lack of judgment was the war in it of it self and that was the point of the speech.

And Yes I do feel comfortable promoting Kerry to Commander and Chief. In fact, a hell of a lot more comfortable then the alternative. Especially after seeing the incredible lack of judgment used in Iraq.

Paul_C

How do you know this was an exaggeration? I honestly don’t know. Did the 150 men he was talking about all lie? Were the crimes the men testified to not happen?

First, not all that was mentioned were "war crimes." Last time I checked, people killed each other in wars. This isn't done humanely as in a lethal injection for a man on death row. This involves killing via bombs, mortars, grenades, mines, automatic weapons, and even hand-to-hand combat where peoples' ears and heads get cut off. War isn't pretty. If you're going to fight a war, well then by golly fight the damn thing. After all, Kerry volunteered to go over there, and presents himself as being a war hero. Today, anyway...

In front of Congress, Kerry's own words implied people were commiting war crimes on a daily basis. I am not going to accept that Kerry accurately represented what happened to those 150 men, nor do I believe they would have endorsed him telling Congress what grieving soldiers needed to talk about behind closed doors.

The failure of government indeed goes deep in Vietnam. This was the first war where the military finally figured out how to get a majority of men actually to fire their weapons at the enemy (90%, vs. an average of about 20% in most wars in the past). But what the military did not know at the time was the consequences of using operant conditioning to overcome man's natural reluctance to kill. Men were sent over there one at a time, and they were brought home one at a time on a quick ride home to a public that literally spat in their faces. In past wars, men were sent in groups, and they literally took a slow boat ride home where they had a chance to debrief and be debriefed. That was part of the psychological healing process that prevented most PTSD. In Vietnam, anything that could have caused PTSD was done, and not out of overt neglect or intentional harm on the part of the military or government.

By the way, Kennedy and Johnson were the two presidents that escalated the presence of American troops in Vietnam. As much as I hated Nixon at the time, he was the one who wanted "Peace with honor." Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was the one who finally negotiated the exit, and got the POWs home.

Kerry on the other hand testified under oath that he was aware of war crimes.



In other venues, he suggested that he himself committed war crimes. If this had happened today (such as the fiasco at Abu Ghraib), what do you think would have happened to him? Think about it. At the very least, he would have had to plea bargain some testimony - assuming he didn't perjure himself. At the worst, he may have been convicted of war crimes and have been treated as a felon. That's a man you want as commander in chief?

But it's all forgotten now, or at least that's the way his campaign wants to have it. He's a war hero, and he's "reporting for duty."



Oh and by the way, he's also celebrated as a war hero in the War Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City -- an indication of the value the Vietnamese communists place on Kerry's support of their efforts during the Vietnam War.



More here...

Communist Vietnamese honor John Kerry

Talk about pandering... This guy gets around, no?

As for rationalizing Kerry's speech in front of Congress, well you can believe what you want to believe. But if you want to understand one of the DIRECT consequences of his speech, ask POWs in Vietnam who had to listen to recordings of his speech while being physically tortured. They might have a different opinion.

There is nothing wrong with being against the war in Vietnam. I'm old enough to have voiced my own protest against the war. But my voiced opinions did not contribute to the torture of POWs. And I did not negotiate or fraternize with the enemy outside the chain of command of my government.

- Bill

Ian wrote:We didn't go to war in Iraq because of French whores

When it comes to foreign policy, "French whores" is redundant.

- Bill

A couple of thoughts here:

Bill said: "After all, Kerry volunteered to go over there,"

I do not believe that to be quite correct. As I understand it, Kerry joined the Navy reserves, not the regular Navy, much as Bush joined the Natuinal Guard. The difference is that Kerry got activated. Now, as Swift Boats were considered very risky, he may have volunteered for them. Anyone having the facts on this please jump in.

Bill also said: "This was the first war where the military finally figured out how to get a majority of men actually to fire their weapons at the enemy (90%, vs. an average of about 20% in most wars in the past)."

Much of this was due to the high mobility of the US forces in Vietnam. The place is not all that big, and the helicopter came into use big time. Even in WW2, the troops spent most of their time being moved around, often on foot. There were many major battles but they were weeks apart. In Vietnam the troops were close to the front and often in battle. I do agree with Bill that the nature of the war and the change in training had almost all troops engaing the enemy at some point, and actually firing on the enemy.

