 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Cruiser Date: 26 Apr 04 - 11:13 AM Comments? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 26 Apr 04 - 11:30 AM Nonissue. WOunded three times to differing degrees. Went in harm's way and came out alive. What's the flap? A PR cover by the Bushites? Puhleeze! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 26 Apr 04 - 11:50 AM I'll worry about it when Bush shows me his Purple Hearts and Silver Star. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: DougR Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:15 PM Kerry earned his medals fair and square. The Bush campaign is not one pursuing this subject, it's the press. I think it's a shame, having earned them fair and square, he didn't think enough of them to keep them though. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Donuel Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:18 PM The guys who even hold on to their Army uniforms after 25 years are either "war heros" like W or pack rats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:44 PM Bush's folks are trying to say that Kerry didn't "really" throw away medals at a rally, and that he has a contradicted himself with a couple of stories. As usual, the Bush folks are wrong. The long and short of it, according to the interview I heard today with Kerry, was that when the rally started forming, Kerry had some of his ribbons (which he said were interchangeably referred to also as "medals") there that he could throw, but he didn't have all of his medals there. He threw the ones he had in his posession. In terms of that demonstration, he said there was a discussion about throwing or returning (or perhaps placing them somewhere) but Kerry (who wanted to return them) was outvoted so joined the others in throwing the things. It is a non-issue contrived by Karen Hughes and others merely to try to distract from the issues regarding Bush's lack of credible or truly honorable "service." (One can observe that his record is the same now as it was back then--he's not credible or honorable). Bush's folks are scared shitless at what will happen when Bush has to meet Kerry face-to-face and discuss anything truly substantive because Bush will sound so tongue-tied and non-intellectual. (Perhaps they'll try to make the case that Kerry's too smart to do the job properly!) Bush's folks are firing into the crowd now with all of this stuff that even when it's straightened out can't be called back, hoping Americans are so stupid they can't tell this stuff apart and will vote for Bush-lite again. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:53 PM No, Donuel. For example, my old boss, Ralph, kept his Marine Corps blues in pristine condition. They were a reminder to him of the guys he treated (he was a corpsman) on the beaches of Iwo Jima, of the guys he could save and those he couldn't. He kept in touch with many of those he saved and wept (I saw him) for those he couldn't. No. The uniforms, the medals -- and I have mine -- are memories. There are those who brag about them, endlessly and repeatedly, and they are usually those who flew desks or fought it out on the parade ground. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 12:56 PM The only exposure Kerry has is that his Viet Nam commander has said that Kerry's first wound didn't deserve a Purple Heart. A little late to mention that, frankly and it wouldn't matter except for one thing. With all Kerry's military records that have been made available in the last couple of weeks, I've noticed one thing is missing. The medical report on that first wound. I hope Kerry's campaign isn't intentionally holding it back. Even if the wound was trivial, Kerry's not responsible for awarding the medal. Someone else made that decision, I don't see how you hold anyone but the Navy responsible for that. Besides, it was a hell of a long time ago and it's time to move on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Donuel Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:03 PM Symbols are empowered by the cause and the memory of the events they served. Viet Nam is far from the cause and memory of WWII. The symbol of W wearing 4 different military uniforms during his inavsion of Iraq is a mini reminiscence of a certain German leader who also had a personal lack luster military career. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:09 PM Republicans did this same thing to former senator Max Cleland. Disgusting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:10 PM The issue is a crock. Bush is a craven manipulator who ducked out; Kerry was and is a man of decency and courage who did what his duty called for. And din't like it, and chose to speak out against it. WHen they had the choice, Bush chose to start a war unnecessarily, while Kerry did what he could to end an unnecessary war. Comparing the two of them is a bit insulting, really. Bush just doesn't measure up to Kerry. Sorry. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:12 PM "Viet Nam is far from the cause and memory of WWII." Really, Donuel? Vietnam? So my friend Joe, who was a Corpsman in 'Nam, can't do what Ralph did after Iwo? My late friend Bob, who was a medic in 'Nam, wasn't touched by those who worked on? That my friend Kent, a medic, doesn't and won't stay in touch with the guy he saved who had Willy Peter go off in his hand because the grenade was defective? My AF brother doesn't regret calling in Arc Lights? My other brother rejoices in choking a person to death so that the ambush wouldn't be blown by gunfire? Have you been there? If not, how can you know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Peace Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:21 PM People have been awarded the "Ruptured Duck" for stupid things: Staple through the finger, scratch on the arm. You tend to get the same medal when your guts were hanging out. It has always been a principle of keeping morale 'up' to give out lots of medals. As Rapper said, some people brag about them, and some simply honour them. There is a street in Winnipeg that was renamed Valour Road when it was discovered that three VC (Victoria Cross--similar to the Medal of Honor in the US) holders lived within two blocks of each other. They didn't know each other at all, other than to nod as they passed each other on the street. Funny thing that. The nation's highest award for heroism and they seem never to have talked about it. Makes a guy feel very humble. Most of us will never know the horror that front-line (hot-war) troops endure. We should thank whoever we worship for that. It is picky bullshit to worry about the fist PH. Real men don't kiss and tell. Bruce Murdoch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Bobert Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:23 PM I find it real curious that Kerry is getting heat from some partisan Viet nam vets and that stations like NPR are giving these guys so much air time. I was listening to one the other day, who didn't even know Kerry, go on and on. If that guy had had to pay fir that amount of air time, it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars, yet NPR just let him rant.. and rant... and rant... And it was all just partisanship... Yet, the 8 members of Kerry's crew will occasionally make mention on page A23 of your local paper as supporting him but does NPR get one of them on to talk about how Kerry served in Nam? Heck no. And C-SPAN is worse. I try to listen to a little of it on the radio but every danged day of the week it's hours and hours of nuthing but either Bush or one of his folks going on and on... Like I've said before. The media is in Bush hip pocket. The only reason they occasionally will ask a tought question is so that DougieR will be able to tell me I'm wrong... But we all see what is going on except the Repubs won't admit it. Why would they? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Nerd Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:28 PM Viet Nam is an entirely different kind of cause and memory. If anything, it's more tragic than that of WWII for the American soldiers involved, precisely BECAUSE the stakes were not the same. They did not return home knowing they had liberated concentration camps, but in many cases found out they had been cruelly lied to by the government. Many of them, like John McCain and John Kerry, still saw the good in a country that had in some ways let them down, and made a career of public service. Rapaire and his brothers (AND John Kerry) deserve our thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:34 PM "The symbol of W wearing 4 different military uniforms during his inavsion of Iraq is a mini reminiscence of a certain German leader who also had a personal lack luster military career." Churchill? Oh, you said German, sorry. "I find it real curious that Kerry is getting heat from some partisan Viet nam vets and that stations like NPR are giving these guys so much air time." Bobert, until I say Kerry talking about it himself, I didn't understand how angry some Viet Nam vets were or way. That testimony in from of Congress was pretty appalling, and I don't think some vets will ever forgive him. I know WWII vets who to this day won't drive Japanese cars. He may have be articulate in his regret over the specific words he used, but what he said won't make a difference to vets who remember, partisan or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: SINSULL Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:38 PM I saw Kerry today claiming that he threw away ribbons not medals. He blasted Bush for his no-show record in the National Guard. This looks to be a very ugly campaign given that the name calling has already begun while neither candidate has been officially nominated by his party. I hope Kerry's statements play out. His credibility will be on a level with Bush's if it can be proved that he actually threw away his medals. Donuel, have you served on active duty? Had your life depend on men you barely know? Been shot, knifed, wounded, burned???? I know veterans of the Gulf War who consider their experiences there life defining. A war does not have to be on the scale of WWII to make a man a hero. Would you also belittle a fireman who survived the World Trade Center as a packrat if he held onto his helmet or a medal for bravery placed on his chest by the Mayor? Hardly as great a cause (saving a few thousand people) as a World War. Take a tour of the many threads on Mudcat in which several here have bared their souls about experiences in war, then come back and apologize. Mary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:40 PM "That testimony in from of Congress was pretty appalling, and I don't think some vets will ever forgive him." He did use a nice "radio voice" when testifying back in those days, though. He sounds much more natural now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Big Mick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:12 PM Donuel, while I enjoy your graphics, I must say that your take on the veterans, and lumping them in with the rightness or wrongness of the conflict they served in demonstrates that you have no concept of which you speak. I applaud your view on war in general, and share it. But you need to re-examine your disdain for those who served, and choose to remember. Please understand the context of these comments. I do not mean to attack you, but I feel as though you oversimplify the complex recipe used to create humans, and their memories. Much of what goes into that mix has to do with the times in which the war was fought. Obviously WWII vet's have a different take than their brothers and sisters from Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf Wars. I would imagine the vet's from the Panamanian invasion have a different take yet. The result of the action would also play in. BUT, those feelings are entirely different from the feelings one has for comrades, fallen and survivors, that shared a life and death experience. Combat is an experience that cannot be described in any way but life altering. The death of a comrade has no parallel. Survivors guilt/elation changes a person fundamentally. Living with uncertainty for months at a time, experiencing how ones mental state changes as they go through a tour of duty, these are experiences that have no civilian counterpart. Throw this all in the mix, along with the things in ones life that made them who they are, and the times in which they live, and you get a very complex set of memories. To simply state that there must be something wrong with someone who holds onto a uniform shows a lack of depth on the subject. Personally, I don't own a uniform or a ribbon. That whole time turned me in a different direction. But I would NEVER castigate my comrades in arms for whatever they came to out of it. Nor would I presume to understand what it is they honor by saving their mementoes. I find that those who do castigate these men and women, are folks that have never been in this situation. They are speaking from a theoretical, or self righteous position. Want to kick the war makers? I am with you. Want to take shots at those who dehumanize the enemy in order to convince young ones to go to war? I am right there. But castigate those that went, when there is no way to know what really drove that decision? I will be your loudest critic. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Chief Chaos Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:17 PM Kerry went, Kerry saw, Kerry survived and returned to tell the American people and the Gov't just what he thought about the war. There were people who served honorably throughout the war. There are others who committed attrocities. Sometimes the truth hurts. If only a few of the elite priviledged children had had to face the same risks maybe the Powers That Be who ran the war from DC might have brought it to an end sooner. He had the balls to go and the balls to tell it like it is. That's why he is hated so much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Cruiser Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:44 PM Here is a discussion (biased?) about the seriousness of Kerry's wounds and a question if he "earned" all his metals, Purple Hearts (3) included: Viet Nam Veterans Against Kerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:48 PM There is a difference between being drafted into military service, and volunteering for it, and the mindset for each is often strikingly different. I see no reason to idolize and put soldiers on pedestals, especially in an all volunteer army. They are not above criticism and beyond reproach, just because they have done military service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:50 PM Discussion? These guys are reactionary red-baiting McCarthyites!! With all due respect, they are bitterly rigid about the rightness of the war in Vietnam -- which is pretty hard to argue with hindsight making it clear that the horrible domino effect wasn't really that big a deal. Anyway, I wouldn't grace it with the handle "discussion". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Big Mick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:59 PM Of course you don't, GUEST. But you are so bitter and nasty that you take positions just to be contrary. And anytime anyone attempts to say anything about veterans, you always take the time to jump in and let us know your contempt for us. But that is OK, your right to do so was part of the reason some donned that uniform. Even if you don't think it was effective, one would think that you would at least acknowledge the motivation of these men and women. Isn't that worth at least a nod of thanks from you? Tell us what you think of veterans motivations (even if you find them misguided) for going to war. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: artbrooks Date: 26 Apr 04 - 03:04 PM Cruiser, I was in Vietnam shortly after Mr. Kerry was. Believe me, I am very glad that I wasn't wounded once, regardless of how seriously, let alone three times (and it certainly wasn't because the opportunity wasn't there). And also believe me that, if I had been wounded and the opportunity had existed to go home early before Charlie had gotten luckier, you had better not have gotten between me and Ton Sun Nut Air Base. As for the other medals, he earned them, in the judgement of his commanding officer, and they were his to keep or give away. If he decided to throw the medal ribbons over a fence and keep the big one with the hanging part, they were his to dispose of. They come in a nice blue box, you know, a big medal suitable for wearing on a dress uniform, a small one (that is the ribbon only) for the undress uniform, and a lapel pin. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 03:18 PM "On Sunday, Bush adviser Karen Hughes said she was offended by Kerry's actions when he protested the war in 1971 and accused him of not actually throwing back his medals. 'He only pretended to throw his,' Hughes said in a CNN interview. 'Now, I can understand if, out of conscience, you take a principled stand, and you would decide that you were so opposed to this that you would actually throw your medals. But to pretend to do so — I think that's very revealing.'" OK, sorry, I got behind on Kerry's Viet Nam record bashing. Too hard to keep up. Actually, I might have been happier if he really had given them back, even with the apparent contradiction of runnng on his war record. He earned them, that can't be taken away - giving them back is a different thing. The question is whether he really believed what he was doing at the time or not. (Ribbons versus medals, all the same thing.) Another non-issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Cruiser Date: 26 Apr 04 - 03:25 PM Artbrooks, I only received one medal and ribbon (yes that one, the one everyone gets when they are honorably discharged) because I did not go to Nam. I had a port call date of March 15, 1973, but did not go because of the cease fire when Nixon started reducing troops and sending them home. I would have been a scout dog handler or combat medic because of my primary and secondary MOSs. My brother, a Green Beret officer, was killed in Laos. By policy, I would not have had to go to war (only surviving son), but I chose to go when I was given the option. I wanted revenge for my brother. I guess I got lucky when the cease fire stopped my going to Viet Nam. My brother had enough medals for both of us. Thanks for your service. Cruiser |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 26 Apr 04 - 03:36 PM There is some medical documention of Kerry's first wound, saying that they removed a piece of shrapnel and applied bacitracin. Which is far more documention tna we have of Dubya's service in Alabama. As for Hibbard, who's now trashing Kerry and saying he didn't deserve the first Purple Heart, Hibbard's fitness report of Kerry is in the released military records, and Hibbard gave Kerry three "one of the top few" marks and one "above the majority" mark (and nothing worse than that). But Hibbard also noted he was unable to give more marks due to "insufficient observation" (Hibbard was doing the review after only the first half month of Kerry's Swift boat duty). So as far as reviews go, even the presently hostile Hibbard gave Kerry good marks back then, and the others that had more opportunity to observe Kerry gave him outstanding marks. So I guess you'll have to take Hibbard's present comments with a little grain of salt. . . . The Republicans who are trashing Kerry for this simply have no shame. Line up Kerry's military record against Dubya's, and it's the difference between day and night. . . . Cheers, -- Arne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 03:43 PM "Which is far more documention tna we have of Dubya's service in Alabama." Oh, I don't know. The official documentation for Kerry is just the Purple Heart paperwork, about a half page of real information very different from the medical report Kerry put out on the other two wounds. Bush offered the record of a visit to the dentist on the base in Alabama in the middle of the time when he supposedly wasn't there (and when the base commander who accused Bush of not showing up has admitted he didn't actually turn up on the base much himself). I'd call it 1 for 1 as far as the question raised that lead to the records getting published. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Apr 04 - 04:18 PM It's a good idea when starting a thread like this, about a news story, to post a link to the actual news story. Remember, the Mudcat is global. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Cruiser Date: 26 Apr 04 - 04:29 PM Here McGrath: Discarded Decorations ABC Interview |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST,Norton1 Date: 26 Apr 04 - 05:09 PM Sorry - I didn't take the time to reset my cookie. I'm one of those who continues to have my uniform in the closet. All my ribbons where they should be. Pictures of my Brothers I served with on the walls of my den. As far as whether or not we, the Vietnam veterans Against the War, believed in our cause or not? Some did and some did it just to get stoned and laid. Some of us did it because we were sick to death of our Brothers coming home in boxes for Johnson's oil. I still believe I went to Vietnam with the intent of saving our world from Communism and helping a poor country out of its misery. those statements above can be taken many ways today. But back then it was with the purest of intent. I was a Marine and my job was to serve my country. As far as throwing medals over the fence? It was a form of protest. And no one really cared whose medals they were. At that time they didn't mean much. Only later on in life did the full import of what they represented come to me. I'm proud of my medals. Or ribbons. Whatever you want to call them. Now to the issue of Senator Kerry's medals. He earned them. And anyone who has not received one of those little Purple hummers has no right to talk about them. Unless you were with a few folks who earned them. There were "Ti-ti hearts" - the ones for little wounds. Then there were the big Hearts for the wounds that sent folks back to hospitals. There were Hearts for trees falling on people. Some folks got them during mortar attacks for