Would going on a combat patrol in Nam and seeing action

[trumad]

be considered dangerous? OR would it be considered chickenshit 35 years later. How can one reconcile that it would be? How can one have the nerve to call a Vietnam vet a chickenshit especially if the Vet conducted dangerous combat patrols against a very deadly enemy AND if that person er...calling the Vet a chickenshit had never served in the military and was never involved in combat?

And here's another question... Say you were that Vet and you did conduct multiple compat patrols in deadly Viet Nam...And say you came close a couple of times to being killed. IF YOU HAD THE CHANCE AND OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE HELL OUT OF NAM FOR ANY REASON, WOULD YOU!? I know for sure I would! AND...if you encountered a pukeshit 35 years later WHO never served in the military but called YOU a Chickenshit for having the NERVE to get out of Nam while you were still alive, would you knock his or her ass out? I would in a heartbeat!

MHOP

[molly]

1. My husband told me the statistics of the survival rate for

1st LT in Nam back there - it WAS NOT good!

[trumad]

2. 50 plus thousand Americans lost their lives

because of that piece of shit war....

[kentuck]

4. But we lost more than that in auto accidents..

So it's not really that many, if you listen to Rush Limbaugh and some conservatives...

[ieoeja]

10. Piece of shit war?

The First Minister of Singapore recently suggested that our holding the line in Vietnam as long as we did is the only reason all of Asia, including Singapore and the countries in the South China Sea, were not conquered by the communists.

[TSElliott]

11. And don't forget to ask

any Vietnamese immigrant that was lucky enough to get out of the country, what they think of Americans holding the line. Not many would say piece of shit war.

[mkregel]

30. History lesson please

The war in Vietnam was a result of many things, but dont forget that Vietnam was to be one country back in the early 60's after elections were held. Ho Chi Minh (Communist-North) was to run against Ngo Diem Diem (Capitalist-South). The elections were all set, but the US pulled out last minute, keeping the rift and escalating Vietnam.

Keep in mind also that Ho Chi Minh did not always want to be a Communist, and came to the US first. All he wanted was a free Vietnam, which at the time was controlled by Imperialist France. We supported Ho during WWII in fighting the Japanese, so he figured he would have our support afterwards. After all, we too were a colony which revolted and embraced Democracy, right? Wrong, we sent him packing and lended our support for France instead.

So, yes this was a Piece of Shit war, fought for all the wrong reasons and one that came out of a tragically racist foreign policy. Like Cuba, we forced Ho Chi Minh right into the hands of the Russians and the Chinese who were more than happy to help them with arms.

[TSElliott]

38. So do you believe it would have been better for the US

to have supplied armes to Vietnam so they could overthrow France?

[sangh0]

40. Cheap straw man argument

No one suggested that but you.

[TSElliott]

45. It was a question not a statement.

The question was in regards to his remark that because we would not support the Vietnamese overthrow of the French government we practically forced them into Russia and China's arms. My question is basically if we had given Ho what he wanted would it have been a better situation then how it turned out?

[sangh0]

49. Cheap

It's obvious that your "question" was intended to be what is known as a "leading question". Your argument that it was a question, and by implication, JUST a question is a transparent deceit.

My question is basically if we had given Ho what he wanted would it have been a better situation then how it turned out?

Another deceit. Your question asked about sending Ho weapons to use against our allies, the French, as if that were the only way to help Ho gain independence for the Vietnamese people.

I guess you never heard of diplomacy? Or did you just conveniently forget about that possibility?

[Merlin]

54. You don't understand the situation, TS.

Nobody had to overthrow French rule. Mkregel's history lesson is absolutely accurate.

The Japanese had come in and thrown out the French already. Japan took Vietnam away from France.

Ho Chi Minh organized the underground forces that rose up against the Japanese and defeated their occupation, driving them out of Vietnam.

It was at that point that Ho travelled to the Phillipines to meet with MacArthur, proposing the US lend support to an independent, free Vietnam. He proposed a constitution modeled exactly on the American constitution. MacArthur checked with Washington. The decision was made that the US would not support Ho, but would instead support the re-colonialization of Vietnam by the French.

So ho was sent packing. But he did not go quietly into that good night. When the French came back in, he turned his forces into anti-imperialist forces, and defeated them. Then he defeated the Americans. He was one hell of a guy!

