 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Morto
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 29 May 2004
Posts: 46
Location: Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Speedy wrote: | | Greenhat wrote: | | Even have two Vietnam vets who are posting on this site who know me face to face |
I am suprised your buddies didn't 'out' you.
| Greenhat wrote: | | So, what's the deal with you, Mr. amphetemine? Where and when do you claim to have served? |
ooooooo....Can I be all mysterious and evasive like you....ooooo
Let me string ya along for a bit....ya know, play w/ ya like my cats play w/ a ball of yarn 
I'll post EVERTHING about myself....I'll just wait a little while....just like you 
Wonder who will look better when both our hands are on the table? We'll have to wait and see 
| Greenhat wrote: | | SoYou want to confirm my service? My name is on the punchbowl (and you can find out what that means by going to the Bn HQ for 1/327th). Or you can check with SFA3. |
I could give two sh*ts about you, your service, or anything else about you.
NOW you want to throw ALL of your cards on the table? Too late. You got called on your bullcrap....now you are backpeddling and making up a 'story' about why you implied you were a VN vet.
Like I said....I don't care about you or your service....I just knew you were bullcrapping, and I don't like bullcrappers...especially when they are implying they are something they are not.
Enough said! |
OK guys, I think it's about time that we all write to the Administrator and request that this twitting REMF by banned. What do you think?
_________________
"History tells us that appeasement does not lead to peace. It invites an aggressor to test the will of a nation unprepared to meet that test." --Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Speedy
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 77
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: | See, Keith, the really fun thing with you?
Is that for a historian, you jump to an awful lot of conclusions without data. Basically, you seem to be incompetent. I have to wonder what bias you place on the accounts that you record.
I never stated I was in Vietnam |
For such an incompetent he sure had you pegged, didn't he
Talk to you soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougReese
Former Member
Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 396
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Morto wrote: | | Speedy wrote: | | Greenhat wrote: | | Even have two Vietnam vets who are posting on this site who know me face to face |
I am suprised your buddies didn't 'out' you.
| Greenhat wrote: | | So, what's the deal with you, Mr. amphetemine? Where and when do you claim to have served? |
ooooooo....Can I be all mysterious and evasive like you....ooooo
Let me string ya along for a bit....ya know, play w/ ya like my cats play w/ a ball of yarn
I'll post EVERTHING about myself....I'll just wait a little while....just like you
Wonder who will look better when both our hands are on the table? We'll have to wait and see
| Greenhat wrote: | | SoYou want to confirm my service? My name is on the punchbowl (and you can find out what that means by going to the Bn HQ for 1/327th). Or you can check with SFA3. |
I could give two sh*ts about you, your service, or anything else about you.
NOW you want to throw ALL of your cards on the table? Too late. You got called on your bullcrap....now you are backpeddling and making up a 'story' about why you implied you were a VN vet.
Like I said....I don't care about you or your service....I just knew you were bullcrapping, and I don't like bullcrappers...especially when they are implying they are something they are not.
Enough said! |
OK guys, I think it's about time that we all write to the Administrator and request that this twitting REMF by banned. What do you think? |
I think that the term "R _ _ _" should be banned.
Is the service of those who weren't actually out in the field any less important than those who happened to find themselves in harm's way on a more frequent basis?
I don't think so. If you did your job, whatever it was, good for you.
Doug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morto
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 29 May 2004
Posts: 46
Location: Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I think that the term "R _ _ _" should be banned.
Is the service of those who weren't actually out in the field any less important than those who happened to find themselves in harm's way on a more frequent basis?
I don't think so. If you did your job, whatever it was, good for you.
Doug |
Doug,
I absolutely agree with your comment relating to support forces in a combat environment or peacetime veterans . I go out my way to use the term only when responding to those that are (1) clearly not veterans, and (2) deliberately inflamatory and disrespectful of veterans and, for that matter, of anyone who disagrees with their twisted views.
In a forum such as this I use the the term "Rear Echelon Oedipist (REMF)" to define those that do not respect our service. You'll note the term is only used with CRAIG, SPEEDY, and SPARKIE. They've been challenged mulitple times to provide their creds and all we get is bovine fecal matter.
Thank you for service even if you forgive Kerry for aiding and abeting our enemy and his appeasement of virtually every communist totalitarian regime thereafter. His "Stay the Course" rhetoric regaring Iraq is just that, rhetoric.
