Kerry... what is hidden.

Former Member · February 2004

Globe; So if you had won, what would you have done with place, there was bound to be continued covert opperations and attacks against US forces. It would have dragged on even longer.

I must say I like your assumption that all the millions of Vietnamese people killed were combatants, interesting, no civilians at all?

Former Member · February 2004

Originally posted by BlackArab

BTW, out of interest, were you in Vietnam? and what branch of the military are/were you in? I'm guessing the marines by your name.

Marine Corps, 1/9... "The Walking Dead", so called by none other than Ho Chi Minh, and we took the name to rub his face in it. Two tours, 26 months total, not counting medical leave for recuperation from wounds.

You might investigate and read up on the 1/9. We were in the midst, and got not simply a bite of the shite sandwich, but ate the whole damned thing. And then went back for seconds...

When I speak of Vietnam? It comes from a perspective of having BEEN THERE, not from the slurping up of lies and distortions within a canard created for political gain... unlike some who post here.

Former Member · February 2004

Originally posted by bongbudda

I must say I like your assumption that all the millions of Vietnamese people killed were combatants, interesting, no civilians at all?

I addressed COMBATANTS terminated, and do not even begin to discuss civilian casualties. And there were far more targeted civilian casualties by the NVA and VC acts of domestic terrorism, than there were collateral casualties by US forces.

Again... I WAS THERE. Were you? :rolleyes:

Former Member · February 2004

History of the U.S. War in Vietnam
By Barry Romo, Pete Zastrow & Joe Miller

More than any U.S. war since the Civil War, Vietnam divided America and made us reevaluate our society. By any standard, the American effort in Southeast Asia was a major conflict. Money, bombs and men were fed into a meat grinder whose purpose seemed to change at every Presidential press conference. Questions about the history and lessons of the war in Vietnam continue to be raised again and again in the face of current events. The events of 9-11 brought the violence that is part of the daily life of so many of the world's peoples into the lives of Americans in a way that has never been paralleled. A "War on Terrorism" has been declared that has no end in sight. U.S. military personnel have been put at risk in not only Afghanistan, but in increased presence in the Philippines and Colombia. Popular culture offers Mel Gibson's portrayal of Vietnam back when the issues were simpler in We Were Soldiers. Blackhawk Down shows the value of U.S. combat deaths regardless of the settings and the goals. We feel that it is important to remember the lessons of the U.S. War in Vietnam as we knew and lived it.

U.S. involvement in Vietnam did not begin in the 1960's or even the 1940's, but in 1845. That's right -- 1845. In that year the people of Da Nang arrested a French missionary bishop for breaking local laws. The U.S. commander of "Old Ironsides" (the U.S.S. Constitution) landed U.S. Navy and Marines in support of French efforts to reclaim their missionary. Mad Jack Percival, the ship's captain, fired into the city of Da Nang, killing 3 dozen Vietnamese, wounding more, and taking the local mandarins hostage. He then demanded that the Catholic Bishop be freed in exchange for his hostages. The Vietnamese were unimpressed. They refused his demand and waited. "Mad Jack" got tired of waiting, released his hostages, and sailed away leaving the Bishop behind. One hundred and thirty years later, Americans would again become tired of their involvement and leave Vietnam. Unfortunately we would leave behind far more than 3 dozen dead.

U.S. involvement in Vietnam during World War II saw the Vietnamese as our allies. A group of OSS agents (later to become the CIA) made contact with anti-Japanese guerrillas in Southeast Asia. The French who had controlled the area were the "Vichy" French who, with their Nazi leanings, supported the Japanese. Of the different Vietnamese nationalists, only the Viet Minh under Ho Chi Minh led the national network of underground organizations and guerrillas fighting.