I fought there for almost two years. I have enormous respect for the Viet Cong forces. It is tragic that we drove them into the arms of the communists. It is tragic we didn't recognize the heart and soul of that struggle had nothing to do with communism. It was an anti-imperialist, civil war, not unlike our own revolution.

[TSElliott]

59. The Americans had very little choice but to not support Vietnam

and to support France. France wanted to regain their lost colonies and needed the financial backing to do it. If America would have sent Frances bags packing the situation would have been 10 times worse except we would not have been fighting in Vietnam we would have been fighting in Europe again.

[sangh0]

60. That's some nice speculation

but it would be more convincing if you provided something to support your assertion that "the situation would have been 10 times worse except we would not have been fighting in Vietnam we would have been fighting in Europe again"

[TSElliott]

64. "Vietnam 1945: The Quest for Power " by David G. Marr

The US did not want allow further Soviet expansion into Europe. In reality a war in Vietnam would be preferred than another war in Europe so the US provided France with the 1 billion a year to fight their war in Asia. The reality was one of these countries would fall to communism; America took a gamble on helping France and fighting in Vietnam to try to stop the spread.

~snip~
Frances Provisional President, Charles DeGaulle, stated that if the US did not help France in Indochina, then France might be forced into the Soviet orbit. Only the US had a solvent economy at the close of WWII. The US believing France to be crucial in Europe in opposing Soviet expansionism, fully funded DeGaulle in taking back Vietnam from the Vietnamese.
~end snip~

[mkregel]

68. Talk talk

DeGaulle was all talk, pulling out of NATO and the like.

I don't think for a second DeGaulle would have let France become a soviet state. It was all talk to beguile the US into giving them money to keep up their fading empire.

Besides, we should have let the election happen and let the VIETNAMESE people choose their own destiny, rather than impose our own will on them, like we're doing in Iraq now.

[sangh0]

73. You got that right mkregel

I'm astounded that anyone would be that France would go Soviet over Viet Nam, just because it said so in a book.

[TSElliott]

77. Oh man (wiping tears from my eyes) that was funny.

n/t

[mkregel]

79. So you honestly beleive

DeGaulle would have sacrificed France to the Soviet Union, and become a puppet over Vietnam????

Do some reading on DeGaulle - they guy was all talk, no action.

[TSElliott]

80. France was in ruins after WWII

they had no financial backing, they wanted to reclaim their lost colonies they wanted to regain their super power status and there were only two countries at the time that could help them do it. So yes I believe they would have whored themselves to the Soviets.

[mkregel]

83. But you negate yourself right here:

You said "they wanted to regain their super power status" - France knew full and well that the Soviets had NO plan of sharing their superpower status.

DeGaulle was arrogant, but he wasn't stupid.

[Spider Jerusalem]

65. The Americans had the choice.

At Yalta, Roosevelt told DeGaulle that the French would have to give up their colonies in Indochina once the war was over. (Very firm believer in the principle of self-determination for all peoples, was Roosevelt.)

But then Roosevelt died, and Truman, at Potsdam, told DeGaulle he had no problem with France restoring pre-war conditions in her Indochinese territories. If Roosevelt had lived to finish his term, the Vietnam war mightn't have happened...

[mkregel]

53. Ho Chi Minh did not want to overthrow France

He wanted Vietnam to be independant. Two completely different scenarios.

[sangh0]

55. Furthermore

the US did not have to arm Ho against the French in order to help Ho. All we had to do was to NOT send any troops to Viet Nam.

[ieoeja]

Yes

I will take Sangha's bait if he won't. Yes, I think we should have supported Ho's effort to oust the French.

The turning point for the United States was 1899. At the end of the Spanish-American War, Europe trembled while the rest of the world cheered. We had successfully blocked European attempts to carve up China, and had now freed Cuba from their European masters. Then by a margin of one vote, we annexed the Philippines instead of recognizing their newly formed government setting us on the road to empire and alliance with the Old World against the New.


Cuba was actually a bit tougher as, even before his embrace of Communism, Fidel wanted to nationalize a lot of property that belonged to American citizens. You sort of have to support your citizens property rights to some extent. I am not against nationalization where necessary (go, Hugo), but fair compensation is required, and I don't recall ever hearing that Castro was offering compensation.