Study his history. He's a pacifist, a internationalist, and a socialist. Just not what I believe we need when our existence is as threatened as it is now and probably will be for the next 50 years. After all, it's taken 70 years of ham-handed middle east policy to get us to where we are today.
_________________
"History tells us that appeasement does not lead to peace. It invites an aggressor to test the will of a nation unprepared to meet that test." --Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougReese
Former Member
Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 396
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LewWaters wrote: | | Quote: | | Maybe I missed something. Is there anyone besides Steven Gardner who falls into that caregory? |
Unless you believe his boat always operated alone and totally away from everyone else, then yes. Why else would so many standing alongside him in the group picture ask their pictures not be used to show any support of him? |
I am aware that the Swifts didn't operate alone, but you said "Not all of his crew agree that he was so heroic or such a great leader."
I was trying to point out that the only person on his crew who fell into that category was Steven Gardner. No one in that photo was on his crew.
But speaking of that photo, and of other Swifties . . . . .
I have yet to hear someone who served on his boat (besides S. Gardner), or on a boat that served alongside his, come forward against Kerry. I am by no means saying such a person doesn't exist, I just haven't seen one come forward.
Those who were in that photo with Kerry served the same time as Kerry. They weren't necessarily those who served alongside Kerry, out on a mission(s), and I believe a number of them were higher ranking officers.
For example -- I don't believe any of those who were on the three boats with/alongside Kerry's on 28 Feb, or the five boats on 13 April are in the photo.
I would think that if one of the officers who actually served alongside Kerry came out against him, we would all be aware of it, as they would be specific in their denounciation. "I was with Kerry on such-and-such a date when we went up the Cua Lon River and he performed in the following manner which I found to be reckless, etc, etc."
That's what Gardner did, and any credibility he has is because of it.
Doug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
d19thdoc
PO3
Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 280
Location: New Jersey Shore
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Mr. Boyle, it has been documented that C/1-20th committed multiple acts of murder, rape, and mayhem (stuff like stealing and beating up civilians) from the time the company first got to Vietnam (when your tour in the same area was winding down) until they rampaged through My Lai (by which time you were back in the United States). The officers in your battalion weren't the only ones who took notice of this behavior and reported it up the chain of command. Given that your whole point here has been to decry as lies everything said in WINTER SOLDIER, I'm not sure why you ever brought up the fact that the officers in your unit reported the crimes of C/1-20th, only to be brushed off by the chain of command. Like I said, that's VVAW talk. |
". . . documented that C/1/20th . . . " Yeah, but not by me. That implication was invented by you. Cleaver little bit of embellishment on your part; and to what useful purpose?
I will repeat: I would not have "testified" at Winter Soldier because I had nothing to testify to - and not only because of the "timeline" (a quaint choice of words used to minimize the blatant impossibility of my doing so); I didn't know about the report for another thirty years. And, any such second-hand "evidence" would never be accepted anywhere, except at such a kangaroo tribunal.
And I add: I would never have "testified" at Winter Soldier in any case, because it was not a legitimate forum. It was not the place to report such things. Such things as I could have testified to - the torture and murder of wounded Americans by our enemies, for example, they were specifically not interested in hearing about or having exposed. Anything that would cast in a bad light their brethern in the Communist workers utopia they hoped to see prevail in the war was not welcome those days in Detroit.
Those I heard the story from were not in my battalion. I never said they were. I would not make an issue of this, except you are supposed to be an historian.
And, as I said, I do not accept the characterization that higher command "brushed off" the reports. As a factual matter, I have no idea what was done about the reports, and neither do the people who told the story to me. But you do.
I brought it up in the first place - an important point buried in the avalanche of irrelevant atrocity talk here - because the things that did happen, that we know happened, and were documented to have happened in Vietnam, were no part of Winter Soldier. Whatever else you know or I know that DID happen in Vietnam that was wrong, has nothing to do with the issues here.There is not a single incident recited in that "testimony" that was verified before or since, or that is represented as even one of the stories among all these awful stories you have trotted out to revive and repeat here.
All these other cases that have taken up so much space here have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the accuracy of the Winter Soldier stories, and Kerry's reliance on them to make his case. Nothing.
What Burkett, Guenter Lewy, the NIS and others found was what has been reported here by me and others. Winter Soldier was a bogus propaganda exercise for the benefit of the enemy we were then fighting in the field. No one ever said (I never said) all of those who appeared at Winter Soldier were phonies - i.e. never served in Vietnam. Kerry certainly served in Vietnam. But those who were not phonies were conscious or unconscious dupes (i.e. tools of others with other agendas).