Rich

At the end of World War II the problem became obvious: Johnny can't kill.

A firing rate of 15 to 20 percent among soldiers is like having a literacy rate of 15 to 20 percent among proofreaders. Once those in authority realized the existence and magnitude of the problem, it was only a matter of time until they solved it.

The Answer

And thus, since World War II, a new era has quietly dawned in modern warfare: an era of psychological warfare -- psychological warfare conducted not on the enemy, but upon one's own troops. Propaganda and various other crude forms of psychological enabling have always been present in warfare, but in the second half of this century psychology has had an impact as great as that of technology on the modern battlefield.

When S. L. A. Marshall was sent to the Korean War to make the same kind of investigation that he had done in World War II, he found that (as a result of new training techniques initiated in response to his earlier findings) 55 percent of infantrymen were firing their weapons -- and in some perimeter-defense crises, almost everyone was. These training techniques were further perfected, and in Vietnam the firing rate appears to have been around 90 to 95 percent. The triad of methods used to achieve this remarkable increase in killing are desensitization, conditioning, and denial defense mechanisms.

- Grossman, On Killing

The Rationalization and Acceptance of Killing
But after the fires and the wrath,
...But after searching and pain,
His Mercy opens us a path
...To lie with ourselves again.

- Rudyard Kipling
"The Choice"

We have previously examined the killing response stages of concern, killing exhilaration, remorse, and rationalization and acceptance. Let us now apply this model to the Vietnam veteran in order to understand how the process of rationalization and acceptance of killing failed in Vietnam.

The Rationalization Process

Something unique seems to have occurred in the rationalization process available to the Vietnam veteran. Compared with earlier American wars the Vietnam conflict appears to have reversed most of the processes traditionally used to facilitate the rationalization and acceptance of killing experiences. These traditional processes involve:

* Constant praise and assurance to the soldiers from peers and superiors that he "did the right thing" (One of the most important physical manifestations of this affirmation is the awarding of medals and decorations.)

* The constant presence of mature, older comrades (that is, in their late twenties and thirties) who serve as role models and stabilizing personality factors in the combat environment

* A careful adherence to such codes and conventions of warfare by both sides (such as the Geneva conventions, first established in 1864), thereby limiting civilian casualties and atrocities

* Rear lines or clearly defined safe areas where the soldier can go to relax and depressurize during a combat tour

* The presence of close, trusted friends and confidants who have been present during training and are present throughout the combat experience

* A cooldown period as the soldier and his comrades sail or march back from the wars

* Knowledge of the ultimate victory of their side and of the gain and accomplishments made possible by their sacrifices

* Parades and monuments

* Reunions and continued communcation (via visits, mail, and so on) with the individuals whom the soldier bonded with in combat

* An unconditionally warm and admiring welcome by friends, family, communities, and society, constantly reassuring the soldiers that the war and his personal acts were for a necessary, just, and righteous cause

* The proud display of medals

What made Vietnam different

In the case of the Vietnam veteran all but the first of these rationalization processes were not only mostly absent, but many of them were inverted and became sources of great pain and trauma to the veteran.

- Grossman, On Killing

And it is the contention of myself and others that Kerry contributed to this. In fact some of the "baby killer" rantings from protesters that returning veterans faced were a direct result of Kerry's testimony.

Furthermore, confidant means confidant. It doesn't mean using debriefing sessions as fodder for political aspirations.

- Bill

Thanks for the quote.

I read the Grossman book as well and understand the problem. Visit the town of Gettysburg and you can still see the bullet marks up high on the buildings as many soldiers fired high on purpose. They just could not bring themselves to fire at another human, but were forced to fire their weapon.

My point was not very clear. Much of the emotional trauma of the Vietnam vet was due to the fact that they were almost always in battle. The typical, not all, WW2 vet had long periods of inaction.

Rich

Read the second post (above) Rich. I believe you missed it.

Good point about Gettysburg. Grossman notes it in his book.

- Bill

Jesus, I wanted to avoid adding to this but I just have to. As an American. As a vet.

First I want to say. I don't have a clue who Lunacy is, but I see he is from NY. And all I want to say is RIGHT ON HOMEY!!! I agree with you a thousand percent.