[Bandit]

12. And they are an expert in what manner?????????

I suggest they could be mistaken. Why is my Opinion any less valid than theirs?

[sangh0]

13. Bandit, didn't you know

that only the homeless are qualified to comment about homelessness, and the only experts on psychology are the schizophreniacs. :-)

[ieoeja]

14. Did I say your opinion is not valid?

No. I disagree with it, but your opinion is valid and, of course, possibly correct.

As to the other question, "are they expert in the manner", I would certainly hope the First Minister of Singapore has some expertise regarding the security of his country (though clearly that is not always the case as we are discovering here in this country at the moment).

This opinion also prevailed at the Pentagon when my source was there. And a "former" CIA employee told my dad even before we pulled out of Nam that it didn't matter if we held Nam per se. Thailand was our primary concern.

[markses]

22. Thailand was

in no danger of "going commie" and had no indigenous guerilla movement, and no significant history of communist social formations (unlike the other areas of Southeast Asia, which had indigenous communistic social structures combined with horrendous industrial colonialism. Nor were the Vietnamese communists expansionist in any sense. (The Cambodian communists were, of course expansionist, though they dreamed of expanding eastward into Vietnam rather than westward). Your Dad's buddy is either a liar, a demented rationalizer, a blinded ideologue, or a fool.

[ieoeja]

29. That is not what I meant.

I/he/they were not necessarily talking about what was happening in Thailand, et al at that very moment. You seem to be claiming the Soviets and Maoists would have been content fostering communist insurgencies in the rest of Southeast Asia, but would have not bothered with Thailand. What makes you think they would have been content to leave Thailand alone?


And actually, I am afraid your information is incorrect. Communist guerillas began operating in Thailand in 1959 and peaked in the late 70s. It never got far, but again, what if we had not fought in Nam? Would Communist resources sent to Nam have been diverted to the movement in Thailand instead? Would they have found Thailand poorer, weaker, less developed and more fertile for insurgency in the 60s?

Information on the communist insurgency in Thailand can be found at: http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr55/fthailand1959.htm.

[mkregel]

32. One more little point

Vietnam bankrupted China. They stopped lending support after they used pretty much all their leftover cash supporting Vietnam, which caused Vietnam to seek Russian aid. They obliged, turning China against them.

Russia had the cash and guns, but still did not send the lions share that was used. Most of that was stolen by corrupt South Vietnamese Officers and sold on the black market, which of course ended up in the hands of the Vietcong.

Many US troops who saw action over there reported seeing more American weaopns than Kalashnikovs or Chinese ones.

[mkregel]

34. Lee Van Kew

...the first minister of Singapore of whom you speak, was fiercly anti-communist and pretty much banned all other parties but his own.

Asking him is like asking Pol Pot if it was worth it to get rid of 1/3 of the population to end the American threat.

[DrWeird]

17. Khmer Rouge.

2 million dead.

Guess why.

[mkregel]

39. Don't forget the fact

that we supported the Khmer Rouge because they fought against Vietnam, and that Vietnam liberated Cambodia from them.

[sangh0]

42. That was AFTER the war

wasn't it?

[mkregel]

52. Yes it was

ON EDIT:

But Im just making a point that our intentions were not the loftiest based on our post-war actions.

[sangh0]

56. Point taken

thanks

[ieoeja]

63. While simultaneously repelling a Chinese invasion.

Admittedly, aside from a few Buddhist monks in Tibet, China hasn't defeated anybody since, what, the Khan?

[markses]

20. The First Minister of Singapore is a fucking idiot

And that Domino Theory was, is, and will continue to be absolute bunk. It has no relation to reality, despite the laughable prognoses of the First Minister of Singapore.

[sangh0]

24. As proven by the fact

that Viet Nam fell, but Thailand did not.

[markses]

25. Ah, no, will argue the revisionists

Thailand WOULD have fallen if we had let Vietnam go "commie" in 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, or 1974. By 1975, they'd had the domino whupped out of them, (say the losers as they scramble on to helicopters, land offshore, then ditch the Hueys over the side of the air craft carriers....)

[sangh0]

26. Oh yes, 1975

was a very good year! :-)

[ieoeja]

37. Not for the South Vietnamese

I am sorry you take so much pleasure in their disaster.