What this is about is really not anything that happened in Vietnam. It is about what a small number of people attempted to do, and in large part were successful in doing, about Vietnam. And they had no qualms about methods. They were not interested in justice (since they refused to cooperate with any authorities who had the only chance of dealing justice to the alleged criminals); they were not interested in facts (any reading of the transcript reveals that); and they were not interested in writing history - at least not the history of the past.
Any suggestion that they refused to cooperate with official investigators for any reason other than to avoid exposure of their deception is just transparently silly . . . and tortured.
These points seem to be beyond you.
As to he truth or not of what they did at Winter Soldier, stay tuned. The research is ongoing. As said before, the results will not, and should not, be published here.
And you could help the effort for accurate history by answering what you did not respond to in my private message. Eugene Keys and David Chiles of the 3rd/4th/25th. As you just noted, you wrote a book about that very unit, along with Mr. Birdwell. Did you find corroboration of their service in that unit - did you find corroboration of their story given at Winter Soldier?
_________________
For The Honor of the Fifty-Eight Thousand.
"He Can Lose, But He Can Not Hide" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
d19thdoc
PO3
Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 280
Location: New Jersey Shore
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:33 am Post subject: Kerry and the VC and NVA in Paris, 1970 |
|
|
| Quote: | U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 45, Sec. 953
Private correspondence with foreign governments:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, [emphasis added]shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. |
John Kerry, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 22, 1971:
"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government . . . "
[To him, "both sides" did not include the United States or its ally, the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam)]
And
"I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I understand these things."
Note: ". . . visits in Paris . . . " is plural.
_________________
For The Honor of the Fifty-Eight Thousand.
"He Can Lose, But He Can Not Hide" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
d19thdoc
PO3
Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 280
Location: New Jersey Shore
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
When questioned by the Committee about his suggestions for dealing with the Vietnam problem, Kerry's reply was a statement of Madame Binh's published points: immediate, unconditional and unilateral withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Vietnam, and the end to all support for the South Vietnamese government, our ally.
Kerry's campaign spokesman, when questioned about these facts, reacted with the information that Kerry had never negotiated with the enemy, and had never attended any negotiating sessions.
In order to negotiate, one has to have a difference of opinion.
The Paris Peace Talks were not open to the public, and they did not sell bleacher seats. The only way Kerry could have attended a session was as a member of an official delegation. Was Kerry's spokesman assuring us that Kerry had not been, in fact, Madame Binh's official Naval Aide, so, therefore, there is really nothing to this whole matter?
A similar case from very recent history might help put this kind of behavior into a better perspective than Kerry's campaign spokesman was able to provide . . .
U.S. soldier charged
in al-Qaida probe
National Guardsman accused
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:10 p.m. ET Feb. 18, 2004
Spc. Ryan G. Anderson was formally charged Feb. 12 with three counts . . The charges could lead to a death sentence.
The charges do not allege that Anderson ever actually passed information to real al-Qaida members.
Anderson is also alleged to have communicated by “oral, written and electronic communication” to the supposed “terrorists” that “I wish to meet with you, I share your cause, I wish to continue contact through conversations and personal meetings.” [emphasis added]
The Uniform Military Code says attempts to aid the enemy can be punished by death.
© 2004 The Associated Press.
While Kerry was no longer on active duty (he was on inactive Naval Reserve) and may not have been subject to the UCMJ, he was subject to the Logan Act, 18 U.S.C. 953, mentioned in the previous post, and to the Constitutional provision against giving aid to the enemy, or "adhering to them." "Adhering" and "aid" seem to be very nearly exactly appropriate in this case.
_________________
For The Honor of the Fifty-Eight Thousand.
"He Can Lose, But He Can Not Hide"
Last edited by d19thdoc on Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Keith Nolan wrote,
| Quote: | | Okay, you got me. No, you didn't say you served in Vietnam. You only implied it. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning of all this that you entered the army AFTER Vietnam? Why all the ducking, dodging, and confusion? What, ultimately, was your point? |
It's simple, Keith. He wanted to inflate his credentials as an "I was there" witness. This way he wouldn't have to research facts, weigh the validity of his arguments and use honest persuasion. He could just do the military equivalent of saying his **** is bigger than everyone else's. There's quite a bit of that in this thread.
| Quote: | | Maybe I missed something. Is there anyone besides Steven Gardner who falls into that category? |
No, there's not. The goons here want to create the perception that Kerry's crewmates didn't respect him. To do that, they find people with a lesser familiarity -- those he posed with for that picture -- and muddle things up by suggesting they're crewmates. I began posting here from close to day one and they used this technique from the start.
