Are Kerry's Purple Heart medals colored fuschia?

[Senjojutsu]

Let me say although this Senator Kerry story has been around for awhile on the Internet, the fact that the official rag of the Kennedy Klan published is a story in itself.   Attention e-Budo lefties published in The Boston Globe, the junior varsity team of The New York Times.   Not a headline taken from The Drudge Report, NewsMax, Fox News or the usual suspects you smugly dismiss.

As much as I hate this pretentious gigolo, John Kerry did indisputably serve his country in a combat zone, and put himself in harm's way on his boat in country for four months.   Which however was shorter than the thousands of young Americans who did a year-long tour (or two) with their "arse in the grass" in Nam.   Shorter duration than many young Americans now serving and risking their lives for us in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

Senator Kerry has been the one who has trumpeted ad nauseam his "war hero" status as a qualification for him to be elected for the US presidency.   Just a couple of month's back, Kerry's cohorts were drumming up Bush's service in the Air National Guard from the early 1970's to discredit Bush as a de facto draft-dogger and slacker.
Seems like you have some explaining to do Senator Kerry about your own military service before leading the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
=============================================

Kerry faces questions over Purple Heart
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 4/14/2004

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/

WASHINGTON -- John F. Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam, distinguished by Silver and Bronze stars and the close-range killing of an enemy fighter, is highlighted in his campaign ads and cheered on the trail.   Even the campaign of President Bush, who did not see combat, hasn't tried to make an issue of his opponent's service record.

But as the presidential campaign heats up, some Vietnam veterans are using the Internet and talk radio to question the Democratic candidate's military record.   They complain that Kerry's three Purple Hearts were for minor wounds and that he left Vietnam more than six months ahead of schedule under regulations permitting thrice-wounded soldiers to depart early.

A review by the Globe of Kerry's war record in preparation for a forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," found that the young Navy officer acted heroically under fire, in one case saving the life of an Army lieutenant.   But the examination also found that Kerry's commanding officer at the time questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, which he earned for a wound received just two weeks after arriving in Vietnam.

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm."   Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in question and that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter.   "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said.   "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened.   Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

Kerry declined to talk to the Globe about the issue during the preparation of the Kerry biography.   But his press secretary, Michael Meehan, noted that the Navy concluded that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart.

During the Vietnam War, Purple Hearts were often granted for minor wounds.   "There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts--from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, who served as a commanding officer to Kerry during another point in his five-month combat tour in Vietnam. (Kerry earlier served a noncombat tour.)   "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes." Under Navy regulations, an enlistee or officer wounded three times was permitted to leave Vietnam early, as Kerry did.   He received all three purple hearts for relatively minor injuries -- two did not cost him a day of service and one took him out for a day or two.

The incident that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart was risky, and covert.   He and his crew left the safe confines of the huge US base at Cam Ranh Bay, climbing aboard a "skimmer" boat -- a craft similar to a Boston Whaler -- to travel upriver in search of Viet Cong guerrillas.   At a beach that was known as a crossing area for enemy contraband traffic, Kerry's crew spotted some people running from a sampan, a flat-bottomed boat, to a nearby shoreline, according to two men serving alongside Kerry that night, William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon.   When the Vietnamese refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry authorized firing to begin.

"I assume they fired back," Zaladonis recalled in an interview. But neither he nor Runyon saw the source of the shrapnel that lodged in Kerry's arm.   '`We came across the bay onto the beach and I got [hit] in the arm, got shrapnel in the arm," Kerry told the Globe in a 2003 interview.   Kerry has also said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from.

Back at the base, Kerry told Hibbard he qualified for a Purple Heart, according to Hibbard.   Thirty-six years later, Hibbard, reached at his retirement home in Florida, said he can still recall Kerry's wound, and that it resembled a scrape from a fingernail.   "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," said Hibbard, a registered Republican who said he was undecided on the 2004 presidential race.

The Globe asked Kerry's campaign whether the Massachusetts senator is certain he was under enemy fire and whether he recalled that a superior officer raised questions about the matter.   The campaign did not respond directly to those questions.   Instead, Meehan said in a prepared statement that Kerry "received the shrapnel wound early in the course of that combat engagement. " Meehan also provided a copy of a medical report showing treatment for a wound on Dec. 3, 1968.   The Purple Heart regulation in effect at that time said that a wound must "require treatment by a medical officer."

