BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:49 AM

Re the Vatican's Swiss Guard:

"Swiss mercenaries who fought in various European armies from the 15th cent. until the 19th cent. These mercenaries, who were not volunteers, were put at the disposal of foreign powers by treaties (called capitulations) between the Swiss diet, the separate cantons, and the foreign power concerned, in return for money payments.

The Swiss constitution of 1874 forbade all military capitulations and recruitment of Swiss by foreign powers, although volunteering in foreign armies continued until absolutely prohibited in 1927.

An exception to the ruling of 1874 is the Swiss Guard of the Vatican, founded in 1505 by Pope Julius II, which is the personal guard of the pope."

Story goes that they won their fearsome reputation by killing more in battle than any other troops at that time - mainly due to their discipline, tactics and weapons - they tended to cause serious/fatal head wounds. Previously the bulk of those killed in battle died as a result of wounds received, i.e., not killed outright. Julius II needed troops he could trust for his own protection and hired the best available at the time. But the truth remains that the Vatican's Swiss Guard remain a mercenary force and have nothing whatsoever to do with the conscript Swiss Army - of knife fame.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 10:13 AM

"I" is a word that unnamed GUESTS should avoid using, since there is no real way of telling whether the "I" in one post is the same as the "I" in the next one.

..................

This whole thing reads as a really cheap example of the Dirty Tricks Campaign handbook. No doubt it'll get a lot dirtier. I'm not surprised Doug R prefers to dissociate himself from the people who go in for this kind of crap.

Suggesting that a soldier who turns against a government, which he feels has betrayed his country and his comrades, is somehow attacking those comrades, is as dishonest as you can get.

And nitpicking like that about medals and ribbons is ridiculous. Anyway, surely a ribbon that goes with a medal is technically a part of that medal?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Strick
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 10:27 AM

"Suggesting that a soldier who turns against a government, which he feels has betrayed his country and his comrades, is somehow attacking those comrades, is as dishonest as you can get."

McGrath, many Vets feel that Kerry said some pretty nasty things about his comrades in Viet Nam, not just the government. He seems to regret how he said things if not what he said.

Ribbons clearly represent the medals someone earns. They're worn when it's not appropriate to wear the medals themselves. It's a little thing a long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 10:37 AM

Personally I don't give a flip what Kerry did with his medals or ribbons or whatever. What puzzles me about him is this: he served his country, then was against the war, and now is using his "war hero" status as part of his credentials for President. That seems inconsistent to me, but your mileage may vary. I don't favor Kerry OR Bush, anyhow.

McGrath, a medal and a ribbon are not necessarily the same thing. My dad's Purple Heart set has the large ribbon with the medal on it, a small bar pin made from purple & white ribbon, and a purple & white tie-tack thingy. It's my understanding that the ribbon-with-medal is what's commonly referred to as the "medal," and the little pin is the "ribbon." If I'm wrong about that, somebody please tell me.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 11:17 AM

There are medals (as is commonly seen with a bar, ribbon and coin descending from the bar). There are miniature medals (worn on formal occasions). Some medals have ribbons (small bar with the ribbon around it). Not all ribbons have medals. Good conduct ribbons in all services also have medals. Rifle and Pistol qualifications (unless expert) do not have medals.

I know its confusing to civilians but you can toss ribbons without tossing medals.

I've been in for nearly sixteen years. I have my records allthe way back to the beginning of my service. Some in triplicate and/or more.
To have absolutely nothing to prove that he served out a year in one place with nothing to show but one pay stub is absolutely astounding to me. Every year I have about a pound or more of paperwork generated just because I exist much less because I create it.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 12:45 PM

Chief Chaos described this pretty well. When you see a US military man (person, I should say) with rows of colored things above his left breast pocket, you are looking at ribbons. This display is sometimes called "fruit salad," because of how colorful it is. Some ribbons have a corresponding medal that goes with them -- the Purple Heart, Silver Star, and Bronze Star all do, as do the Good Conduct, Expert Rifle and Pistol, and various others. Some decorations come in ribbon form only. The medals (with the hanging "coin") are rarely worn, because they only go with the dress uniform, which is roughly analagous to a tuxedo in civilian wear. When wearing the undress uniform (roughly analogous to a civilian business suit), one only wears ribbons.

