 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JN173
Commander
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 341
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:51 pm Post subject: Their still quoting Kerry |
 |
|
Here is an interesting article for Vietnam.
After 33 years they are still using Kerry's statment to support their cause 
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-06/10/Stories/16.htm
_________________
A Grunt
2/503 173rd Airborne Brigade
RVN '65-'66 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why shouldn't they still quote him. John F. Kerry and other traitors like him, helped North Vietnam to win the war!
Woof!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rbshirley
Founder
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Their still quoting Kerry |
|
|
| JN173 wrote: | | After 33 years they are still using Kerry's statment to support their cause |
| Quote: |
Vietnam News Service, Friday June 11, 2004
In fact, like in any of the dozens of countries they invaded, it was the
Americans who perpetrated well-documented atrocities in Viet Nam,
both at the individual and mass levels.
Candidate in this year’s American presidential elections, John Kerry,
who fought in the war, went further in his criticism. In a statement to
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1971, he said the war
crimes committed by US soldiers in Southeast Asia "were not isolated
incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command."
But despite these abuses, the Vietnamese did not reciprocate in kind;
instead, they treated captured US troops humanely.
|
a) Seeing any US POW (eg John McCain) on TV, makes this self-evidently false
b) No mention of Hue during Tet, Thuy, the North's "re-education camps," etc etc
c) Nor the South Vietnamese soldier POWs tortured in NVA prisions until the 1980's
d) And the Communist slaughter of Cambodians and Laotions is also well known
As for John Kerry's involvement in all this:
| War Dog wrote: | | Why shouldn't they still quote him. John F. Kerry {snip} helped North Vietnam to win the war! |
......... 
........... Display at "The Wall" showing Kerry being honored in the "War Crimes Museum" in HCM City
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RB,
Do your records include the ROE (Rules of Engagement) in force in TF 115 in late 68 and early 1969? A bunch of us have been searching for them unsuccessfully. I can't even find them for TF 117 & 116 where I served.
Tom
_________________
 On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rbshirley
Founder
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ASPB wrote: | RB,
Do your records include the ROE (Rules of Engagement) in force in TF 115
in late 68 and early 1969? A bunch of us have been searching for them
unsuccessfully. I can't even find them for TF 117 & 116 where I served.
Tom |
I departed country just before Tet in 1968, so the ROE's for Swift Boats for
your time period would be slightly modified only as to where the boats could
or could not operate without prior authorization.
I do not have copies of them, but as an OinC they are ingrained in my memory.
They were part of our training before deploying to Vietnam, and part of the
standing briefings prior to going on patrol.
As I have stated in other threads, the overriding Rule of Engagement for ALL
military units in Vietnam (and which is still the official "Standing ROE" true today)
is that the use of force is SANCTIONED (authorized) ONLY under one of two
conditions:
1) That the unit is in IMMEDIATE DANGER from a defined source
2) In the performance of the unit's assigned and AUTHORIZED MISSION
Areas in Vietnam were divided into two types of zones: "Free Fire Zones"
and "Non-Free fire Zones." In "Non-Free Fire Zones" specific authorization
from the Corps Command was REQUIRED before any force (weapons use)
could be undertaken within the limits of EITHER of the above two criteria.
In "Free Fire Zones" specific authorization from the Corps Command was
not necessary, but the above two critria were still REQUIRED to be met
before the use of weapons was authorized.
In 1967, Swifts had two additional stringent ROE criteria:
a) Even if a land unit had permission to use force, the Swift was prevented
from providing "Indirect Fire Support" to that unit unless specific permission
was obtained from the Corps Command. Even in a "Free Fire Zone"
b) The Swifts were restricted from independently entering rivers beyond the
immediate area (approximately 1 km) of the exit to the coast without specific
permission. {We normally made patrols as single independent units then}
Were these ROEs "enforced" by the Corps Command Headquarters?
Absolutely. And additionally by peer pressure from others in our units.
Also, in 1967, "immediate danger" was interpreted to mean "fired upon first"
Did these rules cause us problems? And did we walk a fine line between
compliance with the ROE's, humanity to the Vietnamese population, and
the possibility/probability of punctures to ours and others tender bodies?
Did I REALLY mean that in a "Non-free Fire Zone" you STILL had to have
SPECIFIC permission from Corps Command in order to return hostile fire?
Yup. According to the ROEs that was what was REQUIRED.
And EVERY sailor and coastie (current media exceptions PERHAPS noted)
did his utmost to make damn sure that we followed these ROEs in insuring
that non-combatants were protected. Even if it meant harm to us.
As FOX loves to say: "We report. You decide." But we DID comply.
View these two web pages from my web site to understand what these ROEs
meant in everyday pragmatic terms. And especially listen to the oral narratives
of Bob Bolger and J. D. Wiggans. Bring a tissue before hearing the audio
playback at the top of the first web page {Hearts and Minds} And get out
your "real" Purple Heart criteria for the audio on the second web page. The
Swift Boat sailor that was "out like a sack of potatoes" in this latter audio
never received a GW Special to the best of his OinC's knowledge. Nor did
JD or the dust off crew receive a commendation. They were turned down.
http://pcf45.com/hearts/hearts.html#owasco
http://www.pcf45.com/rules/rules.html
.
Last edited by rbshirley on Thu Jun 17, 2004 5:58 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | In fact, like in any of the dozens of countries they invaded, it was the Americans who perpetrated well-documented atrocities in Viet Nam,
both at the individual and mass levels. |
I wonder what they call Hue in '68? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