[sangh0]

43. That's pretty low

the joke was about those who would argue that by 1975 it didn't matter. IOW, American revisionists, not SVN's.

For the record, there are members of my family from SE Asia.

[ieoeja]

50. Sorry, I misunderstood.

I thought you were taking glee in the fact that South Vietnam fell.

Why do you say revisionist? Someone already brought up the Domino Theory. Yes, that is what I am talking about here. The Domino Theory was not invented after the fact.

Or do you say the Domino Theory was an all-or-nothing prospect? One Domino goes, they all go? I rather thought the Domino Theory was "if we do nothing they will go one after the other so we may as well start HERE," he says sailing a dart through the air that lands on ... Antartica. "Damn! Okay, that doesn't count, we'll start HERE", he says striking Vietnam this time.


If not, then I guess I am NOT arguing the Domino Theory, but something else instead. I very much believe they all WOULD have fallen if we had done nothing. You appear to disagree.

[markses]

87. Apparently, you weren't worried about the so-called

"South Vietnamese" (are you so ignorant as not to know that there never was such a country as South Vietnam, and that the entity we falsely call "South Vietnam" - the Republic of Vietnam - never relinquished its territorial claim to what we falsely call "North Vietnam") when we installed brutal despot after brutal despot, or when we subverted elections that they had fought for against their French colonizers, or when we waged a war of murder against them for year after year after year. No, it's only when the commies came to town that the so-called "South Vietnamese" were screwed, yes? An outrageous position, to be sure. Quaint in its ignorance and reliance on bankrupt notions of Western benevolence.

Your further arguments about the Domino Theory are not only insipid and utterly stupid, they are incapable of falsification. Yes, X "could have happened," or y, or z, or a or b or c. It doesn't matter. the only reason you can even believe such an argument is because it can - ostensibly - in the fantasy world of American ideologues, not be proven false. Yet any minor, cursory study of Vietnamese history (never mind world history, or the fact that the so-called Maoist-Russian alliance was a total joke by 1965, and that the uprising in the Southern section of Vietnam was indigenous, and used mainly stolen and donated AMERICAN arms until the full mechanized weight of the US invasion in 1964-65, or that the Chinese began raiding the arms shipments from Russia in 1966, or that the Chinese and Russians engaged in a border war with each other from 1967-1969), would show you that the so called "world communist conspiracy" taking place there was actually a localized cultural resistance to imperialism, and drew more on local cultural conventions and forms of social organization than on any foreign dogma - from either China or Russia.

The rank stupidity of the notion that Vietnam was a stepping stone for the rest of Asia (Yes. It's stupid. It's dumb. It's ignorant, and willfully so) hyas been clearly to anybodyt that has stuidied the culture for quite some time. It's amazing to me that despicable rationalizers for the US criminal invasion still, to this day, with all we know, persist in their prevarication, continue their lies and mystifications, when all the world, with perhaps the exception of a few hundreds of thousands flatheaded US residents (of which you are surely one), understand exactly the criminal, murderous, and unethical nature of the US Vietnam policy.

[ieoeja]

33. You are absolutely correct.

I do in fact believe that Thailand would have gone communist had we not tied up Soviet and Maoist resources in Vietnam. I can not, however, give you a "magic number" as to exactly how long the war was necessary in Vietnam.

[sangh0]

36. And yet

when Soviet and Maoist forces were no longer "tied up" in VietNam, Thailand remained non-Communist.

It must've been that magic number at work!!

[ieoeja]

44. Agreed!

As I say, I couldn't even begin to speculate as to exactly how long the war was necessary. But it certainly appears we were in it long enough.

Please note that the communist insurgency in Thailand peaked in the late 70s. It certainly appears that Maoist and Soviet resources WERE diverted to Thailand following the fall of Saigon, but not for long as the Soviets became involved in Afghanistan right on their border and the Chinese against, ironically, Vietnam.

[mkregel]

78. One quick note on the devil's advocate side....

I lived in Thailand for 2 years in areas that were Thai Dang, or Red Thai controlled for several years (around 1968-77) Not much is spoken in history books but the Thai communists did have vast portions of Northeastern Thailand under their control. Agent Orange was used to defoliate a great deal of this area and as a result the once heavily forested areas are a desert.

Anyway, talking to the locals about this period it was said to be pretty grim - although nothing like Cambodia. Most schools had to take down pictures of the King, and replace them with Lenin. They permitted the monks and monastaries to operate, but it was definitely a "watch what you say" environment.

