"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

"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

"Brian Allardice" wrote in message
news:lBeXb.494098$ts4.154466@pd7tw3no...
In article ,
emoveunderscore 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

"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in message
news:XhfXb.5046$Yj.3516@lakeread02...

"Brian Allardice" wrote in message
news:lBeXb.494098$ts4.154466@pd7tw3no...
In article ,
emoveunderscore 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/...18_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

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

"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

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

"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.

"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.

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

"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