SwiftVets.com

[Paul R.]

I've been holding off on posting this as a new topic, but I haven't received any replies to a question I've had for a few days. So, I know there is a lot going on, now, but maybe someone can help me out, here. I originally asked this in the Stolen Honor & Sinclair threads:


I'd like a specific piece of info. to put in some e-mails. (I find unrefutable specifics to be effective with undecideds and maddening to Kerry supporters.)

While watching the Sinclair piece, there was a comment by a guy named Fred Short -- seemed to be a part of "Going Upriver"? Anyway, he was talking about the "brass" saying casualties were 75%, "but as the guys were talking about things, they realized it was more like 90%." (Paraphrasal)

90 %??? How can that be possible? What is defined as a "casualty"? Can anyone disprove the 90% with specific documentation? (I'll take verbal testimony from someone who was there, too.)

THANKS!
_________________
Paul R.

[CTW]

Paul: I think John ONeill made a passing reference to the number of men in his "group" (sorry, not military) and also how many were lost. This was on the CSPAN coverage of him and guy from Texans for Truth last Monday from a bar. You may find some info there. CTW

Never Ever Kerry

[Uisguex Jack]

Sadly you can have casulties over 100% but it must be in reference to a specific segment of time.


We lost 90% of our men in 15 minutes is very diferent from loosing 120% over five years.


There are lies,
there are damn lies
and then

there are statistics.

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

A casualty is a wound. Anything from a scratch from flying glass to a fatal wound.

If your unit goes out with 50 guys and forty five of them come back wounded, that's 90% casualties.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[Stevie]

? Jack makes sense percentage wise....

we have what ? 260 swiftboat vets? and kerry has 9? with him=10

a few remain neuteral .... and John said something like 50 or 58 died.

there are probably more sbt vets out there that aren't in the count here but even with these numbers, we're only talking about 20% or less.

I'm sure one who knows will show up here soon and give more exact figures on it.
_________________
Stevie
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should
be arrested, exiled or hanged.

[sleeplessinseattle]

[Paul R.]

Thanks, N3 & everybody.

Do I also detect that a "casualty" is not necessarily due to enemy action?
Ie., if a squad goes out on patrol in a quiet area and a soldier sprains an ankle, is that a casualty?

Being non-military, I think I and most people like me would assume that someone speaking of casualties was talking about serious injuries resulting from enemy action. Or, at least something significant enough to put military personnel out of action for a few hours.

Swift Boat duty was obviously very dangerous, but it appears to me from the tone of the statement, that when Fred Short talked about "90% casualties", he was trying to use the public's ignorance of the meaning of "casualties" to make it sound like the Swift Boats' mission was futile and practically suicidal. (By this standard, I suppose the space program is futile and suicidal, too!)
_________________
Paul R.

[Mooncusser]

John Kerry by himself probably was 40% of the casualties.
_________________
MACV '64...65
Thu Thua, Long An

I actually won the election before I lost it.

"It is a good day to fight! It is a good day to die! Strong hearts, brave hearts to the front! Weak hearts and cowards to the rear!" (Crazy Horse)

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Paul, I believe that a sprained ankle would be included in a casualty summary for the day, but that's little more than a wild-azzed guess, so maybe someone else who knows for sure will answer on this point.

As to your comments about Short's statement, I believe you're right on the money - he intended to convey that these were akin to suicide missions and that Kerry was very brave to even be engaged in them.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[Islander]

In 1971, we were lossing about 45 guys a month. I'm sure the proof is out there. It is documented, If you are interested in 1971, then I'll get the references for you. I know we were losing a whole lot more guys in the earlier years as "attrition" was the driving force back then.
If you watched Mel Gibson' "We Were Soldiers," the story ends before the 1st Cavalry went back and lost an entire battalion. You have to consider, also, what branch of the military, as well. For the entire campaign, 90% is way too high. I think the 90% may apply to the Swift Boat Vets only?
_________________
1st Cavalry (airmobile)
Vietnam, 1971-1972

[MJB]

[Paul R.]

Thanks N3 & everybody.

And thanks to the Swifties for serving bravely and effectively, then and now!

I'll check back a few more times to see if more info. turns up. (I still like those specifics in my arguments!)
_________________
Paul R.

[F. Rottles]

[Paul R.]

Thanks again! I think the thing that bothered me most was that, again, I think most of the public probably thinks of a "casualty" as a significant wound. Short used that "90%" not to salute the bravery of the Swifties, but to help mock the mission. Ie., to make it seem "stupid" and "futile".

Admiral Zumwalt clearly refutes Fred Short on that point. Too bad THAT was not on Sinclair....
_________________
Paul R.