[Mountainman]

82. I went to Singapore on R &R in 1968 from Vietnam

The communists controlled the harbor and all the surrounding area. Only independent Singapore was not under communist control. Ships would not be allowed into Singapore ports and had to be unloaded in the harbor.

I thought it was a very strange cat and mouse game then.

If what you say is correct, why did Singapore not go communist in the 70's after we left the area?

Just asking.

[Raven]

27. So was Will's dad...

not pretty...even if your were there for a day! Where do these people who have never been there get off???

[sangh0]

3. Look at who those CHICKENSHITS support

Some people are getting nervous about their candidate, and so they attack the competition...Kerry.

[DrWeird]

5. Hmm, let's see...

Let's say you went and fought an unjust war, killing people who never did anything to you, just because you were drafted and you were afraid of going to jail.

The people who burned there draft cards were the bravest, and most respectable of the lot.

[Bandit]

7. You are correct to a degree

It was quite brave at the time for someone to have the courage of their convictions and not submit to the draft to fight in what a lot thought to be a morally corrupt cause. However there were some who felt their government couldn't be as bad as the protesters were implying. They allowed themselves to be used for the cause whatever that truly was. They honored their committment to their country. whether for patriotism of fear of going to jail doesn't really matter. They found themselves in triple canopy jungle fighting an enemy completely familiar and at ease with their surroundings while the GI's were suffering from heat stroke, Malaria, Jungle Rot, Poor rations and last but not least enemy fire. It isn't up to me to judge who was more brave. Both took nerve and many many suffered great hardship. For a few here today that have never experienced either forms of bravery to condemn any of those that did is beyond the pale IMHO.

[uptohere]

6. every combat patrol was high risk, every one

you were just rolling the dice as to whether or not the VC were in range of where you happened to be. Anyone who thinks this was just a tour of the countryside is horribly mistaken. Any man who did this was/is brave. The only good way to cross that territory was at elevation and going mach speed.

[sangh0]

8. Non-combat activity is also risky

Plenty of servicemembers die in military accidents.

Anyone who enlists is/was brave.

[Bandit]

9. Every once in a while we agree

:-) :toast: A fairly large portion of those 58,000 fatalities from Vietnam were accidental. I won't go so far as to say not combat related but not caused by direct fire.

[oasis]

15. Ardent critics of war heroes have trouble dealing with personal failings.

I'm thankful that historically, America's armed services has not depended on such persons in positions of leadership.

[trumad]

16. I shake my head to some of the comments up above.

From what I hear above it was worth 50,000 American lives so that all of Asia could be saved... Horseshit! What I hear up above is that it was worth 50,000 American lives because it allowed some refugees to flee the Country. This misconception that Communisim was sweeping the world and that we better get in there and stop it got this country into a heap of trouble the last 50 years...
Now were doing the same shit in the Middle East... Muslim Fundies are taking over the Middle East so we better step in and save the whole lot... Please...

[oasis]

58. I take issue only with U.S. foriegn policy. The exceptional courage

of many of our troops is worthy of praise.

[OrdinaryTa]

18. Collect Three - Get Out of Combat Free

I don't know if the three-and-yer-out rule still applies because it encourages chickenshit abuses like Kerry's early out from Vietnam. Kerry's no hero - he did what any dogface would do. But significantly, many of them would not do that.

The troops in the field know the meaning of Kerry's shameless opportunism. If Kerry gets the nomination, it won't be difficult to sell this issue to middle-of-the-road voters.

[sangh0]

19. Yawn

.

[TSElliott]

21. Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Kerry received a Bronze and Silver star with his 3 purple hearts, so how is he not a hero?

[sangh0]

23. Never mind that

It is a FACT (even OT doesn't dispute this) that Kerry, under fire, exhibited a great deal of bravery.

[OrdinaryTa]

71. Kerry's Bravery

Kerry's combat bravery was questioned in his Senate campaign against Weld. The documentation for his silver star includes critical details for which there were no witnesses except Kerry himself, a clear conflict of interest. When asked to comment on these details, Kerry said he no longer remembers them.

[sangh0]

74. So now you're using Repukes as a source?

Shameless, but I'm not surprised.