Ho Chi Minh met with the U.S. operative, Major Patti, and they agreed on joint anti-Japanese actions. The U.S. dropped supplies behind the lines to Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh helped Americans downed behind Japanese lines. The first American advisors helped train, equip and arm the Viet Minh. In 1945, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was formed with Ho Chi Minh as the first President. American planes flew over Hanoi in celebration of the founding. The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence echoed that of the U.S.: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. Understood in the broader sense this means: All people on earth are born equal. Every person has the right to live, to be happy, and free."

Ho Chi Minh asked the Americans to honor their commitment to independence, citing the Atlantic Charter and the U.N. Charter on self-determination. However, by the end of the war, the U.S. government had begun to redirect its foreign policy from the wartime goal of the liberation of all occupied countries and colonies to the postwar anti-communist crusade, which became the Cold War. In France, where communists had led the resistance to the Nazi occupation, American policy supported General Charles de Gaulle and his anti-communist "Free French." De Gaulle aimed to restore the glory of France, which meant the return of all former French colonies. U.S. relations with the Vietnamese turned sour. President Truman refused to answer letters or cables from Ho. Instead, the U.S. began to ship military aid to the French forces in Indochina.

The French return to their former colony was not easy. First, they had to arm and use former Japanese POWs to establish a foothold; not a move fated to win much popular support. They were able to retake towns but not the countryside. In 1950, General Giap launched a general offensive against the French, which, though it was premature, resulted in 6,000 French killed or captured. In 1954, the French were decisively defeated at Dien Bien Phu. Although the French government described Dien Bien Phu as a "victory," it was more truly portrayed by commentator Bernard Fall as France's "greatest colonial defeat since Montcalm died at Quebec."

According to international agreement, Vietnam was to be temporarily divided into north and south, with free elections to take place nationwide in 1956. Even before the French were out, the U.S. was moving in. Prior to Dien Bien Phu, the U.S. set up MAAG (Military Assistance and Advisory Group) consisting of 350 U.S. personnel operating in Saigon in support of the French. Between 1950 and 1954, the U.S. contributed over $3 billion to their French allies in the fight for Vietnam. By 1954, the U.S. contributions were providing 80% of the cost of the war. MAAG began to train a "nationalistic" Vietnamese force of a quarter of a million men. This force was largely made up of Vietnamese who had fought for the French.

Former Emperor Bao Dai had appointed Ngo Dinh Diem, a Vietnamese Catholic who had lived in the U.S. and Europe, Premier of South Vietnam. Though Vietnam was 95% Buddhist, the Catholic Diem was soon recognized as the future leader of Vietnam by the CIA and other U.S. interests. In 1956 the U.S. refused to go along with the promised nation-wide elections because, in the words of President Eisenhower, "Possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai."

U.S. involvement continued and so did U.S. money and men. American presence rose to 500 under Eisenhower and grew to 15,000 under Kennedy. But Diem continued to be in trouble: former Viet Minh cadres helped to support a number of groups to oppose Diem and the French successor in Vietnam -- the U.S. The similarity between the French and the U.S. forces in Vietnam was, from the Vietnamese point of view, more than that both were foreign oppressors. Even our uniforms were similar, right down to the green berets. In fact, U.S. troops were known as "Frenchmen with money."

Buddhist unrest grew in the cities. In the countryside the National Liberation Front (the NLF, called the Viet Cong or VC by Diem and the U.S.) were killing Diem's cronies and consolidating power. The U.S. decided to back a coup of Vietnamese generals to topple Diem. Not only did the generals get rid of Diem and assassinate him; they also went on to overthrow one another on a regular basis.

The situation was desperate. More and more American troops were put in to replace Saigon troops who could not, or would not, get involved in the fighting. The Saigon government had no real base other than the aid it got from the U.S., and we got exactly what we paid for: pimps, prostitutes, cowards and gangsters, masquerading as a government and a military.

This was bad enough. But it was coupled with the incredible arrogance on the part of the U.S. government and military leaders. They could not believe that Asians could stand up to the might and technology of the U.S. As the war progressed, we went from one stage to another without any real change in the situation. Strategic hamlets, Vietnamization, search and destroy, pacification: the French had tried all these programs, but somehow the U.S. thought we could make them work. They did not.