Nearly three months later, a document was sent to Kerry informing him that he would receive a Purple Heart "for injuries received on 2 December 1968."   The Naval Historical Center, which could not locate a copy of the original card for the incident, nonetheless confirmed that Kerry did receive the Purple Heart.

Kerry went on to earn another two Purple Hearts and he led more than two dozen missions in which he often faced enemy fire.   He won the Silver Star for an action in which he killed an enemy soldier who carried a loaded rocket launcher that could have destroyed Kerry's six-man patrol boat, and he won a Bronze Star for rescuing an Army lieutenant who was thrown overboard and under fire.

One reason that Kerry has long divided Vietnam veterans is because of the way he led a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War after he returned to the United States.   While in Vietnam, Kerry began to question the policy of "free-fire zones," which permitted sailors to open fire on rivers where Vietnamese were violating nighttime curfews.   He said in a 1971 appearance on "Meet the Press": "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones."

Thirty-three years later, that statement still rankles some veterans, apparently including those who have formed a group called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, which has a website devoted to what it calls Kerry's association with the "radical pro-communist" antiwar movement.   The statements of that group have been circulated widely over the Internet and picked up on conservative radio talk shows.

But some historians said Kerry is being unfairly criticized over his antiwar effort, which is best remembered for his Senate testimony in which he asked why soldiers should be asked to die for a mistake.   "Thirty-three years later, his testimony has really proved to be prescient," said historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History."   "The war was a mistake.   Nobody knew better that the war was a mistake than the poor grunts out there fighting it."

Indeed, some of Kerry's crewmates who were aghast that Kerry had led them into battle and then came home to protest the war now say Kerry was ahead of his time in seeing the mistaken policy.   Crewmate James Wasser, who originally felt "betrayed" by Kerry's antiwar leadership, said, "Knowing what I know now, I would have totally agreed with him."

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Wounded Ronin]

So? Bush deserted the freaking national guard, but now he sends young soldiers to their deaths. WHo do you think is worse?


But yes, I agree....most politicians are scumbags.

Heh heh, John Mullins for president. From what I understand, he got shrapnel in his GROIN.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Bush did not desert, and everybody knows it. Get your discredited propaganda straight.

[CanuckMA]

At least he was there, not flying obsolete aircraft in Texas.

[Mitch Saret]

John Kerry did his duty, and was wounded and decorated. Fine, I applaud and thank him for his service. It's what he did afterward I don't like. He now denegrates Bush's service, which in effect denegrates anyone who is in the reserve or guard. He, or his supporters, such as Wounded Ronin, claim that Bush was a deserter, though it is totally unsubstantiated. These supporters also completely supported Bill Clinton, who was a draft dodger, concietious objector, or whatever you want to call him. He had gotten his college deferment, and when it was expired he wrote is infamous letter and left the country.

Now, I may be a little off on the details, but those are essentially the facts. So the decryment of Bush service and the support of Clinton despite his lack of service is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

[Soulend]

Decorations can be esily verified by checking a service record. If he got 'em, he got 'em. Doesn't much matter what for really, there are no 'degrees' of Purple Heart.

[Gene Williams]

I agree. I don't like Kerry, but he was there even if just for four months. He was under fire...'nuff said.

[Rob Alvelais]

Originally posted by CanuckMA
At least he was there, not flying obsolete aircraft in Texas.

Those obsolete aircraft was part of the North American Air Defense system, I believe. That obsolete aircraft was supposed to intercept Soviet bombers, durning the Cold War, was it not?

Rob

[Shitoryu Dude]

That is correct. Those "obsolete" fighters were the front line of defense against a Soviet bombing run.

:beer:

[Exorcist_Fist]

I don't seem to see any people complaining about his Silver or Bronze Star, which to my understanding are significantly more difficult to get.

So shut up.

[Wounded Ronin]

Bush dosen't need any propaganda to discredit him. Even if he didn't desert, he's still a painfully hilarious fool.

As a certain ex-military friend of mine said of the president, "He's a petty man."

Now, why is Clinton okay for essentially being a draft dodger whereas if Bush did indeed avoid service it's bad?