[TLM]

41. From what I have read only the bronze star was heroic...

He got that one for saving a guy who fell off the boat while under fire... he got one purple heart for that one too.

However the silver star he got for killing a wounded and retreating VC fighter.

And the other two purple hearts were for injuries so minor that he didn't even have down time.


Now again I do not deny that Kerry deserves props for his service. What I object to is the way he is trying to hype that service and make himself out to be a 2 tour combat vet when he was only in country for 4 months.

[TSElliott]

46. This is the account for the Silver Star.

http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2003/ma__democrats_kerry_20031.shtml

~snip~
The most intense action came during eight days of more than 10 firefights, remembered by Kerry's crew as the "days of hell."

During combat on Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry's boat was being threatened by an enemy with a grenade launcher that could have blown up the boat, he ordered the boat beached.

"I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger," Kerry told the Globe.

Kerry shot and killed the man himself. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it."

Kerry's commanding officer, George Elliott, told Kerry, "John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post," Elliott told the Globe.

"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that," Elliott said.
~end snip~

[Bandit]

28. And you are speaking for troops in the field in Vietnam????

Your continuing on your vendetta against Senator Kerry is quite telling. You have lost all credibility and still you persist in making a fool out of yourself. You obviously know absolutly nothing of what you are talking about. Give it up, you are influencing no one.

[oasis]

61. "The troops in the field know"??? Have you taken a poll?

Nothing you have offered so far has even the slightest hint of personal experience.

[OrdinaryTa]

75. Troops in the Field

Surely you are not arguing that troops in the field do not know the meaning of an early out based on finding some loophole in the regulations. Of course they know!

[TLM]

31. You seem to be forgetting something...

"IF YOU HAD THE CHANCE AND OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE HELL OUT OF NAM FOR ANY REASON, WOULD YOU!? I know for sure I would! "

Sure, but would you be struting around and claiming to be a two tour combat vet after you got out of nam after only being in country for 4 months?

My problem is not that Kerry used his 3 questionable purple hearts in 4 months to get a transfer out of combat, but that after doing so he is now trying to hype up his service like he was some kind of fucking Rambo war hero.

[sangh0]

35. Talking about hype

What about Dean's changing his mind about raising the SS age? Even though Dean said he was wrong, you continued to claim that Dean was right.

What about Deans hype about what a "straight shooter" he is, and how it doesn't square with his pandering flip-flops over:

SS
NAFTA
Taxes
Health Care
the environment
storing nuclear waste
Isreal
Iraq
Campaign funding limits
Cuba

[TLM]

47. Can't defend Kerry, so attack Dean.

"What about Dean's changing his mind about raising the SS age? Even though Dean said he was wrong, you continued to claim that Dean was right."

I continue to point out that despite what lies Dean bashers want to tell, Dean never held a policy of raising the SS age. That claim is based not on any votes Dean cast, any bills he signed, nor any statement of his actual policy, but rather on a hypothetical question about what things might need to be done in 1995 if a balanced budget amendment were to be passed.

Saying Dean supported raising the SS age because of that statement, would be like my asking you what you'd do if you lost your job and you saying you might have to let your car insurance lapse... then 10 years later my acting as if that proves you do not beleive in having car insurance.

[sangh0]

51. Suddenly, you're not so concerned about the hype anymore

Curious. I'm sure it hasn't nothing to do with it being Dean's hype. That's just coincidence.

[Bandit]

48. 3 questionable purple hearts in 4 months ~ Only in your world

Remember Senator Kerry did not put himself in for any of his awards. His superiors did that and I'm sure they felt they had good cause. Here it is thirty five years later and you (who are you) are going to second guess those who were there at the time. And as far as I can tell Senator Kerry is not struting around saying he is some war hero even though he is. All he is saying is he did his time, Did You?

[TLM]

57. Yes wink wink nod nod.... too bad we can't see the records.

Since Kerry won't release them.


"Remember Senator Kerry did not put himself in for any of his awards. His superiors did that and I'm sure they felt they had good cause."


Yeah, you know they always put guys up for 3 purple hearts in 4 months so they can transfer out of combat... happened for every grunt who stubed his toe.

"Here it is thirty five years later and you (who are you) are going to second guess those who were there at the time."

Oh I must not have gotten the memo that said those who were running vietnam, were infalable and beyond corruption. Perhaps you could send me a copy of that one?