The American people were not being told of the plans or the policies of the U.S. government. To the contrary: Lyndon Johnson ran as a peace candidate in 1964, saying, "I won't send American boys to do the fighting for Asian troops." Americans were told that Vietnam was two countries (omitting some 2,000 years of history) and that the North was invading the South. And none of the information given out did anything to answer the questions of the 19-year-old American fighting the guerrillas in South Vietnam. While Saigon's leaders were talked about as the Vietnamese versions of Jefferson and Lincoln, we saw the drug pushing, the black marketeering and the torture cells.

Somehow in order to save Vietnam we had to destroy it. Civilian casualties from U.S. actions ran from 100,000 in 1965 up to 300,000 in 1968, just from bombing and artillery. In addition, millions upon millions of gallons of herbicides were sprayed over 6 million acres of land. We bombed hospitals to save orphans, we sprayed Agent Orange and destroyed the land in order to save crops, and we burned hamlets to save villages and turned Vietnam into a huge whorehouse in order to save Vietnam from Communism.

(cont)...

Former Member · February 2004

(cont)...

As GIs in Vietnam we saw the often-stark realities of Vietnam and could compare them to the "truth" the American people were being told. We saw the corrupt Saigon generals making money hand over fist while their armies would not fight. We saw the hate in the eyes of the local villagers who never welcomed us as "liberators" bringing us bouquets of flowers as we had seen in World War II movies. The only Vietnamese who seemed to want us there wanted greenbacks in return for drugs, booze or women, or all three. We also saw the enemy fight and had to admire both his bravery and tenacity in taking on U.S. tanks, planes and helicopters with grenades and rifles. We supposedly valued human life while our enemy did not. Yet we paid the owners of the Michelin plantations $600 for each rubber tree we damaged, while the family of a slain Vietnamese child got no more than $120 in payment for a life.

We took and defended "strategic" hills, winning what the press called "victories." While the enemy body count (noted for the thin line between military and civilian dead) enhanced ranking officers' careers, it was the casualties among our friends that were felt first by us. And then we'd give up the hill and have to fight for it again later on. The war was not something to be won or lost by the grunt, but 365 days to be survived.

The U.S. tried everything to win. We dropped more than three times the total tonnage of bombs dropped by both sides in World War II. We conducted "Operation Phoenix" during which the CIA and the Saigon government killed up to 40,000 suspected members of the Viet Cong. We defoliated 10% of the land, much of it permanently. We bombed, bribed, shot, killed and burned for more than 10 years at a cost of $170 billion (and a future cost which is continuing to rise). Despite all this, we still lost.

Nixon did not pull out because the U.S. was winning but because the Vietnamese were. Some generals today are saying we lost the war but never lost a battle -- but what the hell did we "win" at Khe Sanh or in the Iron Triangle or in Laos or in Cambodia besides having some hole punched in some officer's promotion card?
The simple fact is that neither the American people nor the American GIs fighting in Vietnam thought that the goals -- real or imagined -- were worth the lives and the money being squandered. The war was lost on the battlefields of Vietnam and in the hearts and minds of the American people.

During the war, VVAW led tens of thousands of Vietnam vets in demonstrations against that war. No comparable group of Vietnam vets ever rose to challenge VVAW or our goals. When VVAW brought 1500 Vietnam vets to protest Nixon's renomination, the Republican Party could only come up with 6 vets to support the war -- and some of these did not support Nixon. Vietnam vets knew firsthand about the real war, and they opposed it.

When this was first written, the Reagan administration had begun again to put U.S. service lives on the line to further foreign policy goals. The invasion of Grenada, the bombing of Libya, the abortive occupation of Beirut, Persian Gulf patrols -- all reflected a new U.S. readiness to intervene overseas. The parallels with Vietnam were particularly striking in Central America were the U.S. supported repressive regimes against popular insurgencies.

