"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

[Stop SPAM]

Apparently John Kerry co-authored a book in 1971 called "The New
Soldier." There seems to be varying differences of opinion about how
much of it he actually wrote (other than his US Senate testimony during
the "Winter Soldier" hearings), but his name is certainly prominently
displayed on the cover (see
http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/KerryNewSoldier.jpg or
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/newsol_cov.jpg).

Copies are apparently going for several hundreds of dollars on eBay;
talk of a cover-up and the liberal Democrats trying to destroy all
copies seem far-fetched (try finding copies of any obscure book from
1971), although there are rumours that both copies are currently
'unavailable' at the Library of Congress.

Has anyone with military service actually read "The New Soldier" and can
comment on it contents?



His "Winter Soldier" testimony apparently quoted in the book is
certainly still controversial:

"Much of Kerry's speech before Congress painted his fellow GIs as so
brutal that, today, they could easily be mistaken for Saddam Hussein's
Fedayeen killers.

He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
South Vietnam."

There's a NGO link quoting some of Kerry's testimony at:
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ker_sfrc_71.htm.

There are also discussions of the accuracy of the testimony, such as:
"After Senator Mark O. Hatfield read the Winter Soldier testimony into
the Congressional Record, he asked for an official investigation. When
the Naval Investigate Service did just that, many of the veterans
refused to cooperate (despite protections against self-incrimination).
One soldier admitted that his testimony had been coached by members of
the Nation of Islam; exact details of the atrocity he'd seen now escaped
his memory. Several veterans hunted down by Naval investigators swore
they had never been to Detroit and couldn't imagine who would have used
their identities. (Somehow this episode was left out of the "Winter
Soldier" chapter of Brinkley's book, but the details can be found in
Guenter Lewy's "America in Vietnam" and in Mackubin Thomas Owens's
account in the latest National Review.)"
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/712ljiby.asp?pg=2


Lots of conflicting stories, such as:
- http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/kerry.htm
- http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200402130943.asp
- http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml

[loki]

Were you even alive in those days?

Here is the deal. It will never be settled. It wasn't settled back then
and it won't be settled now. For the next several elections, the candidates
will all have been on the wrong side of the argument according to some
folks.

Bottom line is: we all took our stands at the time, all were flawed by a
system that was inherently flawed and there were no winners.

Just let it go.

Loki

"Stop SPAM" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently John Kerry co-authored a book in 1971 called "The New
> Soldier." There seems to be varying differences of opinion about how
> much of it he actually wrote (other than his US Senate testimony during
> the "Winter Soldier" hearings), but his name is certainly prominently
> displayed on the cover (see
> http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/KerryNewSoldier.jpg or
> http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/newsol_cov.jpg).
>
> Copies are apparently going for several hundreds of dollars on eBay;
> talk of a cover-up and the liberal Democrats trying to destroy all
> copies seem far-fetched (try finding copies of any obscure book from
> 1971), although there are rumours that both copies are currently
> 'unavailable' at the Library of Congress.
>
> Has anyone with military service actually read "The New Soldier" and can
> comment on it contents?
>
>
>
> His "Winter Soldier" testimony apparently quoted in the book is
> certainly still controversial:
>
> "Much of Kerry's speech before Congress painted his fellow GIs as so
> brutal that, today, they could easily be mistaken for Saddam Hussein's
> Fedayeen killers.
>
> He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
> off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
> genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
> randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
> fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
> South Vietnam."
>
> There's a NGO link quoting some of Kerry's testimony at:
> http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ker_sfrc_71.htm.
>
> There are also discussions of the accuracy of the testimony, such as:
> "After Senator Mark O. Hatfield read the Winter Soldier testimony into
> the Congressional Record, he asked for an official investigation. When
> the Naval Investigate Service did just that, many of the veterans
> refused to cooperate (despite protections against self-incrimination).
> One soldier admitted that his testimony had been coached by members of
> the Nation of Islam; exact details of the atrocity he'd seen now escaped
> his memory. Several veterans hunted down by Naval investigators swore
> they had never been to Detroit and couldn't imagine who would have used
> their identities. (Somehow this episode was left out of the "Winter
> Soldier" chapter of Brinkley's book, but the details can be found in
> Guenter Lewy's "America in Vietnam" and in Mackubin Thomas Owens's
> account in the latest National Review.)"
> -
>
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/712ljiby.asp?pg=2
>
>
> Lots of conflicting stories, such as:
> - http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/kerry.htm
> - http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200402130943.asp
> - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml
>
>

[Stop SPAM]

loki wrote:
> Were you even alive in those days?

Yes I was, and in fact I well remember Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony.

> Here is the deal. It will never be settled. It wasn't settled back then
> and it won't be settled now. For the next several elections, the candidates
> will all have been on the wrong side of the argument according to some
> folks.

I'm not interested in whether or not it is "being settled." You're right
- the Vietnam conflict never will "be settled". The issue, to me, is not
"settling" Vietnam.

I can respect someone who is totally anti-war. They have their opinion,
I have mine, and we live in a land where the First Amendment gives us
both the right to have and publically state that opinion...

But I abhore someone who tries to fence sit and take conflicting stands
on an issue, any issue, much less one as important as the military.
Kerry, IMHO, is trying to be on both sides of the issue.

Trying to run as a combat vet and on your war record, and then being
involved in serious protests against not only the war but against the
military and its soldiers (read Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony and
see what he says about American soldiers) is trying to work both sides
of the issue.

I'd rather have a politician who disagrees with me, but who is at least
consistent in their views, than one who will change their beliefs at the
drop of a hat depending on what their political consultants and
pollsters tell them. And that applies equally to both the Republicans
and the Democrats.

> Bottom line is: we all took our stands at the time, all were flawed by a
> system that was inherently flawed and there were no winners.
>
> Just let it go.

When politicians become consistent, I will. Of course, porcines may need
FAA clearance before then, but I can always hope.

> Loki
>
> "Stop SPAM" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Apparently John Kerry co-authored a book in 1971 called "The New
>>Soldier." There seems to be varying differences of opinion about how
>>much of it he actually wrote (other than his US Senate testimony during
>>the "Winter Soldier" hearings), but his name is certainly prominently
>>displayed on the cover (see
>>http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/KerryNewSoldier.jpg or
>>http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/newsol_cov.jpg).
>>
>>Copies are apparently going for several hundreds of dollars on eBay;
>>talk of a cover-up and the liberal Democrats trying to destroy all
>>copies seem far-fetched (try finding copies of any obscure book from
>>1971), although there are rumours that both copies are currently
>>'unavailable' at the Library of Congress.
>>
>>Has anyone with military service actually read "The New Soldier" and can
>>comment on it contents?
>>
>>
>>
>>His "Winter Soldier" testimony apparently quoted in the book is
>>certainly still controversial:
>>
>>"Much of Kerry's speech before Congress painted his fellow GIs as so
>>brutal that, today, they could easily be mistaken for Saddam Hussein's
>>Fedayeen killers.
>>
>>He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
>>off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
>>genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
>>randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
>>fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
>>South Vietnam."
>>
>>There's a NGO link quoting some of Kerry's testimony at:
>>http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ker_sfrc_71.htm.
>>
>>There are also discussions of the accuracy of the testimony, such as:
>>"After Senator Mark O. Hatfield read the Winter Soldier testimony into
>>the Congressional Record, he asked for an official investigation. When
>>the Naval Investigate Service did just that, many of the veterans
>>refused to cooperate (despite protections against self-incrimination).
>>One soldier admitted that his testimony had been coached by members of
>>the Nation of Islam; exact details of the atrocity he'd seen now escaped
>>his memory. Several veterans hunted down by Naval investigators swore
>>they had never been to Detroit and couldn't imagine who would have used
>>their identities. (Somehow this episode was left out of the "Winter
>>Soldier" chapter of Brinkley's book, but the details can be found in
>>Guenter Lewy's "America in Vietnam" and in Mackubin Thomas Owens's
>>account in the latest National Review.)"
>>-
>>
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/712ljiby.asp?pg=2
>
>>
>>Lots of conflicting stories, such as:
>>- http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/kerry.htm
>>- http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200402130943.asp
>>- http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:30:49 -0600, Stop SPAM
> > wrote:
>
> >loki wrote:
> >> Were you even alive in those days?
> >
> >Yes I was, and in fact I well remember Kerry's "Winter Soldier"
testimony.
> >
> >> Here is the deal. It will never be settled. It wasn't settled back
then
> >> and it won't be settled now. For the next several elections, the
candidates
> >> will all have been on the wrong side of the argument according to some
> >> folks.
> >
> >I'm not interested in whether or not it is "being settled." You're right
> >- the Vietnam conflict never will "be settled". The issue, to me, is not
> >"settling" Vietnam.
> >
> >I can respect someone who is totally anti-war. They have their opinion,
> >I have mine, and we live in a land where the First Amendment gives us
> >both the right to have and publically state that opinion...
> >
> >But I abhore someone who tries to fence sit and take conflicting stands
> >on an issue, any issue, much less one as important as the military.
> >Kerry, IMHO, is trying to be on both sides of the issue.
>
> You have a problem with people who do their duty even if they
> don't like it?

I believe his gist was that Kerry demonstrates a remarkable propensity for
trying to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to things military
related. He wants to be considered a Vietnam war hero, yet he condemned the
US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fought there as being war criminals; he
wants to claim his undying dedication to all things military, yet his voting
record in regards to military programs says otherwise; he wants to display
his medals for his own benefit, after making a big show of tossing them in
protest; he wants to condemn Bush for allegedly not serving his entire
reserve committment, while he mysteriously never seemed to even *have* one
himself; and he wants to pillory Bush for alleged special treatment in
getting into and out of the Guard, yet he himself secured early release from
both Vietnam duty and an early release from his own active duty committment.
Sounds like a pretty proficient fence sitter to me...

Brooks

>
> Peter Skelton

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -0600, a stranger
called by some Stop SPAM > came forth and told
this tale in us.military.army

>He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
>off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
>genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
>randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
>fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
>South Vietnam."

They did. Vietnam was a brutal conflict, and near the end American
command and control began breaking down. Soldiers did do all these
tuhings, feeling abandoned by their nation and service.

It was a horrible time.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:08:30 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:30:49 -0600, Stop SPAM
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >loki wrote:
>> >> Were you even alive in those days?
>> >
>> >Yes I was, and in fact I well remember Kerry's "Winter Soldier"
>testimony.
>> >
>> >> Here is the deal. It will never be settled. It wasn't settled back
>then
>> >> and it won't be settled now. For the next several elections, the
>candidates
>> >> will all have been on the wrong side of the argument according to some
>> >> folks.
>> >
>> >I'm not interested in whether or not it is "being settled." You're right
>> >- the Vietnam conflict never will "be settled". The issue, to me, is not
>> >"settling" Vietnam.
>> >
>> >I can respect someone who is totally anti-war. They have their opinion,
>> >I have mine, and we live in a land where the First Amendment gives us
>> >both the right to have and publically state that opinion...
>> >
>> >But I abhore someone who tries to fence sit and take conflicting stands
>> >on an issue, any issue, much less one as important as the military.
>> >Kerry, IMHO, is trying to be on both sides of the issue.
>>
>> You have a problem with people who do their duty even if they
>> don't like it?
>
>I believe his gist was that Kerry demonstrates a remarkable propensity for
>trying to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to things military
>related. He wants to be considered a Vietnam war hero, yet he condemned the
>US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fought there as being war criminals; he
>wants to claim his undying dedication to all things military, yet his voting
>record in regards to military programs says otherwise; he wants to display
>his medals for his own benefit, after making a big show of tossing them in
>protest; he wants to condemn Bush for allegedly not serving his entire
>reserve committment, while he mysteriously never seemed to even *have* one
>himself; and he wants to pillory Bush for alleged special treatment in
>getting into and out of the Guard, yet he himself secured early release from
>both Vietnam duty and an early release from his own active duty committment.
>Sounds like a pretty proficient fence sitter to me...
>

I think you mean fence-hopper, a fence sitter is one who takes no
stands but I see your point. Unfortunately, Bush is easily tarred
with the same brush.

Perhaps what's really needed is a statute of limitations -
nothing more than a decade old counts.

Peter Skelton

[Admin]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -0600, a stranger
> called by some Stop SPAM > came forth and told
> this tale in us.military.army
>
> >He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
> >off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
> >genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
> >randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
> >fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
> >South Vietnam."
>
> They did. Vietnam was a brutal conflict, and near the end American
> command and control began breaking down. Soldiers did do all these
> tuhings, feeling abandoned by their nation and service.
>
> It was a horrible time.

Just what the hell do you know about it? It was painted as horrible by the
News Media that kept getting in the road along with wimpy Politicians that
played to the Media. Neither was the reality yet that is what you saw and
even today, the media will still report it the same way. By 1973, South
Vietnam WAS a better place and self governed. There was very little fightin
going on after that until 1975 when the North Invaded. Up until 1975, the
North had problems even raising and equipping a small army. The Tet
offensive (all parts of it) and the 1972 attacks into Loas and Cambodia by
the US, Thailand, South Korea, Australia and a host of others removed their
ability to wage any type of war. It was the Politicos and the media that
lost it, not the troops. The Troops won it only to have it handed to the
North on a Silver Platter.

You keep reading your slanted crap but others of us will report what really
went on.

Kerry is a politico and not a Warrior and anything he had to do with the
organization that Jane Fonda was in would have been considered treasonise
under WWII, Korea or WWI and back and would have been punishable by up to
death. We sure have come a long way when a Traitor gets to run for
president. Harry S. where are you when we need you.

[Cub Driver]

I just went online with my local (university) library. Guess what
happens when I try to sign it out?

AVAILABLE
This item cannot be requested. Please see a librarian.

Never saw that response before! I'll drive uptown tomorrow and have a
look.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -0600, Stop SPAM >
wrote:

>Apparently John Kerry co-authored a book in 1971 called "The New
>Soldier." There seems to be varying differences of opinion about how
>much of it he actually wrote (other than his US Senate testimony during
>the "Winter Soldier" hearings), but his name is certainly prominently
>displayed on the cover (see
>http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/KerryNewSoldier.jpg or
>http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/newsol_cov.jpg).
>
>Copies are apparently going for several hundreds of dollars on eBay;
>talk of a cover-up and the liberal Democrats trying to destroy all
>copies seem far-fetched (try finding copies of any obscure book from
>1971), although there are rumours that both copies are currently
>'unavailable' at the Library of Congress.
>
>Has anyone with military service actually read "The New Soldier" and can
>comment on it contents?
>
>
>
>His "Winter Soldier" testimony apparently quoted in the book is
>certainly still controversial:
>
>"Much of Kerry's speech before Congress painted his fellow GIs as so
>brutal that, today, they could easily be mistaken for Saddam Hussein's
>Fedayeen killers.
>
>He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
>off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
>genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
>randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
>fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
>South Vietnam."
>
>There's a NGO link quoting some of Kerry's testimony at:
>http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ker_sfrc_71.htm.
>
>There are also discussions of the accuracy of the testimony, such as:
>"After Senator Mark O. Hatfield read the Winter Soldier testimony into
>the Congressional Record, he asked for an official investigation. When
>the Naval Investigate Service did just that, many of the veterans
>refused to cooperate (despite protections against self-incrimination).
>One soldier admitted that his testimony had been coached by members of
>the Nation of Islam; exact details of the atrocity he'd seen now escaped
>his memory. Several veterans hunted down by Naval investigators swore
>they had never been to Detroit and couldn't imagine who would have used
>their identities. (Somehow this episode was left out of the "Winter
>Soldier" chapter of Brinkley's book, but the details can be found in
>Guenter Lewy's "America in Vietnam" and in Mackubin Thomas Owens's
>account in the latest National Review.)"
>-
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/712ljiby.asp?pg=2
>
>
>Lots of conflicting stories, such as:
>- http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/kerry.htm
>- http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200402130943.asp
>- http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Colin Campbell]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:19:47 GMT, Douglas Berry
> wrote:

>Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -0600, a stranger
>called by some Stop SPAM > came forth and told
>this tale in us.military.army
>
>>He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
>>off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
>>genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
>>randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
>>fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
>>South Vietnam."
>
>They did. Vietnam was a brutal conflict, and near the end American
>command and control began breaking down. Soldiers did do all these
>tuhings, feeling abandoned by their nation and service.

I disagree. I will admit that there were _incidents_ where these acts
occurred. However, Kerry tried to make it look like all the US
soldiers were behaving like this.


No electrons were harmed in the posting of this message.

[Brian Allardice]

In article >,
says...

>I disagree. I will admit that there were _incidents_ where these acts
>occurred. However, Kerry tried to make it look like all the US
>soldiers were behaving like this.

Ah... the classic "Just a few bad apples" defence....

Cheers,
dba

[Leonard Caillouet]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

> I believe his gist was that Kerry demonstrates a remarkable propensity for
> trying to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to things military

....and my cake and eat it too with respect to economics...unfortunately,
Bush seems to have the same...

I think that Kerry has every right to have protested the war in the way that
he did and I hesitate to criticize someone who served for speaking his mind.
I am more interested in what he intends to do when he gets elected, and I
hear more criticism than planned action.

I would love to find a reason to replace Bush, but so far I can't see a good
alternative.

Leonard Caillouet

[Leonard Caillouet]

"Brian Allardice" > wrote in message
news:lBeXb.494098$ts4.154466@pd7tw3no...
> In article >,
> says...
>
> >I disagree. I will admit that there were _incidents_ where these acts
> >occurred. However, Kerry tried to make it look like all the US
> >soldiers were behaving like this.
>
> Ah... the classic "Just a few bad apples" defence....

Who is defending the bad apples? I don't think anyone in this forum would
do so, apart from a few nuts. On the other hand, I would be careful
judging the actions of others when you were not there.

Leonard Caillouet

[Kevin Brooks]

"Leonard Caillouet" > wrote in message
news:XhfXb.5046$Yj.3516@lakeread02...
>
> "Brian Allardice" > wrote in message
> news:lBeXb.494098$ts4.154466@pd7tw3no...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> > >I disagree. I will admit that there were _incidents_ where these acts
> > >occurred. However, Kerry tried to make it look like all the US
> > >soldiers were behaving like this.
> >
> > Ah... the classic "Just a few bad apples" defence....
>
> Who is defending the bad apples? I don't think anyone in this forum would
> do so, apart from a few nuts. On the other hand, I would be careful
> judging the actions of others when you were not there.

Brian has a long history of leaping to the worst possible conclusion in
regards to anything USian. Worse, in this case, is the fact that most of
these allegations have been proven to be unfounded--Kerry's reliance upon
Winter Soldier testimony, which is the sorce of much of these kind of
claims, fails to stand up under closer scrutiny. From a Rand Corp study
completed in 2000:

"These hearings, generated in part out of the response to widening knowledge
of the events at My Lai, painted Vietnam as a catchment of continuous
atrocities and "dehumanized" behavior. It should be noted that some have
raised serious doubts about the creditability of the testimony and some of
the "testifiers" at the Winter Soldier meeting. Lewy (1980), among others,
has pointed out that there were grave problems with the Winter Soldier
testimony, some were apparently not the people they had presented themselves
as, and all refused to give military investigators the dates, sites, and
names of perpetrators of atrocities that they had reported. The tragic
reality, as Lewy pointed out, was that Herbert's book (Herbert, 1973) and
testimony were established to be a series of falsehoods and half truths."


http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/marlowe_paper/mr1018_11_ch9.html

Stories of atrocities typically turn out to be apocryphyl at best.
Investigators tried to pin down the accusations, but in each case the
accuser either recants, is proven to have had no real first-hand knowledge
of the allegation, or in the worst cases turns out to have been offering his
"testimony" in someone else's name. If Brian has any concrete evidence of
actual atrocities of the nature described in Winter Soldier, let him present
his case--otherwise, he is just blowing his usual anti-American smoke
screen.

Brooks

>
> Leonard Caillouet
>
>

[Scott MacEachern]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:08:30 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>He wants to be considered a Vietnam war hero, yet he condemned the
>US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fought there as being war criminals

Yup, he's said that some were war criminals. That wasn 't the case?