"And as far as I can tell Senator Kerry is not struting around saying he is some war hero even though he is."

Funny I seem to recall him pulling a similar aircraft carrier photo stunt as W did, when he announced he was running.

"All he is saying is he did his time,"


No he's saying he's 2 tour combat vet.

From his own site: http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_0216.html

"After coming back from my first tour of duty in Vietnam, I was then assigned gunboat command and went to Coronado, San Diego to train. Again it was tough living in an apartment on Pacific Beach surfing everyday until we dropped returning from survival training in the mountains to the greatest beer I ever tasted. Thank God for California."


Yeah, truly heroic... surfing and drinking beer. And he still has the gall to claim he did two tours, which is 2 years. When he did 6 months on a ship, came home to surf and drink beer, then went back for 4 months. THat's not even one full tour, let alone two.


Also from Kerry's site: http://www.johnkerry.com/news/clips/news_2003_0818b.html

War hero

Kerry's campaign also has an arsenal of tools to blunt his image as member of the wealthy elite and Washington establishment.

He hunts and rides a Harley. He kitesurfs and plays ice hockey. He once ran with the bulls at Pamplona. He sometimes co-pilots his own campaign planes.

"Absolutely fearless," said Fred Short of North Little Rock, Ark., who served under Kerry's command in Vietnam, when asked to describe Kerry.

Short recalled a day on patrol in the Mekong Delta when their boat was ambushed by the Viet Cong. "Instead of exiting the kill zone as normally would have been done, he turned all three boats into the teeth of the ambush," Short said.

"It was a tactic that caught totally by surprise" and gave Kerry's team quick advantage, Short said. "I don't think I would be here talking to you if he hadn't done what he did."

During his two tours in Vietnam, Kerry won a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. When he came back, after losing some of his closest friends in combat, he rocketed to national prominence as a leader of the anti-war movement.

Joining a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Kerry helped organize a massive protest on the Washington Mall in 1971 and gave an eloquent speech that same week to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?" Kerry asked the panel. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

It was a role that earned him a place on Richard Nixon's enemies list, that gave him a platform for his budding political career, and that is serving his presidential ambitions today.



So tell me again how Kerry is not trying to play the roll of war hero?



"Did You?"

So only those who served have a right to question the record of a man running for president?

[Bandit]

62. So only those who served have a right to question the record of a man runn

I thought so. You wouldn't make a pimple on Senator Kerry's ass. You have absolutely no idea at all of what you are talking about. It is real easy to sit in your easy chair and say how easy a Vietnam vet had it isn't it?

[ieoeja]

66. Why do you say he didn't?

You have a problem with "during his two tours in Vietnam" because his second tour was cut short?

[OrdinaryTa]

81. His First Tour Was Six Months

Kerry's total time in and around Vietnam was short of the standard one-year tour.

Kerry's talk of "two tours" in Vietnam is an example of his misleading rhetoric. In a sense, he did serve two tours. But his total time in combat was four months, not sixteen or twenty or twenty-four.

[seventhson]

67. One Vietnam Veteran's opinion

http://www.brianwillson.com/awolkerry.html

This has more to do with his overall courage and morals. But there are many who might say that his decision to cash out of Vietnamn early was a chickenshit betrayal of his peers and that he did not deserve his medals. I think his failure to throw his medals (and say he did) is a measure of his cowardice and self-aggrandizement.

I was a draft protestor so I cannot speak as a vet. I am a veteran of the protests. I almost went to jail for my resistance to the draft -- but I was lucky and then the draft ended. But my brothers and many of my friends were there-- DEEP in it.


Excerpt:

In the life of being a Senator, John, I'm afraid that your career again proves that power corrupts (and blinds), and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course you have many friends in the same camp.

With your vote for essentially agreeing with the selected resident of the White House's request for incredible authority in advance to wage wars against whomever he wants, you have contributed to finalizing the last of the world's empires, and the likely consequent doom of international law, peaceful existence, and hope for the future possibilities of Homo sapiens. Of course, it also means that searching for the motivations of other people's rage and desperate acts of revenge will be overlooked, dooming us to far more threats and instability then if we had seriously pursued a single-standard in the application of international law equally with all nations in the first place. We are too much of a bully to do that, and have stated over and over again that the American Way Of Life is not negotiable. Can you understand that this means species suicide?

