SwiftVets.com

[Nathan Hale]

My first post. I'd like to thank all Vets for their service to our country.

I guess I wanted to find out a bit more about why there is so much anti-Kerry sentiment amongst Vets, yet you don't hear much about Bush using family connections to stay out of vietnam. (The former speaker of the Texas house, Ben Barnes, testified under oath that he interceded to get Bush into the TANG. He actually skipped over 500 more qualified candidates). Regardless of what you think about Kerry's attempts to get us out of 'Nam later, he showed up. Why the free pass for bush? On Bush's TANG application form, when asked about an overseas assignment, he checked "do not volunteer."

Anybody out there serve that would have preferred to get into the guard? Would that have pissed you off knowing some politicians son took your spot? Just Curious. I do thank you all!

[BrianC]

Regardless of what you think about Kerry's attempts to get us out of 'Nam later, he showed up.

..........

Yes, he did show up. I don't know any Veterans who have faulted him for that.

But your statement that "Kerry's attempts to get us out of 'Nam" are, in my opinion, a complete mischaracterization of what he was doing and saying after he returned.

Meeting with the Communist government officials in 1970/71, and accusing fellow Veterans of war crimes, protesting alongside the likes of Jane Fonda, is what Kerry was up to in those days, and that is what has led to Veterans casting dispersions in his direction.

[Nathan Hale]

[95 bxl]

Look....

The deal is this. Kerry is a self-confessed war criminal, no matter WHAT Bush may, or may not be.

For you democrats, Clinton's cowardly draft-dodging was no reason to vote against Clinton, and he was running against two bone-fide war heroes. So, at the end of the day, Bush's NG service is no reason to vote against him... or for Kerry.

The only thing Kerry has going for himself is his abbreviated service in Vietnam. And if that qualifies Kerry to be President, then there are a million veterans more highly qualified than Kerry.

As for not finding the multiple posts and trolls of the Kerry-bots "disrespectful," that is, at the end of the day, due to the fact that for the average Kerry-bot, there is NO outrage... no lie.... that can be committed in support of their little war-criminal that Kerry supporters WOULD object to.

For Americans, when its all said and done... we'll step into the voting booth, and look down at the choices presented to us. We'll see that the choices are, primarily, Bush and Kerry. Them we'll ask ourselves: which one of these two would the terrorists vote for.

And then, we'll vote for the other one. And the other one is Bush.

[publius]

...

[LewWaters]

Considering that Kerry was speaking against Vietnam prior to his service and was trying to liken himself to Kennedy, as well as announcing as early as 1966 that he had political aspirations, his short 4 months service and rapid award of 3 purple hearts for minor scratches to get out of Vietnam paints quite a picture as to why he even went.

For me, he declared Vietnam to be wrong, a mistake, criminal, immoral and horrific. Now, he wants all to believe he is a hero of that same conflict while never recanting his earlier views. In fact, he has recently said he still stands by them. How can you declare yourself a hero of a conflict that you so dispised?

It just doesn't wash.

[Bhist]

[JN173]

[quote="Nathan Hale"]

[95 bxl]

"As for not finding the multiple posts and trolls of the Kerry-bots "disrespectful," that is, at the end of the day, due to the fact that for the average Kerry-bot, there is NO outrage... no lie.... that can be committed in support of their little war-criminal that Kerry supporters WOULD object to."

And Nate, here, is a case in point: "What is the big objection here? Are we not grownups? Can't we face facts, even uncomfortable ones?

War crimes are a part of every war."

Like that excuses anything.

Of the two main candidates, only one of them is a war criminal. And he happens to be the guy YOU are supporting.

[AZ3]

Kerry's own words...

In answer to a question posed by Senator Aiken on what would be the attitude of the South Vietnamese people should we withdraw:

“If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic bombing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.

The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can't go around -- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capability. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.”

Murdered. 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America. His words. Question is, will he bring the same attitude, the same feelings to the situation in the Middle East, and to our conduct in the world theater?

On the use of drugs by military personnel, question posed by Senator Symington:

“The problem is extremely serious. It is serious in very many different ways. I believe two Congressmen today broke a story. I can't remember their names. There were 35,000 or some men, heroin addicts that were back.

The problem exists for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the emptiness. It is the only way to get through it. A lot of guys, 60, 80 percent stay stoned 24 hours a day just to get through the Vietnam – “

“You say 60 to 80 percent.”