Symbolically, I can see no real difference between throwing a ribbon over the fence and throwing a medal over the fence. They are just two different forms of the same decoration, which co with different uniforms. A person who is wounded in combat gets a Purple Heart medal and ribbon, and both mean the same thing.

Kim, I don't see any inconsistency in Kerry's pride in his service, even though he ended up publicly challenging the justification for, and conduct of, the war in Vietnam. Can't a person perform honorably, and even heroically, in combat, but still be troubled by the decisions of those who sent him and his comrades into harm's way? Regardless of whether you are for or against Kerry for President, I think it only makes sense to honor both his service while in uniform, and his principled stand against the war. In my opinion Kerry and others who served there knew better than most what the war was about, and they did the country a service by publicly challenging the wisdom of fighting in Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 01:00 PM

Once again you dodge the issue, GUEST. Big surprise, eh? I didn't ask you for your tired old opinion on military service. I asked you if you could at least respect the motivations of those that served. The facts are that you cannot. You are so twisted in whatever has caused you to hate, that you cannot distinguish between a system and those that are in it. I do not glorify war, in fact I detest it, and if you were half as intellectually sound as you try to convince everyone, you would know that from what I have written about this subject in these forums. But I make a distinction that you have no ability to understand. You cannot even grasp that your ability to sit in the University Library, use the computer, and say what you want to say, all spring from liberties achieved by those willing to fight for them. That is not to say that all wars are justified. In fact, I find very few that are. But the simple fact is that people willing to pay any cost to preserve and defend these rights are worth respecting, and even revering. True patriotism encompasses those willing to stand against the restriction of liberty. As we saw with many of the Vietnam era protestors, sometimes that meant taking a stand against your own government as our Catspaw did. I cherish those folks too. But those who took a stand against vets for acting on their principles in a very confusing time, I have no respect for them. You are rapidly convincing me that you are one of those.

So continue dodging and avoiding, and sounding off. Continue to act like you are intellectually superior to us poor suckers being led around by the nose. But you are the only one who believes that.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 01:04 PM

Rapaire--You said, "August, 1969 that I was sitting in the Seatac Airport, less than 24 hours out of Korea. On one side of the aisle, awaiting flights, were the GIs who returned from VN and ROK and on the other stragglers from Woodstock" I was there, at that exactly that time as well--and it was just as you said--I was none-of-the-above, just a kid trying to get a standby ticket home--and I spend hours talking with GI's in transit--til you reminded me, I hadn't thought about it in years--

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 01:08 PM

Here's a chart which shows all of the decorations, medals, badges, tabs, and such awarded by the US Army. Marksmanship badges are included; the type weapon (rifle, pistol, etc.) for which the badge was awarded is hung on a bar below the badge and you can have several weapons hung on one badge. The Marines and Navy also give awards for marksmanship.

Note that the medals (i.e., decorations) themselves are not shown; the ribbons which are usually worn in place of the medals themselves are. Usually, ribbons are worn above the left breast pocket of the Class A uniform, but there are certain other awards which are worn on the right pocket (e.g., the Meritorious Unit Citation).

Minature medals -- smaller versions of the actual medal -- are worn on formal uniforms, such as the dress blues or white mess uniforms. These can also be augments by fourgerres, macrame-like things awarded in certain other circumstances (such as being an aide-de-camp to the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

By the way, the various branches of the Army have their significant colors, too: blue for the Infantry, Red for artillery, etc.

Military heraldry is a lot more complicated than most folks realize. Just think! The above discussion doesn't include unit patches and where and when to wear them!!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 02:02 PM

GUEST: I think Vietnam was a messed up war in a messed up time. Soldiers went where they were told to go--and they were told by their civilian bosses. Try to remember that. If it wasn't for people willing to lay it on the line, you'd be wearing a fu#kin' swastika now.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 02:07 PM

We call ours "chest candy".