The first Bush administration followed suit with the invasion of Panama, supposedly to capture a drug dealer (who had long been on the CIA's payroll). Thousands of Panamanians were killed and many more displaced in this "just cause." This "success" emboldened Bush to take us to war in the Persian Gulf in 1990-91, merely to protect our sources of oil and to reestablish the royal family in Kuwait. Hundreds of thousands died in this one-sided conflict, including nearly three hundred U.S. troops (many the result of accidents and "friendly fire"). The Iraqi people continue to suffer under a horrible embargo that was established at the end of that war. Under Clinton came the use of U.S. troops in Somalia and the continued advancement of a "war on drugs" against the people of Columbia. With the horrible events of 9-11 misused as justification for any kind of violent or repressive response, U.S. military personnel are once again being used to fulfill political aims.

Vietnam was not just a mistake. Any U.S. venture in another part of the globe will also be a mistake for the GIs who buy the government's lies. Vietnam was not a "noble cause," except for those who fought to bring our brothers home after they made the mistake of going. As for foreign aggression, hear the words of Medal of Honor winner and Marine commandant Smedley Butler:

"War is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes...How many millionaires ever shoulder a rifle?

"For a great many years as a soldier, I had the suspicion that war was a racket. Not until I retired did I fully realize it.

"I was," said Butler of his own role in Central American intervention, "nothing more than a gangster for Wall Street."

http://www.vvaw.org/about/warhistory.php

Former Member · February 2004

Interesting to note how vociferously our resident militant defends a war long revealed to have been based on utter lies and hidden political agendas.

Interesting to note further that this episode in our longrunning history of self-justified interventionism, having nothing whatsoever to do with protecting our nation but rather imposing Washington's will (and that of the big money which owns it) on lesser nations, continues to divide our nation. If we won, as Globe would like to believe, then it is a hollow victory indeed and one characterised by as yet long unhealed wounds upon our national psyche.

I suppose Globe and his knee jerk anti-democratic comrades will gleefully rejoice in the slaughter of American citizens on the Kent State campus as solid patriotic duty, whilst claiming to love our nation and its citizens. Some victory.

In the end this chapter in US history only further underscores the need for thorough present day scrutiny and exposure of the machinations of the MIC and the means it employs to justify its for profit "meat grinder" mentality to a public regularly kept woefully misinformed of our nationalistic misdeeds outside our shores.

At least some who watched their friends and fellows slaughtered to serve the empty rhetoric of "democracy" have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that the only real "winners" in all of this were, as remains true today, our big money interests. The same industries desperate to keep the issue of military service (along with the contrived issue of character - based predominantly upon sexual fidelity) at the forefront of the public debate in order to divert attention away from the many deeper issues eating away at the fabric of our society.

Former Member · February 2004

All this is missing the point- at least he went to fight, unlike the criminal in the Oval Office now

Is this the best the republicans can drag up? Some random quote from North Vietnam, when they spend all their time saying how lying and traitorous the North Vietnamese were?

Oh, and Whowhere is wrong to say the war was "lost". But the war could never have been won, just like the war in Korea was never won.

Former Member · February 2004

All this is missing the point indeed. The point i raised about miltarism being a central issue in determining the legitimacy of a candidate in the face of a host of more pertinent issues facing our society.

Whilst Globe and co can but rant against some self concocted betrayal by Kerry for exercising his real patriotic duty to underscore the illegitimacy of a bogus corporate war, I argue that Kerry, as he stands today (a career Washington isider and as tied to corporate interest money as the incumbent) is no alternative to the very status quo that made Vietnam, let alone Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, (or any host of contrived interventions for MIC profit and political control) possible. By that same token, neither is Edwards.

Using the example of another historic betrayal of the American public by Washington as a yardstick by which measure qualifications only contributes to the diversionary agenda that has governed our electoral process for far too long and is thus flawed.

Former Member · February 2004

Ay, Thanatos Ay!

