"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

Subject: "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: "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
om...
"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

"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 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

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" 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

"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 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.

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

"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.

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