Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts

"Bob Coe" wrote in message
news:CQqYc.15616$ni.10357@okepread01...
"ArtKramr" wrote

PLONK

I guess that was the toilet seat lid. Hopefully he is going to flush now,
although I don't think he's gotten everything out of his brain yet.

LOL! Just give him a day or two and he'll be back to responding to Dan's
posts. Apparently Art thinks that merely typing "plonk" activates the
filter. Within a couple of days, he has usually forgotten who he supposedly
plonked and who he hasn't, and is back to heaving his grade school level
insults at them all over again (that is, when he is not completely confused
and mistakenly tosses those insults the rare posters who has actually
*agreed* with him...).

Brooks

From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 8/29/2004 4:46 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Bob Coe" wrote in message
news:CQqYc.15616$ni.10357@okepread01...
"ArtKramr" wrote

PLONK

I guess that was the toilet seat lid. Hopefully he is going to flush now,
although I don't think he's gotten everything out of his brain yet.

LOL! Just give him a day or two and he'll be back to responding to Dan's
posts. Apparently Art thinks that merely typing "plonk" activates the
filter. Within a couple of days, he has usually forgotten who he supposedly
plonked and who he hasn't, and is back to heaving his grade school level
insults at them all over again (that is, when he is not completely confused
and mistakenly tosses those insults the rare posters who has actually
*agreed* with him...).

Brooks

He's plonked me before.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.
...

Personally, I'm putting very little stock into the words of the "band
of brothers" who seem to be getting a lot of travel, perks and
"face-time" by being loyal to Senator Kerry.

That sounds remarkably close to slander.

How is it slander to claim that I put little stock into their words?
Or, is it slander to point out that they are traveling the country
with the candidate and not at their own expense? I've not come close
to slander in the slightest.

It is slanderous to imply that they are lying in exchange for the
privilege of traveling about the country at the DNC's expense.


They don't seem to be
bothered by his subsequent slander of his "brothers" when he completed
his 4 months of duty.


As we have previously discussed, Kerry did not slander them though
arguably it is slander to claim that he did.

Lemme see now, if you quote "Viet vets" and your own experience in the
Senate testimony under oath that accuses the military in Vietnam of
atrocities, war crimes, violations of the Geneva Convention, etc.

See below. Typically the whole body of treaties comprising the
laws of warfare are referred by the umbrella term Geneva Conventions
even though the treaties may have been negotiated in the Hague or
other cities. I'll use the term that way.

knowing (or at least you should have known before becoming the
organization's front-man) that they are lying, often not combat vets
and often not vets at all are you not slandering me? (See Burkett's
"Stolen Valor" for evidence on the veracity and qualifications of the
Winter Soldier testimony. --Burkett's work has been thoroughly
peer-reviewed and examined for accuracy.)

While 'peer review' is not without its uses in other fields when
one moves outside of the sciences it does little to assure accuracy.
For example, had Pons and Fleichman submitted their famous 'cold
fusion' paper to peer review they would never have published because
their peers would have pointed out the major flaw in their
methodology.
In an investigation of historical fact, acceptable methodology is
nowhere near as well-defined as in science, nor does it do as well
to assure accuracy. That's not a reflection on the intellect, skill,
or honesty of the writer and reviewer, just a consequence of the
nature
of the field itself.

If you have a copy of the book, perhaps you'd like to post a list of
WSI witnesses whom Burkett claims to debunk. Not organisers, or
supporters, but witnesses, those who gave 'testimony'. I'll
check that list against lists of witnesses and their testimony.


If you go on "Meet the Press" and state that the command structure
from the top down to the field officer was complicit in ordering,
prescribing, tolerating war crimes are you not slandering me?

No more so than I slander you and myself today when I blame you
and myself for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.


If you say that abiding by the ROE is a war crime are you not
slandering me?


To my knowledge, Kerry never said "abiding by the ROE is a war crime"
It is easy to criticise someone for words YOU put in his mouth.
However, if the ROE themselves call for violations of the GC, then
one may commit a war crime by acts that fall within the ROE, right?