The reason is simple. Bush did a major invasion. He told people in the armed forces, "Time to go and die for me in a gigantic hamfisted bid for power." Clinton, on the other hand, at least tried to avoid committment of the US military anywhere, shing away from interventions in places like Rwanda where it was obvious to anyone who wanted to see that a genocide was coming round (1 machete for every 3 males in the Rwandan population imported from China, anyone?). So he dosen't need to justify any kind of callous indifference to the lives of the people in the military.

If Bush actually cared he would have taken 20 minutes to come up with a pretext for his war that wouldn't fall flat on its face once Iraq was already invaded. I can only include that he likes to throw around what he sees as his toy soldiers.

[KhawMengLee]

Originally posted by Wounded Ronin
Bush dosen't need any propaganda to discredit him. Even if he didn't desert, he's still a painfully hilarious fool.


True...true. I mean the idiot got sucker punched by a pretzel...What moron chokes and then passes out in a pretzel?!?

[Stickman]

____________________________________________________
"The reason is simple. Bush did a major invasion. He told people in the armed forces, "Time to go and die for me in a gigantic hamfisted bid for power." Clinton, on the other hand, at least tried to avoid committment of the US military anywhere, shing away from interventions in places like Rwanda where it was obvious to anyone who wanted to see that a genocide was coming round (1 machete for every 3 males in the Rwandan population imported from China, anyone?). So he dosen't need to justify any kind of callous indifference to the lives of the people in the military."
____________________________________________________

In my mind, the difference is, Bush has the balls to act when action is required. The only time Clinton took action is when he was under fire for his personal actions. I doubt Gore would have done any better. We would have ended up being another Spain. Blow something up and we'll do whatever you want. Are mistakes made, sure. They always are when your dealing with war. But strong, decisive action is a far site better than no action.

With regards to military service. Maybe being in the Air National Guard isn't all that high speed, but there are National Guard members by the thousands right now in Iraq, serving and dying. So 20 years from now you can say, "oh he was only in the National Guard during the war and didn't go over and fight". I don't think so. Know this, we have approximatly 160,000 troops in Iraq, with maybe 30% of them in combat. We have another 1,000,000 (ok that's a swag but an educated one) of active and reserve members around the world doing other important duties. So, not everyone can go, and of the ones that go, not all can fight, even the ones that want to. Not going and fighting is not the same as being a filthy draft dodger.

Greg Harting
(former Army National Guardsman and current U.S. Marine)

[Gene Williams]

Semper Fi, Greg...people join the armed services for a variety of reasons; very few percentage wise ever see combat, but they join knowing it is always a possibility. The Air National Guard is our home defense, and it is full of good quality pilots who would quickly do their jobs if called upon. I'd like to know how many of those carping about George Bush ever served in the armed forces. The bottom line is, Kerry is not a leader, Bush is. Leaders take criticism because they have balls, and that is bound to piss off the ball-less.

[Senjojutsu]

Clinton, on the other hand, at least tried to avoid committment of the US military anywhere,
Several years later after intervention, we are still involved (occupying) in some of the former countries formally known as that hellhole Yugoslavia with more than 3,000 troops still deployed.

In one of his books, famous WWII Army Cartoonist Bill Mauldin talked about "The Brotherhood of them who get shot at".   How the muddy Dogfaces (WWII version of grunts) used to piss and moan about how easy the Air Corp had it, or how Navy men could sleep in clean sheets and got hot food daily.   But when the Dogfaces watched a ship sink or an aircraft go down in flames they silently contemplated about the men onboard.

The truth is Senator John Kerry is a member of that "Shot at" brotherhood, and George Bush isn't.   But that special brotherhood is actually a subset of all those who serve, stand watch while we sleep, and risk their lives in the performance of their duty.   Does not every pilot put his life on the line with every take-off and landing?   What about a paratrooper doing his training jumps?   What about a Coast Guard Rescue helicopter crew who flies into gale-force winds on a mission of mercy?   It has been duly noted (correctly) that National Guard and Army Reserve units did serve in Vietnam and suffered combat casualties.   Who was really more at risk, Al Gore serving in a rear-echelon journalism assignment in Nam or George Bush flying obsolete aircraft stateside?