> he wants to claim his undying dedication to all things military, yet his voting
>record in regards to military programs says otherwise;

Support for the military means you have to vote for every dumb-ass
proposal that comes along, like Star Wars? Shut your eyes, suspend
your critical facilities and vote 'yes'?

> and he wants to pillory Bush for alleged special treatment in
>getting into and out of the Guard, yet he himself secured early release from
>both Vietnam duty and an early release from his own active duty committment.

Of course, he actually made it to Vietnam. No one's actually sure that
the Dauphin made it as far as Alabama, except to have his teeth
done...

>Sounds like a pretty proficient fence sitter to me...

As opposed, for example, to those net.folks who are always very
vociferous in support of vets... as long as those vets are not
Democrats in an election year?

Scott

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott MacEachern" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:08:30 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >He wants to be considered a Vietnam war hero, yet he condemned the
> >US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fought there as being war criminals
>
> Yup, he's said that some were war criminals. That wasn 't the case?

His indictment went well beyond "some". From his 18 APR 1971 appearance on
"Meet the Press":

"...I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free
fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter
of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

He lumps the use of .50 cal weapons as anti-personnel weapons and the
conduct of search and destroy missions as firther examples of "atrocities".
He claims that "the men who ordered us" were guilty of war crimes--so anyone
outranking Lt(jg) Kerry are, in his words, war criminals. By his definition,
anyone who participated in a search and destroy mission (which is a
legitimate tactic in and of itself) was a war criminal. I'd think these
categories includes quite a bit more than "some", wouldn't you?

>
> > he wants to claim his undying dedication to all things military, yet his
voting
> >record in regards to military programs says otherwise;
>
> Support for the military means you have to vote for every dumb-ass
> proposal that comes along, like Star Wars? Shut your eyes, suspend
> your critical facilities and vote 'yes'?

No, but you ought to be able to show where you voted for aq goodly portion
of them. Kerry liked to be on the side of the typical, "It's a waste of
money, it won't work as advertised" crowd; expereince has shown us that the
vast majority of our weapons systems have indeed though worked quite well,
and saved quite a few US (and likely enemy, by virtue of reducing the
lengths of the conflicts we have fought to date) lives.

"Even after the first World Trade Center bombing, Senator Kerry voted to gut
intelligence spending by $1.5 billion for the five years prior to 2001. In
1996, he voted to slash defense spending by $6.5 billion. Both bills were so
reckless that neither had any co-sponsors willing to endorse his plans."

washingtontimes.com/national/20040130-105141-8706r.htm

Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Called For Cancellation Of At Least 27
Weapons Systems And Reductions In 18 Other Systems. "[Kerry] recommended
cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the B1 bomber, the cruise
missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15
fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile. He
recommended reductions in 18 other systems including the joint tactical air
system, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the F16 fighter
plane."
- Upon Entering Senate, Kerry's First Floor Speech Was In Opposition To
Critical Missile Program And He Introduced Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze
Bill. Kerry introduced: "A bill to provide for a comprehensive bilateral and
verifiable freeze between the United States and the Soviet Union on the
testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons systems." The bill
had no co-sponsors, and never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.

- Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. "[K]erry supported
cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US
military might - the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to
the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of
weeks."

- Kerry Voted Against At Least Eleven Military Pay Increases.

- As Senator, Kerry Also Pushed To Cut Intelligence Funding By More Than
$2.58 Billion.

Source for the above: www.dgci.net/archives/000139.html

I guess a guy who has access to the Heinz fortune felt that pay increases
for the military were unneeded.

>
> > and he wants to pillory Bush for alleged special treatment in
> >getting into and out of the Guard, yet he himself secured early release
from
> >both Vietnam duty and an early release from his own active duty
committment.
>
> Of course, he actually made it to Vietnam. No one's actually sure that
> the Dauphin made it as far as Alabama, except to have his teeth
> done...

Tell me, how do you think a Guardsmen walks into a military clinic and gets
a dental exam without being in a duty status? The claim was that he did not
show up for duty in Alabama--you now have the dental records, and the
account of another officer in the unit who recalls his showing up there for
duty (the gentleman even shared lunch with him on occasion). But you are
still gonna cling to that, "he wasn't there" BS, huh? Now, back to the
subject of THIS thread...Kerry did indeed get an early redeployment,
courtesy of all of those wounds he rec eived that resulted in him missing
how many duty days? Then he did indeed obtain an early release from active
duty--curiously without the normal reserve duty committment for the
remainder of his initial duty obligation?

>
> >Sounds like a pretty proficient fence sitter to me...
>
> As opposed, for example, to those net.folks who are always very
> vociferous in support of vets... as long as those vets are not
> Democrats in an election year?

Huh? Your point would be...?

Brooks

>
> Scott
>

[Douglas Berry]

Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:32:48 -0700, a stranger
called by some "Admin" > came forth and told this
tale in us.military.army

>
>"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
>> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -0600, a stranger
>> called by some Stop SPAM > came forth and told
>> this tale in us.military.army
>>
>> >He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
>> >off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
>> >genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
>> >randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
>> >fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
>> >South Vietnam."
>>
>> They did. Vietnam was a brutal conflict, and near the end American
>> command and control began breaking down. Soldiers did do all these
>> tuhings, feeling abandoned by their nation and service.
>>
>> It was a horrible time.
>
>Just what the hell do you know about it? It was painted as horrible by the
>News Media that kept getting in the road along with wimpy Politicians that
>played to the Media. Neither was the reality yet that is what you saw and
>even today, the media will still report it the same way. By 1973, South
>Vietnam WAS a better place and self governed. There was very little fightin
>going on after that until 1975 when the North Invaded. Up until 1975, the
>North had problems even raising and equipping a small army. The Tet
>offensive (all parts of it) and the 1972 attacks into Loas and Cambodia by
>the US, Thailand, South Korea, Australia and a host of others removed their
>ability to wage any type of war. It was the Politicos and the media that
>lost it, not the troops. The Troops won it only to have it handed to the
>North on a Silver Platter.

That's an interesting take on the situation.

>You keep reading your slanted crap but others of us will report what really
>went on.

Daryl, I get my information from reading histories written by the
people who fought the war, reading the Pentagon Papers, and reading
about the North's view of the war.

>Kerry is a politico and not a Warrior and anything he had to do with the
>organization that Jane Fonda was in would have been considered treasonise
>under WWII, Korea or WWI and back and would have been punishable by up to
>death. We sure have come a long way when a Traitor gets to run for
>president. Harry S. where are you when we need you.

Kerry commanded a river patrol boat, won a Silver Star, a Bronze Star
with V device, and was aounded in combat three times. And unlike you,
he can prove it.

Oh, and treasonous? Maybe you need to read the Constitution..
specifically, the Bill of Rights.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

As a founding member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, John Kerry
agitated to end the war in Vietnam. That's an activity allowed by the
First Amendment.

So now we can add "anti-American" to your resume.
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

[Admin]

"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
...
> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:32:48 -0700, a stranger
> called by some "Admin" > came forth and told this
> tale in us.military.army
>
> >
> >"Douglas Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -0600, a stranger
> >> called by some Stop SPAM > came forth and told
> >> this tale in us.military.army
> >>
> >> >He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
> >> >off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
> >> >genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
> >> >randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
> >> >fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
> >> >South Vietnam."
> >>
> >> They did. Vietnam was a brutal conflict, and near the end American
> >> command and control began breaking down. Soldiers did do all these
> >> tuhings, feeling abandoned by their nation and service.
> >>
> >> It was a horrible time.
> >
> >Just what the hell do you know about it? It was painted as horrible by
the
> >News Media that kept getting in the road along with wimpy Politicians
that
> >played to the Media. Neither was the reality yet that is what you saw
and
> >even today, the media will still report it the same way. By 1973, South
> >Vietnam WAS a better place and self governed. There was very little
fightin
> >going on after that until 1975 when the North Invaded. Up until 1975,
the
> >North had problems even raising and equipping a small army. The Tet
> >offensive (all parts of it) and the 1972 attacks into Loas and Cambodia
by
> >the US, Thailand, South Korea, Australia and a host of others removed
their
> >ability to wage any type of war. It was the Politicos and the media that
> >lost it, not the troops. The Troops won it only to have it handed to the
> >North on a Silver Platter.
>
> That's an interesting take on the situation.

Those that served know. Those that didn't, read the news and believe.



>
> >You keep reading your slanted crap but others of us will report what
really
> >went on.
>
> Daryl, I get my information from reading histories written by the
> people who fought the war, reading the Pentagon Papers, and reading
> about the North's view of the war.

It's funny. 30 years later, most of what is written by those that were
there contradicts itself. There are so many stories out there. Just how
many are really there to just sell a book?

>
> >Kerry is a politico and not a Warrior and anything he had to do with the
> >organization that Jane Fonda was in would have been considered treasonise
> >under WWII, Korea or WWI and back and would have been punishable by up to
> >death. We sure have come a long way when a Traitor gets to run for
> >president. Harry S. where are you when we need you.
>
> Kerry commanded a river patrol boat, won a Silver Star, a Bronze Star
> with V device, and was aounded in combat three times. And unlike you,
> he can prove it.

I don't have to prove it anymore than you should. Double Standard there, ol
buddy. Kerry did get the medals. Now whether they were earned or not, that
is questionable. While medals weren't given out at the rate they are today,
some go them for political reasons back then. Oh, it's thursday, let's give
the Congressman's kid a medal so I can make General someday.


>
> Oh, and treasonous? Maybe you need to read the Constitution..
> specifically, the Bill of Rights.
>
> "Amendment I
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
>
> As a founding member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, John Kerry
> agitated to end the war in Vietnam. That's an activity allowed by the
> First Amendment.

During WWII and back, he would have been branded a traitor or an agitator at
the least. I don't think you realize the unneeded deaths that resulted by
actions of the politicaly powerful. They were misguided and the extremists
took it to heart. The Media picked up on it and ran with it. This was the
first time in the history of the US that the media was allowed to report
like this. And take it from me, it was mostly hogwash when General Abrams
took over in 1969. I wasn't there for Westmoreland but got there at about
the time Abrams took over. The word from some to the old timers was that
the whole flavor changed much to the better. For the first time we could
actually engage the enemy. At first, our gunships could not return fire and
got shotup on a regular basis. We lost Aircrew Members to Flak. Flak vests
don't help much when you take it in the crotch when it's the round is larger
than a 50mm. Not much left. Abrams allowed us to fire back. We could only
suppress but the Attack birds could get in close enough for the kill.
Without us suppressing, the Attack Birds took losses on the way in. A really
stupid way to fight a war. That changed.


>
> So now we can add "anti-American" to your resume.

Not all. But many of us Vietnam Vets see Kerry as just that. Whether he
was right or wrong, it costed lives needlessly.

[Jack Linthicum]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:30:49 -0600, Stop SPAM
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >loki wrote:
> > >> Were you even alive in those days?
> > >
> > >Yes I was, and in fact I well remember Kerry's "Winter Soldier"
> testimony.
> > >
> > >> Here is the deal. It will never be settled. It wasn't settled back
> then
> > >> and it won't be settled now. For the next several elections, the
> candidates
> > >> will all have been on the wrong side of the argument according to some
> > >> folks.
> > >
> > >I'm not interested in whether or not it is "being settled." You're right
> > >- the Vietnam conflict never will "be settled". The issue, to me, is not
> > >"settling" Vietnam.
> > >
> > >I can respect someone who is totally anti-war. They have their opinion,
> > >I have mine, and we live in a land where the First Amendment gives us
> > >both the right to have and publically state that opinion...
> > >
> > >But I abhore someone who tries to fence sit and take conflicting stands
> > >on an issue, any issue, much less one as important as the military.
> > >Kerry, IMHO, is trying to be on both sides of the issue.
> >
> > You have a problem with people who do their duty even if they
> > don't like it?
>
> I believe his gist was that Kerry demonstrates a remarkable propensity for
> trying to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to things military
> related. He wants to be considered a Vietnam war hero, yet he condemned the
> US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fought there as being war criminals; he
> wants to claim his undying dedication to all things military, yet his voting
> record in regards to military programs says otherwise; he wants to display
> his medals for his own benefit, after making a big show of tossing them in
> protest; he wants to condemn Bush for allegedly not serving his entire
> reserve committment, while he mysteriously never seemed to even *have* one
> himself; and he wants to pillory Bush for alleged special treatment in
> getting into and out of the Guard, yet he himself secured early release from
> both Vietnam duty and an early release from his own active duty committment.
> Sounds like a pretty proficient fence sitter to me...
>

Let's see now, Bush left the National Guard early to go to graduate
school and Kerry left the active duty Navy with three Purple Hearts as
per regulations.

Name: John Forbes Kerry
Birth date: December 11, 1943
Education: Bachelor's degree, Yale University, 1966; law degree,
Boston College, 1976
Military Service: Navy, 1966-1970; Naval Reserves, 1972-1978

Does that look like he copped out?

I presume body-counting and carpet bombing forested areas to destroy
one bicycle are the acts of a civilized people? Has anyone ever done
an assessment on the results of our bombing all those 'strategic'
targets?


Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.

[Cub Driver]

>Let's see now, Bush left the National Guard early to go to graduate
>school

Not quite the case. Bush transferred from the ANG to the inactive
reserve, and served an additional six months beyond his six-year
obligation.

Kerry got an early out, as a matter of fact. Most servicemen did in
those years. I am probably the only draftee who actually served my
full 730 days, plus a day (drafted in a leap year).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:30:49 -0600, Stop SPAM
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >loki wrote:
> > > >> Were you even alive in those days?
> > > >
> > > >Yes I was, and in fact I well remember Kerry's "Winter Soldier"
> > testimony.
> > > >
> > > >> Here is the deal. It will never be settled. It wasn't settled
back
> > then
> > > >> and it won't be settled now. For the next several elections, the
> > candidates
> > > >> will all have been on the wrong side of the argument according to
some
> > > >> folks.
> > > >
> > > >I'm not interested in whether or not it is "being settled." You're
right
> > > >- the Vietnam conflict never will "be settled". The issue, to me, is
not
> > > >"settling" Vietnam.
> > > >
> > > >I can respect someone who is totally anti-war. They have their
opinion,
> > > >I have mine, and we live in a land where the First Amendment gives us
> > > >both the right to have and publically state that opinion...
> > > >
> > > >But I abhore someone who tries to fence sit and take conflicting
stands
> > > >on an issue, any issue, much less one as important as the military.
> > > >Kerry, IMHO, is trying to be on both sides of the issue.
> > >
> > > You have a problem with people who do their duty even if they
> > > don't like it?
> >
> > I believe his gist was that Kerry demonstrates a remarkable propensity
for
> > trying to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to things military
> > related. He wants to be considered a Vietnam war hero, yet he condemned
the
> > US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fought there as being war
criminals; he
> > wants to claim his undying dedication to all things military, yet his
voting
> > record in regards to military programs says otherwise; he wants to
display
> > his medals for his own benefit, after making a big show of tossing them
in
> > protest; he wants to condemn Bush for allegedly not serving his entire
> > reserve committment, while he mysteriously never seemed to even *have*
one
> > himself; and he wants to pillory Bush for alleged special treatment in
> > getting into and out of the Guard, yet he himself secured early release
from
> > both Vietnam duty and an early release from his own active duty
committment.
> > Sounds like a pretty proficient fence sitter to me...
> >
>
> Let's see now, Bush left the National Guard early to go to graduate
> school and Kerry left the active duty Navy with three Purple Hearts as
> per regulations.

Actually, IIRC Kerry left the *Vietnam* early with three PH's (of dubious
nature--still scratching my head over a guy who gets three golden wounds
with how many days of duty missed?). Kerry left the Navy early to go be a
politician. At least that's what he says--are you gonna argue with him?

>
> Name: John Forbes Kerry
> Birth date: December 11, 1943
> Education: Bachelor's degree, Yale University, 1966; law degree,
> Boston College, 1976
> Military Service: Navy, 1966-1970; Naval Reserves, 1972-1978

REALLY? USNR, while he was doing the whole Winter Soldier routine? How many
drills did *he* attend? Did he keep up with any IRR requirments? Inquiring
minds want to know...

>
> Does that look like he copped out?

Yeah, in fact he does.

>
> I presume body-counting and carpet bombing forested areas to destroy
> one bicycle are the acts of a civilized people? Has anyone ever done
> an assessment on the results of our bombing all those 'strategic'
> targets?

What is wrong with counting casualties? What, you think they should be
ignored? If the guy on the bike is a bad guy, so be it; but now you have to
put-up-or-shut-up: give us the evidence that shows where we targeted one guy
with a bike by "carpet bombing forested areas" (by which I presume you mean
Arclight). Here is your chance Jack! Make the most of it--and BTW, no Winter
Soldier "testimony" (giggle-snort) allowed...

>
>
> Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
> gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.

Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name any other
troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?

Brooks

[Fred J. McCall]

(Brian Allardice) wrote:

:In article >,
says...
:
:>I disagree. I will admit that there were _incidents_ where these acts
:>occurred. However, Kerry tried to make it look like all the US
:>soldiers were behaving like this.
:
:Ah... the classic "Just a few bad apples" defence....

Back in the hole. You're still as stupid as you were the last time I
saw you.

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

[Fred J. McCall]

"Admin" > wrote:

:I don't have to prove it anymore than you should. Double Standard there, ol
:buddy. Kerry did get the medals. Now whether they were earned or not, that
:is questionable. While medals weren't given out at the rate they are today,
:some go them for political reasons back then. Oh, it's thursday, let's give
:the Congressman's kid a medal so I can make General someday.

That sort of thing pretty much stopped at Bronze Star. Kerry got a
Silver Star. That sort of thing was also more common (I'm told) in
the Army and Air Force than elsewhere. Kerry was Navy.

I judge by what is going on now. Kerry lost a lot of credibility with
me when he originally jumped on board Terry McAuliffe's lunacy about
Bush's 'desertion' from the ANG. It shows he's made of the same
putrid stuff that those who went to Florida and argued that military
votes should be invalidated were.

McAuliffe may energize the loon fringes of the Democratic Party, but
they need to get rid of him. He alienates everyone else, and those
are the voters you need to win.

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

[Scott MacEachern]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:37:52 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>His indictment went well beyond "some". ...

? Well, no. It didn't, even given what you said yourself. But your
words were "....he condemned the US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who
fought there as being war criminals..." So, all of them?

>No, but you ought to be able to show where you voted for aq goodly portion
>of them.

How many? What's the proportion that shows that a vet _really_
supports the armed forces? He said in retrospect that he was wrong
about some of this, others -- MX and Star Wars for example, hardly
itty bitty systems -- he stands by.

>- Kerry Voted Against At Least Eleven Military Pay Increases.

Given George II's record on hazardous duty pay for troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think that you want to go there....

>Tell me, how do you think a Guardsmen walks into a military clinic and gets
>a dental exam without being in a duty status?

And, it appears, that was about all that he did. Strangely enough, the
dates that guy remembers him being in Alabama don't square with the
Guard's pay records there. Actually, I don't worry too much that Bush
ducked a little during that period: lots of people did it. It does,
however, rather grate to see him being set up as a paragon of
patriotism next to John Kerry during the period. Kerry went to a
dumb-ass war, then opposed it when he got back... both admirable
things and fulfilling the duties of a citizen, I'd say. Bush went into
a Guard very different than that today, and then became the Invisible
Man. Not much different than a lot of other folks, but not especially
commendable, either.

>Huh? Your point would be...?

My point would be that you -- and a bunch of other people who should
know better -- are making politically-motivated attacks on a combat
veteran because you're scared that he might win the election this
year. One set of opinion polls and you morph into a Republiflunky. It
ain't pretty.

Scott

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:19:47 GMT, Douglas Berry > wrote:

>Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -0600, a stranger
>called by some Stop SPAM > came forth and told
>this tale in us.military.army
>
>>He reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut
>>off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
>>genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
>>randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for
>>fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of
>>South Vietnam."
>
>They did. Vietnam was a brutal conflict, and near the end American
>command and control began breaking down. Soldiers did do all these
>tuhings, feeling abandoned by their nation and service.
>
>It was a horrible time.