Remember also that the military of this democracy is anything but.
We who serve our country, be it the USA, the UK or wherever, don't have the choice to say I'm going to fight here but not here. You can take consciencious objector status but you have to do so prior to joining. You can't just say tomorrow that you're unwilling to fight so and so. The only time we can buck orders is when we can say that it is an illegal order.

I chose to serve my country because I believe I owe my country alot. I didn't join for the pay (check the difference between a Haliburton employee in Iraq ($120K) for a year and a normal grunt (E-5/sargeant) (approx. $28K) for the same year). The benefits are nice but are not the huge gimmes that the public thinks they are. The retirement at 20 years is 50% of your base pay (in actuallity its approx. 25% of your usual paycheck because you lose uniform, food allowance and housing allowance. Why don't I get out if it's not so good? Because there's a job to be done and I don't see anyone else lining up to do it!

We don't ask to be revered. We don't ask to be honored. All we ask is to be treated the same as any other citizen (which half the time we aren't. There are doctors who will take medicare that will not accept tricare which is what our medical coverage is called).
There aren't alot of other reasons to serve than patriotism. You aren't going to get rich. It's not really worth getting shot at to get a mere pittance towards a college degree (with costs as high as they are the GI bill is lagging far behind). And we are not "cold blooded killers" who want to destroy everything and everyone, even if we were allowed to do so which we are not.

I do think that those that came before and guaranteed the rights which we all cherish should at least be remembered once in awhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

"We don't ask to be revered. We don't ask to be honored."

Well, Big Mick and a whole lotta other folks, are DEMANDING it.

Listen, you can't have this both ways. I always make the distinction of who serves voluntarily, and who was conscripted. I don't hold conscripts to the same standards I hold the volunteer military to, for the obvious reasons. The former has no choice, the latter does.

I fully understand that once you are in the military, you do not have a choice as to where you are sent to serve. But everyone has the ability to decide, before enlisting, whether they are willing to go to war under whatever circumstances the government and military demand, including illegal military actions, and unjust wars.

Anyone who serves in a volunteer military, I presume will defend any military actions, whether just or unjust, legal or illegal. Just like anyone else, they don't get my respect unless they earn it, and deserve it. That doesn't include every person who ever signed up. Not by a long shot.

My constitutional and civil rights are not granted by the US military. Those rights do not spring from soldiers serving in US wars and military actions. My rights and liberties have, however, been protected and preserved, not by the armed forces engaging in imperialist wars in our name, but by civil libertarians and committed citizens who are willing to stand up and be counted here at home, when the tide was running against them, and it really mattered that their voices be heard and their actions seen by all. Like it did during Vietnam, and like it does in these times, concerning Iraq, the wars on terrorism, drugs, the poor, women's rights, etc etc

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 02:50 PM

Unnamed and Unknown Guest, IMHO you are over the edge and beyond the pale of reason. I have seen Big Mick demand the ordinary respect due to someone who served in wartime and survived. Nothing more. Never has he done or said anything that can fairly be construed as demanding reverence or particular honor. Take a chill pill, wouldja?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Frankham
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 02:56 PM

Kerry is a war hero. Bush got out of it.

The Bush campaign ads are dirty.

Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Strick
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 03:11 PM

Started and killed this post three times now. Too much to say.

Big Mick, all of you who served, you earned respect. A lot of things not to like about what the US has done over the years, but I'll be damned if I'll hold the people who risked their lives trying to do their job responsible for the bad ones. You certainly made a lot of good things possible, even some the nameless one obviously takes for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 03:16 PM

This discussion is clearly conducted by a bunch of blind people groping an elephant. You're all describing different parts of a very large issue.