If you say that using a .50 cal against personnel is a
war crime (it isn't!) and I've used 20MM Vulcan against troops in the
open are you not slandering me?

No, I am not. Since the 1868 St Petersburg declaration several
nations have prohibitted the use of explosive or incindiery
projectiles weighing less than 400 grams (approximately the weight
of a 37mm shell). The development of the warplane motivated
a refinement such that use of said ammunition against aircraft,
or other vehicles was not a crime while retaining the prohibition
for antipersonell use. Also, unlike some provisions of the Geneva
Conventions, the declaration is not reciprocal. Signatory nations
consider violation of the declaration by any nation to be a war
crime.

As you know, the 12.7 mm (.50 cal) HMG has used a variety of
ammunition including solid, tracer, explosive, armor piercing,
and incindiery, often a mix of two or more of these was used
in the same belt. In Norway (and I suppose probably many other
European countries) the 12.7 mm HMG is dedicated to anti-aircraft
use, the standard load is HE. So when Europeans read of the
US using .50 cal machine guns I suspect they assumed it was
used with explosive, rather than solid, projectiles. I believe
that this contributed to the misconception that use of the
..50 cal per se, was a war crime and Kerry was factually mistaken
in the matter IF his .50 was firing solid projectiles. A bit
of googling shows he is not alone, it appears to be a common
misconception.

On its face the antipersonell use of tracers would seem to violate
the St Petersburg declaration but I'm skeptical that anyone would
interpret it that narrowly.

However it is clear that using a 20mm against troops in the open
is a violation of the St Petersburg declaration, even as modified,
and would therefor be considered a war crime by any signatory
nation. That the US is not a signatory nation, said use permitted
by the ROE, and you would never be prosecuted in a US court for
the non-violation of US law does not make is slander if someone
were to accuse you of a war crime. It IS a war crime in many
(perhaps most) civilized nations and those officers in the chain
of command from the CIC on down who order or permit the anti-
personell use of explosive projectiles under 400 grams are
war criminals according to the laws of those nations even
if those nations do not assert prosecutorial jurisdiction.

Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans. That
we had not officially acknowledged, or accepted those same
laws was regarded as evidence of guilt, not as a defense.

Another issue was the use of CS chemical agent (tear gas).
There are GC prohibitions against poisonous, deleterious or
other gases, clearly not limited to lethal gasses, and understood
to not be limitted to gasses as most such agents were atomized
liquids. CS, in fact, is a solid particulate. But there is
no need to quibble over the issue of how 'deleterious' a
chemical weapon need be to be prohibited. The CS munitions
used by the US in tunnels and bunkers in Vietnam produced
and dispersed CS by combustion, which also produced, as a
by product, carbon monoxide. CO IS a gas and IS poisonous.
The CS munitions used in tunnels in Vietnam killed. Some
of the victims were friendlies who made the mistake of
thinking that a gas mask would provide adequate protection.

Another issue is the use of napalm. Weapons that cause excessive
suffering are prohibitted on principle. By the Vietnam era
most European nations had abandoned the use of incindiery
anti-personell weapons on that basis so many regarded the
use by the US to be a war crime.

That the US did not recognise these are war crimes does not
exhonerate us, rather it condemns us for permitting the use
of weapons the rest of the civilized world had outlawed or
restricted.

If you say that employing ordinance in
a free-fire zone is a war crime--knowing that free fire zones are
militarily controlled areas held by the enemy, are you not slandering
me?

Ignoring your staw man I'll point out that the term 'free fire zone'
can be used in practice in a manner that constitutes a war crime:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...ORCE/110210076

Under questioning during the Army investigation, at
least eight officers with authority over Tiger Force
- mostly captains and majors - swore that free-fire
zones gave the men the right to "kill anything that
moved."


If you say that bombing campaigns are war crimes and I've
dutifully engaged in 250 combat missions are you not slandering me?

Not if you dutifully engage in those missions because, as I'm
sure you'll agree, your duty forbad you from comitting
a war crime.