Second - I am a VET!! 8 years total, 3.5 National Guard Infantry, 4.5 active duty - 1/77th armor, 11th ARMORED CAVALRY!!! (started in Guard, ended in Guard)

Third - If you are getting your info from OFFICERS from Iraq you get the party line. No officer will risk his career to give you his real opinion until he gets out of that unform. However this is not to say that those in uniform do not support this war in Iraq. I do realize that.

fourth - The grunts rule! And they will tell you the truth. Don't imagine what they think ask them! Find out the real story. And don't think for a moment there is freedom of speech in the military. If you served, you know what I mean.

Fifth - If anyone has the right to complain about a war they were in it's that guy. And all his mates that were WITH HIM - Not those lying politcally motivated a-holes that DID NOT SERVE WITH HIM!!! KEY words here fellas - DID - NOT - SERVE -WITH - HIM!!!!
When I was in the military, many Vietnam vets stayed in because it was easier to aclimate after the war still in uniform than to go into civilian life. And the stories they told would curl you hair. There were atrocities commited. And ##### happened you will never know about. These were from guys that were in the bush. Most of those in Vietnam did not see combat. In '68 there were 500,000 troops in country. There were not 500,000 troops engaged in battle. Understand that. My first team chief was a Vietnam Vet. He never even saw a dead body there. So don't think all Vietnam Vets saw combat.

As far as LEFTY's.... Would that include Pat Buchanan???? Have you heard his views on the war or read his book???

I am an independant. If you vote your party line instead of voting for the man (or woman) you are a fool. Period!! Argue all you want. I hate Bush (as president, not as a person). He is wrong. He is dangerous both for our economy and our safety. BUT... I like McCain (a POW who doesn't bash Kerry), GENERAL Wes Clark, Rudy Guilianni, and Hillary AND Bill Clinton. Party's blow. Nader is a Lunatic.

Now all you "righty's" explain this.... If a CIA agent was outed from a member of the White House staff to the press during the Clinton administration, and nothing was done about it, what would you being doing right now? I mean after you scream bloody murder?? HYPOCRITS!

This administration is a shamefull embarrasment. I could go on and on but I am too pissed off to articulate properly. Now all this does not mean I am a Kerry supporter either. And though I will vote for him I will not vote for Bush. I was a Wes Clark supporter even before he gave politics a shot. If McCain was running I would support him as well. I go for the man, the character, the substance.

Bring back the draft. Let your kids and yourselves go protect America from Hussein. I found at work from all those I've talked to about the war, of those who support Bush, only ONE is a vet. I also found that those who talk the most for this war in Iraq are those that have never served. Y'know, like 5X defery Cheney. Those of us who did wear the uniform supported and still do getting and killing bin dickweed in Afghanistan while he and most of the original terrorists were still there.

Is the world safer? Let's ask the Spanish and the Russians.

One next to last thing before you all try to bash on me. If you are not a vet or a current sworn in member of the armed forces who can possibly be sent overseas to get your ass tore up, Don't bother. Your opnion means nothing to me. You can talk all the talk but if you ain't walked the walk.... It's not to be disrespectfull to anyone as a person, but as a vet who strongly opposes the war in Iraq, I only respect the opinions of those who do and have served. I of course won't agree with those who oppose my view but I will respect it.

One last thing, if a foreign country invaded America, bombed our towns and cities, put their troops on my streets, patrolled in front of my house with armed troops and tanks, all in the name of their version of freedom (or whatever excuse), I'd be an insurgent too. Think about it.

GOD BLESS THE TROOPS!!
GOD BLESS THE VETS!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

This is Scotty - OUT!

You go, Scotty! I'm not trashing your point of view; you earned it.

My specialty is the delivery of healthcare. I also am an independent. Kerry's ancient Vietnam experience isn't the reason I will not vote for Kerry. This to me is just a useful exercise in history.

The problem is Edwards and his unjustified stealing of money from OBs (since proven by peer-reviewed literature). He and others like him are responsible for 3 out of 4 OBs - the doctors that deliver our children today - being sued. It's he and others like him that caused the OB who delivered number 1 son to quit, and the one who delivered number 2 son to commit suicide. You will not find Edwards apologizing for his wrongful legal actions against OBs who delivered CP babies, nor will you find him returning money to all these OBs whose lives he unjustifiably ruined.

I can forgive Kerry for all his Vietnam War era stupidities. He was a young fool and maybe he learned from it. But I cannot forgive a lawyer choosing the most extreme stereotype of a scumbag trial lawyer as a running mate. He's a big boy now, and he should know better. This IMO is a politically fatal error in judgement. And science is on my side here. I am right and Edwards is wrong, and that's the truth - blblblblbl.

