"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

"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.

"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

"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.

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

"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

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