 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hojared
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 3
Location: Bakersfield, CA
|
 Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 4:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
E
You sound French to me. 
John Holland
Bakersfield, CA
_________________
4thID - 70-71 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eecee wrote: | | Greenhat wrote: | | eecee wrote: |
I don't believe Kerry ever said he received what would be recognized as an unlawful order as you define it. He said he followed orders which he later came to believe were in violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, specifically with regard to free fire zones and the burning of villages. |
Typically, Kerry doesn't seem to have ever bothered to have read the Law of Land Warfare (a serious shortcoming for an Officer). With the possible exception of burning villages, none of the things listed are atrocities, but Kerry listed them as such. Ignorance? Or drama?
Regardless, it does illustrate an incompetence in knowing his duties. Rather sad really.
Oh, and if he did believe those were in fact atrocities? He was duty bound to report them, and failure to do so is a violation of the UCMJ.
Kerry's own words are all that is needed to make it clear that he wasn't a war hero, wasn't a competent Naval Officer, and was a liar. No matter how you spin it, one way or another, he was dishonorable, failed in his duty, and failed his country. |
What part of "I don't believe Kerry ever said he received what would be recognized as an unlawful order as you define it" didn't you understand? |
Any order which violates the Geneva or Hague Conventions is an illegal order. What part of that do you not understand? Stop making excuses for what was obviously an incompetent who couldn't bother himself to actually learn the UCMJ or the Law of Land Warfare.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boatsturley wrote: | | You justify that and you have a serious lack of character, or you just don't get it. |
It seems a lot of them just don't get it. Duty, Honor and Country don't mean anything to them, and they could care less that Kerry is a traitor as long as they get to vote against Bush.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Greenhat"][quote="eecee"][quote="Greenhat"] | eecee wrote: |
Any order which violates the Geneva or Hague Conventions is an illegal order. What part of that do you not understand? Stop making excuses for what was obviously an incompetent who couldn't bother himself to actually learn the UCMJ or the Law of Land Warfare. |
Does the Nave get a lot of instruction about "the Law of Land Warfare"?
I gather that it is an impropriety to shoot folks still floating from a ship they sunk.
Do you have reference link to "the Law of Land Warfare" as would be taught to Navy folks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Craig"][quote="Greenhat"][quote="eecee"] | Greenhat wrote: | | eecee wrote: |
Any order which violates the Geneva or Hague Conventions is an illegal order. What part of that do you not understand? Stop making excuses for what was obviously an incompetent who couldn't bother himself to actually learn the UCMJ or the Law of Land Warfare. |
Does the Nave get a lot of instruction about "the Law of Land Warfare"?
I gather that it is an impropriety to shoot folks still floating from a ship they sunk.
Do you have reference link to "the Law of Land Warfare" as would be taught to Navy folks? |
FM27-10. Do a search. All Officers are required to give classes on the Law of Land Warfare on a regular basis (DoD wide). All Enlisted Men are required to attend the classes. You might also bother to read the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which all Officers are required to enforce and which is the "Bible" of the military judicial system.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Buddy said: His body must look like swiss cheese. |
Not really. Even minor wounds qualify you for a PH. The shrapnel that Kerry took was pretty small so it's not a badge of pain and disfigurement but rather risk: any of those randomly flying pieces of shrapnel would have killed him if they'd hit a major artery.
Greenhat wrote:
| Quote: | | It seems a lot of them just don't get it. Duty, Honor and Country don't mean anything to them, and they could care less that Kerry is a traitor as long as they get to vote against Bush. |
And all the rest is really about your above impression. All the efforts to smear his record, to trivialize his service, all the innuendo, it's really about what he did after the war, something I consider patriotic and heroic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | Quote: | | Buddy said: His body must look like swiss cheese. |
Not really. Even minor wounds qualify you for a PH. |
Might want to actually read the regulations regarding the award of the Purple Heart.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: |
And all the rest is really about your above impression. All the efforts to smear his record, to trivialize his service, all the innuendo, it's really about what he did after the war, something I consider patriotic and heroic. |
Which really does explain how little you understand duty and honor. And fail to understand the duties and responsibilities of a Commissioned Officer.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Might want to actually read the regulations regarding the award of the Purple Heart. |
It's hard to read a newspaper without seeing this:
a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.
b) Injury caused by enemy-placed mine or trap.
c) Injury caused by enemy-released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.
d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.
e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy-generated explosions.
Where does it specify that Kerry's wounds do not qualify? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | Quote: | | Might want to actually read the regulations regarding the award of the Purple Heart. |
It's hard to read a newspaper without seeing this: |
Geez, sparky, off on another tangent, again.
| Quote: |
a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.
b) Injury caused by enemy-placed mine or trap.
c) Injury caused by enemy-released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.
d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.
e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy-generated explosions.
Where does it specify that Kerry's wounds do not qualify? |
Where it omits the specification for self-inflicted wounds.
You can't shoot yourself in the foot and get a Purple Heart. You can't trip over your bootlaces and bust your nose and get a Purple Heart.
You can't fire off an M79 close to a bunch of rocks and get a Purple Heart for the resulting shrapnel.
Kerry attempted to do just that and IMO, he showed that he knew that he was claiming the award fraudulently when he claimed that they were taking enemy fire when others on the boat said that they had not.