But don't ask me what I really think of Edwards...

So...I'll vote for someone else. Since I'm a fiscal conservative and for separation of church and state, I'll likely vote for the libertarian as long as Kerry won't win Virginia - which he won't.

We each vote based on our experiences and our personal interests.

Catharsis is a wonderful thing, ain't it, Scotty?

- Bill

P.S. This kind of catharsis on my part usually brings a counter. Been there, done that. Don't expect me to change my mind. Again, science is on my side. Was then (no proof Edwards was right then), and is now (proof now exists that Edwards was wrong).

Bravo Scott!

Bill,

Do you think that maybee John Edwards may have actually believed the science/ knowledge he had on C.P.?
Maybee he actually believed he was doing the right thing by getting some compensation to those poor folks doomed to a life of high medical bills and difficulties. Like you said you won't change your mind, but there's some food for thought.

Also.. I was reading back and read that article in "wintersoldier" I wouldn't trust a source that conducts polls that read..

Should a man who falsely accused American troops of atrocities serve as Commander-in-Chief?
Sure
No
Hell, no

Clearly folks are speaking from the heart on that website, Ben.

I cannot forgive John Edwards for several reasons, Ben. First, I clearly remember my GRE test - the standardized test for admission to graduate school. The analytical thinking portion discerns who understands the concept of causality, and who does not. I would imagine this is a minimum requirement for entrance to law school.

John Edwards SHOULD have known that - at the time - there was no established causal link between CP and what the physician did. If he did not, then he clearly is an idiot who had no business being accepted to law school in the first place.

Then again, he went to UNC law school. Maybe that explains it...

What John Edwards did was play on the emotional response of average people for economic gain. Parade a horribly deformed CP child in front of an average jury that would never make it to grad school or law school. Bring in an "expert" MD who will say what you want him to say. (There are experts for everything from telepathy to the existence of a flat earth.) Then bring the "evil" doctor in the room, and wave your accusing finger at him/her while orating like a southern preacher. It's quite the Barnum and Bailey show - for economic gain. He preyed on people's emotions and lack of intelligence, all while ruining the lives and careers of people we need to run this health care system and lining his own pockets.

If Edwards wanted to do good, he should have engaged in public service where he could have facilitated the passing of legislation designed to help families with CP babies. That's the only right thing to do. Trashing innocent lives and precious professions is wrong.

I've seen ABC 20/20 interviews of lawyers attempting to defend what Edwards did - KNOWING today that he was wrong and the OBs were innocent. I can provide the reference if you like. The attitude is that malpractice insurance companies have deep pockets, so what is everyone worried about? (It makes me boil when I see folks with this kind of warped thinking.) The reality now is that 3 out of 4 OBs get sued, malpractice insurance now costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for these people, OBs have had to shut down services in rural areas due to inability to cover costs, and states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania are in a crisis mode w.r.t. insurance for doctors. What this translates to is a situation where our health insurance inflation is at 11% today (for one of several reasons), and many people living in rural areas have to travel great distances to get obstetric care. Furthermore, many of the OBs still practicing must run "naked" and declare bankruptsy. And OBs now perform unnecessary, invasive C-sections on innocent women purely out of legal self defense. Where does the suffering and harm stop?

If I didn't know better and insist on evidence-based care, my wife would have had 2 C-sections. Instead, she delivered 9 lb 7 oz and 9 lb 5 oz babies - without drugs. If my parents didn't know better, my mom would have had multiple C-sections. Instead she delivered 8 babies in 7 births - vaginally - with an average size of nearly 10 pounds. And she was not much heavier than 100 pounds. Edwards and his junk science crew would have considered this grounds for legal action, and opportunities to make themselves richer while ruinging the lives of our OBs.. Meanwhile, we are all in BETTER health BECAUSE of our vaginal births. (The evidence exists)

Edwards either knew better (and was an unscrupulous con man), or is an idiot. This isn't a matter of me being stubborn, Ben. The facts are on my side, and I want to make sure that the world knows what a fraud this "nice, pretty boy" really is.

And Kerry should know better. Instead, I cannot help but see a pattern of poor judgement throughout his life. The choice of Edwards as a running mate shows me that nothing has changed.

- Bill