Ay!

Former Member · February 2004

Shi-shi-shitting themselves
Shitting themselves
shiting themselves.

Shi-shi-shitting themselves
the republicans are shitting themselves.

Whoey!

Former Member · February 2004

Originally posted by Globe
Marine Corps, 1/9... "The Walking Dead", so called by none other than Ho Chi Minh, and we took the name to rub his face in it. Two tours, 26 months total, not counting medical leave for recuperation from wounds.

You might investigate and read up on the 1/9. We were in the midst, and got not simply a bite of the shite sandwich, but ate the whole damned thing. And then went back for seconds...

When I speak of Vietnam? It comes from a perspective of having BEEN THERE, not from the slurping up of lies and distortions within a canard created for political gain... unlike some who post here.

Any links on the 1/9 ? The Vietnam War is something I've read up on quite a lot over the years, the majority of the books have been from Vets who were there, from Mark Bakers 'Nam', Fuller/Goldman's 'Charlie Company' to Colin Powells autobiography, just to name a few.

What is clear that even amongst the Vets themselves there is widely differing views about the issues.

Edited to add: Globe, how about a reply to the other post, it would be nice to get a viewpoint from the American Right. You can't complain about liberal bias if your not prepared to educate us, plus I do get like to get differing views and decide from there. Momma didn't raise no sheep.

Former Member · February 2004

Alladin, did you know that Gordan Brown and Kerry have quite a long relationship, they are quite good mates. It would be interesting then if he took over here and Kerry won in the US.

But Kerry wont win, this is 72 all over again.

Former Member · February 2004

I didn't know that.

Now that you mention it, it is going to be very interesting to see the British government's official position about the forthcoming elections in the US. Normally you would expect the Labour party to support the Democrats, just as the Tories support the Republicans. But as we all know Tony Blair's New Labour government has been the single most staunch supporter of the far right wing Republican administration of G.W. Bush.

My guess is Bliar and New Labour party officials will keep their mouth shut on the issue. Everybody knows they'd be supporting a Republican government but Bliar will not want to say so and make it 'official'- and thus wiping out the last vestiges of morality and decency from what was once a caring left of centre party.

Former Member · February 2004

Originally posted by Globe
58,000 combatants, compared to anywhere from 1.5 million to 4 million NVA and VC combatants, depending upon which Vietnamese source you prefer.

Continue to prefer your DELUSIONS and accept the lies you regurgitate, rather than the words of the NVn leaders, themselves?

Or do you prefer to ignore exactly who Gen Giap actually was? :rolleyes: Your ignorance truly is bliss, is it not?

We did not require nuclear weapons... we defeated them militarily WITHOUT such, and did it handicapped by a mission statement preventing us from prosecuting the war properly, AS A WAR. We did not use "nuclear weapons" at Khe Sanh, where 5600 Marines stood off and defeated 100,000 NVA. Nor did we require them at Hue, Con Thien, or any other battle where they outnumbered us 10 to 1.

We did not require "nuclear weapons" in Quang Tri, where we forced the NVA invasion BACK across the DMZ, and all the way to the Paris Peace tables, to sign an accord, rather than to be extinguished from the face of the earth. Prefer to avoid the knowledge of what REALLY transpired, in that era? Prefer to remain ignorant of what was within those Paris accords?

"Deadbeat"? It was the proliferation of cowardly little wanker-boys such as yourself, during that time, that caused the politicians to betray their commitment, and allow SVn to fall to the subsequent NVA invasion, two years later.

No... it is YOU who are the fool, refusing to accept that it was the SVn government and ARVN who "lost", after the withdrawal BY THE STRICTURES OF THE PARIS PEACE ACCORD, in the absense of continued US support.

"Deadbeat"? The appelation is more fittingly applied to willfully delusional YOU. You believe if you repeat the same lies often enough, you might make them become truth...