In this thread there seems to be a romantic, and historically ignorant, theme that those who have experienced combat, or would have join the troops on a battlefield, then war would less likely occurance in human relations.   I guess somewhat forgot to tell all those Mongolian Khans, Japanese Daimyo, Viking chieftains, European lords and knights et al. about that belief.   It is about illogical as that cliché, "If women ran the world, then there would be no war.   After all - women are mothers and givers of life… yap yap yap…

Other than my intense dislike of the man (and America will learn to dislike him also, just like his old boss M. Stanley Dukakis), it has been Kerry who has bleated incessantly about his military record.   Well by this logic the person who should have been elected president in 1992 was the other Senator Kerrey (Nebraska) a former Navy SEAL who won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Vietnam.

Also when you get right down to it, Benedict Arnold had an outstanding military record of bravery under fire and battlefield leadership in the Continental Army for over five long years.   General Arnold was right up there with George Washington, even losing a leg in the cause of American independence.   Well there was his little unfortunate turncoat act at West Point with the British - but Benedict Arnold was a legitimate war hero.   Shut up! You have no right to criticize him!!   Come to think of it, almost kinda like John Kerry playing footsie and Hanoi Jane or attending a VVAW planning session discussing if it was time to assassinate pro-war US Senators.

[n2shotokai]

I believe it was a site that John Lindsey linked to that had a thread on Kerry. Vietnam vets posted there that Kerry's story on the river running straight on to the enemy was in question. Some suggested his actions were in direct violation of orders and he in fact put peoples lives at risk by his actions. None of the Vietnam vets there had anything good to say about him.

[Steve McGovern]

Just a note to add. Didn't Kerry repremand one of his boat crew for killing an enemy soldier (boy actually) who had boarded Kerry's boat with an AK-47? (Probably because the crewmand stole Kerry's chance to single handedly and personally take the Cong out.)

[L-Fitzgerald]

had the nick-name of Widowmaker and ranks as one of the worst designed aircraft. And a pilot had to be worth his salt to handle one of these, especially during take off's and landings.... not to mention flame outs and stall problems... back then the military had not yet learned that single engine jets [of that day] were not just a bad concept, but a totally wrong concept.....

[Wounded Ronin]

Why do some of you think Bush is a *leader*? He dosen't seem to have good leadership skills to me. Frankly, I have much more confidence in the foreign policy of Clinton than I do of Bush. At least with Clinton I'd know that whatever policy he implemented was cunning and had a reasonable goal in mind, whereas I think Bush is just nuts AND stupid.


Clinton's committment in Yugoslavia, as well as the committment of other NATO nations there may have been influenced by a sense of shame of having done absolutely nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide. So it was still a minimalist intervention fueled by political necessity. Not Bush plunging the whole **** military in Iraq with gusto in a politically bad way.

Anyway, I know this guy who's a green beret and he thinks it was really retarded to forget all about Osama bin Laden and just attack Iraq instead. As long as we're brining up war vets and Vietnam I know at least 2 Vietnam vets who were horribly trauamtized by the war and at least 1 (who is now a history professor) who thinks that it was an incredibly boneheaded undertaking that had good intentions but which had really bad execution.

I think the war in Iraq is probably the same with Bush. Bush probably thinks that anything he does is noble but the implementation of the invasion was poor imperial policy and poor political policy. The military's resources are expended and the government loses tremendous amounts of money but its Haliburton which profits from the oil. Because of Bush, Haliburton can tell the government "BEND OVER!". Bush had this retarded halfassed pretext that fell flat as soon as the invasion finished (you call that leadership and responsibility?). And the blatantly unjustified invasion has probably really pissed off the Middle East. Last time I was in Egypt the local people seemed to like me, a US citizen. They would say stuff like "Boosh iz a hamar", where "hamar" means "donkey". And I'd be like, "Yeah, I didn't vote for him. I agree." But I wonder how they'd react to me now that Bush went and blasted the crap out of Iraq for an insultingly bad pretext?

[Mitch Saret]

There are troops in afghanistan still, parts of my old division are there. I kid I know from the area is now in the 24th Infantry and is being rotated to afganistan in about a month. He was just home for leave.

His dad is an E-8 in the army, career infantry, ex DI, the whole nine yards. Be in over 20 years and has not seen a day in combat. I suppose his service is less than stellar. I mean, there are national guardsmen with awards he won't earn. But, that's beside the point.