I'm sorry and terribly fearful for this state we are in. Your vote is terribly misguided, John. Now that veterans have reorganized throughout the nation as once again an important part of the growing movement, know that we shall work hard for your defeat, whether as a Presidential candidate or for another Senate term.

Sincerely,

S. Brian Willson, Arcata, CA
Veterans For Peace

[seventhson]

69. More from a Vietnam Vet on Kerry

Another excerpt from Brian Willson's letter linked in the previous post (he is one of my heroes, by the way -- and I trust this man WAY more than I would ever trust Kerry. Willson has integrity unto death (and the BFEE DID try to off him at least once)

Letter to Kerry from a Vet:

"...Your activities, both in the war, and in years following, were prompted, at least in part, to an intense political ambition, even as you addressed your Yale law school graduating class with an anti-Vietnam War speech shortly prior to enlisting in the U.S. Navy. Your career in the Senate has revealed your all-consuming ambition, but that is quite typical of politicians.

The first hint of a bit of disconnect in your style was when during your first Senate campaign you denied returning your war medals, with a thousand other veterans, in protest of the war during Dewey Canyon III. That was a bit of a shock, since for most veterans who returned their medals in that emotional ceremony on Friday, April 23, 1971, it was a very proud and healing moment. Your 1984 campaign response: You had returned the medals of a WWII acquaintance at his direction. All those 13 years everyone thought you had had the courage and leadership to return medals that to veterans who returned them represented medals of dishonor drenched in the blood of innocent Vietnamese who did not deserve to die for a lie, any more than our fellow US Americans. I guess you knew then that you were to be running for office.

The second hint occurred at the celebration party you organized for us "doghunters" at your friend John Martilla's Beacon Hill house in Boston in late June 1985, 6 months into your term as a junior Senator. In the wee hours of the morning, you made two comments that troubled me: (1) you stressed your initials as "JFK" that would help you one day in your quest for the White House, and (2) that after War Department briefings (and perhaps CIA as well) about the need for funding and training contra terrorists in Afghanistan and Nicaragua you had a new appreciation for their importance in furthering U.S. policies

[TSElliott]

70. These are legit criticisms in my opinion

and more truthful than saying that he is not a war hero.

[seventhson]

72. MY point is that he was cowardly in the medals "toss" affair

and that he was cowardly in getting his medals and his "out" of Nam on a technicality.

I do not, hoever, blame him for wanting out.

War hero is a subjective term, though.

Kerry led men in the slaughter of civilians. He even wrote at the time that he chould be courtmartialed for it (and later claimed he was only funnin').

ANYWAY -- this is not a make or break issue with me.

The medals toss thing defines - for me -- his character.

His votes on Iraq patriot and homeland for Bush's plans define his politics.

His PNAC, DLC, Skull and Iraq war planner advisors define his strategy and modus operandi and policy leanings.

Whether he was heroic in battle or not is very hard to say and I do not need to even go there.

He may very well have been a heroic battler and an effective killer for uncle sam.

Is it courageous to gun down civilians? No.

Is it heroic to defend your men? Yes

The fact that he voted for this bloody and insane war, though, says it all about Kerry. THAT was cowardly.

But that WAS war. It was OUR war -- so we ALL must share that blame or that responsibility to some extent (if we were alive and paying taxes and old enough to vote or protest).

[OrdinaryTa]

76. War Heroes

Do war heroes exploit loopholes in the regulations so they can get out early? That doesn't sound heroic to me!

[trumad]

84. Sure they do....,

I would... If I was heroic in battle but thought that one more er..heroic deed might get my ass killed I'd get out in a second... What...you can't be a hero one day and want to get out the next...Bullshit....

[OrdinaryTa]

86. Kerry's Friendly Fire Injuries

It appears that Kerry's "wounds" - which may or may not have broken the skin - might have come from friendly fire.

"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts -- from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

It's possible that Kerry wasn't injured by the enemy, he was injured by fragments of grenades thrown by members of his crew. This adds a new element into the picture - if you're standing in the right place, you might get lucky.

Kerry's a hero, all right. He didn't stick around very long, but for the time he was there, he was friggin awesome. Yeah, sure.

[TacticalPeek]

85. That's why God invented the vertical butt stroke.