However:

S. BRIAN WILLSON, [who is NOT a John Kerry supporter, FF]
, http://www.brianwillson.com
As head of a 40-man USAF combat security
unit in Vietnam, I was separately tasked to assess 'success'
of targeted bombings. I discovered egregious war crimes --
daylight terror bombings of undefended fishing and rice
farming villages resulting in mass murders and maimings of
hundreds of residents.

If you can show that Mr Wilson was not the 'head of a 40-man USAF
combat security unit in Vietnam' etc etc, please let me know.


It isn't slander for me to apply what he clearly said in the Senate
and to Tim Russert on Meet the Press and call it lies.

It is slanderous for you take what he said out of context and to
misquote him. In another article we addresse the issue of how
it must be obvious to a man of your intelligence, when Kerry
was speaking generally, or for others, and when he was speaking
personally for himself.



Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
conclusion.

I understand your parsing here, and while it might be quite good in a
courtroom, it doesn't pass the (un)-common sense test of daily
discourse in usenet. Consider this, I'm going to write a book. I'm
planning to call it "Unfit for Command". I'm planning to entire a
political firefight challenging a major presidential candidate's
credentials. I ask you to contribute. What do you do if you don't
agree with the thesis of my book?

To directly address your question, I would make honest and truthful
statements to the authors. Why, what would you do?


No answer?

But your hypothetical presumes over much. First, you assume 60
persons really did contribute, and really know that they contributed.
Perhaps you base that on faith in the authors. I don't know the
authors myself, and am not willing to make that presumption.

My point is that if I'm writing a book in which I'm seeking your
testimony about the actions of someone in combat with the intent to
disprove that individual's assertions about his own action, you won't
contribute your name to the effort if you don't agree with the book's
thesis. You're more intelligent than that.

And my point is that you don't have to tell me the thesis of your
book in order to talk with me about my experiences. I'm more
trusting than that. Even if you do, and I disagree with it I
might not stonewall you. I might be quite willing to talk with
you hoping to disabuse you of your misconceptions.

I'm contributing to this discussion right now. We agree on very
little. In the future if you write about your UseNet experiences
you could honestly claim that I was a contributor.


Second you presume that the authors informed the persons they
interviewed of their intent befor even interviewing them. How could that be
unless the authors reached their conclusions befor doing their research?

This isn't academic research. It is historic recounting of the
experiences of the authors. It is collection of supporting information
to validate what they already know and to bolster their thesis.

Non sequitor. That does not preclude interviewing 60 people
most of whom, for example have no opinion on the thesis itself
and simply corraborate objective historical information.
E.g. 60 contributors to the book does not prove 60 people
support the thesis.

Don't
confuse it with science in which you postulate and then conduct
experiments to substantiate your hypothesis. You don't need to do a
"double-blind" on your own experiences.

I don't need 60 witnesses either.


Third, you assume that the authors informed those they interviewed
of that conclusion, or that they read the book. Otherwise, how would
they know what conclusion the authors had reached?

Few publishers will allow authors to quote individuals without
questioning the author regarding the accuracy and authorizations for
those quotes.

Now you are assuming all 60 were quoted. One may contribute without
being quoted.

....

You may recall several weeks ago there was a fairly extensive document
with photos of Swifties at all levels of the chain of command who had
come forward in May of this year in a press conference in Washington
DC at the National Press Club.

No, I missed that. Can you direct me to a copy of that document?

At your service:
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index...SwiftVetQuotes




Now that he has started down that path *I* personally would like
to see him continue and explain his actions after his return to the
US.

It is also a repudiation of the actions of the Senator after his brief
combat service.

No.

He doesn't appear to be running on his war resistance. That position
served him for an earlier election. Now he's running on his war
participation and running away from his record (much more substantial)
as a resister.

He needs to advance the clock and explain why he came out against
the war, or more accurately, against American participation in the
war. Many Americans went through a similare transition at that
time and more recently in regard to the Iraq campaign. For
example a Navy aviation verteran who lives next door to me
who confidently stated that we'd 'stomp them into a mudhole'.
befor the invasion, pointed out that is pretty much what we did
just after the fall of Baghdad, and now regards the Bush
administration much as he does LBJ.


Apropos so long as the '60 contributors' to the book remain unamed.

Have you read the book?


No. Have you?