As far as Clinton committing the military...

That was his problem, he went hals a$$es at too many things. Somalia..if he were committed instead of just going in there, trying a few things, taking some casualties, then cutting and running, it would have been a lot better for our troops.

Bosnia, we are still there, and who knows what the mission is.

He sent a single cruise missle attack into Iraq and back then he was doing the right thing. But he never followed up on it. And terrorists took weak responses as a sign of weakness and continued to attack us. On Clinton's watch we had more terrorist activity than ever.

Clinton deployed our military more than anyone since Viet Nam. Never sticking it out for his mission, or even having a clearly defined mission.


On Bush's watch, so far, we have only experienced one terrorist attack on our soil. Granted, it was bigger than any we have seen, but the original attack on the world trade center was supposed to have similar results. Now all attack seem to be in Iraq, against the military. Bad for the military, but they are equipped for it, it's their job. It's not happening here, against civilians. A known terrorist and his regime have kowtowed and decided they are not going to be that way anymor...Quaddafi and Libya, BTW. North Korea is negotiating.

As far as the reasons for going to war, I think there were five named and only one has yet to pan out...the WMD's. And here, the question should now be, where did he send them? If you have been watching the 9/11 commision hearings at all, and watching objectively, more and more evidence is pointing to the Clinton Administrations failures in intelligence as leading up to the disaster. Do I blame Clinton? No. He was doing what he thought was correct. In some cases I agreed with him...but he was a poor guardian of national security, that is indisputable.

[Gene Williams]

I cannot imagine Clinton as a leader of anything other than a herd of coeds or whores. Bush isn't a slick talker or a grinning sociopath like Clinton, so those who prefer appearance to substance will not like Bush. No one seems to understand that we are at war or what war is about. In a way, it is a shame that we haven't been invaded by a foreign army or had everyone's beach front condos shelled from an enemy fleet. Maybe they would get it then. I'd like to hear all the wannabee commie students at Berkeley, or any campus really, when the Ak-47 rounds began pouring into their dorm rooms or the HE rounds started lighting up the student center :D Spring break would be a real blast with air to surface missiles or surface to surface missiles skimming along the beach before plowing into the sauna or the poolside bar. Maybe they could launch some liberal rhetoric at the enemy or explain why war never solved anything or how human rights are being violated here. Never mind all the growth groups that would get interrupted, the bottles of Perrier that would get broken, or the number of daddy-paid-for-it Lexuses and Accords that would be destroyed. Cordite smells a lot different from dope, and shrapnel really screws up a tan.

[Steve McGovern]

Gene,

Maybe we should conscript these people so they can walk in our (those who have honorably served and serving in the military and civilian support capacities) shoes awhile. They could stop wasting Mommy and Daddy's good money and free up College seats for those who are persuing degrees in areas of History, Math and Science, and Medicine rather than Film Appreciation, Women's Studies and like unimportant and noncontributing liberal arts. They can get in touch with our feelings and emotions and maybe come to understand us and why we feel the way we do. The may even come to understan what Leadership really is all about...its not organization rallys and anti-XXX demonstrations.

On second thought... naaah. Just shoot'em in the head. (only slightly kidding)

[tellner]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
There are troops in afghanistan still, parts of my old division are there. I kid I know from the area is now in the 24th Infantry and is being rotated to afganistan in about a month. He was just home for leave.

I note that in today's news the Pentagon announced troop reductions in Afghanistan to send more soldiers to the clusterloving that is Iraq.

[Mitch Saret]

Tellner,

didn't see about the troop reduction, but the point still remains...
There are troops in Afghanistan, bin Ladenis still being hunted, and we are still keeping a presence there.

To deny that is just not facing reality.

[tellner]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Tellner,

didn't see about the troop reduction, but the point still remains...
There are troops in Afghanistan, bin Ladenis still being hunted, and we are still keeping a presence there.

To deny that is just not facing reality.

I wouldn't dream of denying it. I would stress, though, that Afghanistan has become a very low priority for us. We "keep a presence" there but have let it go completely back to hell. The warlords are back. Opium production is back. The so-to-speak government barely controls Kabul. The Taliban is re-forming. OBL issues press releases.

Everything was made subservient to the fake conservatives' Iraq fantasies including all real actions to combat terrorism.