Pure BS. There may have been a *few* instances of inappropriate
behavior, but it was less than the crime rate in any big city. I suppose
you "witnessed" these alleged acts? I was there and I certainly
did not.

Al Minyard

[Admin]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Admin" > wrote:
>
> :I don't have to prove it anymore than you should. Double Standard there,
ol
> :buddy. Kerry did get the medals. Now whether they were earned or not,
that
> :is questionable. While medals weren't given out at the rate they are
today,
> :some go them for political reasons back then. Oh, it's thursday, let's
give
> :the Congressman's kid a medal so I can make General someday.
>
> That sort of thing pretty much stopped at Bronze Star. Kerry got a
> Silver Star. That sort of thing was also more common (I'm told) in
> the Army and Air Force than elsewhere. Kerry was Navy.

Watch it, Fred, I resemble that remark:) My Father was offered a Silver due
to a couple of loose cannons in his signal unit that did something really
stupid and lived to tell about it. IT was refused since it would have only
gone to him, the Corporal in Charge (He was busted a couple of time). They
issued a Bronze with no argument accepted to the Platoon. If the Silver had
been accepted, it would have been more of a PR thing than whether it was
actually earned or not. BTW, Ike took time to pin medals on his own Men in
those days. Now you see where the PR came from.


>
> I judge by what is going on now. Kerry lost a lot of credibility with
> me when he originally jumped on board Terry McAuliffe's lunacy about
> Bush's 'desertion' from the ANG. It shows he's made of the same
> putrid stuff that those who went to Florida and argued that military
> votes should be invalidated were.

I think it's all a complete mess. I don't care for Bush but Kerry? We are
not having to vote for dumb and dumber once again.


>
> McAuliffe may energize the loon fringes of the Democratic Party, but
> they need to get rid of him. He alienates everyone else, and those
> are the voters you need to win.

He alienates me, for sure.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Leonard Caillouet" > wrote in message
news:tffXb.5041$Yj.4923@lakeread02...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I believe his gist was that Kerry demonstrates a remarkable propensity
for
> > trying to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to things military
>
> ...and my cake and eat it too with respect to economics...unfortunately,
> Bush seems to have the same...
>
> I think that Kerry has every right to have protested the war in the way
that
> he did and I hesitate to criticize someone who served for speaking his
mind.
> I am more interested in what he intends to do when he gets elected, and I
> hear more criticism than planned action.
>
> I would love to find a reason to replace Bush, but so far I can't see a
good
> alternative.

Dean is a moderate Governor from Vermont and John Kerry is just to the left
of Ted Kennedy. Dean could have moved to the center after running left for
the primaries, but Kerry's paper trail is much too long for him to be a
credable centrist. I don't see how Kerry is more "electable" than Dean.

[Jack Linthicum]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>> >
> >
> > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
> > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.
>
> Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name any other
> troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
>


Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
he played them.
It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?

[S. Sampson]

"Admin" > wrote
>
> [snip]
>
> BTW, Ike took time to pin medals on his own Men in
> those days. Now you see where the PR came from.

General Patton Jr., did it with the most class. He set it up so he
was always seen going to the front, never returning from the front.
He did this by having his scout plane land ahead of him. He would
present all the awards, and then travel to the landing strip afterwards.

Asked why he was handing out so many medals, he replied "I've
determined that each piece of cloth I put on their chests, gets me another
kilometer. Most of the men honored will die in these battles. I find
it increases moral, and the soldiers love to honor these hero's."

[S. Sampson]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote
>
> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I never marched in an anti-government
rally, with the leadership of the Communist Party.

[loki]

"R. David Steele" >
>
> The popular media view is that all soldier murdered their
> officers and those in their platoons that they disliked. And
> that rape and murder is common among soldiers.

Well, my dad who served in WWII mention incidents of fragging then.
Actually, they had one Lt. who survived only because they transferred him
out of there quickly.

It happens in all wars. I doubt Vietnam had any more atrocities committed
by our troops than any other war. It happens.

Loki

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Scott MacEachern > wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:08:30 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >He wants to be considered a Vietnam war hero, yet he condemned the
> >US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fought there as being war criminals
>
> Yup, he's said that some were war criminals. That wasn 't the case?

He's gone a bit further than that, depending on when and to whom he has
been speaking.

He's gone so far as to say that such behavior was widespread, that it
was a matter of policy, and that it was known to officers at all levels,
implying that it was condoned as a normal matter.

[Admin]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:9byXb.20765$Q_4.19607@okepread03...
> "Admin" > wrote
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > BTW, Ike took time to pin medals on his own Men in
> > those days. Now you see where the PR came from.
>
> General Patton Jr., did it with the most class. He set it up so he
> was always seen going to the front, never returning from the front.
> He did this by having his scout plane land ahead of him. He would
> present all the awards, and then travel to the landing strip afterwards.
>
> Asked why he was handing out so many medals, he replied "I've
> determined that each piece of cloth I put on their chests, gets me another
> kilometer. Most of the men honored will die in these battles. I find
> it increases moral, and the soldiers love to honor these hero's."

Now, there was a Man with Style that most have forgotten to emulate.
Patton, Ike, Bradley and, yes, even Monty. Without these people, the war
may have been a bit different, I suppose. Or a lot less fun.

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:33:11 -0600, "S. Sampson"
> wrote:

>"Jack Linthicum" > wrote
>>
>> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
>> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
>
>I wouldn't have a problem with that. I never marched in an anti-government
>rally, with the leadership of the Communist Party.
>

If you have today the same opinions you had thirty years ago, you
haven't learned much.

Peter Skelton

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott MacEachern" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:37:52 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >His indictment went well beyond "some". ...
>
> ? Well, no. It didn't, even given what you said yourself. But your
> words were "....he condemned the US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who
> fought there as being war criminals..." So, all of them?

A darned lot more than "some". How many US troops engaged in search and
destroy operations? He said they were war criminals. How many were involved
in conducting H&I fires? He said they were war criminals. How many fired .50
cal weapons at personnel targets? He said they were war criminals. How many
were in positions of greater leadership responsibility than he was, and
directed troops during the above kinfd of activities? he said they were war
criminals. Lots of categories, lots of "war criminals". In his view, that
is.

>
> >No, but you ought to be able to show where you voted for aq goodly
portion
> >of them.
>
> How many? What's the proportion that shows that a vet _really_
> supports the armed forces? He said in retrospect that he was wrong
> about some of this, others -- MX and Star Wars for example, hardly
> itty bitty systems -- he stands by.

I don't want a president who thought that the (F-15, Patriot, B-1B, cruise
missiles, etc. ad nauseum) were *all* wastes of taxpayers' money to develop
and field. Can you name any defense programs he actually *supported*?

>
> >- Kerry Voted Against At Least Eleven Military Pay Increases.
>
> Given George II's record on hazardous duty pay for troops in
> Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think that you want to go there....

What utter tripe. A year ago Bush rejected the military pay raise cap
recommended by his own OMB (at 2%) and supported the concept of targeted
increases to get the enlisted pay rates increased even more than what the
more senior personnel are receiving this year. The hazardous duty pay
blather has no legs; revising the limits of areas that are considered worthy
of meriting hazardous duty pay is something that will always change as the
situation changes. Bush has been a big supporter of military pay raises, and
the fact of the matter is that Kerry has not.

>
> >Tell me, how do you think a Guardsmen walks into a military clinic and
gets
> >a dental exam without being in a duty status?
>
> And, it appears, that was about all that he did.

Answer the question!

Strangely enough, the
> dates that guy remembers him being in Alabama don't square with the
> Guard's pay records there.

Were the dates in the records regarding the dates that pay was authorized,
or the days that he drilled?

Actually, I don't worry too much that Bush
> ducked a little during that period: lots of people did it. It does,
> however, rather grate to see him being set up as a paragon of
> patriotism next to John Kerry during the period.

Compared to Kerry, he *is* a paragon of patriotism.

Kerry went to a
> dumb-ass war,

So you say...no surpise in your choice of descriptive terms, given your
bent.

> then opposed it when he got back...

While he was still a commissioned officer. When he came out with the crap he
offered up during his congressional testimony and made his later claims on
Meet the Press, they *should* have ordered his sorry butt back to active
duty and told him that, IAW the laws of warfare and the UCMJ, he had to
provide specifics in regards to his allegations of war crimes so that we
could investigate an prosecute any actual criminals, then prosecuted his
sorry ass for making false and unsubstantiated claims and lying under oath.

both admirable
> things

You and I have differing views of what makes someone "admirable". I find the
Army aviators who landed at My Lai and placed themselves in between the
perpetrators and some of the soon-to-be victims as being "admirable"; they
dealt with a *real* war crime and took action to stop it. Kerry came home
and started spouting pure horse manure. Big difference.

and fulfilling the duties of a citizen, I'd say. Bush went into
> a Guard very different than that today, and then became the Invisible
> Man. Not much different than a lot of other folks, but not especially
> commendable, either.
>
> >Huh? Your point would be...?
>
> My point would be that you -- and a bunch of other people who should
> know better -- are making politically-motivated attacks on a combat
> veteran

No, my attacks would be conducted against Kerry if he was with *any* party.
I am an independent--I sometimes vote for democrats as well as republicans.
I refuse to give money to either party, and have never worked in any kind of
campaign support role. I *do* find Kerry's actions detestable, and for that
reason I am willing to argue the point. Had you been discussing the Ollie
North senatorial bid with me a few years back, you would have found my
opinion of North not far from the one I hold regarding Kerry. Stop acting as
if everyone who does not approve of Kerry has some kind of political baggage
affecting his/her views. FYI, I have been a bit uneasy with a few of GWB's
policy decisions, and my overall feeling for him has suffered over the last
couple of years. But if Kerry is the best the democrats can offer up to
oppose him, my vote will go to Bush.


because you're scared that he might win the election this
> year.

Actually, I am not too afraid of that eventuality; I don't think he can win.
In the end, what may be the decding factor for a lot of folks may be those
images of him defaming the troops who served in Vietnam on one hand, while
puffing his chest out and bragging about those decorations he earlier tossed
over the fence on the other.

Brooks

One set of opinion polls and you morph into a Republiflunky. It
> ain't pretty.
>
> Scott

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:29:59 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>but Kerry's paper trail is much too long for him to be a
>credable centrist.

I heard that the most interesting Democrat candidate debate would be
between Kerry and Kerry. Pro war, anti-war. Pro gay marriage, anti
gay marriage. The list goes on.

[S. Sampson]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote
> "S. Sampson" wrote:
> >"Jack Linthicum" > wrote
> >>
> >> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> >> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
> >
> >I wouldn't have a problem with that. I never marched in an anti-government
> >rally, with the leadership of the Communist Party.
> >
>
> If you have today the same opinions you had thirty years ago, you
> haven't learned much.

I have the same opinions I had 30 years ago. While I've learned much, my
basic sense of decency, honest work, and charity have not changed. I've never
once stood on another human to win press coverage.

[Mike Marron]

>Zippy the Pinhead > wrote:

>I heard that the most interesting Democrat candidate debate would be
>between Kerry and Kerry. Pro war, anti-war. Pro gay marriage, anti
>gay marriage. The list goes on.

Exactly right. We are currently in an epic, life and death struggle
against global terrorism and this is NO time for a spineless, wishy
washy left winger in the highest office in the land.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:Dean is a moderate Governor from Vermont and John Kerry is just to the left
:of Ted Kennedy. Dean could have moved to the center after running left for
:the primaries, but Kerry's paper trail is much too long for him to be a
:credable centrist. I don't see how Kerry is more "electable" than Dean.

Sorry, but Dean isn't making 'moderate' noises. He's only electable
if you're one of the "I hate Bush" brigade.

[loki]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote

> Sorry, but Dean isn't making 'moderate' noises. He's only electable
> if you're one of the "I hate Bush" brigade.

Sorry, Fred, but even those of us who hate Bush don't like Dean...

Loki

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
m...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> >> >
> > >
> > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
> > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.
> >
> > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name any
other
> > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
> >
>
>
> Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
> thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
> he played them.

Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records now"
chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical records
listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
Kerry, right?

> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?

There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that the
majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes. That is
what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.

Brooks

[Cub Driver]

Actually, the thing that makes Kerry more electable is that he is over
six feet tall. How long since we've had a president under six feet?

I was able to check The New Soldier out of the library yesterday. It
is astonishing how recognizable Kerry is in the photographs, though to
be sure it's not his height that marks him, but his teeth and jaw.

The New Soldier is quite a period piece. What a hairy bunch we were in
those days! (Kerry was clean-shaven, and his sideburns came down no
lower than the bottom of his ear-lobes.)

>
>|Dean is a moderate Governor from Vermont and John Kerry is just to the left
>|of Ted Kennedy. Dean could have moved to the center after running left for
>|the primaries, but Kerry's paper trail is much too long for him to be a
>|credable centrist. I don't see how Kerry is more "electable" than Dean.
>
>Because Dean kissed up to the radicals within the party while
>Kerry held back. Thus the moderates, the ones who were ****ed at
>the radicals in republicans, rejected Dean. With a lot of
>"guidance" from the DNC, of course.
>
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>He's gone so far as to say that such behavior was widespread, that it
>was a matter of policy, and that it was known to officers at all levels,
>implying that it was condoned as a normal matter.

In The New Soldier, he specifically criticizes the trial of Lt Calley,
arguing that at My Lai 4 Calley was only doing what he was expected to
do.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Jack Linthicum]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >> >
> > > >
> > > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
> > > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.
> > >
> > > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name any
> other
> > > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
> > thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
> > he played them.
>
> Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records now"
> chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical records
> listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
> Kerry, right?
>
> > It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> > years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
>
> There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that the
> majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes. That is
> what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.
>
>

Do you think Kerry was going to lose that hot job of running that boat
in combat over some flesh wound? On the war crimes: were they, did
they? Lots of GIs came back with enormous psychological problems that
can't be blamed on the hot weather. As I said before, you start
keeping score with a body count in a war where your mess waiter may be
an enemy colonel and you are pushing the edge of the line.

try this one for comparitive records over the same time frame:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/02/02_400.html

[Bob McKellar]

Cub Driver wrote:

> >He's gone so far as to say that such behavior was widespread, that it
> >was a matter of policy, and that it was known to officers at all levels,
> >implying that it was condoned as a normal matter.
>
> In The New Soldier, he specifically criticizes the trial of Lt Calley,
> arguing that at My Lai 4 Calley was only doing what he was expected to
> do.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

It may come as a shock to the youngsters in the group, but many in the US
thought Calley's actions were perfectly respectable, and perhaps
commendable. You could drive through the countryside and see banners reading
"Free Calley!".

This was not a time of calm, reasoned, and polite debate.

Bob McKellar

[Olivers]

R. David Steele muttered....


>
> What is coming out is how much we democrats hate each other.
>
>

Given the quality of performance, it's amazing that self-hatred is the
worst you can come up with. ....Be more fitting if you simply fell on your
swords and put yourselves out of your misery (and relieved the rest of us
from having the bear your anguished pontificating and near endless spiel of
self-aggrandizing self-justification).

TMO

[Fred J. McCall]

Cub Driver > wrote:

:>He's gone so far as to say that such behavior was widespread, that it
:>was a matter of policy, and that it was known to officers at all levels,
:>implying that it was condoned as a normal matter.
:
:In The New Soldier, he specifically criticizes the trial of Lt Calley,
:arguing that at My Lai 4 Calley was only doing what he was expected to
:do.

And he's got a valid point. The investigation there, if investigation
there was to be, should have started with the commanding general of
Americal Division and worked its way down, not started with some poor
lieutenant and failed to work its way up.

--
"I thought dying for your country was the worst thing that could
happen to you. I think killing for your country can be a lot
worse. Because that's the memory that haunts."
-- Senator Bob Kerrey

[Fred J. McCall]

R. David Steele > wrote:

:
:|> Sorry, but Dean isn't making 'moderate' noises. He's only electable
:|> if you're one of the "I hate Bush" brigade.
:|
:|Sorry, Fred, but even those of us who hate Bush don't like Dean...
:
:it is interesting that Dean and Clark were all the rage, in 2003.
:Now they are looking to get out. Dean looked pathetic on Fox
:Sunday Morning. So sad.
:
:What is coming out is how much we democrats hate each other.

It's like Will Rogers said, "Oh, I don't belong to an organized
political party. I'm a Democrat."

[loki]

"Olivers" > wrote
>
> Given the quality of performance, it's amazing that self-hatred is the
> worst you can come up with. ....Be more fitting if you simply fell on
your
> swords and put yourselves out of your misery (and relieved the rest of us
> from having the bear your anguished pontificating and near endless spiel
of
> self-aggrandizing self-justification).

Bah. I am now officially no longer smitten with you. Hmpf.

Loki

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, R. David
Steele > wrote:


>
> One of the good things that came from Vietnam was the military
> wised up. We now have a Center for Lessons Learned so that we do
> not make the mistakes like body counts being the primary focus.
> The CALL is very good about making sure that every enlisted
> person does an After Action Review when coming back. AARs are
> then sent to CALL.
>
>

MACV published a "Lessons Learned" series during the war. At the time,
they were classified CONFIDENTIAL, but were subject to automatic
downgrading -- I think 3 years, but certainly no more than 12. Might be
useful for some university to scan them and put them online.

[Scott MacEachern]

"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.

> Can you name any defense programs he actually *supported*?

Sure, that's easy. Go to
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/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.

> Answer the question!

I think that I did. He got his teeth done: what else did he do? From
what people are saying about Guard service at that time, it appears to
have been quite possible to be on duty and not actually be doing very
much of anything at all... especially if one was the son of a senator.
And teh record dates involved were, apparently, the dates that he
drilled.

> Compared to Kerry, he *is* a paragon of patriotism.

How so? Kerry asks questions, he doesn't? Kerry expressed doubts about
American actions, he didn't? What makes George II a patriot, but not
John Kerry?

> So you say...no surpise in your choice of descriptive terms, given your
> bent.

You betcha. I don't make the assumption that every time the USA goes
to war it's Saving the World. There were probably 1.5 million - 2
million people killed in that war, which is considerably out of
proportion to anything that it accomplished.

> they *should* have ordered his sorry butt back to active
> duty and told him that, IAW the laws of warfare and the UCMJ, he had to
> provide specifics in regards to his allegations of war crimes so that we
> could investigate an prosecute any actual criminals

Nah, unlikely at that point. After all, what if he'd done so?

> You and I have differing views of what makes someone "admirable". I find the
> Army aviators who landed at My Lai and placed themselves in between the
> perpetrators and some of the soon-to-be victims as being "admirable"...

Actually, I find that admirable as well. You don't like what Kerry
said after a war that, AFAIK, he was in and you (and I) weren't? Fine,
but that's hardly a reason to condemn him, in my book. He'd decided
that he'd participated in a stupid and costly war, and he spoke up
about it... using the language of a young man, maybe, but what he said
was very far from being horse manure. If anything, I think that the
pointlessness of that war backs up a lot of hwat he said.

> No, my attacks would be conducted against Kerry if he was with *any* party.

(Shrug) If you say so. Usenet is never the measure of anyone, but your
posts look as reliably right-wing as mine do leftie.

Scott

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Howard Berkowitz > writes:
> In article >, R. David
> Steele > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> One of the good things that came from Vietnam was the military
>> wised up. We now have a Center for Lessons Learned so that we do
>> not make the mistakes like body counts being the primary focus.
>> The CALL is very good about making sure that every enlisted
>> person does an After Action Review when coming back. AARs are
>> then sent to CALL.
>>
>>
>
> MACV published a "Lessons Learned" series during the war. At the time,
> they were classified CONFIDENTIAL, but were subject to automatic
> downgrading -- I think 3 years, but certainly no more than 12. Might be
> useful for some university to scan them and put them online.

Many of them are already on line, along with similar documents from
Korea and Wars Previous.
check out
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/
for access to the indices.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Brett]

"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.