tripping on tent stakes and ending up bleeding as a result of it. The REALLY big Hearts were when you got sent home - in a box. See a Heart is a Heart is a Heart. And it didn't, doesn't, matter how big or little it is. Lots of folks were whining, want some cheese with that?, about whether or not the good Senator earned his Silver Star. Ask some of the folks who chased wounded folks into strange places if they didn't get a bit of a rush from that. Cornered critters have a tendancy to get aggressive when trapped and are scared. Even a mouse will fight to the death if scared enough. So the question is this - What about his medals? My response - And your point is . . . .?? Or maybe better yet - I have no issue with the Senator and nor do I have issue with what he has done since his time in the war. The veteran's group that is claiming to speak for all of us who fought there also happen to be the ones who blatantly doctored the picture of the Senator at the Senate hearings on the war with an NVA flag as a backdrop - and sent it around the net as a real picture. Not exactly an unbiased group in my insignificant opinion. Any way - I agree with Mick - and Art - and the rest of the Veteran's views here for the most part. Thanks for serving folks - you do America proud. Semper Fi Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 26 Apr 04 - 05:31 PM Strick: "Bush offered the record of a visit to the dentist on the base in Alabama in the middle of the time when he supposedly wasn't there . . ." Quite true. He supposedly wasn't there even by his own records. The dentist appointment is in January, 1973, but his pay records don't show him putting in any hours in January anywhere. And he supposedly had gone back to Houston by this time. So yes, "he supposedly wasn't there." ". . . (and when the base commander who accused Bush of not showing up has admitted he didn't actually turn up on the base much himself)." True, but no one else there saw him either ... except for that guy who the RNC dredged out who said, yas, he'd seen Dubya numerous times, even shared an office where Dubya would busily read flight safety reports (!). Only fly in teh ointment here is that this person placed Dubya on base from July through October, but Dubya's pay records show no time before late October in Alabama, and Dubya wasn't even approved to go to Alabama until September (IIRC). Then there's the matter of Dubya's missing 1972 flight physical. It's nowhere to be found. But Dubya claims he didn't need to take it as he wasn't flying. That's simply wrong. And he was given a written order to take the physical after he had failed to comply with standing orders that pilots must take them once a year. But he still disobeyed this order, near as anyone can tell. . . . Yes, let's trot out the two records side-by-side, and do a comparison. Fine with me. . . . Cheers, -- Arne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 05:55 PM Where were you in 1973, Arne? Do you remember that by 1973 US public opinion had turned radically against the war. Everyone who had the least plausible excuse to get out of the draft in the years just before had. The draft was over and that everyone one knew the war was essentially over. I took a entrance physcial in Bentonville, Arkansas that year. Never seen any thing military as lax as those guys were. It was enough to keep me from volunteering. I hear the same story from guys where in the Guard in those years. By 1973, there was no risk they were going to get called up. No one is ever going to shock me by telling me that the Alabama National Guard didn't exactly keep up with all their people and misplaced some paper work in the summer of 1973. 1968 when Kerry was in 'Nam was a different year. The country was still sharply divided. Even Kerry still thought the war was a good thing and didn't go anti-war until later. Out in my part of the world parents still expected their kids to volunteer and no one dodged the draft other than trying to get a college deferment. The five years between 1968 and 1973 changed the country more than anyone who didn't live through it could imagine. By '73 even the military families I grew up in small towns like mine with were trying to keep their kids out. Kerry should be respected to for serving, but he faced his choice in a different time when most people supported the war. Then he turned against it, and if you believe some Vets, against those who served. Even if you think Bush played hookie from the Guard one summer, he did it when the country had already turned away from the war and we were doing everything possible to get out of it. Now, if you want to compare Kerry's service in 1968 to what Bill Clinton was doing in 1968... ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Bobert Date: 26 Apr 04 - 06:00 PM Yo, Strick. As per usual, you missed my point. The point isn't about VietNam but the partisanship and the media. Why should a Repub. vet get lots of free media time when the Dem. vets don't??? Simple question. Ain't 'bout Nam... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 06:33 PM I understood your point, Bobert. I was just slipped streamed it to thinking that NPR is as liable to benefit from airing controversy as any other radio station. Putting Kerry's buddies on is OK to look balanced, but it won't help ratings. NPR's kinder and gentler version of Jerry Springer's approach to attracting listeners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Bill Hahn//\\ Date: 26 Apr 04 - 06:38 PM Don't you think that GWB is a hero in his Flight togs landing on a carrier?---Finally got his flying for the Guard in. Ok so it was some 30 odd years late. But, El Jefe landed and said the fighting is mainly over. I suppose that sits well with the families who were expecting people home from this ill advised adventure alive and soon and not later and in who knows what condition. I sure hope people remember that come November---and hopefully no October surprises which I am sure are in the wings somewhere. Bill Hahn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Bobert Date: 26 Apr 04 - 06:51 PM BillH: GWB was told when he said that he wanted to land on the carrier to keep his hands off the yoke and don't mess with none of the fancy buttons... He was a passanger. Pure and simple. A passenger dressed up to look like a real carrier rated pilot... He couldn't land a jet on a carrier if they gave him 50 tries. All they would have gotten was 50 crashed airplanes and 50 dead GWB's... Heck, I ain't never landed on a carrier deck myself but when this latest "Big Lie (or slight of hand) De Joir" occured and Bush was beating his chest like he had piloted the plane I challenged him to a contest. Heck he's 'sposed to know how to fly jets, right, and is 'sposed to have lots of experience. Okay, here's the challenge. I'll land a joy stick Piper Cub or Cesna on a carrier with noone in it but me (and I ain't got's lots of training and only a few half decent landings under my belt) if Bush will do the same in any jet... He is a fraud and the challenge stands. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 08:34 PM "I'll land a joy stick Piper Cub or Cesna on a carrier with noone in it but me (and I ain't got's lots of training and only a few half decent landings under my belt) if Bush will do the same in any jet..." On average, one well trained, very experienced Navy pilot loses his or her life every aircraft carrier cruise. Landing on a carrier is about most dangerous thing you can do in a plane short of air combat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 26 Apr 04 - 09:43 PM Strick: I turned the magic 18 in '72. Got a high draft number, but they'd pretty much stopped most of the draft by then, so you'd have had to have a really low number to even start to worry. Even so, on principle, I would have gone for a CO had I been able (they wouldn't even let you do this until your number came up; you remained 1-S until there was a need for further classification). Your point? As for you not volunteering, you seem to have been easily dissuaded. Makes one wonder about your 'enthusiasm'. Dubya's problme is that the paperwork he does have doesn't match with his 'story', or that of the few people who have come forth to vouch for him. Yes, there were many people against the war in 1973 (and in 1968 as well; remember Chicago?). Dubya wasn't one of them. Like Cheney, who had "other priorities", and Rush Limbaugh, who had a cyst on his butt, and so many other of the current Republican leadership, Dubya wasn't out there trying to stop the war; they were all just trying to keep their own butts out of harm's way. Now they're all chickenhawks, more than willing to get 711 (and counting) young soldiers killed in Iraq in one of the biggest mistakes ever made by an American president just to keep Dubya from looking like the "miserable failure" that he is. Feel free to compare Kerry to Clinton if you want, but Clinton's not runnign for president. But IMOO, even Clinton has it over Dubya; Clinton opposed the war, thought it wrong, and protested to try and stop it. Dubya was just watching out for Numero Uno, a trait that has persisted with him to the present day. Cheers, -- Arne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 26 Apr 04 - 11:10 PM "Clinton opposed the war, thought it wrong, and protested to try and stop it." Clinton began protesting the war after his deferment ran out. There's a reason the military expects people to provide evidence that they were COs significantly before they actually face having to serve. It's caused a conversion of convience. I never compared Kerry to Clinton, however. All I've ever said is that if Clinton got a walk, it's time to put Viet Nam behind us. "As for you not volunteering, you seem to have been easily dissuaded. Makes one wonder about your 'enthusiasm'." Sure I was easily dissuaded. You didn't see what I did while I was there. They were filling their recuiting quota with people who had failed to qualify at three previous recruiting centers. Offered to help me pass a hearing test I had trouble with. THESE recruits were supposed to be the guy who were supposed to watch my back? Naw, the war was over, the draft was over, time to go back to college. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: dianavan Date: 27 Apr 04 - 12:21 AM Since I have lived with war vets most of my life, I would agree that the reasons they served were all very different, depending on which war you're talking about. War changed all of them. My ex-husband was in Vietnam and was awarded a medal for bravery. He didn't talk about it because he said they handed out metals in Viet Nam like they were prizes in a box of Crackerjacks. Besides, he said, it was more like getting a metal for temporary insanity. He lost faith in America and we moved to Canada in 1974. He still suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome. My dad was in WWII and he didn't like to talk about it. He told us a few things: he was a machine gunner with two other guys, he served in the South Pacific. Thats about it. He died and when mom moved out of our family home, I was given her old hope chest. Inside I found my dad's uniform which I gave to my brother. I also found a Japanese flag with bullet holes and blood (I was shocked). I gave it to my other brother. I kept the metals and ribbons. I also kept the Western Union telegram telling my mom he'd be home for Christmas. I framed them. Although I hate war, its part of my heritage. Serving in the military used to be part of being American. How men deal with it afterwards is different for each of them. I actually admire Kerry for speaking out against Vietnam. At least he stayed in the U.S. and protested. Many were so disillusioned they never wanted to be associated with the U.S. again. There's lots of them here in Canada and they're not all draft dodgers, either. But whenever there is a draft, Canada gets some of the brightest and the best. Its called the brain drain up here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amergin Date: 27 Apr 04 - 01:18 AM I have a cousin who was in Normandy (I think Omaha) and the Battle of the Bulge...after the war he went back to school and got recruited by the CIA. He went to Thailand and formed the PARU (on stipulation from the King that he be a Colonel)...He and the PARU went to Loas and trained the Hmong hilltribes to fight the Pathet Lao. Many Hmong died. Towards the end there, the CIA were abandoning the hilltribes to be slaughtered and persecuted by the Pathet Lao. My cousin was instrumental in bringing many of them here to the states. He still goes to the Hmong conventions. He still goes to the reunions of those were there. He still goes back to Thailand and is treated like a national hero there. Many of us in the family think he should have been treated that way here as well. You can read about Bill Lair and the other key figures of this covert war in this wonderful book called Shooting at the Moon by Roger Warner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:24 AM All I'm saying is military service doesn't automatically make a person honorable or worthy of being honored, anymore than community service does. In warrior societies like the US, however, that fact is nearly always lost and anti-militarism sentiments nearly always shouted down, as you Big Mick do above. He is one of those former military types who goes ballistic anytime someone makes anti-militarism statements. I am completely opposed to the glorification of veterans, and by extension, militarism, and war. It is worse right now than I have seen it at any time in my life. Glorification of veterans is a tactic used by politicians to keep the cannon fodder coming, and their families thanking the politicians for destroying their lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Teribus Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:35 AM "Peace at any price as long as I don't have to pay" Eh Guest? I think Big Mick and others above who reacted to Donuel's first post to this thread were perfectly justified in doing so. "In warrior societies like the US" you wouldn't recognise a "warrior society" Guest if one jumped up and bit you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:36 AM This "controversy" is about as manufactured as they come. The fact that the Bush team is pushing it so hard says more about them than it does about Kerry. Kerry served honorably, and behaved honorably in speaking out against the war after he came home. He never claimed that all, or most, American soldiers in Vietnam were committing atrocities, but he did point out -- correctly -- that atrocities were occurring over there, and that the US approach to this particular war fostered that to some degree. We can sit here over thirty years later and say that he shouldn't have used this word or that word, and Kerry acknowledges that he might say a few things differently if