“Sixty to 80 percent is the figure used that try sornething, let's say, at one point. Of that I couldn't give you a figure of habitual smokers, let's say, of pot, and I certainly couldn't begin to say how many are hard drug addicts, but I do know that the problem for the returning veteran is, acute, because we have, let's say, a veteran picks up a $12 habit in Saigon. He comes back to this country and the moment he steps off an airplane that same habit costs him some $90 to support. With the state of the economy, he can't get a job. He doesn't earn money. He turns criminal or just finds his normal sources and in a sense drops out.
The alienation of the war, the emptiness of back and forth, all combined adds to this. There is no real drug rehabilitation program. I know the VA hospital in New York City has 20 beds allocated for drug addicts; 168 men are on the waiting list, and I really don't know what a drug addict does on the waiting list.”

First he says that 60 to 80 percent of the men in Viet Nam stayed stoned 24 hours a day, then he says 60 to 80 percent is the figure of men who tried drugs. He then goes on to describe a returning Viet Nam vet as a man who has a drug habit, cannot find a job, and then turns to crime.

So tell me, where did this image the American public had of a drug crazed, whacked out shell come from if not John Kerry?

Now consider this, what would it mean to the war on terror if a man who testified in front of Congress that we had no business interfering in the affairs of other nations is given the responsibility to protect this country from threats born in those nations.

We are at war...there is no room for ambiguity, there is no room nor time for second guessing, and there certainly is no room for a man who proclaimed that the majority of those serving in Viet Nam were drug addicts in order to establish himself in the public eye and create a platform for a political career.
_________________
Helantisubron 4, 1970-1974, Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club member, Shellback, American. Nuff said.

[Armorer]

Nate... I find your confession regarding your lack of bravery very ammusing in light of your choice of moniker. I wonder if that was your intention...
But in response to your query...
Sadly, service members these days expect a certain amount of disconnect from the civilian populace they serve. This is due in large part to the political and cultural climate of the Vietnam era from which Sen. Kerry emerged. What service members do not (and should not) expect is to be betrayed by one of their fellows. Civilians are civilians, they will always be a little different from a veteran. But we hold ourselves to a higher standard. If Sen. Kerry had done and said the things he did having never served in the military it would be a much different situation. But because of his service his deeds become sins and betrayals in the eyes of his fellow veterans.

On the other hand, we have President Bush. I don't think many veterans delude themselves as to the nature of the National Guard in the Vietnam era. It was a bit of a joke. But the joke ends at the flight line. Military aircraft are dangerous and just getting into one requires a certain amount of bravery... even more so if that aircraft is maintained by "part time" National Guard ground crew. If the President lacked bravery he would have found a much safer job than the one he did. More to the point, he allegedly exploited connections to find the most dangerous job in the Guard that he could. The Vietnam era National Guard bares a certain amount of stigma and perhaps that's fair. But it doesn't make President Bush unfit to serve as President. Kerry's limited and questionable service, on the other hand, along with his activities with VVAW and others make him not only unfit, but it makes even his candidacy an insult to veterans who suffered his efforts everywhere.
_________________
"Clean your weapons!"

[publius]

[Bhist]

I fear what this country will turn into if Kerry is elected. If we can believe what he said before Congress in the 1970s to be how he really feels, then Iraq and Afghanistan will go down the tubes and we'll be left with two terrorists states instead of their current 0.
_________________
Watch Kerry Implode Because Of Truth!!
Watch Rather Implode Because Of Lies!!

[publius]

[Armorer]

Hey publius...
Was he only 20? Kinda young for a Yale grad, isn't it? Well, don't assume to know the truth of my assertions. When you're getting on a 53 and the platoon Sgt says he won't board unless it's leaking because that's the only way he can be sure it has hydraulic fluid... yeah, there's a little fear there. I can assure you, I know the fear of boarding a military aircraft. That's not to say the jocks don't get a kick out of it, but it doesn't make them any less brave. By your calculations the same gentleman you cited lacked bravery until he was nearly killed. I dunno, but those calculations sound like fuzzy math to me. Besides, what did you expect the guy to say? "Hell yeah I'm brave, gimme that medal!"? Heros tend towards modesty over their actions... another point against Kerry.
_________________
"Clean your weapons!"