Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Cabby on April 26, 2001, 07:41:00 PM
-
As the unbelievable story of Bob Kerry continues to unfold before us, i am intrigued by the number of moral, philosophical, and character questions Kerry's actions(and the USA's and world's REACTIONS to it) in Viet Nam raise.
The "burying" of Kerry's story by Newsweek(they've had this story since '99)and the Washington Post, both Liberal media juggernauts. Newsweek also "buried" the Monica Lewinsky story. What is going on here??
Did Kerry MURDER civilians(women and children)and lie about it??? Or did he just "do his duty"??
Did Kerry just "eliminate" any possible obstacles to his Squad's egress and therefore use sound military tactics appropriate to a savage guerilla war?
Why did Kerry accept a Bronze Medal for his actions if he knew he didn't deserve it? Or did he deserve the medal, and the civilian deaths were just part of the "War Is Hell/Fog Of War" reality??
Who exposed Kerry, and why at this late date?? Why should Kerry answer for his conduct in battle 32 years after the fact? Why is he "apologising" for his conduct if he did nothing wrong?? Or is he no different than a Nazi SS Officer found to be living a quiet life in a country other than Germany?
Will Kerry have to stand trial as did Lt. Calley for the My Lai Massacre?
Why does Kerry's fellow Squad-mate have a different story than what Kerry is telling? And does this guy have a personal agenda?? Apparently, this man "saved" Kerry's life in Viet Nam.
Why does Kerry give a Press Conference only to face the usual idiotic Media questions(i.e. "have you apologised to the family of the people you killed"), many of whom are openly hostile to the US Military??
Should Kerry give his Bronze Medal back? And what about his Medal Of Honor?? Is Kerry a "ruthless killer", or a "good soldier in a bad war"? Is not war an atrocity no matter WHO'S side you are on?? Or did Kerry merely "fight fire-with-fire", in that the Viet Cong routinely used civilians as "shields", bait, and as snipers/booby traps???
The questions are many. The supposed "healed" wounds of the Viet Nam War have been ripped-open again by this tragic story. How will the Viet Nam Veteran be remembered in History? As "child-killers" or "honorable" soldiers?? Is there such a thing as an "honorable" soldier in the Hell we call War???
Cabby
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
He did what he was ordered to do. Had he refused he'd have been court martialed and someone else would do it for him.
------------------
semperfi
(http://www.usmc.mil/templateml.nsf/marinesega.jpg)
Everything dead in 30 minutes or less or the next one's free.
-Marines
[This message has been edited by texace (edited 04-26-2001).]
-
War is all hell.
-General William Tecumseh Sherman
I don't know what really happened in that day and place, and neither does anyone who will post here.
cabby,
Keep in mind, those "liberal" media sources also buried any info that Bush was a deserter (all evidence says that he was). Boy, that sure is a liberal ploy to smear the guy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Bush was a deserter (all evidence says that he was). Boy, that sure is a liberal ploy to smear the guy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Ain't been around the Air Guard much, have ya? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
He did what he was ordered to do. Had he refused he'd have been court martialed and someone else would do it for him.
The Nüremberg trials made very clear that this isn't an excuse. Carrying out unlawful orders isn't the job of a soldier.
I don't know much about this particular story, but this is the way usch things have been interpreted in the past.
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/stsanta.jpg)
-
Ahh... Toad. Reminds me of an old discussion we had a while back... You had a few questions, so I posted the links fer ya. Never did hear back from ya after that though <g>.