Getting past 1969 is pretty difficult for those of us who grew up detesting Nixon and the war in Vietnam and what was happening over there. As years pass and we see what has happened to friends who survived Vietnam and hear the rest of their stories, we must alter our views of what they thought they were doing over there. A friend of mine was gung ho to join until he got a letter from his older brother who was in Vietnam. His brother Gene described the hell that they lived through, said "whatever you do, don't volunteer," yet Gene served three tours. Why? So someone else wouldn't have to go do it. Then when he did, return, he was so paranoid and messed up he disappeared and didn't contact his family for 25 years. I learned a lot from those brothers and it has altered my view of what young men were thinking when they joined the military (and how must it have been for the young women who joined as nurses, knowing the dangers?)

But I also agree with GUEST--those who were on the home front had a huge struggle that played an important role in ending the war. This said, I don't know how you can in good conscience make the statement "Anyone who serves in a volunteer military, I presume will defend any military actions, whether just or unjust, legal or illegal." That presumes that once one makes a choice the join the military that they turn off their ability to make moral and ethical decisions. I suspect there is a lot of indoctrination that sweeps most raw recruits along, but it wears off for those whose eyes are opened along the way.

Big Mick, there are a lot of us who know full well that there are points in time when military solutions were the only ones. But it's too broad a claim that our ability to do the things we do today rest solely on military decisions and wars. Much more rests on everyday civilian acts, laws, agreements, negotiations, compacts, and treaties.

I would note that my ability to sit in my university library and use my computer and such would not be affected a single JOT if Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq today. I would not be affected a single JOT is Afghanistan had not been blown to smithereens by the U.S. and it's partners. Those were George Bush's corrupt and immoral aggressive acts based on Bush' ego and probably fed by an industrial complex base that gets hugely rich during war, and an outcome that will allow all of his oil and gas buddies to continue to get richer. George Bush needs to be put on trial for war crimes. The ONLY part of all of this after September 11 that makes any sense is getting the agencies to cooperate and share their information among themselves. All of the rest of it is an abomination that will result in more attacks on the U.S. and her citizens, not fewer.

Kerry can't get in there fast enough, as far as I'm concerned. If he pulled the U.S. troops out the day after he arrived it couldn't be soon enough. Will corrupt individuals return to power? Probably. They're still in power now, in case no one has noticed. We didn't make any difference at all, except that a lot of people died.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 03:27 PM

"The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)"

Now, GUEST, every member of any of the Armed Forces of the US takes one of these oaths. Note that both oaths are, in the end, to the Constitution, not the President or the VP or the Secretrary of Army or Charlie's Aunt or to you. To the ideas and principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States.

Obviously you haven't yet realized that. Nor have you understood the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which permits US soldiers to question orders they think are illegal. Or anything else about the military, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 03:40 PM

Defend illegal actions? Hell no!

I'm posting here aren't I?

No your rights won for you by the continental army a.k.a.: the military. A bunch of feather merchants sitting around in Philadelphia didn't just wave a magic wand and suddenly we were all Americans and free to do whatever we damn well pleased.

It's called history, look into it once and awhile with open eyes.
I've no love for war.
But there is a difference between what happened in Afghanistan, which I see as a justifiable response to the attacks on 9/11 and what happened in Iraq (which I have posted against and said "I told you so" many times.

I feel so sorry for you guest that you can't see the many thousands of soldiers who died upholding and defending the constitution of the United States. The very document that allows you to post anything vitupritive that you'd like. Whether you like it or not, the military is there and has been there for all citizens of the United States keeping us free. Always used correctly? No. but then that's just one man's opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:02 PM

"I chose to serve my country".