What year did Kerry claim the events occurred?

[Fred J. McCall]

(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/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > >> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make
some
> > > > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.
> > > >
> > > > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name
any
> > other
> > > > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
> > > thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
> > > he played them.
> >
> > Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records
now"
> > chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical
records
> > listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
> > Kerry, right?
> >
> > > It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> > > years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
> >
> > There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that
the
> > majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes. That
is
> > what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.
> >
> >
>
> Do you think Kerry was going to lose that hot job of running that boat
> in combat over some flesh wound?

Well, he turned three alleged flesh wounds into an early trip home, so he
could not have been but so enamored of that boat and its crew.

On the war crimes: were they, did
> they?

Were they what? Did they what?

Lots of GIs came back with enormous psychological problems that
> can't be blamed on the hot weather.

I'd recommend you read Burkett's book; we have seen a number of "PTSD"
claims from folks who never left the log/admin area and never heard a shot
fired in anger.

As I said before, you start
> keeping score with a body count in a war where your mess waiter may be
> an enemy colonel and you are pushing the edge of the line.

Eh?

Brooks

And what *idiot* reads and believes anything in "Mother Jones"?
>

[ZZBunker]

Peter Skelton > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:33:11 -0600, "S. Sampson"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Jack Linthicum" > wrote
> >>
> >> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> >> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
> >
> >I wouldn't have a problem with that. I never marched in an anti-government
> >rally, with the leadership of the Communist Party.
> >
>
> If you have today the same opinions you had thirty years ago, you
> haven't learned much.

Most US Republicans have the same opinion about
war that they had in WWI. So they have learned
nothing in 100 years of war, other than:

Sometimes Cuba is on the US side, and sometimes
it's not.

Sometimes California is commie and sometimes it not.

Sometimes Washington is open for buisness,
and sometimes it's not.

Sometimes iron's cheap, and sometime's it's not.

Sometimes light are red, and sometimes they're green.

Sometimes bullets are 0.25 inch, and sometimes they're 9mm.

Sometimes New York's hot and sometimes it's cold.


> Peter Skelton

[BUFDRVR]

>Given George II's record on hazardous duty pay for troops in
>Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think that you want to go there....

Hmm, having received HDP for over a year of the last 3, can you explain what
Bush has done (or tried to do) in regards to HDP?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

<Warning For All Overly-Sensative B-1 Crew and supporters...This is only a
joke>

>I don't want a president who thought that the (F-15, Patriot, B-1B, cruise
>missiles, etc. ad nauseum) were *all* wastes of taxpayers' money

Damn and I would never have thought I was in agreement with Kerry on anything,
but 1 out of 4 ain't bad ;)

<Joke Over>

Kerry's voting record will be his worst enemy when the election gets into full
swing.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Marc Reeve]

BUFDRVR > wrote:
> Scott MacEachern wrote:
> >Given George II's record on hazardous duty pay for troops in
> >Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think that you want to go there....
>
> Hmm, having received HDP for over a year of the last 3, can you explain
> what Bush has done (or tried to do) in regards to HDP?
>
He's probably referring to the brouhaha over the increases in HDP and
FSA that Congress authorized in April '03 (retroactive to October '02),
which were set to expire in October '03 if they weren't made permanent
by Congress. Word was that Rumsfeld and other DOD brass were perfectly
happy to let them expire, as they hadn't been included in the FY03
budget and were really screwing things up, finance-wise. This got turned
into "BushCo wants to cut pay for personnel serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan" by many media outlets, including the Army Times.

Despite googling in multiple directions, I have been unable to determine
the resolution of this issue.

-Marc

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> <Warning For All Overly-Sensative B-1 Crew and supporters...This is only a
> joke>
>
> >I don't want a president who thought that the (F-15, Patriot, B-1B, cruise
> >missiles, etc. ad nauseum) were *all* wastes of taxpayers' money

> Kerry's voting record will be his worst enemy when the election gets into full
> swing.


It's never been surprising how active duty types tend to support
presidents or presidential candidates who they perceive as being
friendly ($$) to the military or willing to use it at the drop of a hat.
It almost follows suit that many vets will be of the same mindset.

What I don't understand is how any vet, particularly those such as
yourself who served their country in combat, can have such a hard-on for
the person now running this country...and worse yet...or consider him a
patriot.

A true patriot would not constantly take money and services away from
people who wore a uniform for their country. The Bush II excuse for an
administration has hacked away at the VA budget since day 1. There are
some 230,000 disbaled vets having to wait over 6 months just to get
their first VA doctor visit...and yet the Bush admin is still closing 7
VA hospitals, proposed doubling the cost of prescription drugs for
disabled vets (a proposal nixed by a _Democratic_ ammendment), and
announcing it would cut health care benefits to over 163,000 disabled
veterans because the Bush admin thinks they aren't poor enough to
deserve it. I guess getting permanently disabled for your country isn't
reason enough to merit benefits from chickenhawk politicians who use our
blood to fight their little vendettas but are quick to discard us like
trash when it comes time to actually help the people who wielded the
sword.

It no longer surprises me to see presidents doing this. Bush's daddy did
it to us as well...when he made it three times harder for disabled vets
to get Ch. 31 Voc Rehab benefits (increasing the eligibility
requirements from 10% to 20%$ and then 30% disability). Nope, no
surprise at all. What does surprise me is that so many people can
consider people like him and administrations like his as "patriotic."


I guess the definition of patriotism means being willing to kick-ass
anywhere in the world. And if one isn't willing to do it themselves,
they can just go hide out in the ANG or wherever...as long as they're
still willing and eager to let others fight.




--Mike

[Jack Linthicum]

(ZZBunker) wrote in message >...
> Peter Skelton > wrote in message >...
> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:33:11 -0600, "S. Sampson"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >"Jack Linthicum" > wrote
> > >>
> > >> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> > >> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
> > >
> > >I wouldn't have a problem with that. I never marched in an anti-government
> > >rally, with the leadership of the Communist Party.
> > >
> >
> > If you have today the same opinions you had thirty years ago, you
> > haven't learned much.
>
> Most US Republicans have the same opinion about
> war that they had in WWI. So they have learned
> nothing in 100 years of war, other than:
>
>

Most Republicans today were Democrats 30 years ago, or just starting
to see the white at the end of the tunnel.

[William Davenant]

> Here is the deal. It will never be settled. It wasn't settled back then
> and it won't be settled now. For the next several elections, the candidates
> will all have been on the wrong side of the argument according to some
> folks.
>
> Bottom line is: we all took our stands at the time, all were flawed by a
> system that was inherently flawed and there were no winners.
>
> Just let it go.

Well, like it or not, it's all on the table again. I guess since the
Libs think they have a bona fide war "hero" in their ranks, they can
somehow finally make hay over VN. It's a perverse sort of logic, but
that's what they think.

That's okay. Frankly, I'm interested in what else is in Mr Kerry's
VN personnel file besides the medals. Has he released it?

Then there's his conduct immediately after the war, which doesn't seem
all that distinquished to me.

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens.asp

You can see, I think, that Kerry came upon his plan to run for
President fairly early and has structured his behavior accordingly.

The above comports, so far, with my assessment of Kerry: he's a
typical liberal: arrogant, condescending, two-faced and a liar, and
opposed to a strong America, which amounts to affirmative action for
3rd world dictators and the like.

Politically, he favors the French view of the ideal US, i.e., the US
needs to be subservient to the international "community," which means
old Europe and France again. In short, he's a proponent of multilateralism,
UN, weakened military and intelligence community etc.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/679dmula.asp?pg=1

Course this anti-military, anti-intelligence stands him in good stead
with the libs. He can claim to be a military man and yet be anti-military.
He can vote against DoD and intelligence appropriations, yet complain
that the military is spread too thin or point out intelligence failures.

Constrast this behavior to say the typical liberal take on education.
The US education system is a shambles, mostly as a result of liberal
policies and practices, but what do they do? Advocate more money!

If you translate this to defense, which I'd say is certainly as
important as education, they advocate spending less money.

Then there's Kerry, the man. Well, we've already got some indication
of what kind of person he is with his post Vietnam demogoguery. Do these
latest allegations about his personal life affirm or contradict that?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-whalen120502.asp

He's a man concerned about attaining wealth, witness his marriages to
wealthy women, and the acquistion of power.

He sounds a lot like Bill Clinton, but he's not a charmer.

wd

[BUFDRVR]

>He's probably referring to the brouhaha over the increases in HDP and
>FSA that Congress authorized in April '03 (retroactive to October '02),
>which were set to expire in October '03 if they weren't made permanent
>by Congress.

OK, I do remember that, but that was a congressional issue, not a presidential
one.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>It's never been surprising how active duty types tend to support
>presidents or presidential candidates who they perceive as being
>friendly ($$) to the military or willing to use it at the drop of a hat.

Boy is your last name a contridiction. It never surprises me how many ignorant
political tools exist on this ng.

First off, if your assertion above were true, the active military would have
*loved* Clinton, since he, quite literally, used the military at the drop of a
hat. Not only did most active military not love Clinton, most detested the man
and couldn't wait for him to leave office. So your initial argument is a joke
(not surprising). Secondly, is it not possible for you you to not support Bush,
but not support Kerry either? I mean, that's not the case with me (I think Bush
is the right man for the job at the current time), but there are a growing
number of registered democrats who are concerned about Kerry, his ties to
lobbyists and his tremendously left charging voting record. Are these people
supporters of Bush ? No genius, they're not.

>What I don't understand is how any vet, particularly those such as
>yourself who served their country in combat, can have such a hard-on for
>the person now running this country...and worse yet...or consider him a
>patriot.

I'm not a vet (yet) cluebag. I support Bush, and plan on voting for him next
November because he's doing exactly what no Democrat since Trueman would do.
Put the USA first, not some pretend "global community". Every nation in the
world looks out for its own interests first, yet when the US does it, its a
horrible thing. Perhaps its our current world position, I don't know, but in
the wake of 9/11, we can't afford to worry about anyone ahead of ourselves.
Something Bush will do (and has done) and something none of the current
democrats in the race (short of *maybe* Clark, who's gone) is willing to do.

>A true patriot would not constantly take money and services away from
>people who wore a uniform for their country.

You're kidding right? Clinton slashed veterans benifits to the bone while
people like you stood by and applauded, now your concerned? Please....

> I guess getting permanently disabled for your country isn't
>reason enough to merit benefits from chickenhawk politicians who use our
>blood to fight their little vendettas

By "little vendettas" I'm assuming you mean Iraq, but somehow I think you
supported Clinton when he crafted US national policy on Iraq to be regime
change. What, its OK to write down, but not do it? Hypocrit.

>It no longer surprises me to see presidents doing this. Bush's daddy did
>it to us as well.

Forget about your boy Billy Jeff?

>I guess the definition of patriotism means being willing to kick-ass
>anywhere in the world. And if one isn't willing to do it themselves,
>they can just go hide out in the ANG or wherever...as long as they're
>still willing and eager to let others fight.

At least he didn't run to Europe and protest the war from there. Seems you give
Billy Jeff a lot of latitude but Bush none. Gee, I wonder why that is? Stop
looking at parties and l think for yourself.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Yeff]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:49:25 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

> There are some 230,000 disbaled vets having to wait over 6 months just
> to get their first VA doctor visit...

Hmmm... the first time I went to the VA I simply took my DD214 with me to
prove my veteran status, filled out the paperwork, and was in to see a
doctor within the hour.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >It's never been surprising how active duty types tend to support
> >presidents or presidential candidates who they perceive as being
> >friendly ($$) to the military or willing to use it at the drop of a hat.
>
> Boy is your last name a contridiction. It never surprises me how many
> ignorant
> political tools exist on this ng.

Pot, kettle, black. 'nuff said.


> Not only did most active military not love Clinton, most detested the
> man
> and couldn't wait for him to leave office.


And you know this since you're the self-appointed spokesman for the
active duty military...right?


> So your initial argument is a joke
> (not surprising). Secondly, is it not possible for you you to not support
> Bush,
> but not support Kerry either?

Interesting syntax. It's possible to support both, neither, or either
or. I happen to support Mr. Kerry and know he will make a fine president
when we elect him in.


> I mean, that's not the case with me (I think
> Bush
> is the right man for the job at the current time),


What job is that? Sacrificing American lives under false pretenses?
Caring more about spending countless millions of dollars in failed
nation building while ignoring the losss of 2.2 million jobs at home?
What exactly is he right for?



> but there are a growing
> number of registered democrats who are concerned about Kerry, his ties to
> lobbyists and his tremendously left charging voting record. Are these people
> supporters of Bush ? No genius, they're not.


And you know this, because in addition to being the supreme spokesman
for active duty military, you are also a political pollster very much in
tune with what a "growing number of Democrats" are concerned
with...right? Even so, I could care less about party labels any more,
because they mean so little. I vote on the issues, and who I think will
best address them. As a disabled veteran, I put a lot of importance on
how a candidate treats his country's vets. Bush has done more to gut VA
benefits than any president since his daddy. How you, a combat vet, can
defend that with a straight face is beyond me.


> >What I don't understand is how any vet, particularly those such as
> >yourself who served their country in combat, can have such a hard-on for
> >the person now running this country...and worse yet...or consider him a
> >patriot.
>
> I'm not a vet (yet) cluebag.


Fair enough, my mistake...and it certainly helps explain your
viewpoint...although name-calling is not necessary.


> I support Bush, and plan on voting for him next
> November

Good for you. My vote cancels yours out. ; )


> because he's doing exactly what no Democrat since Trueman would do.
> Put the USA first, not some pretend "global community".


Is Bush's open support for the continued off-shoring of American
high-tech jobs to 2nd and 3rd world countries and example of Bush
putting the USA first? Or is your definition of putting the USA first
only apply when it comes to using military force?



> Every nation in the
> world looks out for its own interests first, yet when the US does it, its a
> horrible thing.

Who said that?

> Perhaps its our current world position, I don't know, but in
> the wake of 9/11, we can't afford to worry about anyone ahead of ourselves.


Yes, indeed....9/11 is the answer to everything.


> Something Bush will do (and has done) and something none of the current
> democrats in the race (short of *maybe* Clark, who's gone) is willing to do.
>
> >A true patriot would not constantly take money and services away from
> >people who wore a uniform for their country.
>
> You're kidding right? Clinton slashed veterans benifits to the bone while
> people like you stood by and applauded, now your concerned? Please....

Which benefits did he slash? (citations please). Secondly, I have never
applauded any cut to VA benefits...no matter who is making the cutting.
However, George Bush has slashed more VA funding than any president in
recent history.

>
> > I guess getting permanently disabled for your country isn't
> >reason enough to merit benefits from chickenhawk politicians who use our
> >blood to fight their little vendettas
>
> By "little vendettas" I'm assuming you mean Iraq, but somehow I think you
> supported Clinton when he crafted US national policy on Iraq to be regime
> change. What, its OK to write down, but not do it? Hypocrit.

Keywords here: "I think"

You think wrong, so please take your straw man out of the picture.


> >It no longer surprises me to see presidents doing this. Bush's daddy did
> >it to us as well.
>
> Forget about your boy Billy Jeff?


Who said anything about who "my boy" is?

It's very tired to see right-wing syncophants to George Bush try to
paint anybody who doesn't support them or their incompetent president as
somehow equaling the support for somebody else.

>
> >I guess the definition of patriotism means being willing to kick-ass
> >anywhere in the world. And if one isn't willing to do it themselves,
> >they can just go hide out in the ANG or wherever...as long as they're
> >still willing and eager to let others fight.


> At least he didn't run to Europe and protest the war from there. Seems you
> give
> Billy Jeff a lot of latitude but Bush none.

There you go creating your straw men again. When did I say I gave
Clinton any latitude for anything? The last I checked, Bill Clinton is
not running for president.


> Gee, I wonder why that is? Stop
> looking at parties and l think for yourself.


I don't look at parties and don't belong to one...therfore have no
choice but to think for myself. You, however, would do well to heed your
own advice.



--Mike

[Cub Driver]

>Most Republicans today were Democrats 30 years ago,

That was certainly the case with me.

Jack Kennedy created a lot of Democrats. Richard Nixon created even
more.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

> He can claim to be a military man and yet be anti-military.

In short, the man Joe Ellis wished he had been?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Yeff > wrote:

> > There are some 230,000 disbaled vets having to wait over 6 months just
> > to get their first VA doctor visit...
>
> Hmmm... the first time I went to the VA I simply took my DD214 with me to
> prove my veteran status, filled out the paperwork, and was in to see a
> doctor within the hour.


And was that "first time" within the last year?


--Mike

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>>What I don't understand is how any vet, particularly those such
>>as yourself who served their country in combat, can have such a
>>hard-on for the person now running this country...and worse
>>yet...or consider him a patriot.
>
> I'm not a vet (yet) cluebag. I support Bush, and plan on voting
> for him next November because he's doing exactly what no
> Democrat since Trueman would do. Put the USA first, not some
> pretend "global community". Every nation in the world looks out
> for its own interests first, yet when the US does it, its a
> horrible thing.

I don't think so, really. Most nations -people- are ordinary
folks like you and me, and share a reasonably balanced view
of that of self-interest and scrifice. It's the arrogance and
stupidity by which things are done that upset ordinary people.

No offence here, but I really do not believe that the self-
interest, alienation and narrowmindness stops at the border,
it continues right inwards.



Regards...

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:12:49 GMT, Fred J. McCall > wrote:

>"Admin" > wrote:
>
>:I don't have to prove it anymore than you should. Double Standard there, ol
>:buddy. Kerry did get the medals. Now whether they were earned or not, that
>:is questionable. While medals weren't given out at the rate they are today,
>:some go them for political reasons back then. Oh, it's thursday, let's give
>:the Congressman's kid a medal so I can make General someday.
>
>That sort of thing pretty much stopped at Bronze Star. Kerry got a
>Silver Star. That sort of thing was also more common (I'm told) in
>the Army and Air Force than elsewhere. Kerry was Navy.
>
>I judge by what is going on now. Kerry lost a lot of credibility with
>me when he originally jumped on board Terry McAuliffe's lunacy about
>Bush's 'desertion' from the ANG. It shows he's made of the same
>putrid stuff that those who went to Florida and argued that military
>votes should be invalidated were.
>
>McAuliffe may energize the loon fringes of the Democratic Party, but
>they need to get rid of him. He alienates everyone else, and those
>are the voters you need to win.

Remember LBJ? He also got a politically motivated Silver Star.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:56:07 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>
>"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
m...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>> >> >
>> > >
>> > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
>> > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.
>> >
>> > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name any
>other
>> > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
>> thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
>> he played them.
>
>Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records now"
>chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical records
>listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
>Kerry, right?
>
>> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
>> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
>
>There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that the
>majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes. That is
>what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.
>
>Brooks
>
I suspect that Kerry's "injuries" were paper cuts.

Al Minyard

[B2431]

>John Kerry et al
>From: Yeff
>Date: 2/16/2004 4:05 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:49:25 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:
>
>> There are some 230,000 disbaled vets having to wait over 6 months just
>> to get their first VA doctor visit...
>
>Hmmm... the first time I went to the VA I simply took my DD214 with me to
>prove my veteran status, filled out the paperwork, and was in to see a
>doctor within the hour.
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com
>
Depending on the day of the week space available care at the Pensacola VA
Outpatient Clinic may be as long as 5 hours but is usually less than 2 in my
experience.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[ZZBunker]

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> (ZZBunker) wrote in message >...
> > Peter Skelton > wrote in message >...
> > > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:33:11 -0600, "S. Sampson"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Jack Linthicum" > wrote
> > > >>
> > > >> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> > > >> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
> > > >
> > > >I wouldn't have a problem with that. I never marched in an anti-government
> > > >rally, with the leadership of the Communist Party.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you have today the same opinions you had thirty years ago, you
> > > haven't learned much.
> >
> > Most US Republicans have the same opinion about
> > war that they had in WWI. So they have learned
> > nothing in 100 years of war, other than:
> >
> >
>
> Most Republicans today were Democrats 30 years ago, or just starting
> to see the white at the end of the tunnel.