[Blackwood]

Those of us that 'have been shot at' refer to each other as comrades-at-arms, usually just comrade. Struck me as funny at first, with the cold war still on and all. But there is something to be said for it. I can sit down with a WWII vet, a Korean Vet, a Viet Nam vet and we have that common bond. And they still rag me about being one of those 'snobby' officers. But we can relate on a level that the majority of people in the US cannot and never will be able to. Thank God for the VFW.

I have seen one of the first Purple Hearts ever awarded. In person by George Washington himself. Not for being wounded, but for meritorious service. It is currently 'white' from age and is kept covered to keep it out of the light.

[nicojo]

They could stop wasting Mommy and Daddy's good money and free up College seats for those who are persuing degrees in areas of History, Math and Science, and Medicine rather than Film Appreciation, Women's Studies and like unimportant and noncontributing liberal arts.

Good to meet you too.

I have always recommended military service to my students who ask me my opinion about it, qualifying it with a clear admonition for them to know what they can expect. I have signed a paper which will help one of my students become an officer. I believe the United States should look into required military service after high school, I have worked hard with my hard working ex-military students to help them get a better job than that pitiful pension they get for honorable discharge with a disability and with those returning students who are able to learn from me because my taxes help out with their GI Bill. All of this I am happy with and I never discuss politics or war without first thanking our service men and women who are currently in harm's way so that my students can better their minds and their families.

Oh, just so it's clear to you, I am a liberal arts teacher doing this for a lot less money than I could be making at a far less satisfying job. No health insurance, and I have no clue how to pay off my grad school loans. I am not asking you to get in touch with your feelings, I don't ask my students to either. Besides the purely practical rhetoric that I teach, I endeavor to teach them about critical thinking and argument analysis. So they can think a bit more about what they say and do.

[Wounded Ronin]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
I cannot imagine Clinton as a leader of anything other than a herd of coeds or whores. Bush isn't a slick talker or a grinning sociopath like Clinton, so those who prefer appearance to substance will not like Bush. No one seems to understand that we are at war or what war is about. In a way, it is a shame that we haven't been invaded by a foreign army or had everyone's beach front condos shelled from an enemy fleet. Maybe they would get it then. I'd like to hear all the wannabee commie students at Berkeley, or any campus really, when the Ak-47 rounds began pouring into their dorm rooms or the HE rounds started lighting up the student center :D Spring break would be a real blast with air to surface missiles or surface to surface missiles skimming along the beach before plowing into the sauna or the poolside bar. Maybe they could launch some liberal rhetoric at the enemy or explain why war never solved anything or how human rights are being violated here. Never mind all the growth groups that would get interrupted, the bottles of Perrier that would get broken, or the number of daddy-paid-for-it Lexuses and Accords that would be destroyed. Cordite smells a lot different from dope, and shrapnel really screws up a tan.



Because all students want to be Cold War era Soviet communists. There are absolutely no blanket statements or sterotypes in this post, no siree. There are absolutely no ROTC students in any major universities who are committed to military service in their lives. Furthermore, unless you are a student, you must be pro war. Even those military veterans I mentioned earlier who think the war in Iraq was a bad idea. They're all rich students.

Furthermore, all students are rich. Financial aid is a running joke because all students have Lexuses and Accords and bottles of Perrier. Especially those ROTC students. They're in ROTC because they could easily have their parents pay the full price of tuition, no sweat.

Cutting edge argumentation there, Gene. You sure have your finger on the pulse of today's youth.

[Wounded Ronin]

Originally posted by Steve McGovern
Gene,

Maybe we should conscript these people so they can walk in our (those who have honorably served and serving in the military and civilian support capacities) shoes awhile. They could stop wasting Mommy and Daddy's good money and free up College seats for those who are persuing degrees in areas of History, Math and Science, and Medicine rather than Film Appreciation, Women's Studies and like unimportant and noncontributing liberal arts. They can get in touch with our feelings and emotions and maybe come to understand us and why we feel the way we do. The may even come to understan what Leadership really is all about...its not organization rallys and anti-XXX demonstrations.

On second thought... naaah. Just shoot'em in the head. (only slightly kidding)


Because Film Appreciation and Women's Studies are the two cutting edge majors. Everyone knows that Women's Studies nets you a nice job after you graduate. I mean, no one EVER studies engineering or computer science or or accounting or gets an MBA. Because those don't give you jobs. Only Women's Studies gives you a job.