There are a lot of different ways in which people can choose to serve their country. Americans who resisted the Vietnam war were doing precisely that, both the ones who had been in the army, and the ones who refused to go. When your country is doing something wrong and you try to stop it, that's an act of patriotism.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: mg
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:20 PM

That's the problem. Too many people aren't affected one jot by who is doing what to whom in these God-awful places. That fact that we can sit at our computers and either not care or not be willing to take the risks to do something to stop some of the torture and slavery that is going on is the problem. It is how things go from smallish problems to huge problems, such as the Holocaust. It is not because everyone rises up like in Rhwanda and decides to kill their neighbors (I am not saying that is what happened..in fact that is not what I think..and a recent special showed the exact problem of the killers having been threatened with death themselves if they did not participate). It is because those who could do something when it is a solvable problem do not do it. Not always. Between sometimes and usually. I would rather the entire world go out in one big explosion than know that there are still pockets of torture such as went on in Iraq, such as went on in Cambodia, going on whilst I play on my computer.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:23 PM

McGrath, I don't believe that any veteran or anyone on active duty who gave it a moment's thought would disagree. There are many ways to serve one's country and military service is one of them. One of them.

Working in an inner-city school is another. So is working in a hospital. So are a lot of other things.

Try a thought experiment, a Gedankenexperiment. Suppose a draft was reinstated which offered the option of two years military service or three years noncombatant service. And that everyone was going to serve, either immediately after high school or immediately after college or grad school or your PhD, but everyone mentally able to do so would serve in some capacity. Your choice would be military or noncombatant. Is there something that is owed to ones country? Would such a structure fulfill it? Could it be made fair and just? Remember -- you can't buy your way out, you can't fudge -- everyone of normal mental capacity will serve sooner or later.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:31 PM

Well poop - two things come to mind.

1-How did SRS know I was groping that elephant? It just bothers me that I might end up on America's Funniest Videos, and not get my share of the cash. Ever grope an elephant? They are HUGE!!! MUCH more than a - oh dear why am I saying this - - -

2-Even if an individual signs up for service he/she still has a choice about serving in a combat theater. Every one has a choice about everything they do in life.

I like Rapaire's idea of compulsory service in the area of your choice. During the Vietnam War this was a part of being a CO. You served, or were supposed to serve, two years in a community area. One of my buddies served two years in a VA hospital. There were a lot of veterans at his funeral.

That's my view -

And no one is demanding anything - we all have a right to our opinion and a right to state the same.

Love these little tiffs that break out every once in a while.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:34 PM

Tax. Someone once complained to me about paying tax. I always though it was a cheap price to pay to live in a country like Canada. Any Yanks feel the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:45 PM

I bitch and moan several times a year about taxes, but I pay them because I define myself, in part, as a citizen of the United States. I sure don't mind using the freeway system or drinking the water, and if I had to go on welfare, I'd be glad it was there.

Cheap enough for the privelege of living in a nation that is essentially sound, stable, operational in spite of its grave flaws.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: DougR
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 06:29 PM

I think the point of Karen Huges argument is that Kerry doesn't know when he is telling the truth or not. He suffers from never knowing when to take a firm stand on anything until he has seen the polls. Great credentials for a President, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 06:31 PM

Mary, if we set aside the idea of who are our "friends" and who are our "enemies" and simply presume that every life has value, then what the heck is the difference between Saddam killing and torturing the Iraqi people, or Dubya sending Americans over to kill Iraqis? And getting a lot of Americans killed in the process? There are still a lot of dead people, and I don't see it in any way more honorable that the last batch of thousands killed are dead because of American bullets and bombs instead of Saddam's gas. My (intended) point was that all of this fighting and killing and dying isn't really earning ANYONE any freedom. The Iraqis are no more free now than they were a year ago, and as soon as the U.S. leaves it will go back to the status quo because it suits multi-national businesses to have it so.

The trouble here is that we let global businesses get away with far too much, and petty dictators like Saddam can stay in power to get wealthy on the largess of multi-national gas and oil companies and arms and munitions companies and banks that speculate on dollars and rubles and rupees and yen. . . But by the time we in the U.S. (and the U.K. and Canada and much of the "New World") get to the bank or the gas station or the grocery store our merchandise has been so laundered that we don't see the blood on it.