Unlikely, since most Democratics 30 years were
Johnsonians, rather than people with
Presidential qualifications. So the only
thing we can tell most Repubicans today is
that you better jump on the Arnold Scwartznegger
band-wagon, since Disney stock is sinking
faster than Ford pickups can plummett off
than the Jersey Turnpike into now-closed
Saudi Airlines Terminal at JFK.

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

>> There are some 230,000 disbaled vets having to wait over 6 months
just
> >> to get their first VA doctor visit...
> >
> >Hmmm... the first time I went to the VA I simply took my DD214 with me to
> >prove my veteran status, filled out the paperwork, and was in to see a
> >doctor within the hour.


> Depending on the day of the week space available care at the Pensacola VA
> Outpatient Clinic may be as long as 5 hours but is usually less than 2 in my
> experience.


Please not my usage of "first VA doctor visit" meaning newly classified
disabled vets having to wait long periods of time for their _FIRST_
visit.



--Mike

[BUFDRVR]

>> Not only did most active military not love Clinton, most detested the
>> man
>> and couldn't wait for him to leave office.
>
>
>And you know this since you're the self-appointed spokesman for the
>active duty military...right?

During the Clinton administration I was at 3 bases, in 5 different commands
working with 3 uniquely different weapons systems and *everywhere* I went there
was nothing but disdain for Clinton. Am I spokesman? Obviously not, but I'd say
in my "travels", I hit nearly 75% of the USAF demographics and knew of *one*
person, Uno (interestingly enough a fellow B-52 pilot) who supported Clinton.
Every other person I met hated the man. I'd say that's a fair sampling of the
USAF. Additionally I spent a month at sea with guys & gals from the 3 other
services just prior to ALLIED FORCE, my experience was no different than the
USAF, complete disdain.

>It's possible to support both, neither, or either
>or.

So you admit you were a fool (albeit a lucky one) when you jumped to the
conclusion that I support Bush just because I don't support Kerry? Good,
progress.

>I happen to support Mr. Kerry and know he will make a fine president
>when we elect him in.

I'll bet he doesn't carry 10 states. He's got *a lot* of dirt on him and unlike
the friendly confines of the Democratic party, the Republicans are just waiting
to unload on him.

>> I mean, that's not the case with me (I think
>> Bush
>> is the right man for the job at the current time),
>
>
>What job is that?

POTUS

>Sacrificing American lives under false pretenses?

What proof do you have he's done this? Ahh, I thought not...

>Caring more about spending countless millions of dollars in failed
>nation building while ignoring the losss of 2.2 million jobs at home?

Bush didn't sign, or bless NAFTA, that was the Democrats, if you've got a gripe
take it up with them. Jobs began leaving this country in mid-99 when NAFTA took
hold. Blaming Bush for NAFTA is ridiculous.

>What exactly is he right for?

The economy and the War On Terror. What exactly would Kerry be good for? Maybe,
if elected, Kerry can some how manage to find a lonely rich country for the US
to marry and fix our econmy that way, hell its worked for him....*twice*.

>And you know this, because in addition to being the supreme spokesman
>for active duty military, you are also a political pollster very much in
>tune with what a "growing number of Democrats"

No genius, I can read. Just pick up a newspaper or a news magazine. As Kerry's
momentum builds, more and more Democrats are becoming publically concerned.
Hell, there's even a Democratic Senator from Georgia whose come out and said
that he'd vote for Bush before he voted for Kerry.

>Even so, I could care less about party labels any more,
>because they mean so little.

Sure you do.

>I vote on the issues, and who I think will
>best address them.

Sure you do.

>As a disabled veteran, I put a lot of importance on
>how a candidate treats his country's vets.

No candidate is ever going to say, publically, if he's going to cut VA
benefits. Clinton didn't, what makes you think Kerry will be any better?
Because he said so? ROFLMAO.........

>Bush has done more to gut VA
>benefits than any president since his daddy.

Wrong. Clinton, under the great HMO scam, completely changed the way vets
receive health care. Our hospital at Barksdale went from a bustling place (lots
of retired vets in and around Shreveport) to a ghost town over night. I used to
drive on base past the protestors *every day*. Some pretty interesting signs.
What's even more interesting is these horrible cuts that you claim Bush made
have not had nearly the impact, no protestors and the vets that eventually
managed to stiff arm their way back into the hospital, are still there.

> How you, a combat vet, can
>defend that with a straight face is beyond me.

I don't defend any cuts, but I'm well aware of the fiscal reality of today and
without being in the cabnit meeting where the discussion took place only gives
you half the story. You must realize that people in my generation are going to
be less sympathetic, not because we're mean, but because we've got better
chances of winning the lottery than ever seeing a dime of the thousands we're
putting into SS, so hearing older people complain about a *reduction* in their
benefits makes us (who will only have our self initiated benefits) a little
unsympathetic.

>> I support Bush, and plan on voting for him next
>> November
>
>Good for you. My vote cancels yours out. ; )
>

I doubt it, unless you're a resident of North Dakota.

>Is Bush's open support for the continued off-shoring of American
>high-tech jobs to 2nd and 3rd world countries and example of Bush
>putting the USA first?

Bush is playing the hand dealt to him. What's he supposed to do, prohibit
corporations from hiring overseas labor? The Democrats slamed Bush's father for
not immediately signing NAFTA, now hold this Bush responsible for the
results...priceless.

>Or is your definition of putting the USA first
>only apply when it comes to using military force?

That's but one of many ways. If that was meant as an insult, you missed the
mark.

>> Every nation in the
>> world looks out for its own interests first, yet when the US does it, its a
>> horrible thing.
>
>Who said that?
>

The French and German governments and their people, most of Asia (except China
who seem to appreciate and understand our position...ain't that a kicker),
Canada and half of South America.

>> Perhaps its our current world position, I don't know, but in
>> the wake of 9/11, we can't afford to worry about anyone ahead of ourselves.
>
>
>Yes, indeed....9/11 is the answer to everything.
>

Its not the "answer" to anything, but it sure is a question and your boy Kerry
seems to think it was no big deal and that'll never happen again and we can all
go back to our lives like it was 9/10/01. This view point scares the hell out
of me.

>> You're kidding right? Clinton slashed veterans benifits to the bone while
>> people like you stood by and applauded, now your concerned? Please....
>
>Which benefits did he slash?

The only specific one I can remember (after having a discussion outside the
Flight Medicine clinic with an old B-17 pilot) is that Billary said that if you
were a vet over 65, you could no longer be seen at military facilities and
instead must be seen by a civilian MD using your Medicare.

>Secondly, I have never
>applauded any cut to VA benefits...no matter who is making the cutting.

Well, you do a great job of defending Billy Jeff and he pretty much cancelled
vet benefits for anyone over 65.

>However, George Bush has slashed more VA funding than any president in
>recent history.

I find that hard to believe.

>> By "little vendettas" I'm assuming you mean Iraq, but somehow I think you
>> supported Clinton when he crafted US national policy on Iraq to be regime
>> change. What, its OK to write down, but not do it? Hypocrit.
>
>Keywords here: "I think"

So you're saying you were against Clinton when he drafted, and passed through
congress the proposed US National Security position that layed out US policy on
Iraq was regime change? If you were against it, congrats, you were in the
miniscule minority.

>It's very tired to see right-wing syncophants to George Bush try to
>paint anybody who doesn't support them or their incompetent president as
>somehow equaling the support for somebody else.

Please, you where your DNC ticket on your sleeve. You complain about both Bushs
without facing what Clinton did. You cast stones at Bush's policies without
admitting many are inherited. You're not difficult to read.

P.S. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I think for myself. So far I've
voted exclusively for the Republicans since I've been of voting age because all
the DNC could offer me was Dukakis, Clinton and Gore. If Clinton hadn't been
such a terrible CinC I may have voted for him over Dole in '92, but I couldn't
get past what Clinton was doing to the military. I've voted 3 times for Byron
Dorgan. I'm not a real big fan, but for the most part he seems to be able
balance his support for the people in North Dakota with the overall good of the
country fairly well.

>When did I say I gave
>Clinton any latitude for anything?

Well, you never complained about his slashing of vet benefits, just both Bush
presidents, that tells me your not treating him the same.

>I don't look at parties

Riiiight..........

>You, however, would do well to heed your
>own advice.

I do.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

> No offence here, but I really do not believe that the self-
> interest, alienation and narrowmindness stops at the border,
> it continues right inwards.

Narrow mindedness is not an exclusive trait of the American government or
people. There's *plenty* of that in Europe as well.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>> No offence here, but I really do not believe that the self-
>> interest, alienation and narrowmindness stops at the border,
>> it continues right inwards.
>
> Narrow mindedness is not an exclusive trait of the American
> government or people. There's *plenty* of that in Europe as
> well.

Absolutely, but we are generally more culturally adept and
openminded living so closely together. Perhaps we agree that
isolation ultimately only leads to more alienation and
wrong perceptions.


Regards...

[D. Strang]

>Is Bush's open support for the continued off-shoring of American
>high-tech jobs to 2nd and 3rd world countries and example of Bush
>putting the USA first?

It's not high-tech. What jobs are being lost, are jobs that Americans
don't want to do, and those jobs enrich our trading partners.

If we have all the jobs, who are we going to export to?

I drive by the VA every day, and pick up men who want to work for
a days wage. I never get any disabled volunteers. Standing on the
corner are 70 year old Mexicans, Chinese, and Cambodians. The
one-arm Vets just sneer at us. I picture them going back to the TV
set and sofa. Meanwhile my truck load of workers will each make
$80 tax free as long as I can keep the developers from pricing me
out of business with their zoning buddies... Never, in 30 years, has
a Vet come down the steps to work. Welfare whores I call them.

This will probably be my last year, as a group of lawyers have formed
a committee (sponsored by the city commissioners) to move the farm
zoning lines about 10 miles east of my farm. They say the tractor noises
and farm animals are a nuisance to the surrounding developments, which
even I could never afford.

[Bob McKellar]

"D. Strang" wrote:

> >Is Bush's open support for the continued off-shoring of American
> >high-tech jobs to 2nd and 3rd world countries and example of Bush
> >putting the USA first?
>
> It's not high-tech. What jobs are being lost, are jobs that Americans
> don't want to do, and those jobs enrich our trading partners.
>
> If we have all the jobs, who are we going to export to?
>
> I drive by the VA every day, and pick up men who want to work for
> a days wage. I never get any disabled volunteers. Standing on the
> corner are 70 year old Mexicans, Chinese, and Cambodians. The
> one-arm Vets just sneer at us. I picture them going back to the TV
> set and sofa. Meanwhile my truck load of workers will each make
> $80 tax free as long as I can keep the developers from pricing me
> out of business with their zoning buddies... Never, in 30 years, has
> a Vet come down the steps to work. Welfare whores I call them.
>
> This will probably be my last year, as a group of lawyers have formed
> a committee (sponsored by the city commissioners) to move the farm
> zoning lines about 10 miles east of my farm. They say the tractor noises
> and farm animals are a nuisance to the surrounding developments, which
> even I could never afford.

Tax free? No FICA and no income tax? Paid in small bills?

This sounds great! Which IRS section allows such a good deal?

Bob McKellar

[Michael Wise]

In article <60gYb.130$Ru5.40@okepread03>,
"D. Strang" > wrote:

> >Is Bush's open support for the continued off-shoring of American
> >high-tech jobs to 2nd and 3rd world countries and example of Bush
> >putting the USA first?
>
> It's not high-tech. What jobs are being lost, are jobs that Americans
> don't want to do, and those jobs enrich our trading partners.


So all those Americans working in the tech support call centers like
Dell's, HP's, SBC, etc. really didn't want their jobs when they were
fired. Nope, they just volunteered to sacrifice their and their familes'
income, so that some Indian in Bangalore working for 1/4 - 1/5 the wages
could have a good life.

Take off your blinders. These days, the chances are that your credit
apps, health insurance, phone records, etc. are being seen and handled
off-shore.



> If we have all the jobs, who are we going to export to?


If we give away all our jobs, how are we going to buy anything?



>
> I drive by the VA every day, and pick up men who want to work for
> a days wage. I never get any disabled volunteers. Standing on the
> corner are 70 year old Mexicans, Chinese, and Cambodians. The
> one-arm Vets just sneer at us. I picture them going back to the TV
> set and sofa. Meanwhile my truck load of workers will each make
> $80 tax free as long as I can keep the developers from pricing me
> out of business with their zoning buddies... Never, in 30 years, has
> a Vet come down the steps to work. Welfare whores I call them.


I see. So you are perfectly willing to violate the law and hire people
under the table, because you can work them for peanuts? My guess is you
don't ask them for work papers right...and you are knowingly hire
illegal aliens...while casting names on your country's disabled vets.

You, sir, are a sorry excuse for an American.


--Mike

[Pete]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:60gYb.130$Ru5.40@okepread03...
> >Is Bush's open support for the continued off-shoring of American
> >high-tech jobs to 2nd and 3rd world countries and example of Bush
> >putting the USA first?
>
> It's not high-tech. What jobs are being lost, are jobs that Americans
> don't want to do, and those jobs enrich our trading partners.

Like the 5000 software develpment positions that IBM is moving to India and
China?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3717418/

Or *all* of Levi Strauss's plants in the US?

Naaa...those guys and gals didn't really want those jobs.

> If we have all the jobs, who are we going to export to?

If we have no more jobs, what can we buy?

Pete

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >> Not only did most active military not love Clinton, most detested the
> >> man
> >> and couldn't wait for him to leave office.
> >
> >
> >And you know this since you're the self-appointed spokesman for the
> >active duty military...right?
>
> During the Clinton administration I was at 3 bases, in 5 different commands
> working with 3 uniquely different weapons systems and *everywhere* I went
> there
> was nothing but disdain for Clinton. Am I spokesman? Obviously not, but I'd
> say
> in my "travels", I hit nearly 75% of the USAF demographics and knew of *one*
> person, Uno (interestingly enough a fellow B-52 pilot) who supported Clinton.
> Every other person I met hated the man. I'd say that's a fair sampling of the
> USAF. Additionally I spent a month at sea with guys & gals from the 3 other
> services just prior to ALLIED FORCE, my experience was no different than the
> USAF, complete disdain.
>
> >It's possible to support both, neither, or either
> >or.
>
> So you admit you were a fool (albeit a lucky one) when you jumped to the
> conclusion that I support Bush just because I don't support Kerry? Good,
> progress.


Nope. You have constantly worn your political beliefs on your sleeve in
this n.g. No need for anybody to jump to conclusions.


> >I happen to support Mr. Kerry and know he will make a fine president
> >when we elect him in.
>
> I'll bet he doesn't carry 10 states. He's got *a lot* of dirt on him and
> unlike
> the friendly confines of the Democratic party, the Republicans are just
> waiting
> to unload on him.


Sigh. That comment is very typical of you and the Republican party. You
can't stand on your candidate's record so your prime strategy is dirt.
Take your best shots. I shall be here to remind you of your comments in
eight months when Kerry is elected president.

>
> >> I mean, that's not the case with me (I think
> >> Bush
> >> is the right man for the job at the current time),
> >
> >
> >What job is that?
>
> POTUS

2.2 million unemployed people might disagree.

>
> >Sacrificing American lives under false pretenses?
>
> What proof do you have he's done this? Ahh, I thought not...


It's will be a waste of time to hash that out now, but I think the
evidence is very clear that we were misled. We'll agree to disagree.

>
> >Caring more about spending countless millions of dollars in failed
> >nation building while ignoring the losss of 2.2 million jobs at home?
>
> Bush didn't sign, or bless NAFTA, that was the Democrats, if you've got a
> gripe
> take it up with them. Jobs began leaving this country in mid-99 when NAFTA
> took
> hold. Blaming Bush for NAFTA is ridiculous.


The jobs I'm talking about are the white collar jobs at places like
Dell, HP, Cisco, Sun, SBC, Wells Fargo, etc. etc. Those jobs have gone
to places like India, Phillippines, and other countries with people
having English skills, but who can be hired cheaply. These are jobs that
have moved and continue to move out of the country starting only about
two years ago.


>
> >What exactly is he right for?
>
> The economy

One of the worst economies with the highest sustained unemployment rates
in at least the last two decades.

> and the War On Terror.


I attribute a professional military.....and not their chickenhawk CEO
for that.


> What exactly would Kerry be good for?


Taking care of things at home and not starting unnecessary wars, for
starters.


> >And you know this, because in addition to being the supreme spokesman
> >for active duty military, you are also a political pollster very much in
> >tune with what a "growing number of Democrats"
>
> No genius, I can read. Just pick up a newspaper or a news magazine. As
> Kerry's
> momentum builds, more and more Democrats are becoming publically concerned.
> Hell, there's even a Democratic Senator from Georgia whose come out and said
> that he'd vote for Bush before he voted for Kerry.

Their numbers are so insignificant to even warrant mention.


>
> >Even so, I could care less about party labels any more,
> >because they mean so little.
>
> Sure you do.

That's right. I am independent.

>
> >I vote on the issues, and who I think will
> >best address them.
>
> Sure you do.

That's right. That's why I twice voted for Pete Wilson for California
governor (one time of which Feinstein challenged him and lost).
>
> >As a disabled veteran, I put a lot of importance on
> >how a candidate treats his country's vets.
>
> No candidate is ever going to say, publically, if he's going to cut VA
> benefits. Clinton didn't, what makes you think Kerry will be any better?
> Because he said so? ROFLMAO.........


I think his record on veterans issues is quite clear in his established
champion of vet causes. I invite you to seek commentary from your
nearest Disabled American Veterans (www.dav.org) chapter and ask them
about the state of VA funding today.



> ...
> >> Every nation in the
> >> world looks out for its own interests first, yet when the US does it, its
> >> a
> >> horrible thing.
> >
> >Who said that?
> >
>
> The French and German governments and their people,

Are their governments people participating in this thread?


> most of Asia (except
> China
> who seem to appreciate and understand our position...ain't that a kicker),


No China doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it. We're their
biggest trading partner...although the trade ballance is heavily slanted
in their favor. They're not going to ruin a good thing and risk losing
hard currency they can use to builld up their country (including their
military) with.


> >> Perhaps its our current world position, I don't know, but in
> >> the wake of 9/11, we can't afford to worry about anyone ahead of
> >> ourselves.
> >
> >
> >Yes, indeed....9/11 is the answer to everything.
> >
>
> Its not the "answer" to anything, but it sure is a question and your boy
> Kerry
> seems to think it was no big deal and that'll never happen again and we can
> all
> go back to our lives like it was 9/10/01. This view point scares the hell out
> of me.

It might be scary if there was a grain of truth in it.


> >It's very tired to see right-wing syncophants to George Bush try to
> >paint anybody who doesn't support them or their incompetent president as
> >somehow equaling the support for somebody else.
>
> Please, you where your DNC ticket on your sleeve. You complain about both
> Bushs
> without facing what Clinton did.


Because the topic area here is the upcoming presidential election of
which Mr. Bush will most lieky face off against Mr. Kerry. Clinton is
not in the election and has nothing to do with. Bush's father has only
been mentioned as a side-note and is not particularly relevant.



> >I don't look at parties
>
> Riiiight..........

That must be why I voted for Pete Wilson.



--Mike

[Cub Driver]

>During the Clinton administration I was at 3 bases, in 5 different commands
>working with 3 uniquely different weapons systems and *everywhere* I went there
>was nothing but disdain for Clinton.

That certainly tracks my sense of the era. The most worrisome part of
the Clinton two terms was the feeling that the White House and the
military were at such odds that there was a smell of rebellion in the
air. It's not healthy that the military despise the president.

(It's not healthy that the Good People despise the president, either,
but at least they don't have tanks.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:29:08 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:

>Like the 5000 software develpment positions that IBM is moving to India and
>China?

You are conflating your figures. IBM is off-shoring 3000 jobs and
adding 5000, for a net gain of 2000. That is pretty typical.

To be sure, not all of the 3000 will qualify for the 5000 jobs. It's
the dispossessed that Dean, Edwards, and now Kerry are tapping into.