So, yeah, that's why 99% of all students are Women's Studies majors. Duh.



OH WAIT! That's not on planet Earth. That's on Planet X-532, the Planet of the Republicans. Ha ha ha! Silly me!

[Gene Williams]

Sage, it is the loud mouths like you I am talking about. I'd dearly love to see you in a Marine Corps boot camp...circa 1968:D My point was, since you are so determined to miss it, that no one seems to understand that we are at war. That used to mean people got behind the nation's leaders and the task at hand. There were always a few fifth columnists and dissenters, but since Viet Nam the country has forgotten what a war is. People back home have the luxury of bitching and whining about it all. They don't have to dodge bullets, and the whole nation doesn't have to mobilize to fight on several fronts. I think that would be good for us. Then we could draft punks like you and let them learn a little about real life. Of course, you could always run off to Canada, but then no one would care except those who concern themselves with draft dodgers and deserters. Are you even a US citizen or another of these foreign types who come here to enjoy our benefits while you bitch about the government? Too bad you can't be in Iraq to take a round for some kid who believes in his country and his cause.

[Wounded Ronin]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
Sage, it is the loud mouths like you I am talking about. I'd dearly love to see you in a Marine Corps boot camp...circa 1968:D My point was, since you are so determined to miss it, that no one seems to understand that we are at war. That used to mean people got behind the nation's leaders and the task at hand. There were always a few fifth columnists and dissenters, but since Viet Nam the country has forgotten what a war is. People back home have the luxury of bitching and whining about it all. They don't have to dodge bullets, and the whole nation doesn't have to mobilize to fight on several fronts. I think that would be good for us. Then we could draft punks like you and let them learn a little about real life. Of course, you could always run off to Canada, but then no one would care except those who concern themselves with draft dodgers and deserters. Are you even a US citizen or another of these foreign types who come here to enjoy our benefits while you bitch about the government? Too bad you can't be in Iraq to take a round for some kid who believes in his country and his cause.



So, in other words, when I question what the government is doing because I don't want US troops put in harm's way, that somehow makes me fundamentally offensive to US troops in Iraq?

Care to explain why it is that if I say I don't want US troops put in harm's way that makes you want to see me shot?

In any case, I happen to know a Vietnam vet and several other military people who think that the invasion of Iraq was a very bad idea. So your contention that only people with no grasp on reality are against the war is plainly false, and, it seems, built entirely on sterotypes.

I would even argue that it's not that people have "forgotten" what war means since the Vietnam War. I think that the execution of the Vietnam War is precisely why many people are skeptical about government war efforts nowadays.



Actually, it's pretty funny that you're the one who brings up lacking a grip on reality, Gene. You have already demonstrated that your view of universities in this country is strange and very unsupported by facts such as the existence of extensive ROTC and financial aid programs for students. You have said that only people with no grasp on reality would ever be anti war, but I know several military people who are against the Iraq invasion. You're the one who suggested in your earlier posts that if we didn't invade Iraq US universities would be filled with flying Soviet ammunition. That if the US military didn't invade Iraq, an invasion and occupation from some country where AKs are used was imminient. Sounds like a cutting edge and realistic historical-political example to me.

And, finally, when faced with someone like me who disagrees with you, you fly off the handle and say you'd like to see me shot. Clearly the position of a stable, well-balanced, and intellectual mind who can put internet discussions into perspective. Not the kind of thing an 8 year old would say when he throws a tantrum. Not the same thing as "I HOPE YOU DIE!". Nope. Much more mature.

[Gene Williams]

Well, I see you completely missed the point, again. Never mind.

[n2shotokai]

The Vietnam war was a war we fought to fight communism. The war we fight today is fought to counter terrorism. IMO the comparison is a war that we should not have fought as we did not commit to it and we did not support or troops either in country or when they returned home. The current war is one of self preservation.

I was 17 when the Vietnam war ended and I recall the war was on our minds every day. From newscasts to demonstrations to Kent State it seemed to always be on our minds. Today it seems as if life is status quo, there is no war despite the fact we (USA) in fact is at war. Our own homeland was attacked, thousands were killed and the threats continue.