Someone who has has posted elsewhere in this thread that the 60
contibutors are named. For the moment that satifies my concerns
as none of your speculation could. People who have the means
to do so can contact them and ask appropriate questions.

I expect that if any of those 60 named dispute the authors,
we'll hear about it.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans.

Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there. Europe's issue with
the U.S. was political, not legal.


BUFDRVR

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

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans.

Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.

I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

Europe's issue with
the U.S. was political, not legal.


Non sequitor. Just because the French did it too doesn't mean
it wasn't against the laws of war as generally recognized by
Europeans nor does it mean that they can't hate us for doing
the same.

Aside from which, France is not the only nation in Europe.

--

FF

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
...
Actually he said that it was impossible for Kerry to have been in
Cambodia,
that he (Kerry) would have been courtmartialed had he gone there.


Yes, at the time Kerry says he was there.

First, it is not hard to believe that Kerry confused two or more,
missions, thus misremembering which was the Christmas mission.

Second, it is accepted that there were special forces operations
in Cambodia long befor the offical invasion in 1970. Those
special forces had to get there, maybe they walked in, maybe
they parachuted in, or maybe they were ferried in by Swift boats
or small boats with outboard motors.


It seems O'Neal (I've seen his name spelt three different ways) knows
better.


It seems you don't understand what O'Neill said.

He said to Nixon that he was in Cambodia.

--

FF

In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...
Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against
troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.

I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

20mm HE from Bearcats, at the very least.

Explosive rounds with a mass under a certain limit (Hague or St.
Petersburg, can't recall offhand): technical war crime. (One of those
ignored issues because everyone found 20mm+ cannon so useful for
shooting at "stuff" and therefore also fired them at people _outside_
trucks, trains, cars, tanks, ships etc.)


There was a prohibition against firing rounds weighing less than, IIRC,
400g (just under a pound) at people. This led to the interwar selection
of 1.1" for the US light antiaircraft gun, to keep the shell 'legal' for
firing at manned aircraft. It appears to have been gently allowed to
fall into abeyance, like only-recently-rescinded laws about it being
legal to shoot Welshmen with bow and arrow in certain British towns
after the hours of darkness, when everyone discovered how useful 20mm
cannon were.

But more relevant, there is no reason at all why firing ball rounds from
a .50 machine gun at enemy combatants should be less than lawful.
There's a persistent myth that it's illegal to fire .50" at people, and
it just isn't true.

It might be possible to claim that firing 'explosive bullets' of under
the proscribed weight is a war crime, which would make every 20mm
strafing run an atrocity: but by the time of Vietnam this fell into
"long-accepted custom" with every nation that could strafe troops having
done so with 20-23mm cannon.

The law was written around the idea that undersized low-velocity
explosive bullets with a few grains of black powder as burster and
unreliable fuzes were excessively injurious to people and ineffective
against hardware. Time rapidly produced much more effective
small-calibre rounds that *were* effective against machinery and
vehicles.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

First, it is not hard to believe that Kerry confused two or more,
missions, thus misremembering which was the Christmas mission.

Except that he said the memory was "seared into his brain". Kind of hard to get
confused with memories that are "seared".


BUFDRVR

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

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

First, it is not hard to believe that Kerry confused two or more,
missions, thus misremembering which was the Christmas mission.

Except that he said the memory was "seared into his brain". Kind of hard
to get
confused with memories that are "seared".

Even worse is his double-speak regarding his first "wound". He has
steadfastly maintained of late that the 2 Dec 68 action where he received
that scrape did involve enemy fires directed at the boats. Unfortunately for
him, though, he had given his personal journals from the era to his
hand-picked biographer, Brinkley, who stated in "Tour of Duty" that Kerry'y
recorded on 11 Dec, nine days after this wound was received, that he and his
crew had *yet* to be fired at by the enemy.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

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

On 02 Sep 2004 03:33:32 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

First, it is not hard to believe that Kerry confused two or more,
missions, thus misremembering which was the Christmas mission.

Except that he said the memory was "seared into his brain". Kind of hard to get
confused with memories that are "seared".

Wonder if that rice got seared into his rear end?