This kind of creative destruction has been going on for over a century
in the U.S., and is the major source of its wealth today. In the 1930s
it was the New Hampshire textile workers who were hurting as their
jobs went to the South. More recently it was the Southern textile
workers who were hurting as their jobs went to Bangladesh.

Just make sure your kids have a good education, and they'll be better
off than you ever were.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[BUFDRVR]

> It's not healthy that the military despise the president.
>

I really don't think it matters much. No one liked Clinton, but when he ordered
Operation ALLIED FORCE, we seemed to do a "bang up" job.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[D. Strang]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote
>
> Tax free? No FICA and no income tax? Paid in small bills?
>
> This sounds great! Which IRS section allows such a good deal?

"hand harvesters" do not pay taxes, do not receive social security credits,
and do not have bank accounts.

http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/people/erven.1/FarmLabor/

[D. Strang]

"Michael Wise" > wrote
>
> So all those Americans working in the tech support call centers like
> Dell's, HP's, SBC, etc. really didn't want their jobs when they were
> fired.

I suggest you take a few courses in economics.

A capitalist company (one who requires capital to expand or sustain
operations) has to cut labor costs. They can either do that by shrinking,
or by exporting the jobs.

When a company exports jobs to developing nations, they produce
trading partners, and they reduce the cost of labor. This reduced cost
of labor isn't stuffed into burlap bags, it is used to expand the companies
manufacturing, and produces high-paid manufacturing jobs.

Would you rather have minimum wage call center jobs, or would you
rather have double minimum wage manufacturing jobs?

Capitalists provide freedom, Socialists enforce serfdom.

[D. Strang]

"Pete" > wrote
>
> Like the 5000 software develpment positions that IBM is moving to India and
> China?

Do you know anyone who uses IBM software? Let's get realistic here.

> Or *all* of Levi Strauss's plants in the US?

I haven't bought Levi's since the early 70's. They are too expensive. If I
was the CEO, I would have ended the company years ago. With NAFTA
they now have a chance to get competitive again.

> Naaa...those guys and gals didn't really want those jobs.

I feel for those workers who want to keep making things that people don't buy,
but my gut tells me that they need to educate themselves. Our city needs over
10,000 health-care workers. X-Ray techs, respiratory techs, nurses, etc, etc.
We should give 0% interest loans to students who need vo-tech training.

> > If we have all the jobs, who are we going to export to?
>
> If we have no more jobs, what can we buy?

We have plenty of jobs. We don't have investment in training. If India will
provide trained workers, and the States won't; which decision do you think
a Capitalist will make, all other things being equal?

[D. Strang]

"Michael Wise" > wrote
>
> I happen to support Mr. Kerry and know he will make a fine president
> when we elect him in.

I fear there's too many Oswald's and Sirhan's out there for that. Kerry has
been feeding hate groups for so long, that only the Communists and Pinko's
love him.

All you have to do is consider who will be in his Cabinet, and that should
send shudders down the spine. Your survival instincts should be kicking-in
about now.

[Keith Willshaw]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:6SnYb.450$Ru5.434@okepread03...
> "Pete" > wrote
> >
> > Like the 5000 software develpment positions that IBM is moving to India
and
> > China?
>
> Do you know anyone who uses IBM software? Let's get realistic here.
>

Well yes actually , we us the Rational development tools for example
and DB2 is still rather heavily used for major database projects.

Keith

[Jack Linthicum]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > >> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make
> some
> > > > > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name
> any
> other
> > > > > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
> > > > thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
> > > > he played them.
> > >
> > > Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records
> now"
> > > chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical
> records
> > > listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
> > > Kerry, right?
> > >
> > > > It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> > > > years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
> > >
> > > There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that
> the
> > > majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes. That
> is
> > > what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Do you think Kerry was going to lose that hot job of running that boat
> > in combat over some flesh wound?
>
> Well, he turned three alleged flesh wounds into an early trip home, so he
> could not have been but so enamored of that boat and its crew.
>
> On the war crimes: were they, did
> > they?
>
> Were they what? Did they what?
>
> Lots of GIs came back with enormous psychological problems that
> > can't be blamed on the hot weather.
>
> I'd recommend you read Burkett's book; we have seen a number of "PTSD"
> claims from folks who never left the log/admin area and never heard a shot
> fired in anger.
>
> As I said before, you start
> > keeping score with a body count in a war where your mess waiter may be
> > an enemy colonel and you are pushing the edge of the line.
>
> Eh?
>
> And what *idiot* reads and believes anything in "Mother Jones"?
> >


You are free to point out any specific errors. I am aware that you
yourself do not read anything, just listen and watch parts of C-SPAN
programs.

By the way if we are going after Kerry for saying it was a bad war
when are we going to have the trials for Caspar Weinberger, Norman
Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell, all of whom have written books and
testified before Congress on the
Vietnam War and its failures in leadership.

[Scott MacEachern]

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/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/5e5142b6ba102b45c12563cd00434741?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/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=1&vote=00143
and
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00263
for a couple of the cases I'm talking about.

Scott

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: "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/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/5e5142b6ba10
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

[Jack Linthicum]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:56:07 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
> >> > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.
> >> >
> >> > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name any
> other
> >> > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
> >> thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
> >> he played them.
> >
> >Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records now"
> >chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical records
> >listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
> >Kerry, right?
> >
> >> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> >> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
> >
> >There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that the
> >majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes. That is
> >what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> I suspect that Kerry's "injuries" were paper cuts.
>
>

And you, of course, have survived many such paper cuts, even when you
were aware that three superficial wounds and you get to go home.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: "The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al
>From: (Jack Linthicum)
>Date: 2/17/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:56:07 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
>> >> > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name any
>> other
>> >> > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
>> >> thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
>> >> he played them.
>> >
>> >Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records now"
>> >chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical records
>> >listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
>> >Kerry, right?
>> >
>> >> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
>> >> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
>> >
>> >There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that the
>> >majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes. That
>is
>> >what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.
>> >
>> >Brooks
>> >
>> I suspect that Kerry's "injuries" were paper cuts.
>>
>>
>
>And you, of course, have survived many such paper cuts, even when you
>were aware that three superficial wounds and you get to go home.


How many Purple Hearts did you get?


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or
make
> > some
> > > > > > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple
Hearts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you
name
> > any
> > other
> > > > > > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in
the
> > > > > thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules
but
> > > > > he played them.
> > > >
> > > > Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records
> > now"
> > > > chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical
> > records
> > > > listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms
by
> > > > Kerry, right?
> > > >
> > > > > It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you
did 30
> > > > > years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
> > > >
> > > > There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is
that
> > the
> > > > majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes.
That
> > is
> > > > what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you think Kerry was going to lose that hot job of running that boat
> > > in combat over some flesh wound?
> >
> > Well, he turned three alleged flesh wounds into an early trip home, so
he
> > could not have been but so enamored of that boat and its crew.
> >
> > On the war crimes: were they, did
> > > they?
> >
> > Were they what? Did they what?
> >
> > Lots of GIs came back with enormous psychological problems that
> > > can't be blamed on the hot weather.
> >
> > I'd recommend you read Burkett's book; we have seen a number of "PTSD"
> > claims from folks who never left the log/admin area and never heard a
shot
> > fired in anger.
> >
> > As I said before, you start
> > > keeping score with a body count in a war where your mess waiter may be
> > > an enemy colonel and you are pushing the edge of the line.
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> > And what *idiot* reads and believes anything in "Mother Jones"?
> > >
>
>
> You are free to point out any specific errors. I am aware that you
> yourself do not read anything, just listen and watch parts of C-SPAN
> programs.

Coming from a guy with an imaginary history of demolitions expertise gained
at Camp Perry, the above is a hoot.

>
> By the way if we are going after Kerry for saying it was a bad war
> when are we going to have the trials for Caspar Weinberger, Norman
> Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell, all of whom have written books and
> testified before Congress on the
> Vietnam War and its failures in leadership.

None of the above came home and started claiming that the majority of their
brethren in arms who saw combat were "war criminals". Recognizing
shortcomings and acting to correct them is one thing--blowing false war
crimes claims out one's bunghole is quite another.

Brooks

[Steve Hix]

In article <6SnYb.450$Ru5.434@okepread03>,
"D. Strang" > wrote:

> "Pete" > wrote
> >
> > Like the 5000 software develpment positions that IBM is moving to India and
> > China?
>
> Do you know anyone who uses IBM software? Let's get realistic here.

They don't do games...they *do* sell a lot of expensive enterprise
software, which other companies use to run their businesses.

[Marc Reeve]

BUFDRVR > wrote:

> >He's probably referring to the brouhaha over the increases in HDP and
> >FSA that Congress authorized in April '03 (retroactive to October '02),
> >which were set to expire in October '03 if they weren't made permanent
> >by Congress.
>
> OK, I do remember that, but that was a congressional issue, not a
> presidential one.
>
>
You'd never have guessed that, though, based on the reporting in most
mainstream media outlets.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Jack Linthicum]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: "The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al
> >From: (Jack Linthicum)
> >Date: 2/17/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> >...
> >> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:56:07 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make some
> >> >> > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple Hearts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name any
> other
> >> >> > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in the
> >> >> thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules but
> >> >> he played them.
> >> >
> >> >Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records now"
> >> >chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical records
> >> >listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
> >> >Kerry, right?
> >> >
> >> >> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did 30
> >> >> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
> >> >
> >> >There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that the
> >> >majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes. That
> is
> >> >what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.
> >> >
> >> >Brooks
> >> >
> >> I suspect that Kerry's "injuries" were paper cuts.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And you, of course, have survived many such paper cuts, even when you
> >were aware that three superficial wounds and you get to go home.
>
>
> How many Purple Hearts did you get?
>
>
>

It is a rule in the Naval Security Group that if you see combat, even
at a distance, you will lose your unbiased perspective. I was in
during the tough years, 1959-65.

[D. Strang]

"Steve Hix" > wrote
> "D. Strang" > wrote:
>
> > "Pete" > wrote
> > >
> > > Like the 5000 software develpment positions that IBM is moving to India and
> > > China?
> >
> > Do you know anyone who uses IBM software? Let's get realistic here.
>
> They don't do games...they *do* sell a lot of expensive enterprise
> software, which other companies use to run their businesses.

Our company was 100% IBM AIX since 1988. We finally had to let them go last
year.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: "The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al
>From: (Jack Linthicum)
>Date: 2/18/04 3:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Re: "The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al
>> >From: (Jack Linthicum)
>> >Date: 2/17/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:56:07 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>> >> m...
>> >> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Now it's time for you to answer a question I didn't ask or make
>some
>> >> >> > > gratuitous comment about the 'cheapness' of Kerry's Purple
>Hearts.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not gratuitous--the comment about the PH's is valid; can you name
>any
>> other
>> >> >> > troops who got three of those without missing any duty days?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Technically he missed two days. Next time you've taken shrapnel in
>the
>> >> >> thigh remember those little scratches. Kerry didn't make the rules
>but
>> >> >> he played them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, in the same spirit as the Kerry camp's "release Bush's records
>now"
>> >> >chants of a few days back, I am sure a full release of any medical
>records
>> >> >listing the severity of said wounds would be welcomed with open arms by
>> >> >Kerry, right?
>> >> >
>> >> >> It's 30 years, as I have said elsewhere would you like what you did
>30
>> >> >> years ago laid out today in terms of today's standards?
>> >> >
>> >> >There is a wee bit of a difference when what the guy is saying is that
>the
>> >> >majority of the grunts and their leaders were guilty of war crimes.
>That
>> is
>> >> >what Mr. Kerry was saying thirty years ago.
>> >> >
>> >> >Brooks
>> >> >
>> >> I suspect that Kerry's "injuries" were paper cuts.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >And you, of course, have survived many such paper cuts, even when you
>> >were aware that three superficial wounds and you get to go home.
>>
>>
>> How many Purple Hearts did you get?
>>
>>
>>
>
>It is a rule in the Naval Security Group that if you see combat, even
>at a distance, you will lose your unbiased perspective. I was in
>during the tough years, 1959-65.


I was in during the easy years 1943-1946.



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

[Jack Linthicum]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> >
> > You are free to point out any specific errors. I am aware that you
> > yourself do not read anything, just listen and watch parts of C-SPAN
> > programs.
>
> Coming from a guy with an imaginary history of demolitions expertise gained
> at Camp Perry, the above is a hoot.
>

Why don't you bring up the recoiless rifles? You were wrong on that
one too.
> >
> > By the way if we are going after Kerry for saying it was a bad war
> > when are we going to have the trials for Caspar Weinberger, Norman
> > Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell, all of whom have written books and
> > testified before Congress on the
> > Vietnam War and its failures in leadership.
>
> None of the above came home and started claiming that the majority of their
> brethren in arms who saw combat were "war criminals". Recognizing
> shortcomings and acting to correct them is one thing--blowing false war
> crimes claims out one's bunghole is quite another.
>

Quote from a Yalie: One student expelled for a prank became an
infantry officer, participated in ferocious combat in 1967-68, and
then was readmitted to Yale where in 1970 he took the author's course
on the history of American foreign relations In 1970. Invited to speak
to the whole class about the war, he said his combat experience could
be summarized In three principles. "If it runs, It is VC [Vietcong-the
Communist enemy], waste it. If It hides, it is VC. Waste it. If It is
dead, it is VC. Count it and wait for your promotion."33
http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/yale.htm

Sound like an isolated case to you? Know what the prize was for
killing a "VC" or bringing in his weapon with proof the owner was
dead? A three day pass. Your bunghole, play through.

[Jack]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote:

> It is a rule in the Naval Security Group that if you see combat, even
> at a distance, you will lose your unbiased perspective. I was in
> during the tough years, 1959-65.

And in another post:

> Know what the prize was for killing a "VC" or bringing in his weapon
> with proof the owner was dead? A three day pass.

It begins to look as though you have lost, or never had, that so-called
"unbiased perspective". Sounds more like "comfortable distance" to me.

How tough was it, having to walk down the hall to the water cooler?



Jack

[B2431]

>From: (Jack Linthicum)

<snip> he said his combat experience could
>be summarized In three principles. "If it runs, It is VC [Vietcong-the
>Communist enemy], waste it. If It hides, it is VC. Waste it. If It is
>dead, it is VC. Count it and wait for your promotion."33
>http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/yale.htm
>
>Sound like an isolated case to you? Know what the prize was for
>killing a "VC" or bringing in his weapon with proof the owner was
>dead? A three day pass.

It's called "gallows humour," sonny. It's along the lines of:

Q: How can you shoot children?
A: It's easy, you just don't lead them as much.

and referring to people who burned to death as "crispy critters" when the
cereal of that name came out.

If everyone who greased a bad guy got a 3 day pass the war would have come to a
screeching halt due to a lack of players.

You need to talk to real veterans and real historians. There is a lot of "there
I was" stuff going on and a lot of fake veterans. There are also "historians"
who are so biased they refuse to write the truth.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote:
>
> > It is a rule in the Naval Security Group that if you see combat, even
> > at a distance, you will lose your unbiased perspective. I was in
> > during the tough years, 1959-65.
>
> And in another post:
>
> > Know what the prize was for killing a "VC" or bringing in his weapon
> > with proof the owner was dead? A three day pass.
>
> It begins to look as though you have lost, or never had, that so-called
> "unbiased perspective". Sounds more like "comfortable distance" to me.
>
> How tough was it, having to walk down the hall to the water cooler?

That's nothing. Wait until he tells you about how he was trained in demo by
the CIA...but strangely can't grasp the basic fundamentals of demolitions
and explosives.

Brooks

>
>
>
> Jack
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > > You are free to point out any specific errors. I am aware that you
> > > yourself do not read anything, just listen and watch parts of C-SPAN
> > > programs.
> >
> > Coming from a guy with an imaginary history of demolitions expertise
gained
> > at Camp Perry, the above is a hoot.
> >
>
> Why don't you bring up the recoiless rifles? You were wrong on that
> one too.

Hell, Jack, you did an outstanding job of demonstrating you were clueless
about explosives and demolitions, in spite of that "CIA training" you
alleged yourself to have received. So why bother going into your "recoiless
rifles are great shipboard weapons" crap?

> > >
> > > By the way if we are going after Kerry for saying it was a bad war
> > > when are we going to have the trials for Caspar Weinberger, Norman
> > > Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell, all of whom have written books and
> > > testified before Congress on the
> > > Vietnam War and its failures in leadership.
> >
> > None of the above came home and started claiming that the majority of
their
> > brethren in arms who saw combat were "war criminals". Recognizing
> > shortcomings and acting to correct them is one thing--blowing false war
> > crimes claims out one's bunghole is quite another.
> >
>
> Quote from a Yalie: One student expelled for a prank became an
> infantry officer, participated in ferocious combat in 1967-68, and
> then was readmitted to Yale where in 1970 he took the author's course
> on the history of American foreign relations In 1970. Invited to speak
> to the whole class about the war, he said his combat experience could
> be summarized In three principles. "If it runs, It is VC [Vietcong-the
> Communist enemy], waste it. If It hides, it is VC. Waste it. If It is
> dead, it is VC. Count it and wait for your promotion."33
> http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/yale.htm

LOL! That is about as good a source as your man Kerry associates himself
with (check out the "Meet the Press" interview from 1971, where Kerry's
fellow "combat vet" who appeared beside him turned out to be lying about his
rank and had never in fact seen any combat). First, note that the author
could not verify the veracity of the quote, nor did he identify where he
obtained it from (footnote 33); secondly, you really should not have quoted
that piece--did you miss the disclaimer at the top?

>
> Sound like an isolated case to you?

Sounds like more unverified BS, which is about what we have come to expect
regarding this subject in general and from you in particular.

Know what the prize was for
> killing a "VC" or bringing in his weapon with proof the owner was
> dead? A three day pass. Your bunghole, play through.

Uhmmm...you were they guy who has been claiming you were not allowed to come
close to combat, so your source for the above would be...?

Brooks

[Steve Hix]

In article <wTIYb.898$Ru5.566@okepread03>,
"D. Strang" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote
> > "D. Strang" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Pete" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > Like the 5000 software develpment positions that IBM is moving to India
> > > > and
> > > > China?
> > >
> > > Do you know anyone who uses IBM software? Let's get realistic here.
> >
> > They don't do games...they *do* sell a lot of expensive enterprise
> > software, which other companies use to run their businesses.
>
> Our company was 100% IBM AIX since 1988. We finally had to let them go last
> year.

's OK, they've picked up other customers.

[Brian Allardice]

In article >,
says...

>
>Sounds like more unverified BS, which is about what we have come to expect
>regarding this subject in general and from you in particular.

Brooksie, you should take a glance at the Toledo (?) Blade (?)

Nothing we didn't suspect at the time......

Cheers,
dba

[Jack Linthicum]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Jack" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote:
> >
> > > It is a rule in the Naval Security Group that if you see combat, even
> > > at a distance, you will lose your unbiased perspective. I was in
> > > during the tough years, 1959-65.
> >
> > And in another post:
> >
> > > Know what the prize was for killing a "VC" or bringing in his weapon
> > > with proof the owner was dead? A three day pass.
> >
> > It begins to look as though you have lost, or never had, that so-called
> > "unbiased perspective". Sounds more like "comfortable distance" to me.
> >
> > How tough was it, having to walk down the hall to the water cooler?
>
> That's nothing. Wait until he tells you about how he was trained in demo by
> the CIA...but strangely can't grasp the basic fundamentals of demolitions
> and explosives.
>

Well, I guess all those guys in Israel and Iraq blowing themselves,
Israelis and our troops to smithereens all had to pass the Kevin
Brooks theory of explosives course. Peary.