People who actually served closely with Kerry under fire who witnessed his bravery and heroism are unanimous in their respect for him with one exception: Gardner. There's bound to be one deluded dittohead in every such bunch and to this day, he calls the Vietnamese "gooks." To me, that's the equivalent of calling blacks n******
Greenhat says:
| Quote: | | I never claimed it didn't exist, Keith, I claimed I never heard of it. |
Clever boy. The unavoidable implication to saying "I never heard of it and I was the batallion historian" is that it must not exist. Bizarre that Greenhat would try to counter something as irrefutable as the existence of Tiger Force. Another implication, Greenhat, is that you're clueless because you hadn't heard of it.
Funny that nobody has written to the Pulitzer committee about the prestigious investigative journalism prize awarded based on a group that didn't exist. You should be the first to bring this to their attention: "I was batallion historian and I never heard of it."
Last edited by sparky on Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Funny that nobody has written to the Pulitzer committee about the prestigious investigative journalism prize awarded based on a group that didn't exist. You should be the first to bring this to their attention: "I was batallion historion and I never heard of it."[/quote]
It might be worth remembering that Janet Cooke, a reporter for the Washington Post was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1981 for her story "Jimmy's World" that was a fraud.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranger10x
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:07 am Post subject: Lets Get Some Data from a poll |
|
|
There should be three different polls by all the major networks on this issue with the following questions; of course they would never do it since it would hurt John Kerry with the results.
Ex Airborne Ranger
2nd Ranger Batt 75th Inf
Fort Lewis WA
Poll For WWII Veterans only
Poll For Vietnam Veterans only
Poll For All Veterans
• Who should be the next Commander & Chief?
o President Bush
o John Kerry
• Who do you consider a traitor to this country for their actions
during the Vietnam War and after the Vietnam War?
o President Bush
o John Kerry
o Neither
o Both
• Since John Kerry has portrayed himself as a War Hero for this
year’s Presidential election during his 4 month tour in Vietnam,
do you think John Kerry is a true War Hero?
o Yes
o No
• Did John Kerry help or hurt the Vietnam Veterans that were
still in Vietnam during his Anti-Vietnam War years?
o Helped
o Hurt
• Do you think John Kerry helped the enemy in Vietnam?
o Yes
o No
_________________
Ranger10X |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It might be worth remembering that Janet Cooke, a reporter for the Washington Post was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1981 for her story "Jimmy's World" that was a fraud. |
Well, now is Greenhat's big chance. Since the Pulitzer committee has retracted their prizes in the past, he should let them know that he'd never heard of Tiger Force and he was the batallion historian.
It would shake the world of journalism and make VVAW look really bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="sparky.
It would shake the world of journalism and make VVAW look really bad.[/quote]
Nobody has to try to make the VVAW look bad. They do just fine all by themselves.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Jerry
Commander
Joined: 28 May 2004
Posts: 339
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:42 pm Post subject: Response to Keith's piece on Kerry |
|
|
It's certainly interesting to read Keith's piece defending Kerry. However, it's even more interesting to note that Keith neglects to mention that Kerry slandered and maligned an entire generation of veterans in addition to admitting war crimes himself on at least two occasions (one on "Meet the Press" in 1971).
Keith, not to skillfully, also fails to point out that Kerry voted against military pay raises on many occasions. Even more disturbing, throughout his political career, Kerry has not been able to author one bill for veterans that was passed in congress. And, let's not forget Sen. Kerry has one of the worst attendance records in congress. We won't even mention the fact that he's one of the most despised senators in congress--despised by other senators.
And, of course, the world already knows about his decision making process or lack of... 
And now Keith, you know the rest of the story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougReese
Former Member
Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 396
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:52 pm Post subject: Re: Response to Keith's piece on Kerry |
|
|
| Doc Jerry wrote: | We won't even mention the fact that he's one of the most despised senators in congress--despised by other senators.
|
Interesting -- I haven't heard this before.
Could you mention some names? I know Chuck Hagel and John McCain won't be on the list, but who is?
Doug |
|
| 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