he had it to do over again. Big deal; the essential message was and is correct, as history has shown. As for the "medals vs. ribbons" thing, when I was in the service I knew the difference, but didn't make a big deal about it. Medals were rarely worn; they only belonged on the dress uniform, which was mainly worn on ceremonial occasions. When wearing the "undress" uniform (which was the standard workday uniform when one wasn't in dungarees or fatigues), only ribbons were worn. But civilian friends would often ask me about the "medals" I was wearing, and I didn't bother to correct their terminology. It would be nice if the news coverage focused more on real issues, and less on these sorts of orchestrated smear campaigns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:50 AM And I am might fed up with military service being used as the litmus test for patriotism, especially since there are only a small handful of Congressional members, senior members of the executive and judicial branches, whose own children are in the military, much less the front lines of Falluja. Their hypocrisy sickens me, as does all the chest beating over medals, the hypocrisy of not being allowed to see photographs of the rapidly increasing number of dead soldiers coming home, and finally, of the faux patriotic funeral frenzy the media is falling all over itself to put on the nightly news to prove how patriotic the media is, and how honorable our military is for crushing Iraq under das big boot of imperialism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:25 AM GUEST of 8:50 a.m., I honestly mean no disrespect with this question, but have you ever gotten beyond, say, 1969 in your anti-military stance? I choose that year deliberately, as it was in 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. Both sides sat for hours, staring at each other, never realizing that if fate had turned slightly the sides would have been switched. As for the "Warrior Society" of the US -- can you name one country in the world which cannot be so described? I will point out that Andorra has an Army, that the Swiss Guards in Vatican City are actually very well armed and trained, that Switzerland has mandatory military service. I've seen far too often what unthinking reactions by "Liberals", "Conservatives", militarists, and pacifists can lead to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: jacqui.c Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:45 AM As I understand it, the so called "Ruptured Duck" is a pin that shows you have been discharged, not to indicate that you were wounded. There are a few medals that really show something worthwhile, but the rest are just "Decorations". I have one of those decorations. Doug, how can you blame Kerry for disgarding medals or ribbons that were awarded for taking part in the wrong war? Or do you believe that we were right in going into Viet Nam? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: jacqui.c Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:47 AM Sorry, I keep forgetting to sign in under my own name, Kendall |
|
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:
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? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:05 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." In the 1992 and 1996 elections, Democrats tried to make prior service a non-issue and even criticized Dole for trying to trade on his war hero status. It's all politics and playing the odds. I don't think either side really believes what they say about this, they just want to win. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM Please do, GUEST. Remember though: I shoot back, and I'm a good shot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM http://www.jordansplace.net/politics/html/compare.html compares the two service records. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Peace Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:09 PM GUEST: Get me good the first time because you won't get a second chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:18 PM Cool, Amos. Now show me a comparison for the last 3 elections and convince me the Democrats treat this issue consistently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:25 PM You guys misunderstand Guest -- a kill file is a list of names on a computer from whom one does not accept messages, filtering them out. At least I hope that's what he-she-it meant.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:28 PM Apparently you fellas don't get out on the internet much. A killfile is a little tech trick used when you don't want to see any posts from a person one considers to be a flaming idiot. It makes the internet experience much more enjoyable, when you don't have to put up with people who say things like "eat me fuckface". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:41 PM Gee whiz Strick. Your buddy Bush is claiming war hero status that he never had. Like Hitler did, he is wearing military uniforms to bask in the respect this country gives to people who chose to serve. Dole was a war hero, So was Bush's Dad. Bush chose not to risk his precious little ass, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had other priorities yet they are presented as the best people to lead this country i wartime by such "patriots" as Karen Hughes, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson and David Frum. This isn't a government its a bloody Woody Allen movie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Ebbie Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:56 PM Add a bellicose Bill O'Reilly to the hero status list. He evidently did not serve in any capacity. Born in 1949, graduated high school in 1967, graduated college 1971. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:58 PM Dear GUEST: I have been using the Internet, both as a user and as an administrator, for about fifteen (15) years now. I have been using the World Wide Web since about 1993. I am quite aware of the function of a "kill file." I am also aware of netiquette and the responsibilities of visitors in forums and such places where they are not members. Since you criticize my knowledge and the knowledge of others, I feel that this is the only correct action to take: /user/GUEST > /dev/null |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Chief Chaos Date: 28 Apr 04 - 04:04 PM I is a wartime President (not war hero, not warrior) That's the claim. So was FDR, So was Kennedy, So was LBJ, So was Clinton unless you don't want to call Somalia and the actions in the former soviet states "not wars". So he missed Vietnam, where was he during Granada? Panama? Desert Storm 1? We've got Guest and others claiming that the military murders everyone everywhere we're sent and that war is useless, then we've got Mary saying we're not involved enough! What's a poor serviceman to do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 28 Apr 04 - 04:09 PM Now, Rob, all I'm saying is this is only an issue when the Democrats put up a war hero. Dubya's never claimed any hero status, as you well know. When their guy lied and pulled strings to keep from going to Viet Nam and then fluffed his anti-war record to boot, it's a completely different story and no one dared compare his record with heros you acknowledge. (P.S. Rumsfeld graduated from Princeton just after the Korean war and served as a aviator and flight instructor in the Navy. He's too old for Viet Nam and too young for Korea or WWII.) Haven't seen you here in a while. Suffering withdrawals with TTT down? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 28 Apr 04 - 04:13 PM Guest, Rapaire: You guys are both blowing smoke, and would have to do a lot better than that. You're not going to automatically parse individual posters and their messages out of the middle of an HTML stream just by adding it to a kill file, no matter where you redirect it. You'll have to code the parser to null the messages from the stream while preserving the rest of the file. I can think of a lot of things I would prefer to do with my time. Practice tolerance, for example. Sorry. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Apr 04 - 04:35 PM Chief, Fox News has been calling him a hero. John McCain is saying that Bush and Kerry "both served honourably" as if their records were equal. Personally, I am concerned about Bush's stance about the war. He and his people are not listening to the people with experience. I respect General Powell's opinions about War and about this war in position. The people who Bush is listening to. The famous Chicken hawks talk about Pax Americana, world leadership and world peace through US force. But they seem to have no idea about the blood that will cost. I wish some of them had served. The policies of Gitmo are not those of someone who has sworn to protect the Constitution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 28 Apr 04 - 05:11 PM Oh, JtS, that vow went out the window in the first 24 hours. He's espoused changing the Consitution to his own whimsy rather thsn defend it repeatedly. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Big Mick Date: 28 Apr 04 - 05:28 PM I find it the height of hypocrisy, never mind arrogance, as well as delusional, that our GUEST would have an issue with someone cursing at her. On any number of occasions that I had responded and shown the faults in the arguments/posts, the response from this poster was as blue as it could be. I am reminded of the time that crude sexual innuendo was the only response that could be mustered. You are a joke. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Apr 04 - 05:30 PM You Bush and the boys DID swear to uphold the constitution? In that case they should have been given a test to see if they understood it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Apr 04 - 05:35 PM Don't Sweat it Mick. For a while now, I haven't been reading any posts by Anon guests. Its a source of tranquility to ignore them, almost Zen like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Peace Date: 28 Apr 04 - 05:46 PM Sorry. I do not have your eloquence with words. "Eat me fuckface" was the best I could do. I too know who the GUEST is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Gareth Date: 28 Apr 04 - 07:21 PM To return to sanity ( or as I originally mistyped Sadanity ) "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." Kevin - your sources please ? Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 04 - 08:59 PM Now here's a story about some soon to be honorable, respectable vets. One of those being court martialed is described by virtually everyone who knows him in just those sorts of terms. I guess the power just went to their heads, and made them a bit giddy. BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Peace Date: 29 Apr 04 - 03:34 AM GUEST: I'm trying to see things from your point of view but I can't stick my head that far up my ass. The implication that all vets are Calleys is a bit much. No, too much. What a clump of f#cked up misery you are. Take the cucumber from another thread and put it gently in you ear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 29 Apr 04 - 09:36 AM GUEST, by your statements you have insulted myself and others here. You have insulted those men and women, from every nation, who have served in the Armed Forces of their country. You spout the old, oft-repeated, unthinking, propoganda that I heard in the '60s and which I understand was puked up about the Korean Conflict in the early 1950s. This leads me to one inescapable conclusion. GUEST, you are a plant. You are spewing this stuff in all directions to see who will agree with you. Your puppetmasters in the Dept. of Homeland Security or the FBI or the CIA monitor this thread and will post surveillance on, and possible arrest, those who do agree with you. In brief, GUEST, you are a fink. What we used to call a "narc." A plant. A front for Those In Power. Your very words and ideas betray you, echoing what the FBI and other groups learned in the '60s. You are a Judas, worse than Judas, in that Judas betrayed only one person and you want to betray many, an anonymous Judas to whom no one will ever be able to put a name or face -- save the puppetmasters who pull your strings. Continue on your mission of betrayal, marionette, but remember that when the work of the puppetmaster is over the puppet is broken and discarded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Apr 04 - 10:51 AM You totally overestimate GUEST, People say nasty things as guest to get a reaction from people who are not GUEST. If you react with anger, the GUESTS accomplish their objective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 29 Apr 04 - 11:33 AM No, JtS, I'm not angry with GUEST. Just telling the truth about GUEST. GUEST doesn't want the truth known, because GUEST is a Tom Ridgeback, a Quisling who's sold its soul for less silver than Judas would have. I've seen this sort of thing before -- something rants and raves and is far more than anyone else, something who knows it all, an expert who actually had the information, the websites and so on supplied to it by the puppetmasters who makes it dance. There is no anger in knowing the truth. Only sorrow that another soul has been sold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 29 Apr 04 - 11:44 AM Interesting perspective, Rapaire. I wonder what there is behind it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Peace Date: 29 Apr 04 - 12:18 PM GUEST: In another age your name was Ephialtes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 29 Apr 04 - 12:39 PM "Ephialtes was a democratic reformer in Athens in the early years of the 5th century BCE. Evidence about him is scanty, although we can learn a certain amoung from Plutarch's biography of Cimon, who was Ephialtes' main political opponent (Plut. Cim.). Around 462 BCE, Ephialtes brought about changes to the Court of the Areopagus. He sponsored laws and decrees that removed many powers from the Areopagus and gave them to the People's Court or the Assembly. Because the Areopagus, consisting of former archons serving on the body for life, was the least democratic of Athens' political institutions, the reforms of Ephialtes can be said to have completed Athens' transformation into a radical democracy." From a google of the name. Ya learn something every day on the Cat, eh?? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Peace Date: 29 Apr 04 - 12:40 PM He was also the guy who sold out the Spartans to Xerxes. He was a traitor to his country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Ebbie Date: 29 Apr 04 - 01:07 PM shiver Whenever I see someone claim to know who "Guest" is, I'm always afraid they think 'tis I. For the record, it isn't. Do my insecurities show? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Peace Date: 29 Apr 04 - 01:33 PM GUEST's insecurities show. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 29 Apr 04 - 01:39 PM The history behind the betrayal Brucie mentions is fascinatin': "THE BATTLE AT THERMOPYLAE: The pass at Thermopylae was a superb place to withstand an attack. Because of its natural narowness, even with an army as large as the Persians had, only a small number could actually fight at any one time. This enables very few men to hold off enormous armies for long amounts of time. The Greek army, amounting to 10,000 soldiers, did manage to hold back the Persians for a time. Some believe that the Greeks could have stopped the invasion right there at Thermopylae. There are two reasons given why this did not happen. The first was that a traitor named Ephialtes showed the Persians a way to outflank the Greeks, by revealing to them a secret passage. The large Persian army was traveling in three groups, each taking different paths through the mountains. However, due to this turnover, the Greeks were outflanked and on the edge of defeat. In an amazing display of bravery King Leonidas of Sparta remained behind with 300 of his troops and 700 Thespians in order to hold back the Persians while the rest made their retreat. Leonidas and his troops managed to hold the Persians just long enough for the rest of the Greek forces to fall back to a better position, although they all sacrificed their lives to do so. Moreover the losses suffered by the Persians in the meantime were extremely heavy. After the defeat at Thermopylae, Sparta decided to fall back to the original plan of defense. Athens was quickly evacuated and her people fled to the island of Salamis. With nothing standing in the Persians' way, they moved in, sacked and burned the entire city of Athens (including the Acropolis and the Parthenon..). Once Xerxes learned where the people of Athens had fled to he decided to launch a naval assault, a fight that would be called the Battle of Salamis." Anyway, this has nothing to do with Kerry's medals which as far as anyone knows were justly earned. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Peace Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:02 PM The Pass is a place I am going to visit before I die. Just to pay my respects. There, and Dieppe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Donuel Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:31 PM As usual for internet conversations someone read Rapier's or someone else's remarks and decided I had belittled servicemen and women. It seems some people need a devil's advocate to rant at regarding their war experience. Rant on, you have a right to be angry. I have not judged those in military service but historicly judgments are made. We placed distinctions between the SS and the Vermacht after WW II and the same distinctions still apply to invading armies. Those that are drafted by the Nazis were thought to be somehow less culpable for war crimes. One would want to be judged by their piers in such matters. Judging yourself of war crimes is a lifetime anguish that probably stirs anger within all those that have fought wars. Often overlooked is the fact that there are lifetime scars from fighting against war as well as fighting in a war. Some are victims and some are heros but all are wounded in some way. IMO unwounded chicken hawks like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld who fight for unjustified war are the most vile of all criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:37 PM "Anyway, this has nothing to do with Kerry's medals which as far as anyone knows were justly earned." The only one to question that lately has been his former commanding officer who raised doubts about the appropriateness of the first purple heart. Given that he's nearly 35 years late bringing that up... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 29 Apr 04 - 02:47 PM Yeah, I woudl say we can let that one lie still. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Peace Date: 29 Apr 04 - 04:19 PM His commanding officer should rightly address that to whoever put Kerry's name in for the first one. Of course, that might mean pissing off a higher rank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 29 Apr 04 - 06:19 PM If you want to bitch and moan about something, don't wait 35 years to do it. If you do, it might seem like you were, perhaps, being opportunistic (shall we say?). You get wounded by enemy action, you get a Purple Heart. The severity of the wound is irrelevant to the award. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Strick Date: 29 Apr 04 - 06:28 PM Rapaire, as I understand it from an article in the Boston Globe, at the time the standard was a wound or injury while under enemy fire which required medical attention. Kerry's commander was surprise to find that Kerry's boat had come under fire on the mission and thought the wound looked more like a scratch from fingernail than anything else. That could explain why no one's come up with a medical report for the wound. It didn't require treatment. As I said, it sounds too late to complain about it now. Even if it were true, I refuse to hold Kerry responsible for getting an "undeserved" Purple Heart if the request went through channels and the military awarded it. The Navy is always right. More to the point, I know if I had had 3 Purple Hearts regardless of worthy I was of them, I'd have been out of there, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 30 Apr 04 - 09:29 AM I'd think that the crew of the boat would be able to substantiate coming under fire. As for the severity of the wound, the CO had the option of filing for the medal for Kerry or not. If the wound wasn't severe enough in the CO's eyes, he shouldn't have filed for the medal. Then again, I've known of people who got the PH for very trivial things, but they happened during combat (catching a splinter on the way to a bunker during a mortar attack, for instance). Frankly, I don't care. It was 35 years ago, and if there were doubts they should have been resolved long, long ago. To my mind, he's got three Purple Hearts. Mind you, I'd much rather see BOB Kerrey running for President.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Chief Chaos Date: 30 Apr 04 - 02:23 PM Jack, I think you misunderstand me here, to borrow from the bard "I come to question Bush, not to praise him". The pres. has been posing as a "war hero" at every opportunity. Landing on the carrier deck in full flight gear with all the GI regalia with his name on it including the jet. I don't recall any other pres. appearing before the military in quite that way ever before. But he has never called himself a war hero, only a wartime president. That and a dollar will get you a cheap cup of coffee and should have noting to do with his re-election which is what he is using it for. I was just pointing out all of the democrats that were "war presidents" who are still villified just for being democrats. why should it be positive for one side and negative for the other. Sorry for the drift. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Amos Date: 30 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM The only reason he is a wartime president is because he chose to become one. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Kerry's War Medal Controversy From: Rapparee Date: 30 Apr 04 - 11:13 PM Well, he'll certainly be remembered as one.... One of his own making. And the memories might not be what he'd like. |