[Dave Austin]

Peter Skelton > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:08:30 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:30:49 -0600, Stop SPAM
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >loki wrote:
> >> >> Were you even alive in those days?
> >> >
> >> >Yes I was, and in fact I well remember Kerry's "Winter Soldier"
> testimony.
> >> >
> >> >> Here is the deal. It will never be settled. It wasn't settled back
> then
> >> >> and it won't be settled now. For the next several elections, the
> candidates
> >> >> will all have been on the wrong side of the argument according to some
> >> >> folks.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not interested in whether or not it is "being settled." You're right
> >> >- the Vietnam conflict never will "be settled". The issue, to me, is not
> >> >"settling" Vietnam.
> >> >
> >> >I can respect someone who is totally anti-war. They have their opinion,
> >> >I have mine, and we live in a land where the First Amendment gives us
> >> >both the right to have and publically state that opinion...
> >> >
> >> >But I abhore someone who tries to fence sit and take conflicting stands
> >> >on an issue, any issue, much less one as important as the military.
> >> >Kerry, IMHO, is trying to be on both sides of the issue.
> >>
> >> You have a problem with people who do their duty even if they
> >> don't like it?
> >
> >I believe his gist was that Kerry demonstrates a remarkable propensity for
> >trying to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to things military
> >related. He wants to be considered a Vietnam war hero, yet he condemned the
> >US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who fought there as being war criminals; he
> >wants to claim his undying dedication to all things military, yet his voting
> >record in regards to military programs says otherwise; he wants to display
> >his medals for his own benefit, after making a big show of tossing them in
> >protest; he wants to condemn Bush for allegedly not serving his entire
> >reserve committment, while he mysteriously never seemed to even *have* one
> >himself; and he wants to pillory Bush for alleged special treatment in
> >getting into and out of the Guard, yet he himself secured early release from
> >both Vietnam duty and an early release from his own active duty committment.
> >Sounds like a pretty proficient fence sitter to me...
> >
>
> I think you mean fence-hopper, a fence sitter is one who takes no
> stands but I see your point. Unfortunately, Bush is easily tarred
> with the same brush.

I'm not sure I agree with your statement about the President. He's
been remarkably consistent in his support for the military. Granted,
he was never a voting member of Congress, but even as a Texas
governor, he would always applaud and support the troops, just as he
does as president.

I'm with Kevin about Kerry - I'd rather have a National Guardsman with
no combat experience who supports the military as president than a
combat vet who doesn't.

Dave

[Peter Skelton]

On 19 Feb 2004 05:44:44 -0800,
(Dave Austin) wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote in message >...

>> I think you mean fence-hopper, a fence sitter is one who takes no
>> stands but I see your point. Unfortunately, Bush is easily tarred
>> with the same brush.
>
>I'm not sure I agree with your statement about the President. He's
>been remarkably consistent in his support for the military. Granted,
>he was never a voting member of Congress, but even as a Texas
>governor, he would always applaud and support the troops, just as he
>does as president.
>
>I'm with Kevin about Kerry - I'd rather have a National Guardsman with
>no combat experience who supports the military as president than a
>combat vet who doesn't.
>

Kerry started on one side of the fence and hopped to the other.

Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.

Peter Skelton

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.

Where is your evidence for this?

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

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
>
>Where is your evidence for this?

His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.

Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
that's saying a lot.

Peter Skelton

[Kevin Brooks]

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave Austin wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm with Kevin about Kerry - I'd rather have a National Guardsman with
> > no combat experience who supports the military as president than a
> > combat vet who doesn't.
>
> What exactly is "supporting the military" Voting for better pay?

Which Kerry has voted against.

Standing respectfully when bodies are
> brought back form foreign wars?

As opposed to making specious claims of war crimes against your fellow
military personnel.

What does this have to do with supporitng government policies of committing
> the milalitry to war?

Which Kerry has not done.

If you think the war is a waste fo good men and women, how do you support
the
> military?

One can support, or at least not falsely accuse of atrocities, the military
personnel without being in favor of the decision that committed them to the
conflict. Kerry did not understand that when he returned from Vietnam, and
then parroted the since-discredited "Winter Soldier" crap during both his
congressional testimony and his 1971 "Meet the Press" interview (where he
sat beside the other "combat veteran"...who turned out to have never been in
combat).

Brooks
>
> Vince
>

[Prof. Vincent Brannigan]

Dave Austin wrote:

>
> I'm with Kevin about Kerry - I'd rather have a National Guardsman with
> no combat experience who supports the military as president than a
> combat vet who doesn't.

What exactly is "supporting the military" Voting for better pay? Standing respectfully when bodies are
brought back form foreign wars? What does this have to do with supporitng government policies of committing
the milalitry to war? If you think the war is a waste fo good men and women, how do you support the
military?

Vince

[D. Strang]

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote
>
> What exactly is "supporting the military?"

It's the opposite of calling them baby killers, and throwing someone
else's medals over the fence in a protest against the U.S. Government,
and conspiring with other Communists in destroying the Democratic
Party.

[D. Strang]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote
> "D. > wrote:
> >"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote
> >>
> >> What exactly is "supporting the military?"
> >
> >It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .
>
> Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
> doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
> destroying the military.

Listen pecker-head, when you serve in a war and participate in a
fire-fight at close-quarters, come back to the group.

I have killed babies, I've killed old men and old women, and I've
killed men and women who were my own age at the time. It was an
intense battle on several occaisons, and the only thing I cared about
was my survival. I killed everything that moved, and I stopped killing
when the fire-fight ended. At that point I shifted gears, and I actually
saved the lives of several of those I shot. I rendered them first-aid,
and I gave them pain killers and anti-biotics.

To call me a baby killer is not accurate. I am a war veteran who
fought in battles which babies were killed. For anyone to emphasize
the baby killer part, is to take advantage of the gulible public, and
to further your own Communist cause.

> You are guilty of very muddy thinking.

You're full of ****, and don't know anything about combat.

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>
:>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:>
:>Where is your evidence for this?
:
:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.

There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
fence the other way".

:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:that's saying a lot.

It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.

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

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>
>:>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
>:>
>:>Where is your evidence for this?
>:
>:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
>:or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
>
>There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
>going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
>transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
>fence the other way".

OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?

>:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
>:that's saying a lot.
>
>It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
>clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.

Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.
You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
deny it.

Peter Skelton

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:51:27 -0600, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote
> >>
> >> What exactly is "supporting the military?"
> >
> >It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .
>
> Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
> doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
> destroying the military.

That would be true in cases where you know for a fact that the acts occured,
or had strong evidence that they did. That was not the case, however, with
Kerry, whose testimony and appearance on "Meet the press" instead consisted
of parroting unsubstantiated claims from "other" sources; the military did
actually investigate the "Winter Soldier" claims, but found that (a) the
vets who made the accusations in front of the media changed their tunes when
investigators started asking for verification, and (b) that a lot of those
veterans they contacted claimed to not even have been present at the affair
to give their "testimony" (leaving one wondering whether they changed their
minds, or who the heck was using their names--either being distinct
possibilities).

Knowing of a war crime and failing to report it is in fact a punishable
offense--but Kerry's second/third hand accusations never really panned out.
Condemning troops for using .50 cal MG's against personnel targets? Crap,
what would he consider the use of a 106mm RCR or 105mm howitzer firing a
beehive round?


Whether a statement is for or against
> the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.

And in this case Kerry's accusations did not acheive that standard of being
based in fact.

Brooks

<snip>

[Michael Williamson]

Peter Skelton wrote:

>>>What exactly is "supporting the military?"
>>
>>It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .
>
>
> Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
> doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
> destroying the military. Whether a statement is for or against
> the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.
>
> You are guilty of very muddy thinking.
>

More specifically, if you know of your fellow soldiers carrying
out "war crimes," and you fail to report it to your superiors for
investigation and prosecution (if it is shown that prosecution is
called for) YOU are in violation of both common decency and
military law. Saying it during a protest may or may not be the
right thing, but doing so after failing to report it is not only
not helpful at all (no specifics to allow any incident to actually
be identified or investigated so we can't actually know whether
any incident ever happened) but in my mind also two-faced in
that by the initial silence one allows such acts to occur and continue
and then by making general, non-specific allegations, you tar those
who are uninvolved in any such alleged actions.

Mike

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>
:>:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:>:>
:>:>Where is your evidence for this?
:>:
:>:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:>:or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:>
:>There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:>going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:>transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:>fence the other way".
:
:OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?

Cite?

:>:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:>:that's saying a lot.
:>
:>It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:>clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:
:Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.

Get out of my face, dumb****.

:You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
:confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
:deny it.

I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?

You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
usual abusive tactics. If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.

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

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Peter Skelton > wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:51:27 -0600, "D. Strang"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote
> >>
> >> What exactly is "supporting the military?"
> >
> >It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .
>
> Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
> doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
> destroying the military. Whether a statement is for or against
> the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.

Implying that such reprehensible behavior was the norm for American
troops in general, and standard policy supported by the officer corp in
general, as Kerry has done, doesn't meet your truth test very well.

[John Keeney]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
> :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:
> :
> :>Peter Skelton > wrote:
> :>
> :>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
> :>
> :>Where is your evidence for this?
> :
> :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
> :or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
>
> There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
> going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
> transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
> fence the other way".
>
> :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
> :that's saying a lot.
>
> It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
> clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.

Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.

[Fred J. McCall]

"John Keeney" > wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>
:> :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:> > wrote:
:> :
:> :>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:> :>
:> :>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:> :>
:> :>Where is your evidence for this?
:> :
:> :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:> :or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:>
:> There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:> going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:> transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:> fence the other way".
:>
:> :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:> :that's saying a lot.
:>
:> It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:> clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:
:Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
:stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.

Wait. Are you trying to tell me that there are NOT Nazis in Area 51?
Next thing you're going to tell me that the grey lemurs are
fictional....

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:11:40 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:51:27 -0600, "D. Strang"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> What exactly is "supporting the military?"
>> >
>> >It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .
>>
>> Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
>> doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
>> destroying the military.
>
>That would be true in cases where you know for a fact that the acts occured,
>or had strong evidence that they did.

"you know they did it"

That was not the case, however, with
>Kerry, whose testimony and appearance on "Meet the press" instead consisted
>of parroting unsubstantiated claims from "other" sources; the military did
>actually investigate the "Winter Soldier" claims, but found that (a) the
>vets who made the accusations in front of the media changed their tunes when
>investigators started asking for verification, and (b) that a lot of those
>veterans they contacted claimed to not even have been present at the affair
>to give their "testimony" (leaving one wondering whether they changed their
>minds, or who the heck was using their names--either being distinct
>possibilities).

"without comment on the truth"

>Knowing of a war crime and failing to report it is in fact a punishable
>offense--but Kerry's second/third hand accusations never really panned out.
>Condemning troops for using .50 cal MG's against personnel targets? Crap,
>what would he consider the use of a 106mm RCR or 105mm howitzer firing a
>beehive round?
>
>
>Whether a statement is for or against
>> the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.
>
>And in this case Kerry's accusations did not acheive that standard of being
>based in fact.
>

I don't want to go there, I have no access to facts, other than
anecdotal, about what went on in Viet Nam. I was reacting to the
previous poster's implication that criticism is anti-military by
definition.

I'm inclined to think we pretty much agree on this subject.

Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:32:24 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>
>:>:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:>:
>:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
>:>:>
>:>:>Where is your evidence for this?
>:>:
>:>:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
>:>:or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
>:>
>:>There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
>:>going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
>:>transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
>:>fence the other way".
>:
>:OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?
>
>Cite?

It was posted on this newsgroup less tahn a week ago, stop the BS
asshole.
>
>:>:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
>:>:that's saying a lot.
>:>
>:>It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
>:>clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
>:
>:Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.
>
>Get out of my face, dumb****.
>
Why? You live to get into people's faces. Can deliver, can't
take?

>:You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
>:confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
>:deny it.
>
>I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?
>
Because you're too stupid to recognize the truth, because your
too dumb to know what you do, because you're cornered and can't
back down, choose up to three.

>You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
>usual abusive tactics.

You're easier to maneuver than most.


If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
>have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
>the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.

Yes I have a point. I almost always do. You should try it, you
might like it.

Peter Skelton

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:32:24 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>
:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:>:
:>:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>Where is your evidence for this?
:>:>:
:>:>:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:>:>:or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:>:>
:>:>There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:>:>going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:>:>transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:>:>fence the other way".
:>:
:>:OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?
:>
:>Cite?
:
:It was posted on this newsgroup less tahn a week ago, stop the BS
:asshole.

I don't normally read pure political tripe, Peter, so I probably
skipped it. You, on the other hand, appear to live to suck ****.

:>:>:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:>:>:that's saying a lot.
:>:>
:>:>It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:>:>clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:>:
:>:Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.
:>
:>Get out of my face, dumb****.
:>
:Why? You live to get into people's faces. Can deliver, can't
:take?

Not interested. You're perennially too stupid to bother with.

:>:You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
:>:confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
:>:deny it.
:>
:>I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?
:>
:Because you're too stupid to recognize the truth, because your
:too dumb to know what you do, because you're cornered and can't
:back down, choose up to three.

Because you are such an inveterate liar. Again, you miss the facts
and try to bury them in lies.

:>You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
:>usual abusive tactics.
:
:You're easier to maneuver than most.

Yes, engage in your usual lying, abusive tactics and I'll point out
that you're engaging in your usual lying, abusive tactics. Flat
simple.

:>If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
:>have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
:>the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.
:
:Yes I have a point. I almost always do. You should try it, you
:might like it.

I don't think so. However, your 'point' does explain why you have
such a problem buying hats....


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

[Prof. Vincent Brannigan]

Steve Hix wrote:

> In article >,
> Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:51:27 -0600, "D. Strang"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote
> > >>
> > >> What exactly is "supporting the military?"
> > >
> > >It's the opposite of calling them baby killers. . . .
> >
> > Without comment on the truth and with all respect, if they are
> > doing wrong, you know it and you don't say so, *you* are
> > destroying the military. Whether a statement is for or against
> > the military depends very strongly on how it matches the truth.
>
> Implying that such reprehensible behavior was the norm for American
> troops in general, and standard policy supported by the officer corp in
> general, as Kerry has done, doesn't meet your truth test very well.

you are trying to shifting the grounds for debate. Most american soldiers
never committed a war crime However just as in the Bombing of Germany and
Japan , The US military had a policy of using unlimited force to accomplish
military objectives without substantial regard for civilian casualties.
Yes, "we" i.e. the USA were baby killers in Dresden, Tokyo and Vietnam

That was one of the the major issues involved in the Vietnam war. Those
screaming to "bomb Hanoi back to the stone age" were certainly willing to
"kill babies" and everyone knew it. Free fire zones also meant you would
kill anything that moved. When protesters chanted "hey hey LBJ how many
kinds did you kill today" there were highlighting the reality that the
government, not the military was making policy. That policy was the
unlimited use of indiscriminate force.

My parents were both Naval officers. I went to High School, College and
Law School In DC and nearby Maryland from 1964-1975. I was intensely
involved in the Vietnam debate. I deeply sympathized with members of the
military who found themselves in an impossible war. Virtually all were
decent men who found themselves in a dehumanizing situation. We now know
much better just how out of touch the washington leadership was with the
reality on the ground in Vietnam.

But "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

"It is the quality of patriotism to be jealous and watchful, to observe all
secret machinations, and to see publick dangers at a distance. The true
lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the
alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief.....
Samuel Johnson: The Patriot


Vince

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
> wrote:
:
:>
:>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
:>> Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>>
:>> :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:>> > wrote:
:>> :
:>> :>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>> :>
:>> :>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:>> :>
:>> :>Where is your evidence for this?
:>> :
:>> :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:>> :or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:>>
:>> There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:>> going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:>> transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:>> fence the other way".
:>>
:>> :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:>> :that's saying a lot.
:>>
:>> It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:>> clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:>
:>Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
:>stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
:
:The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
:Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
:has been constant

No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.

Oh, wait. Those probably aren't the problem. The problem is that
you're such an inveterate liar.

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

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:56:14 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>
:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:32:24 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:>:
:>:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>Where is your evidence for this?
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:>:>:>:or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:>:>:>going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:>:>:>transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:>:>:>fence the other way".
:>:>:
:>:>:OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?
:>:>
:>:>Cite?
:>:
:>:It was posted on this newsgroup less tahn a week ago, stop the BS
:>:asshole.
:>
:>I don't normally read pure political tripe, Peter, so I probably
:>skipped it. You, on the other hand, appear to live to suck ****.
:
:Right that's why you're reading this thread. You have a poor
:grasp on reality.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the feces you masticate
are not "reality".

:>:>:>:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:>:>:>:that's saying a lot.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:>:>:>clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:>:>:
:>:>:Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.
:>:>
:>:>Get out of my face, dumb****.
:>:>
:>:Why? You live to get into people's faces. Can deliver, can't
:>:take?
:>
:>Not interested. You're perennially too stupid to bother with.
:
:Nailed to the wall and fading fast.

Translation: "Fred's going to start ignoring my silly ****e again.
WAAAAAA!"

:>:>:You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
:>:>:confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
:>:>:deny it.
:>:>
:>:>I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?
:>:>
:>:Because you're too stupid to recognize the truth, because your
:>:too dumb to know what you do, because you're cornered and can't
:>:back down, choose up to three.
:>
:>Because you are such an inveterate liar. Again, you miss the facts
:>and try to bury them in lies.
:>
:????? Let's see. You're arguing that Bush's thought hasn't
:changed.

No, I'm not.

:I've responded that Bush says it has. You asked where I
:got it. I told you. Care to post a fact? Care to cite a lie I've
:put up here?

How about the immediately preceding statement?

:Face it Fred, when you don't like something you attack it without
:checking whether it's true or even favourable to yopur general
:opinions. When you get trippped up, you go for invective but
:you're not very good at it.

Face it Peter, whenever you feel like it, you just spew specious
attacks, particularly when they're not true and you don't have a
supportable opinion. Even before you get tripped up, you go for
invective, but you're merely boring and widely recognized as the liar
you are.

:>:>You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
:>:>usual abusive tactics.
:>:
:>:You're easier to maneuver than most.
:>
:>Yes, engage in your usual lying, abusive tactics and I'll point out
:>that you're engaging in your usual lying, abusive tactics. Flat
:>simple.
:
:Should I point out who started the name calling in this thread?

Whatever you like. I'm sure it will be up to your usual standards
with regard to truth - in other words, you'll lie. And since I have
better things to do with my time than rehash threads, you'll proclaim
to all and sundry your 'victory'.

Knock yourself out, if this is the sort of pathetic thing it takes for
you to validate your own existence.

:>:>If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
:>:>have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
:>:>the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.
:>:
:>:Yes I have a point. I almost always do. You should try it, you
:>:might like it.
:>
:>I don't think so. However, your 'point' does explain why you have
:>such a problem buying hats....
:
:I quite agree you wouldn't like having a point.

Not like yours, at any rate. No room for you to keep a brain when
your head is shaped like that. Fortunately, in your case there was no
danger involved to any brain.

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

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:43:47 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:56:14 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>
>:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:32:24 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:>:
>:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:>:>:
>:>:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:>Where is your evidence for this?
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
>:>:>:>:or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
>:>:>:>going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
>:>:>:>transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
>:>:>:>fence the other way".
>:>:>:
>:>:>:OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?
>:>:>
>:>:>Cite?
>:>:
>:>:It was posted on this newsgroup less tahn a week ago, stop the BS
>:>:asshole.
>:>
>:>I don't normally read pure political tripe, Peter, so I probably
>:>skipped it. You, on the other hand, appear to live to suck ****.
>:
>:Right that's why you're reading this thread. You have a poor
>:grasp on reality.
>
>I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the feces you masticate
>are not "reality".
>
Now does that mean you were lying when you said you don't read
politics? It sure reads as if it does.

>:>:>:>:Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
>:>:>:>:that's saying a lot.
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
>:>:>:>clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
>:>:>:
>:>:>:Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.
>:>:>
>:>:>Get out of my face, dumb****.
>:>:>
>:>:Why? You live to get into people's faces. Can deliver, can't
>:>:take?
>:>
>:>Not interested. You're perennially too stupid to bother with.
>:
>:Nailed to the wall and fading fast.
>
>Translation: "Fred's going to start ignoring my silly ****e again.
>WAAAAAA!"
>
You've been ignoring the issue in this thread in favour for some
time.