Oh lookee here... I found them... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(Have no idea if these are any good still)
"Vets want proof of Bush service" - The Birmingham, AL News 10/14/00: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/Oct2000/14-e414023b.html (http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/Oct2000/14-e414023b.html)
"Questions remain on Bush's service as Guard pilot." - The Boston Globe 10/31/00: http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/ (http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/)
(Atlanta Journal Constitution article available online from the Chicago Tribune: http://chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV-0011020310,FF.html (http://chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV-0011020310,FF.html) )
Medal of Honor winner Sen. Bob Kerrey blasts Bush on Service - http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Kerrey_blasts_Bush_on_service+ .shtml (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Kerrey_blasts_Bush_on_service+.shtml)
Bush Let Guard Down - Washington Post, 11/3/00: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4291-2000Nov2.html (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4291-2000Nov2.html)
Sen. Max Cleland Questions Bush Service - The Tennessean, 11/3/00: http://www.tennessean.com/local/00613269.shtml (http://www.tennessean.com/local/00613269.shtml)
DUI and AWOL stories break on same day - The Sacramento Bee, 11/3/00: http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert01_20001103.html (http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert01_20001103.html)
Bush working to keep truth hidden - The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 11/3/00: http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/saturday/news_a3305 b396349414b001f.html (http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/saturday/news_a3305b396349414b001f.html)
Bush pressured on military gaps - Boston Globe, 11/3/00: http://www.globe.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Bush_pressured_on_military_gaps .shtml (http://www.globe.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Bush_pressured_on_military_gaps.shtml)
Bush military record berated - The Dallas Morning News, 11/3/00: http:// [url=http://www.dallasnews.com/campaign/092000/208224_attack_06pol.A.html]http://www.dallasnews.com/campaign/092000/208224_attack_06pol.A.html[/url]
Bush probably skipped the final 17 months of his National Guard commitment - The New Republic, 11/13/00: http://newrephtml.html (http://newrephtml.html)
-
Why did Kerry accept a Bronze Medal for his actions if he knew he didn't deserve it?
When you're presented with a medal, I don't think there is ever an opportunity to turn it down. It's not an academy award. You also aren't generally allowed to make acceptance speeches.
The supposed "healed" wounds of the Viet Nam War have been ripped-open again by this tragic story.
Wounds here in the U.S. or Viet Nam? My guess is that Viet Nam didn't need the Washington Post to be reminded of this event. The "wound" was there all along.
From Reuters: Kerrey has acknowledged that the killing of civilians took place, but he said the squad was returning fire and did not know that civilians had been killed until after the fighting.
``When we fired, we fired because we were fired upon,'' he told a news conference. ``In short, we did not go out on a mission with the intent of killing innocent people,'' he said.
War is hell and innocent people not involved in the struggle are often casualties.
IMHO, this is a tragedy but far from a war crime. Had Kerry's squad intentionaly targeted civilians, than yes, there's an issue, but self-protection from threats is ALWAYS authorized. So... do you fire or not? If you decide to fire, you may find yourself in the same situation as the Vincennes. If you don't, the Cole. Many, given the choice, would be in the former rather than the latter.
Issue aside, what's the point? There's a hidden agenda here. This story was squelched and then trotted out at later date to damage Kerry's credibility. shrecking politics...
------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs (http://www.screaminbluemessiahs.org)
The SBM's are hiring! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum11/HTML/000263.html)
[This message has been edited by Sandman_SBM (edited 04-27-2001).]
-
Don't know him didn't affect my life and don't care. Happened awhile back. We keep bringing up history as if we can change it. Next thing someone will be pissed Napolean invaded Russia.
-
This is all about Kerry's possible run for the presidency in 2004.
The real question becomes who spilled the beans, Kerry himself or a potential opponent?
Kerry is sure getting alota face time on TV now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I predict that there will be much talk and finger pointing. Kerry will be judged by the media to be evil. Many news stories will follow until Kerry has a new conference and breaks down and cries many tears,apoligies all over the place and says that a healing must begin,blah,blah,blah.
At some point the media will come to his aid and will finally pronounce Kerry as big hearted...blah,blah,blah. Image repaired, issue squashed.
The end result will be that the media will back Kerry in his bid in 2004!!
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 04-27-2001).]
-
"Why did Kerry accept a Bronze Medal for his actions..."
Because he was lying in a hospital with part of his right leg blown off. You think he gave a rat's bellybutton what medals were put at his bedside?
-
Criminal - but the libs and their media will turn him into a hero/victim for slaughtering the people.
Eagler
-
Nash,
I remember reading all those; you'll noticed that in none of them is their evidence that the Commanding Officer took action to "find" what is portrayed as the "deserter".
Seems a bit odd, doesn't it? One of your troopers fails to show up and you just let it go? Forever? There is such a thing as Command Accountability; where was it here?
Can it be that there are things we still don't know about this?
That's what I meant about the Air Guard comment. Those of you who were around the Guard in the 60's and 70's will remember that it was probably the "loosest" run organization in modern US military history. There was a LOT of paperwork that either was never done or simply ignored altogether.