You still withdrew, you realised you couldn't win. Your army isn't geared towards guerilla or urban warfare anywhere near a European or Asian one.
Your quoting of casualty stats, although interesting is irrelevant, the NVA KEPT COMING. You buggered off. The NVA was sufficiently powerful to take the whole country a mere 2 years later. Face it, you're a deadbeat. You can't picture your fantastic country losing at anything, let alone something like a stalemate war.
Your hitlerite higher uppers can't even stand the possibility of losing to someone who was also there so they have to concot lies about him.

You can't stand the thought that you may perish if you leave home without your trusty AK, even though in civilised parts of the world the people who feel the need to brandish a weapon are instantly labelled cowards.
And you think I'm dillusional? That's rich coming from a gun toting redneck like yourself, tell me does your pickup have confederate flags on it, or do you simply live in a mobile home and hang around some garbage cans with your viet vet buddies drinking beer?

Former Member · February 2004

May I just add Thanatos that you might have not used nukes in Vietnam (though not for lack of consideration) but you sure as hell used another WMD in the name of chemical agents to such extent that 1.1 million people have been killed or crippled to date. Not to mention the incalculable damage done to the environment, farming industry, economy...

You give me the choice, I'll take the nukes to the filth you dropped on Vietnam any day.

Hong Hanh is both surprising and terrifying. Here is a 19-year-old who lives in a 10-year-old's body. She clatters around with disjointed spidery strides which leave her soaked in sweat. When she cannot stop crying, soothing creams and iodine are rubbed into her back, which is a lunar collage of septic blisters and scabs. "My daughter is dying," her mother says. "My youngest daughter is 11 and she has the same symptoms. What should we do? Their fingers and toes stick together before they drop off. Their hands wear down to stumps. Every day they lose a little more skin. And this is not leprosy. The doctors say it is connected to American chemical weapons we were exposed to during the Vietnam war."

There are an estimated 650,000 like Hong Hanh in Vietnam, suffering from an array of baffling chronic conditions. Another 500,000 have already died. The thread that weaves through all their case histories is defoliants deployed by the US military during the war. Some of the victims are veterans who were doused in these chemicals during the war, others are farmers who lived off land that was sprayed. The second generation are the sons and daughters of war veterans, or children born to parents who lived on contaminated land. Now there is a third generation, the grandchildren of the war and its victims.

The full report: read it if you dare and then come back and give us your thoughts

And even with such hideous crimes against humanity you managed to lose the damned war. :rolleyes:

Former Member · February 2004

But it's alright because they refrained from using nukes :rolleyes:

Jaded · February 2004

For goodness sakes, do you think you could refrain from getting personal? It is so unneccesary.

Former Member · February 2004

Unnecessary perhaps, but so much more fun!

Jaded · February 2004

:yeees:

Former Member · February 2004

Originally posted by Whowhere
You still withdrew, you realised you couldn't win. Your army isn't geared towards guerilla or urban warfare anywhere near a European or Asian one.

Still in denial of reality? :rolleyes:

Do you even allow yourself to be aware of the mission statement, concerning the engagement in Vietnam? That the US forces were there to prevent the NVA from over-running the South? That we were constrained by that mission statement from invading NVn, and a clear military victory? That over 90% of US forces had been withdrawn from Vietnam prior to the Easter Offensive of 1972, that the NVA came crashing through the DMZ, and we pushed them back, anyway, with a mere fraction of our troops? That by pushing North Vietnam to the tables in Paris (in 1973) WAS the victory, the fruition of that mission statement?

The US military did win the ground battle, which was betrayed by the lack of resolve by the politicians and far left civilian refusal to uphold the commitment to South Vietnam, and stood by as the NVA broke the accord, and invaded South Vietnam, once again.

No? Steelgate has had greater effect upon your simple mind than you realize: you are far along the path of becoming his willing pawn.