>:>:>:You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
>:>:>:confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
>:>:>:deny it.
>:>:>
>:>:>I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?
>:>:>
>:>:Because you're too stupid to recognize the truth, because your
>:>:too dumb to know what you do, because you're cornered and can't
>:>:back down, choose up to three.
>:>
>:>Because you are such an inveterate liar. Again, you miss the facts
>:>and try to bury them in lies.
>:>
>:????? Let's see. You're arguing that Bush's thought hasn't
>:changed.
>
>No, I'm not.
>
Then what in h*ll are you arguing?

>:I've responded that Bush says it has. You asked where I
>:got it. I told you. Care to post a fact? Care to cite a lie I've
>:put up here?
>
>How about the immediately preceding statement?

"I told you." is a truth, it's still up there for you to read.

>:Face it Fred, when you don't like something you attack it without
>:checking whether it's true or even favourable to yopur general
>:opinions. When you get trippped up, you go for invective but
>:you're not very good at it.
>
>Face it Peter, whenever you feel like it, you just spew specious
>attacks, particularly when they're not true and you don't have a
>supportable opinion. Even before you get tripped up, you go for
>invective, but you're merely boring and widely recognized as the liar
>you are.

I think that pretty much proves my comment about you being poor
at invective.

>:>:>You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
>:>:>usual abusive tactics.
>:>:
>:>:You're easier to maneuver than most.
>:>
>:>Yes, engage in your usual lying, abusive tactics and I'll point out
>:>that you're engaging in your usual lying, abusive tactics. Flat
>:>simple.
>:
>:Should I point out who started the name calling in this thread?
>
>Whatever you like. I'm sure it will be up to your usual standards
>with regard to truth - in other words, you'll lie. And since I have
>better things to do with my time than rehash threads, you'll proclaim
>to all and sundry your 'victory'.
>
That would be because you've lost again. There's a paralel post
in this thread. Where I ask you to cut the crap and say
something. Try saying something over there.

>Knock yourself out, if this is the sort of pathetic thing it takes for
>you to validate your own existence.
>


>:>:>If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
>:>:>have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
>:>:>the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.
>:>:
>:>:Yes I have a point. I almost always do. You should try it, you
>:>:might like it.
>:>
>:>I don't think so. However, your 'point' does explain why you have
>:>such a problem buying hats....
>:
>:I quite agree you wouldn't like having a point.
>
>Not like yours, at any rate. No room for you to keep a brain when
>your head is shaped like that. Fortunately, in your case there was no
>danger involved to any brain.

A bit out of control, are you?

Peter Skelton

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>
:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>
:>:>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
:>:>> Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>>
:>:>> :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:>:>> > wrote:
:>:>> :
:>:>> :>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>> :>
:>:>> :>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:>:>> :>
:>:>> :>Where is your evidence for this?
:>:>> :
:>:>> :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:>:>> :or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:>:>>
:>:>> There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:>:>> going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:>:>> transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:>:>> fence the other way".
:>:>>
:>:>> :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:>:>> :that's saying a lot.
:>:>>
:>:>> It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:>:>> clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:>:>
:>:>Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
:>:>stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
:>:
:>:The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
:>:Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
:>:has been constant
:>
:>No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.
:>
:I've claimed that Bush has gone from lukewarm to strongly pro,

No, you compared him to John Kerry and said he "crossed the fence
going the other way". Now, let's look at what that means.

Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
criminals.

For Bush to have "crossed the fend going the other way", he would have
had to go from being actively anti-military to being pro-military.

There is no evidence for that position. Therefore, your original
remark is incorrect.

:you've objected to that.

No. In fact, when I objected to what you actually said, I remarked
that AT MOST Bush had gone from being not enamoured of military
service (although by all accounts he scored as a pretty good officer
at the time) to being much more pro-military. This is the point at
which you started insulting me.

:The implication seems to be either that
:you think he's gone the other way (a bit absurd even for you, but
:I did cover it off) or that you think he hasn't progressed.

The implication is that your original statement was incorrect and I
said it was incorrect and that you are now lying about events.

: I'd
:mention that you have a poor grip on reality, but I've already
:done that.

Yes, this is your initial response any time someone points out that
you're on your ass, as usual.

:>Oh, wait. Those probably aren't the problem. The problem is that
:>you're such an inveterate liar.
:
:I've already responded to this, you are a bit repetitive.

So are you. Trying once again to prove that Goebbels was right and
that if you repeat a lie often enough it will be the truth?

:Let's cut the crap. Do you think Bush's attitude to the military
:has changed positively since his National Guard service? If you
:think yes,

Most likely yes, but the evidence isn't there to state it with
absolute certainty (barring your claims about some old article here
that, frankly, I can't be bothered to go back and hunt for - I
generally skip posts of news articles, because they're so often posted
by loons with an axe to grind).

:then what are you carrying on about?

See above, where I explain how your original statement was simply
wrong.

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:05:59 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>
>:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
> wrote:
>:>:
>:>:>
>:>:>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
>:>:>> Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>>
>:>:>> :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
>:>:>> > wrote:
>:>:>> :
>:>:>> :>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>> :>
>:>:>> :>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
>:>:>> :>
>:>:>> :>Where is your evidence for this?
>:>:>> :
>:>:>> :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
>:>:>> :or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
>:>:>>
>:>:>> There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
>:>:>> going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
>:>:>> transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
>:>:>> fence the other way".
>:>:>>
>:>:>> :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
>:>:>> :that's saying a lot.
>:>:>>
>:>:>> It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
>:>:>> clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
>:>:>
>:>:>Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
>:>:>stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
>:>:
>:>:The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
>:>:Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
>:>:has been constant
>:>
>:>No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.
>:>
>:I've claimed that Bush has gone from lukewarm to strongly pro,
>
>No, you compared him to John Kerry and said he "crossed the fence
>going the other way". Now, let's look at what that means.
>
>Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
>figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
>criminals.
>
In your f*g dreams he did. You clearly have not read what he's
said.
Now we know what your problem is. Go away and learn something
about the subject.

Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

This is the long answer

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:05:59 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>
>:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
> wrote:
>:>:
>:>:>
>:>:>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
>:>:>> Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>>
>:>:>> :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
>:>:>> > wrote:
>:>:>> :
>:>:>> :>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>> :>
>:>:>> :>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
>:>:>> :>
>:>:>> :>Where is your evidence for this?
>:>:>> :
>:>:>> :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
>:>:>> :or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
>:>:>>
>:>:>> There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
>:>:>> going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
>:>:>> transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
>:>:>> fence the other way".
>:>:>>
>:>:>> :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
>:>:>> :that's saying a lot.
>:>:>>
>:>:>> It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
>:>:>> clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
>:>:>
>:>:>Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
>:>:>stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
>:>:
>:>:The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
>:>:Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
>:>:has been constant
>:>
>:>No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.
>:>
>:I've claimed that Bush has gone from lukewarm to strongly pro,
>
>No, you compared him to John Kerry and said he "crossed the fence
>going the other way". Now, let's look at what that means.

That's right, you're doing fine

>Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
>figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
>criminals.

Nope. That's the rhetoric from the other side and it makes ablout
as much sense checked against reality as the Bush was a service
evader/awol etc. etc. junk.

>For Bush to have "crossed the fend going the other way", he would have
>had to go from being actively anti-military to being pro-military.

Nope

>There is no evidence for that position. Therefore, your original
>remark is incorrect.

Nope. You've based everything on bs.

>:you've objected to that.
>
>No. In fact, when I objected to what you actually said, I remarked
>that AT MOST Bush had gone from being not enamoured of military
>service (although by all accounts he scored as a pretty good officer
>at the time) to being much more pro-military. This is the point at
>which you started insulting me.

I think you'll find insults from one F. McCall in the previous
post.

I'd be interested in seeing your remark th the effect that "AT
MOST Bush had gone from being not enamoured of military
>service (although by all accounts he scored as a pretty good officer
>at the time) to being much more pro-military"

>:The implication seems to be either that
>:you think he's gone the other way (a bit absurd even for you, but
>:I did cover it off) or that you think he hasn't progressed.
>
>The implication is that your original statement was incorrect and I
>said it was incorrect and that you are now lying about events.
>
Nope.

>: I'd
>:mention that you have a poor grip on reality, but I've already
>:done that.
>
>Yes, this is your initial response any time someone points out that
>you're on your ass, as usual.

nope

>:>Oh, wait. Those probably aren't the problem. The problem is that
>:>you're such an inveterate liar.
>:
>:I've already responded to this, you are a bit repetitive.
>
>So are you. Trying once again to prove that Goebbels was right and
>that if you repeat a lie often enough it will be the truth?
>
nope

>:Let's cut the crap. Do you think Bush's attitude to the military
>:has changed positively since his National Guard service? If you
>:think yes,
>
>Most likely yes, but the evidence isn't there to state it with
>absolute certainty (barring your claims about some old article here
>that, frankly, I can't be bothered to go back and hunt for - I
>generally skip posts of news articles, because they're so often posted
>by loons with an axe to grind).
>
>:then what are you carrying on about?
>
>See above, where I explain how your original statement was simply
>wrong.

Nope.

Peter Skelton

[Brett]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:05:59 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> > wrote:

> <

> >Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
> >figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
> >criminals.
> >
> In your f*g dreams he did. You clearly have not read what he's
> said.

I have, and Fred's view is much closer to the truth than yours.

[Cub Driver]

This is probably the part that excites people:

"[The veterans at the Winter Soldier hearings] told stories that at
times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped
wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the
power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians,
razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and
dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the
countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war
and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the
applied bombing power of this country."

The way I parse that paragraph is that, although American soldiers did
not spend their entire tours raping, electrocuting, randomly shooting,
etc., nevertheless, every one of this random sample had done all these
things at least part of the time.

Now, that may be true of the men who "testified" in Miss Fonda's
hearings (it's not difficult to screen such a group), but I doubt it's
true overall. (In fact, I know from my own experience that it was not
true of any soldier I came across in three months in the field in
1964.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>That policy was the
>unlimited use of indiscriminate force.

Not really. Many Vietnam vets will tell you that we fared badly in
Vietnam precisely because the use of force was limited.

Read Ed Rasimus's When Thunder Rolled, for example
www.warbirdforum.com/thunder.htm



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:05:59 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>
:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:>:
:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
> wrote:
:>:>:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
:>:>:>> Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>:>>
:>:>:>> :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:>:>:>> > wrote:
:>:>:>> :
:>:>:>> :>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>:>:>> :>
:>:>:>> :>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:>:>:>> :>
:>:>:>> :>Where is your evidence for this?
:>:>:>> :
:>:>:>> :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:>:>:>> :or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:>:>:>>
:>:>:>> There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:>:>:>> going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:>:>:>> transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:>:>:>> fence the other way".
:>:>:>>
:>:>:>> :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:>:>:>> :that's saying a lot.
:>:>:>>
:>:>:>> It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:>:>:>> clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
:>:>:>stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
:>:>:
:>:>:The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
:>:>:Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
:>:>:has been constant
:>:>
:>:>No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.
:>:>
:>:I've claimed that Bush has gone from lukewarm to strongly pro,
:>
:>No, you compared him to John Kerry and said he "crossed the fence
:>going the other way". Now, let's look at what that means.
:>
:>Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
:>figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
:>criminals.
:>
:In your f*g dreams he did. You clearly have not read what he's
:said.

Also in front of Congress and as part of a major veterans group called
'Vietnam Veterans Against the War'. This brings us to the throwing of
(what were apparently someone else's) medals in protest. What he says
about it NOW is quite different than what he was saying back then.

:Now we know what your problem is. Go away and learn something
:about the subject.

And now we know what your problem is, too. You're still a liar who
continually resorts to insult in preference to fact, changing your
past statements however necessary to allow you to continue to spew
your vomit.

Your problem is obvious:

No signal; all noise.

No wheat; all chaff.

No Peter; all dick.

No more; all gone.

<plonk>

--
"Better off you than me
I just can't stand another day when you're in my way
A long time brewing
It's time you kiss your ass goodbye"
-- Godsmack, "Changes"

[D. Strang]

"Cub Driver" > wrote
>
> Now, that may be true of the men who "testified" in Miss Fonda's
> hearings (it's not difficult to screen such a group), but I doubt it's
> true overall. (In fact, I know from my own experience that it was not
> true of any soldier I came across in three months in the field in
> 1964.)

I happened to be in a guys hooch when he whipped-out a picture he made
of his platoon holding the heads of the dead enemy by their hair. He said
he was going to send it home so his brother could see it.

Fine, I said. I'll be sure to send one when they find your sorry ass with a
dick in your mouth, and be sure to let him see that as well. Slicing-up people
after they are dead is dumb hobby, and one where the enemy would
retaliate. We're not damned farm animals.

No matter where you go, you will find retarded people.

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 12:14:39 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>:On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:05:59 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:
>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>
>:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
>:>:
>:>:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:>:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
> wrote:
>:>:>:
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
>:>:>:>> Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>:>>
>:>:>:>> :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
>:>:>:>> > wrote:
>:>:>:>> :
>:>:>:>> :>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>:>:>:>> :>
>:>:>:>> :>:Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
>:>:>:>> :>
>:>:>:>> :>Where is your evidence for this?
>:>:>:>> :
>:>:>:>> :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
>:>:>:>> :or are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
>:>:>:>>
>:>:>:>> There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
>:>:>:>> going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
>:>:>:>> transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
>:>:>:>> fence the other way".
>:>:>:>>
>:>:>:>> :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
>:>:>:>> :that's saying a lot.
>:>:>:>>
>:>:>:>> It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
>:>:>:>> clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
>:>:>:>stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
>:>:>:
>:>:>:The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
>:>:>:Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
>:>:>:has been constant
>:>:>
>:>:>No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.
>:>:>
>:>:I've claimed that Bush has gone from lukewarm to strongly pro,
>:>
>:>No, you compared him to John Kerry and said he "crossed the fence
>:>going the other way". Now, let's look at what that means.
>:>
>:>Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
>:>figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
>:>criminals.
>:>
>:In your f*g dreams he did. You clearly have not read what he's
>:said.
>
>Also in front of Congress and as part of a major veterans group called
>'Vietnam Veterans Against the War'. This brings us to the throwing of
>(what were apparently someone else's) medals in protest. What he says
>about it NOW is quite different than what he was saying back then.
>
You didn't read that either? Why am I not surprised?

>:Now we know what your problem is. Go away and learn something
>:about the subject.
>
>And now we know what your problem is, too. You're still a liar who
>continually resorts to insult in preference to fact, changing your
>past statements however necessary to allow you to continue to spew
>your vomit.

When are you going to make a statement that has something to do
with the issue?

>Your problem is obvious:
>
>No signal; all noise.
>
>No wheat; all chaff.
>
>No Peter; all dick.
>
>No more; all gone.
>
><plonk>

whatever

Peter Skelton

[Jack Linthicum]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >That policy was the
> >unlimited use of indiscriminate force.
>
> Not really. Many Vietnam vets will tell you that we fared badly in
> Vietnam precisely because the use of force was limited.
>
> Read Ed Rasimus's When Thunder Rolled, for example
> www.warbirdforum.com/thunder.htm
>


I do hate to break this to you but that is a book about airplanes,
flying out of Thailand. Danger in the air, yes, restricted areas, yes,
but not the minute to minute uncertainty in your own home grounds that
the ground people took.

[Fred J. McCall]

"D. Strang" > wrote:

:Fine, I said. I'll be sure to send one when they find your sorry ass with a
:dick in your mouth, and be sure to let him see that as well.

:No matter where you go, you will find retarded people.

Yep. And sometimes they self-identify, as you do above.

--
"Nekubi o kaite was ikenai"
["It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."]
-- Admiral Yamamoto

[Cub Driver]

>I do hate to break this to you but that is a book about airplanes,

I know it's a book about a fighter-bomber pilot, with a great deal in
it about the extreme restrictions he had to follow. Very far from the
unrestricted use of power you speak of.

Almost every day of the time I spent in Vietnam was in the field,
because it spared me the cost of hotels, laundry (we didn't wash), and
food (someone was always willing to replenish my C-rations).

I never witnessed an atrocity, either by the Americans or by the ARVN.
(Or indeed by the Viet Cong.) It was as clean and as genteel as ever a
war could have been.

So I know something about the life of a footsoldier in Vietnam, and
not from books.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Jack Linthicum]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >I do hate to break this to you but that is a book about airplanes,
>
> I know it's a book about a fighter-bomber pilot, with a great deal in
> it about the extreme restrictions he had to follow. Very far from the
> unrestricted use of power you speak of.
>
> Almost every day of the time I spent in Vietnam was in the field,
> because it spared me the cost of hotels, laundry (we didn't wash), and
> food (someone was always willing to replenish my C-rations).
>
> I never witnessed an atrocity, either by the Americans or by the ARVN.
> (Or indeed by the Viet Cong.) It was as clean and as genteel as ever a
> war could have been.
>
> So I know something about the life of a footsoldier in Vietnam, and
> not from books.
>
>

It is easy to take a single viewpoint and extrapolate to a general
situation. My experience, although second hand, was 25th Infantry
artillery people marveling at the ability to shoot at live targets in
the early 60s, aviators extolling the virtues of knowing what you
dropped wouldn't earn points but actually take someone's life, people
sent to seemingly peaceful parts of the Delta and being unable to get
ashore without supporting fire, collecting museum pieces of 240mm
rockets with the warhead removed and every kind of explosive device
available packed into 55-gal drums as a substitute and fired into Tan
Son Nut.

I have seen something in the paper today that the wise ones are
starting to believe there is a 'bomb school' that teaches terrorists
how to make these IEDs. Well that started in Vietnam and those things
don't have 'friendly-enemy' sensors on them.

Many came back with the concept of the Yalie who is quoted in a study
on Yale and the Vietnam War: One student expelled for a prank became
an infantry officer, participated in ferocious combat in 1967-68, and
then was readmitted to Yale where in 1970 he took the author's course
on the history of American foreign relations In 1970. Invited to speak
to the whole class about the war, he said his combat experience could
be summarized In three principles. "If it runs, It is VC [Vietcong-the
Communist enemy], waste it. If It hides, it is VC. Waste it. If It is
dead, it is VC. Count it and wait for your promotion."33
http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/yale.htm

You can deny your involvement in what we would call atrocities 30
years later but at the time and for many areas in Vietnam the enemy
was not obvious.

[Fred J. McCall]

(Jack Linthicum) wrote:

:You can deny your involvement in what we would call atrocities 30
:years later but at the time and for many areas in Vietnam the enemy
:was not obvious.

You're an idiot, Jack.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
>
> :You can deny your involvement in what we would call atrocities 30
> :years later but at the time and for many areas in Vietnam the enemy
> :was not obvious.
>
> You're an idiot, Jack.
>
> --
> "Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
> -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
>
> :You can deny your involvement in what we would call atrocities 30
> :years later but at the time and for many areas in Vietnam the enemy
> :was not obvious.
>
> You're an idiot, Jack.

If he's an idiot, at least he's one who's not in denial. Sounds to me like
you're the one who has a problem facing the reality of what went on there in
those days. Too many reports from too many sources all to be wrong. Too many
news photos of dead VN civilian bodies piled up in ditches to have been posed by
a press that had been religiously supporting the government's line up to that
point.

There's nothing that Jack said that sounded like the ravings of an idiot. On
the contrary, they had a ring of truth to them.

George Z.

[Jack Linthicum]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
> >
> > :You can deny your involvement in what we would call atrocities 30
> > :years later but at the time and for many areas in Vietnam the enemy
> > :was not obvious.
> >
> > You're an idiot, Jack.
>
> If he's an idiot, at least he's one who's not in denial. Sounds to me like
> you're the one who has a problem facing the reality of what went on there in
> those days. Too many reports from too many sources all to be wrong. Too many
> news photos of dead VN civilian bodies piled up in ditches to have been posed by
> a press that had been religiously supporting the government's line up to that
> point.
>
> There's nothing that Jack said that sounded like the ravings of an idiot. On
> the contrary, they had a ring of truth to them.
>
>

Merci, George Z. The lone monkey got one right again. It doesn't happen often.