The Guard simply didn't operate by the "rules" from HHQ... unless they were forced into it at gunpoint almost. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
That's what made it such a GREAT place to be. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I tried to get in after my Active Duty but unfortunately I couldn't find a unit that would take me as a commuter. After VietNam they were in the catbird seat; way more available talent than slots.
-
Nash?
thunk...thunk... thunk (taps mike)
Nash? I answered.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Another viewpoint on this mess.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/050101a.html (http://www.consortiumnews.com/050101a.html)
-
Napoleon invaded Russia!?! That bastard! Why wasn't I told of this?
Let's keep taking pot-shots at veterans, Ted Kennedy, Bush's daughter, Al Gore, Hillary & Bill, ANYTHING except really concentrating on the fact that our financial markets are in ruin, and we're about to face the spectre of war, possibly nuclear in nature.
Ah, screw it. If we die, we die. Yeah, I thought Bush's little gin blossom was kinda cute too, even if she WAS a little chubby! Hey honey, c'mere a minnit! You ever hear of Patty Hearst? I got some stuff I want you to read...
Mk
-
I remember reading all those; you'll noticed that in none of them is their evidence that the Commanding Officer took action to "find" what is portrayed as the "deserter".
Now I don't know much about this case, but I'm guessing that influence further up the command structure might have helped.
Perhaps there were incentives for silence?
It's not impossible, and it was so long ago, very few people would remember it.
-
Amazing blur, I didn't think so many wild conspiracy theories could even fit in one article. Is there a sequel, or is this part of a bigger series? It's right up there with the late Robert Ludlum.
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
Amazing blur, I didn't think so many wild conspiracy theories could even fit in one article. Is there a sequel, or is this part of a bigger series? It's right up there with the late Robert Ludlum.
Fatty, try a spoonful of sugar next time, it'll make the truth easier to swallow. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Dowding,
Every military organization has a method to keep track of its personnel to make sure they show up when they are supposed to.
If Bush bolted, someone HAD to notice. There is paperwork for this stuff.
As I mentioned, however, the Air Guard of the 60's and 70's sort of prided itself on doing away with useless paperwork.
I would guess that someone noticed he wasn't showing up and booted that fact upstairs to the CO. The CO probably just decided they didn't need him anyway and that was the end of it.
I will also wager this: I bet he wasn't the only guy in a Guard unit that just "walked away" back then. I further bet that those people weren't "pursued" any more than he was.
I personally know of guys that ignored their committment and walked off after their particular draft status was no longer a threat to their lifestyle. Nobody cared, simple as that.
-
Anybody catch this story on 60 Minutes II?
If it comes down to believing the story of an old Vietnamese woman or a U.S. Senator, I'm inclined to go with the old woman. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
<hears the thunk thunking noise Toad's makin' with the mike>
You called? Oh yeah... that... Thanks for the reply. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Let's see here...
I *think* I understand yer angle Toad...
...That there was a sort of looseness about the Guard... that it had accountability problems that made it cumbersome to track a deserter (George Bush Jr. in this case), or possibly lacked the will (for lack of a better word) to go after said deserter, if this deserter *were* discovered as having deserted.
I would totally agree with you in that I think probably some form or combination of the above played a part in George Bush Jr.'s having gotten away with desertion (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Back when we were having this discussion, I remember it as regarding "personal accountability" or "personal responsibility" or... jeez I forget... Was all in relation to politics though. Perhaps it was of the almost hypocritical support of one guy while turning a blind eye to another's same actions. Anyway, you remember the phrase you kept using.
So when I brought that up then posted those links I was interested in how your thinking went on that. I certainly didn't expect now to see you comment only related to either:
"CO just decided they didn't need him anyway"
or
"I bet he wasn't the only guard to walk away"
or
"Nobody cared"
Well yeah, true, so be it... But that's not really what I was asking. I would have thought something about his having deserted (and *not* the 'environment' that enabled his be able to do so) would have been the thing that you would have replied to. If you said the same thing in that old thread that you've just said here, it would have looked radically out of place. I doubt you would have replied that way at all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Or is it now "personal accountability... mostly" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Just for your reference (two posts that you made in that thread):
Nash, I think the initial animosity towards BC stemmed primarily from his own history. He was being called "Slick Willie" long before he became Prez.