What are the options? Signing internet petitions that go into a cyberspace black hole? Do people actually feel like they've done something useful or important when they sign those? This is a global problem and it has to be solved by voting and by the pocketbook, but my little pocketbook isn't going to make a difference, so my vote must. And my words. I don't know if Kerry will make an improvement beyond backing off of these hair-brained Bush policies, but I know that Bush is making money hand over fist for his buddies as fast as he can get away with it. He hopes for a second term, but he's acting like a one-term president, getting the goods as fast as he can now. Justifying it by conversations with his god.

There are a few situations that others take power from--sources of festering energy in the world. You [collectively, not just Mary!] know what would help with all of the rest of this violence? You know why so many terrorists are so stirred up? One of them exists because the U.S. supports Israel in it's obscene war with it's neighbors. It's a colonial power propped up by the U.S. making war and engaging in punative acts on it's neighbors. It is the festering spot of the Middle East. Get Israel to back down, give back land to Palestinians, create that Palestinian state, and start living in peace with its neighbors and a lot of the rest of this stuff will calm down also.

I'm reminded for some reason of the theme song of a British drama from years ago, A Perfect Hero. It was a trench song:

The bells of hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling
For you but not for me:
And the little devils how they sing-a-ling-a-ling
For you but not for me.

O death, where is thy sting-a-ling-a-ling,
O Grave, thy victor-ee?
The bells of hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling,
For you but not for me.

As a nation we are so naive and blind and selfish--and having allowed Dubya to get into office even when he wasn't elected sends a horrible message to the rest of the world, especially when all can see what he has done. It looks like "Business as usual" to the rest of the world.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 06:54 PM

"I think the point of Karen Huges argument is that Kerry doesn't know when he is telling the truth or not. He suffers from never knowing when to take a firm stand on anything until he has seen the polls. Great credentials for a President, right?"

Seems to be the problem Americans have with their present president, DougR.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: mg
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 07:14 PM

The only Iraquis that Bush sent people over to kill were those who were terrifying and torturing their own people. I am sure he would have been quite happy for them to just surrender or stop. Many did. Many of the Iraqui military people made the initial aspects of the war easy for the coalition by not fighting, and that was risky for them in so many ways from all sides. There is a huge difference between dying quickly in a war and dying slowly by torture when someone controls how slowly you die and the extent of your suffering. I do not like going here...I do not like to think about this or elaborate on it. It could have happened to me or many of my friends. As to why we do not protect all people all the time, I wish we could. Some day we will have routed out the last tyrant..maybe soon. There are fewer and fewer, and as more countries join the liberated, there will be more allies and fewer enemies and the job will be easier, but never done. Ever never. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 07:26 PM

GUEST: You have neither fathomed nor understood what Mick said. Maybe you never will. That's too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 07:27 PM

I'm getting the distinct impression that the Bush folks see no advantage in poking Kerry on this issue since Kerry let them know that if they wanted to put his service front and center then they had better be ready to duck.

And tho I'm not thrilled with Kerry, I respect they way he has stood up against the Bush PR frieght train...

I'm hoping this little mis-step on the Bush folks part will jest be allowed to die on the vine. There are other very serious issues confronting a 2004 America far more in need of attention...

But, me and the Wes Ginny Slide Rule have been working on this one and if Cheney and Bush want to fight this one out, they will loose.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Gareth
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 07:42 PM

Honour the brave ! Honour the serviceman !

Kerry went to Vietnam.

GWB did not, tho he could have chosen so.

GWB Senior flew off 'Carriers - Not a risk any Life Assurance company wished to acept.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:05 PM

GUEST, once again you attempt to avoid the real issue and shift the premise away from your vulnerabilities. I did not, nor have I ever asked you to revere or honor me or any vet. In fact, if one goes back to the beginnings of the friction between you and I, they will find that it was because I only asked that you leave one thread for those folks that simply wanted to say thanks on Memorial Day. But you just couldn't get past your bitterness. You had to hijack it and turn it into a rant, instead of leaving it for folks to remember sacrifice. Fair enough. But when you did that, you made yourself a target for the same sauce.