It seems to me that the people who have experienced the horror of war in general are the biggest supporters of eliminating the threat. In general, those that experienced and lived through WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War, etc. etc. with all its hardships would seem to be the last people to want to engage in war again. Veterans have experienced something in their lives that has impacted them dramaticaly and will forever live with these experiences and to many a very lasting pain.

I would encourage the older generation to realize the younger generation is not seeing the war today as we did yesterday.

I would encourage the younger generation to ask yourself, why would these veterans be so supportive of going to war in spite of their own personal experiences?

[Gene Williams]

Good questions, Steve.:)

[not-I]

I suppose it's rather pointless to post anything in this thread, as the fronts seem to be about as dug in as South and North Korea (hmm, whatever became of the latter issue?), but what the heck...

1. The only thing important about a candidate's military service record from decades ago seems to be whether they were a flake or not. Who was flakier, Kerry or Bush?

2. Excuse me, but what did the Iraq war have to do with the war on terrorism? (Afghanistan obviously did have a lot to do with it, but so many resources have been diverted to Iraq and no-one seems to spend much time talking about supporting the soldiers stuck in Afghanistan.)
As the congressional testimony has shown, Iraq was on the Bush administration agenda from day one. All of the pre-war justifications have fallen apart on closer inspection, and the post-war justifications are just as dubious. Ok, so it happened and there are lots of troops over there under fire every day. What's the plan now? All i hear from the Bush administration are empty platitudes or admissions that things are "more difficult" than they thought they would be. Geo-politically, the war in Iraq appears to have been a serious mistake, but of course it's too early to tell. We'll need about thirty years to know.
I don't know if Kerry would have any plan either, but ad hoc planning because it happens to be an election year doesn't seem to do much good either. One thing's for sure, a lot of people are dying, but Halliburton is sure as hell making a killing.

3. Saddam Hussein, a terrible dictator that the U.S. supported for years and with whom Donald Rumsfeld once shook hands, is gone, good riddens, but so what? Is the U.S. or Britain any safer? Are the
Iraqis? The U.S., British and other soldiers certainly aren't.

4. Bush is a great leader because he sent troops to fight two wars, one of them while thumbing his nose at traditional allies and on highly questionable pretenses? I don't care that the man has little command of the English language. And i don't think he's stupid, just intellectually lazy. (And neither is the reason he has made the U.S. more unpopular around the world than it's been for decades). But i sense that Bush the leader is led more by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice (who has to explain the world to him -- not an easy task, i'm sure), who all have their own axes to grind, and in their New American Century club, seem to be dreaming about Iran and Syria next, Central Asia, and hey, maybe even China. Oh yeah, one musn't forget Karl Rove, a long time buddy of Bush's who seems to have more power and influence concerning foreign policy than any previous White House political advisor.

5. Collin Powell was a veteran too and he seemed a little more reluctant to just jump into a war, but toed the line like a good soldier in the end (his U.N. power-point presentation was priceless). See where it got him...publically ridiculed by Rumsfeld and the State Department turned into an impotent joke. If Bush gets re-elected, i have a feeling Powell won't be available for a second term. (And Rumsfeld and Cheney might not be around either, the former because of incompetence that only matches his arrogance, the second because of looming allegations of corruption.)

6. Leaving aside the question of whether the war in Iraq was a mistake, there seem to have been several mistakes made afterwards: Bad initial choice of administrators (i'm not sure about the current one either); Disbanding the Iraqi army; Not enough troops for an occupation of such a big country (Rumsfeld's idea -- he even publically lambasted the former Army Chief-of-Staff, who said at least 500,000 would be needed, if i recall correctly). All of these mistakes make the situation more difficult for everyone involved.

7. It seems to me that discounting criticism of policy becasue troops are in harm's way is a$$-backwards. How did they get there in the first place and how are they going to get back home? And discounting criticism because the critic hasn't "served" seems just as silly. What is this, Starship Troopers?

So, for what it's worth. Knee-jerk Limbaughian ideologues can flame away. It's of no consequence as they're just as convinced of their positions as the Taliban. If anything, I'd be more interested in debating with thinking conservatives. Or not...just wanted to get that off my chest.

May Iraq become a peaceful free society very soon.

[Gene Williams]

Ho hum...