SwiftVets.com

d19thdoc · Last edited by d19thdoc on Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:13 am; edited 2 times in total

It was a shock to me how deeply this whole matter has provoked me. After seven years of intensive therapy for PTSD starting about 1998, revisiting all of the horrors of Vietnam and "reprocessing" them (all of them perpetrated by the enemy, by the way, on us and on the Vietnamese civilian population - I was a medic and never fired my weapon) - it was a shock to discover this year that I had not really "recovered" emotionally. Why? Because one of the worst traumas of the entire experience did not happen in Vietnam - and I never knew that until Kerry's candidacy reawakened it all. My worst war experience happened here, at home - after my war. And it was ongoing. The ringmaster was John Kerry. And now he is back. It is like an Orwellian nightmare - this monstrosity from my worst imaginings is now to sit in the Oval Office? To smirk and knead his moist palms while contemplating his final victory over the challenges to ambition posed by reality?

A veteran of combat cannot survive intact emotionally unless the larger society validates his sacrifice and his actions. That is why we have medals and parades and veterans organizations and the VA. This is a very sophisticated idea, and the enemies of this country understood it very well. This was their method of attack, and John Kerry was their weapon. In a sense, Vietnam Vets were also used as unwitting weapons against the country they had defended with their lives; by discrediting them, Kerry discredited the foundation of the country's self-image and security. This was the most perverse and demonic twist of all. We who had sacrificed so much for our country were portrayed as examples of the country's evil essence. And there was no other weapon that could discredit us entirely besides another authentic, heroic veteran - because no matter who attacked us, we'd always have each other - unless a Kerry could be found to deprive us of even the harbor of comradeship. And Kerry stepped up: "Reporting for duty!" The crap about protesting the policy but not the soldiers, the crap that ex-Congressman McCloskey repeated on TV last night, is just that. Crap. The warriors are the war. You cannot tell a soldier in Vietnam (or in Iraq) that he's doing good for his country, but that his country is evil, his war is evil, his actions are evil. This is what they did to us. Is it any wonder morale in the ranks went to hell late in the war? Is it any wonder PTSD afflicts so many Vietnam Veterans?

What Kerry validated was this lie about all of us, this false generalization, a transparent logical fallacy that so many are quick to venerate - which otherwise would have never had any credibility under any standards of law or journalism. What in God's name do you call someone whose credibility is enshrined in the validation of a lie?

Beware. They will do the same thing to the troops in Iraq. It has already clearly started. And be sure of this. Kerry will not side with the troops or the war. He will lay us open to the same kind of policies that Carter and Clinton used to make us vulnerable, or even helpless, before our enemies. Remember McGovern's admission in the mid-90s about Vietnam: [i]"We didn't want America to win the war."
_________________
For The Honor of the Fifty-Eight Thousand.
"He Can Lose, But He Can Not Hide"

USMC-Pride · Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:19 am Post subject:

Well said Doc!
_________________
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
-- President Abraham Lincoln

sparky 36 · Seaman Recruit Joined: 16 Aug 2004 Posts: 29 Location: Az.

I agree with every thing you have said and said very well, but I have one question, When was it legal for a medic to carry a weapon?
_________________
The truth is the truth!!

waltjones · Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:27 am Post subject: Illegal to carry a weapon???

sparky 36 said:

I agree with every thing you have said and said very well, but I have one question, When was it legal for a medic to carry a weapon?

sparky boy, you sure you're a vet? What would ever make you think a weapon for him was illegal? I'll guess the Army medic carried a sidearm, but I'm sure he could get a rifle if he wanted. Whatever, it sure as hell wouldn't be illegal! Maybe I'm misunderstanding your real meaning here ... if so, sorry! I too agree with what doc said; I've lived some of it myself.

Semper Fi!
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor.

d19thdoc · Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:45 am Post subject:

sparky 36 wrote:

greenjeans · Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:00 am Post subject: Side are issue!

RP2 reporting in:

From what I know the only person that is not to carry a weapon is the Chaplain. Being a RP Religious Programer Chaplains Yeoman in lay terms. One of my responsibilities was protecting the man of the cloth. Everyone else was allowed to fire!!

NOTE: READ THE IMPERIALISM ARTICLES I HAVE SUBMITTED

They explain how these lost souls (forgive me God) came to believe the carp Lies!!!!
_________________
USS Grand Canyon ET-3 1973- 1977
Chapains Office 1986-1990 RP2
Prayer Team helper!!
NAS Corpus Christi, TX.

militarybrat · Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:50 pm Post subject: reporting for duty

I thought I would vomit my guts out when I heard Kerry say the words "reporting for duty" I was at Clark Field hospital working on the wounded from 1966-Jan 1968...The war was horrible and the wounds both physical and mental have never healed for some but buried deep inside of some of us..Things we saw and things that were done buried but to have him stand up in front of the American people and with a smirk on his face say those words and wound all of us again by opening up the abcess....I was ill and could have gotten violent if I was in his presence...

And now he continues on a daily basis to try and destroy others...I and others remember the flag burnings, being called baby killers, stupid and people acting as if the Vets were not human and it goes on and on......He is still the coward by not standing up when he is faced with the truth and he doesn't have the guts to face the vets head on ..he sends his emisaries out to get pity for him as if that makes everything okay and truthful..( I am talking abt sending the letter to Texas to force public opinion to make Bush look bad "refusing to talk to a poor crippled vet">>>>TRYING TO SHUT EVERYONE ELSE UP>>>FREEDOM OF SPEECH???IS THAT JUST FOR KERRY???????????)

I am also concerned abt the Iraqi Vets I hope America doesn't turn their backs on the them ...The way they did to those that returned from Vietnam and those whose names are engraved on the wall....
_________________
navy and air force military brat says enough is enough

Arty Guy · Seaman Joined: 20 Aug 2004 Posts: 190

Every medic of every rank I ever saw or served with was issued a small arm for self defense.

animal · Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:56 am Post subject:

I think medics had the option.... we had a contientious objector as a medic... he didnt carry a weapon (peacetime). We all joked about not protecting him in case of SHTF.

Animal
_________________
Come on over and fight!
http://politicalfools.com

Dane · Lt.Jg. Joined: 30 Jul 2004 Posts: 114 Location: Chile

IMHO, anybody that goes into a potential combat zone without a weapon is a fool. The enemy targeted the corpsmen, as well as the radiomen and the officers. They were the first targets. (If I remember correctly, a 2LT had a life expectancy of about three weeks?) Perhaps, there were some HMs that did not carry weps with the USMC units for fear of being dragged down in their efforts to get to the wounded. But ask the HMs in the Swifts and UDT/SEAL units if they refused to carry weapons. Ask the medics in the SF units. None of these guys walked around with red crosses on their helmets!

Dane