Now, back to the point. I did not ask you to honor or revere vets. What I did ask you was whether or not you could at least respect that folks that went were acting on what they considered to be their duty. And I specifically asked if you could respect that. In your obfuscation and dodging the issue, you have answered.

SRS, fair enough. I did not mean to imply that the military was the sole reason we have these liberties and rights that we have. My opinion is that the rights and liberties we have are our core values. These are what define, or should define, when we use military force. It is only in the defense of core values, or an attack on our soil or citizens, that we should be willing to fight and die. Therein is the catch. And therein is where the civil libertarians, political activists, union and social activists, et al come in. Their job is to be vigilant about these liberties and rights within. The military's job is to deal with threats from outside. I do not hold one to be more valuable than the other. As I said earlier in this thread, and in other threads, I admire folks that stand up for their beliefs and principles, even if they are not mine. I believe we left Vietnam, in large measure, because of those opposed to the war.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:12 PM

brucie: Neither you or Big Mick (or a number of others here) have fathomed nor understood what I said. Maybe you never will. That's too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:15 PM

But "there are still pockets of torture" - and some of them are in places within the present American sphere of interest, such as Ukbekistan.

In Iraq most of the people killed have been non-combatant Iraqis.   Killed by both sides, but mostly by occupation forces. The Iraqis fighting in Fallujah and Najaf are very largely people who detested Saddam and were happy to see him overthrown.

It's a mess. It's always a mess, and people do the best they can and make different judgements about what that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:28 PM

This will come as a surprise to one as blinded by arrogance as you are, GUEST, but I fully understand your position. I am in agreement with significant parts of it, most especially the portions that deal with how politicians and Generals try and justify their actions. Where we part is on the issue of folks who serve. Without the Armed Forces, you would be living in an entirely different country and it would not be a better place. Your complete unwillingness to acknowledge reality, and your embracing of the old "purity of thought" bullshit is where you lose it. I have read and re-read many of your posts. But I disagree, in some cases mightily, with certain parts. That is wholly different from "not getting it".

In addition to this, I just find your attitude towards those with a different view to be obnoxious, arrogant, and boorish.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:36 PM

K.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 10:53 PM

GUEST: I exchanged a few messages with Mick over a month back, and while I was asking his permission to use a piece of his writing in my English class, I told him that I worked hard against the war he fought in.

When he says he respects the rights of those who protested that war, he means it. Take him at his word. It's good.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 11:19 PM

I've been house-sitting the last few days and there is cable TV so I've been sampling Fox Thought from time to time. Today there was a
'Special Report' by Brit Hume. Two of the journalists/advisors were Mort Kondracke and Charles Krauthammer.

Part of the discussion was on Kerry's war medals: Did he or didn't he throw them away? "You just can't believe him."

Secondly, Kerry "is playing the victim here. He is saying "Poor me- they are attacking me so I will attack them back." And no one in this administration has attacked John Kerry while he has attacked President Bush unrelentingly since February." Charles Krauthammer

Kondracke: "Unless you include Karen Hughes, no one has impugned Kerry's actions pre or post Vietnam War. And she isn't part of the Bush Administration."

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage (sans cookie in Netscape)
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 12:04 AM

Karen Hughes is as much a part of the Bush Administration as she ever was. She just isn't on the full-time payroll, but that will probably change as the election gets nearer. Don't let Fox and their yellow journalism confuse the issues for you. You're getting news from Rupert Murdoch's corporation when you watch Fox. That should speak volumes.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 08:07 AM

If it is true that Karen Hughes isn't on the payroll, it is only because she is being paid an obscene amount of money as a consultant. To suggest that means she doesn't work for Bush is insane.