For me, the basic, initial animosity stems from his draft dodging. I'll admit, I hated to see a guy like that get the Presidency.
Then this, when I brought up Bush's *own* <cough> history:
Nash,
Ever been in the service?
Being AWOL is a serious charge. For Bush, in this case, it means he had written orders to report to whatever unit in Alabama and didn't show up (IIRC the point that web page was trying to make).
It's been a while since I read that page you've been clipping. What's the address? I'd like to see what they have for proof. I'd think if he really did go AWOL there'd be something substantial and verifiable in the public record. The military knew where to find him; there should be something in writing.
Now beyond the AWOL charge (and I'm not ready to really give that creedence without seeing more on it) Bush still served 22 months in the Texas Air Guard. I've mentioned before that the Guard committment from UPT is about 24 months. So it may be that he "did his duty".
Can't say that about Bill in any case.
Pass on your source(s) for the AWOL charge. I'd like to re-read that stuff.
"A serious charge" has now become "nobody cared". In Clinton's case, "for me, the basic, initial animosity stems from his draft dodging" looks a bit odd when put beside your sudden laissez-faire take on the whole thing.
Sorry 'bout this Toad... But after our debates back then, I reckon' I probably still owe ya a few zingers... You perform better when folks are keepin' ya on yer toes anyways (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And d'oh! Please accept my apologies if I'm mangling that accountability phrase.
<edited my brutal spelling, or most of it I hope>
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 05-03-2001).]
-
Originally posted by blur:
Anybody catch this story on 60 Minutes II?
If it comes down to believing the story of an old Vietnamese woman or a U.S. Senator, I'm inclined to go with the old woman. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Especially when its backed up by another US soldier who was there (and who he said he would not contradict).
- Yoj
-
Well, Nash, I didn't re-read that old post fest, so maybe I didn't zero in exactly on your issue here.
OK.
Where is the AWOL paper trail? That's what I was talking about in the 1st thread. In this thread it is still unavailable.
So, did he desert? That's still your question and there is apparently still no documentation.
Given the nature of the Guard, I doubt there ever will be.
Can an AWOL charge ever be substantiated without that paperwork? I doubt that too.
So do any of us really know how his "career" really ended? Nope. You realize there should be some discharge paperwork as well. You know, "Honorable Discharge" and "Dishonorable Discharge" and plain old "Discharge." If he walked, there's no way he should have gotten anything but "Dishonorable".
Anyone found any Discharge paperwork? That would probably tell part of the tale.
Not sure if I addressed your point...
He still served. Far more than BC can say.
BC's successful attempt to duck the draft IS documented.
...ah, like a trip down memory lane, isn't it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Hehe Toad, sure is (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Erhm... yeah... I reckon that I can't add much to this now anyways. What isn't known, just isn't known.
Cheers!
-
Originally posted by Toad:
He still served. Far more than BC can say.
BC's successful attempt to duck the draft IS documented.
There is one major difference 'tween the two. BC decided to be true to his conviction that the war was immoral and he would have nothin' to do with it, politcal career damned!
GWB decided to take the safest way to avoid the war and preserve his politcal career.
So, just who is the worst? The one who, by his actions, stayed out of the war cause he didn't belive in it and accepted the politcal fallout whan it came...or
The one that used his familys influence to stay safe state side and thus preserve his politcal career?
I'm a Nam Vet and this thing that GWB did is, to me, a helluva lot more cowardly!
------------------
Lars
***MOL***
Men Of Leisure
-
The Kerry Story is an interesting one. Did he or didn't he? If he did, the following orders bit doesn't cut it. I've done my service and the UCMJ was my bible. So texace trust me when I say lawful orders are just that....
Now I fully understand that context in which Kerry was fighting. A war without clear boundaries and full of partisans. But if he did murder civilians, and that is still in question, he is no different than most of the war criminals that have been brought in front of the Hague.
His actions would be no different than most of the Bosnians being sought or already brought to the Hague on war crimes.
The only difference is that no American will EVER stand trial on war crimes in an outside of America court. The American government, though a big pusher of the world courts will never let a member of it's own country stand before it.
Unfortunately the only ppl that will probably ever officially investigate this is the media.
-
That's a good one, Lars. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)