As for who I am, and the life I lead? You persist in your arrogant and ignorant muse, because the truth threatens you too deeply. The "personal attacks" here come from he who refuses to believe what actually happened, supported by signed accord, supported by testimony, conversation, and public proclamation by the leaders of the NVA, aka "the enemy".

The "deadbeat"? Would be the image within your own mirror...

And as far as what the US military is capable of, prepared and TOTALLY functional of? Until you have served within that military (or ANY military of note), you have not the slightest clue.

Again, deeply threatens your delusional existence, does it not?

Former Member · February 2004

What about the 1,100,000 people killed and wounded by the US' chemical weapons in Vietnam? Are you going to comment on that?

Former Member · February 2004

Oi Aladdin, get in the queue, I'm waiting for two replies to questions. :mad:

Former Member · February 2004

Originally posted by Whowhere
I think if anything Kerry has more right than anyone to denounce the war in the first place...

From Kerry's Fake Warriors:

Kerry relied upon phonies and wannabes for support. His prominence has allowed current phonies and wannabes to continue the unsubstantiated allegations made all those years ago and which Kerry appears to condone even today. For example:

Elton Mazione, claiming Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) credentials, Kerry's original organization, along with his friends, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser. They claimed to kill children and remove body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix program. They were neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam.

Kerry's VVAW leader friend from 1971, Al Hubbard, lied about being an officer, Vietnam Veteran, and sustaining war injuries. Michael Harbert, another VVAW crony of Kerry, lied about his Vietnam service.

Frank Dux: He charged many recognizable Vietnam vets with using techniques bordering on war crimes. Dux was a fraud and non Vietnam Veteran.

Yoshia K. Chee claimed we in Vietnam routinely resorted to the most hideous forms of torture, threw people out of helicopters, and decapitated prisoners. He was a phony.

Mike Beamon, an alleged SEAL and Phoenix assassin, was never in the military.

The Senator's own VVAW and similar groups relied upon people like: K. Barton Osborn, a Vietnam veteran and testifier of atrocities to Congress. He told of prisoners being thrown out of helicopters, a woman starved to death, a prisoner being killed by a six inch dowel pushed through his ear. Osborn was not in Phoenix, refused to name names, and provided no documentation.

Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn. Both sought conscientious objector status because of Phoenix. Reitemeyer testified to being assigned to Phoenix as an adviser and maintained a kill quota of fifty bodies a month. They became famous as My Lai hit the news. Neither served in Vietnam, in Phoenix, or had any first hand information. Reitemeyer later denied receiving any assassination training.

http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/kerrys_fake_warriors.htm#IF%20YOU%20WOULD

Former Member · February 2004

*cough*

Former Member · February 2004

Originally posted by Globe
From Kerry's Fake Warriors:

Kerry relied upon phonies and wannabes for support. His prominence has allowed current phonies and wannabes to continue the unsubstantiated allegations made all those years...
http://www.vnsfvetakerry.com/kerrys_fake_warriors.htm#IF%20YOU%20WOULD

While we're duplicating posts from Military.com, Thanny...

What's known as 'the poor man's cocaine', Thanny, and used by fighter pilots to maintain performance?

Go-pills

Former Member · February 2004

Just goes to show how ineffective and poorly trained the US military is if it's troops need drugs just to keep them moving.

Former Member · February 2004

Originally posted by Whowhere
Just goes to show how ineffective and poorly trained the US military is if it's troops need drugs just to keep them moving.

We have done this in the past, not sure about present policy. LSD was tested on British troops in the 50s, I've seen the footage and its surreal. Squaddies going through their drill when tripping.

BTW Anybody remember the film 'Jacobs Ladder'?

Jaded · February 2004

That was disturbing. Excellent film, but disturbing. Particularly the giant lizards dancing.

Former Member · February 2004

Disturbing was watching the 'First Tuesday' documentary about the real life experiments the film was based on. I saw it about twelve years ago just after seeing the film for the first time. It was about experiments that took place in the search for potential military uses for drugs and biological warfare.

Kerry... what is hidden.

Comments