"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

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

"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?

(Scott MacEachern) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

"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"?

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

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"

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"

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

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

(ZZBunker) wrote in message . com...
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.