But then, that's Faux news. Their view of reality is akin to the performers in a Fellini circus on acid.

brucie, you are confused about one teeny tiny little point. You have confused me with someone who gives a shit about what Big Mick or yourself thinks. If you review Big Mick's posts responding to mine, he behaves like a bully and a pompous ass. As they say, other's mileage may vary, but a pompous ass is a pompous ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Peace
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 10:36 AM

GUEST: I have not confused you with someone who gives a shit. I thought I had confused you with an asshol, but I see I wasn't confused at all. Eat me, fuckface.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 10:50 AM

Fire fight! Fire fight!! Awoooooga!!!


Jesus, sniper, give it a rest.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 10:50 AM

How could anybody possibly confuse GUEST and GUEST, let alone GUEST...

Still, if these phantoms want to indulge in a kind of multiple personality disorder there's nothing to be done to stop them. But I don't think it's a good idea to waste energy getting into a pseudo-discussion with someone who aspires to be nobody. Maybe "Legion" would be a better term than GUEST...

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 11:54 AM

ROTFLMAO - Aha ha ha ha ha - You're killling me here!! Now I've got to clean the coffee off my screen brucie -

I finally figured out who the GUEST is - Har har har -

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 12:00 PM

"Those who are not with us are against us!"
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Excuse me, GUEST, but I heard that bullshit back in the '60s. I thought it was simpleminded then and I think it's simpleminded now. It died in the hail of bullets at Kent State when the realization broke that yes, there WERE real bullets in the guns and yes, The Man COULD be pushed too far.

And no, I'm not supporting the KSU shootings. They were completely wrong, wrong both tactically and stragically, wrong because "command and control" broke down, just flat out wrong. And they're another place where the guilty got off.

But the so-called "Revolution" died there. No, not its ideals, but the actions. And the most grievous thing was that everyone still grieves about KSU and forgets about Jackson State....

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 01:01 PM

Time to put some of you children in the kill file, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 01:19 PM

YEs, please!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 02:04 PM

I saw Karen Hughes interviewed the other day. About 4 times she spoke about how much she and Bush were above trashing Kerry, Just before she trashed Kerry. In here own way she is a stupid petty and purile as Bush.

I saw another news segment which made a lot of sense to me. I don't remember his name or even the network, but one comentator said a coulple of things that struck me as rather wise.

The first was in answer to Karen Hughes and her criticism of Kerry. He said no matter what you say about what a war hero did with his medals, you are still talking about a war hero and his medals.

He also said that the people who will decide the election, those who are not decided. Aren't paying any attention to all of this noise and they won't pay attention until October.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Kim C
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 02:12 PM

Here's what I meant in my earlier post: considering that most Democrats (at least the ones that I know personally, anyway) are anti-war, it seems odd to me that a potential Democratic candidate would capitalize on his war service. It seems like he would be more likely to capitalize on his war protest instead - but that's a good way to alienate the older veterans who may not appreciate him throwing away his medals or ribbons or whatever they were.

Military service is NOT a prerequisite to holding the office of President, and a war hero does not necessarily make a good president. U.S. Grant may have won the Civil War, but he had one of the most corrupt administrations in American history, because he was too trusting of the people around him.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 02:59 PM

Kim. I think you will find that Democrats like most people are not antiwar when war is required. Unlike, uncritical supporters of Bush and his Chicken Hawk cabinet, they are against the Iraq war because it was not required and because it is being handled very poorly.

The Bushies constantly argue that Bush is a "wartime president" and thet his "leadership" is required in these trying times. The Democrats rightly or wrongly think that Kerry's experince would make him a better wartime leader than Bush. Give Cheney and the other string pullers some credit for slyness. They knew that once this war started the US would have no choice but to try and finish it.

People have a right to question Bush's courage and military leadership. That is what he is campaigning on. How can his people parade him around in a flightsuit under a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" then say that it is dirty politics to question his right to wear that suit and to question his judgement for claiming that "Major combat has ended". losing 110 soldiers and marines,who knows how many Humvees and Iraqi policemen are not major combat, wahile fighting dudes in pickup trucks with Abrams tanks was major combat? I would think the major combat would be the combat in which the US takes significant casualties. What goes on in that man's brain?