It's a bunch of questions, sparky.
You may note that this is the only PH for which the activity report substantiating the award is missing from Kerry's web site. Why? And why won't he release the medical reports of his wounds, particularly this one, which so many have questioned?
This is the one which CDR Hibbard first declined to rubber stamp because it looked to him like Kerry had a scratch and a piece of M79.
Kerry put in for it again shortly after, under a different commander and it somehow got approved the second time.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buddy
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Where does it specify that Kerry's wounds do not qualify?[/quote] The part where it says ' inflicted by the enemy".
_________________
Buddy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Tue May 11, 2004 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Man, talk about tinfoil hat stuff! It's about as credible as the Hillary-Killed-Vince-Foster paranoia. Man, you guys are killing me!
Do you really think that this innuendo game of calling Kerry's wounds self-inflicted is going to win any elections?
Wait....after the last putsch, anything is possible! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buddy
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you really think that this innuendo game of calling Kerry's wounds self-inflicted is going to win any elections?
Just curious Sparky. Do you know or have proof that Kerry's 1st Lavender Heart was ENEMY inflicted. I'd like to see it. I'm also curious if you work for the Kerry Campaign? Buddy Berman Coastal Division 11 1/69-9/69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eecee
Ensign
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: | | eecee wrote: | | Greenhat wrote: | | eecee wrote: |
I don't believe Kerry ever said he received what would be recognized as an unlawful order as you define it. He said he followed orders which he later came to believe were in violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions, specifically with regard to free fire zones and the burning of villages. |
Typically, Kerry doesn't seem to have ever bothered to have read the Law of Land Warfare (a serious shortcoming for an Officer). With the possible exception of burning villages, none of the things listed are atrocities, but Kerry listed them as such. Ignorance? Or drama?
Regardless, it does illustrate an incompetence in knowing his duties. Rather sad really.
Oh, and if he did believe those were in fact atrocities? He was duty bound to report them, and failure to do so is a violation of the UCMJ.
Kerry's own words are all that is needed to make it clear that he wasn't a war hero, wasn't a competent Naval Officer, and was a liar. No matter how you spin it, one way or another, he was dishonorable, failed in his duty, and failed his country. |
What part of "I don't believe Kerry ever said he received what would be recognized as an unlawful order as you define it" didn't you understand? |
Any order which violates the Geneva or Hague Conventions is an illegal order. What part of that do you not understand? Stop making excuses for what was obviously an incompetent who couldn't bother himself to actually learn the UCMJ or the Law of Land Warfare. |
You tell me - were orders to burn villages considered unlawful at the time? Were orders for free fire zones?
Is it possible that they actually did violate the Geneva convention anyway? Still unresolved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eecee
Ensign
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Navy_Navy_Navy wrote: | | sparky wrote: | | Quote: | | Might want to actually read the regulations regarding the award of the Purple Heart. |
It's hard to read a newspaper without seeing this: |
Geez, sparky, off on another tangent, again.
| Quote: |
a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.
b) Injury caused by enemy-placed mine or trap.
c) Injury caused by enemy-released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.
d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.
e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy-generated explosions.
Where does it specify that Kerry's wounds do not qualify? |
Where it omits the specification for self-inflicted wounds.
You can't shoot yourself in the foot and get a Purple Heart. You can't trip over your bootlaces and bust your nose and get a Purple Heart.
You can't fire off an M79 close to a bunch of rocks and get a Purple Heart for the resulting shrapnel.
Kerry attempted to do just that and IMO, he showed that he knew that he was claiming the award fraudulently when he claimed that they were taking enemy fire when others on the boat said that they had not.
It's a bunch of questions, sparky.
You may note that this is the only PH for which the activity report substantiating the award is missing from Kerry's web site. Why? And why won't he release the medical reports of his wounds, particularly this one, which so many have questioned?
This is the one which CDR Hibbard first declined to rubber stamp because it looked to him like Kerry had a scratch and a piece of M79.
Kerry put in for it again shortly after, under a different commander and it somehow got approved the second time. |
Actually, those are just examples of circumstances that qualify one for a Purple Heart.
And as a matter of fact, you can get a Purple Heart for shooting yourself in the foot or tripping over your shoelaces. It depends entirely on the circumstances under which it happens.
Perhaps you should look at the requirements themselves.
For instance, the requirements for a Purple Heart specify, among other things :
>>The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded
(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.
[ . . .]
(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.
[. . .]
(4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.
(b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.
(c) Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.
(d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.
(e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.
(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.
(b) Heat stroke.
(c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.
(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.
(e) Battle fatigue.
(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.
(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.
(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.
(i) Post traumatic stress disorders.
(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action.
(6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel
http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm
------------------------------------------------------
And by the way, Kerry himself always said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from. Not even Hibbard accused him of insisting it came from enemy fire - you are basing that claim entirely on the recollection of a doctor who may or may not have treated Kerry, and who wrote his somewhat inaccurate notes 35 years after the fact. A recollection that is at odds with what Kerry's own crewmember says:
>>>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. <<<
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/
Hibbard also didn't know if he was the one who ended up signing off on the PH or not.
Last edited by eecee on Wed May 12, 2004 5:19 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| 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
