Gary Gordon
Unregistered
G
American said:
That picture is from the early 90s.
As far as this thread goes, I read the original post and felt that is was quite obviously self-serving.
Funny how the "groupthink" I have detected on this forum prevents others from acknowledging when a thread like this is clearly written to be self-serving. Where is honesty in the world? I thought I could find it at a skeptic board, but so far....
Gary Gordon
Unregistered
G
Luke T. said:
If this isn't an attempt at self-aggrandizing, I don't know what is.
Whether the statement is even true is in question. Most war heroes I know don't brag about themselves or what they have done, especially on internet forums.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Unless you are a sock, GG, by your post count you are evidently new to this community. Luke, however, is not. And in the two-plus years I've been contributing here I've found his thoughts to be intelligent, reasoned, and worthwhile, even though at times I might disagree.
Yep, opposing views give any discussion vitality and provide interest. Comic contrarians like American can add a little fun. And then there are those whose posts are just so much noise.
Disagree with the premise of the original poster if you like. But if things get personal, I'll side with him.
Yep, opposing views give any discussion vitality and provide interest. Comic contrarians like American can add a little fun. And then there are those whose posts are just so much noise.
Disagree with the premise of the original poster if you like. But if things get personal, I'll side with him.
Gary Gordon
Unregistered
G
Regnad Kcin said:
Side with who want. I spoke the truth. I don't care if his other 4,046 posts here were about feeding the poor, this post is clearly self-serving. I call em like I see em.
And so even if you're right, which I have little reason to believe, your contribution to this discourse is what, to debunk Luke? Like that's something of general importance, worthy of focusing your (self-)impressive, finely tuned skeptical skills?Gary Gordon said:
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
Re: Re: This Vet's Views On Kerry's Medals
I didn't read anything about Luke calling himself a war hero, or even participating in a war. Believe it or not, one can win medals in the military during peace time.
I do greatly respect Luke T alot more after his anecdote because I was in the military as well.. and I've seen several people get medals for things me and my crew had done. It seems that whoever is "in charge" is always the one that gets awarded in the military, not the person who came up with the idea or made it happen.
Gary Gordon said:
I didn't read anything about Luke calling himself a war hero, or even participating in a war. Believe it or not, one can win medals in the military during peace time.
I do greatly respect Luke T alot more after his anecdote because I was in the military as well.. and I've seen several people get medals for things me and my crew had done. It seems that whoever is "in charge" is always the one that gets awarded in the military, not the person who came up with the idea or made it happen.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Ah. Of course.Gary Gordon said:
He may have felt guilt for participating in the killing of little yellow men in a place we didn't belong.
What does this mean - armed very skilled soldiers should get a pass from being killed because they are little and yellow? And please justify your statement that we "didn't belong" in vietnam.
I believe Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam. He was not drafted. I've heard, but can't confirm, that many of Kerry's Harvard classmates volunteered, and that two years later, hardly anyone from Bush's class did.
This bears on the inconsistency of liberals - they always said that the those who went to canada or otherwise didn't serve in the war were "heroes" and the ones who did were "baby killers". Doesn't that make Bush a hero and Kerry a baby killer?
What does this mean - armed very skilled soldiers should get a pass from being killed because they are little and yellow? And please justify your statement that we "didn't belong" in vietnam.
I believe Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam. He was not drafted. I've heard, but can't confirm, that many of Kerry's Harvard classmates volunteered, and that two years later, hardly anyone from Bush's class did.
This bears on the inconsistency of liberals - they always said that the those who went to canada or otherwise didn't serve in the war were "heroes" and the ones who did were "baby killers". Doesn't that make Bush a hero and Kerry a baby killer?
I'm sorry, I've been browsing other threads and felt compelled to come back. You're here crowing about skepticism, when most of your posts can be reduced to "My partisan juices are flowing" with precious little lost in translation? Rich.Gary Gordon said:
Gary Gordon
Unregistered
G
I too have been in the service, and I can't imagine anyone turning down medals and insisting they be given to others then coming onto an internet forum and trying to take credit for it.
Why take credit? People who do things like these don't brag about them on the internet.
Why take credit? People who do things like these don't brag about them on the internet.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
I too have been in the service, and I can't imagine anyone turning down medals and insisting they be given to others then coming onto an internet forum and trying to take credit for it.
I would hardly say that he's trying to take credit, he's just telling a story of what happened in his life.
Why take credit? People who do things like these don't brag about them on the internet.
Who's bragging? Telling a personal anecdote is hardly bragging.
I would hardly say that he's trying to take credit, he's just telling a story of what happened in his life.
Why take credit? People who do things like these don't brag about them on the internet.
Who's bragging? Telling a personal anecdote is hardly bragging.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Re: Re: This Vet's Views On Kerry's Medals
.
The events that Luke describes didn't say anything about being a war hero, and didn't even vaguely resemble bragging.
Self aggrandizing posts would be more along the lines of 'I'm retired military and no one here can post anything about their service without my scrutiny'....
Gary Gordon said:
.
The events that Luke describes didn't say anything about being a war hero, and didn't even vaguely resemble bragging.
Self aggrandizing posts would be more along the lines of 'I'm retired military and no one here can post anything about their service without my scrutiny'....
Gary Gordon
Unregistered
G
thaiboxerken said:
What do you think "bragging" is? Telling stories about yourself, to make yourself look good. Clever braggers, with time to plan it out, frame "contexts" like this OP within which to brag about themselves. This aint sandbox bragging, it's more subtle and complex. But make no mistake, it comes down to the same damn thing: bragging.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
I think the Swift Boat Vets have at least an equal right to have their opinion heard. Frankly, I think that is most of what the SBV have is just opinions.
To me the medals are not an issue, nor is Kerry's service. The issue I have with Kerry is what he did after his service.
If there is anything that we should worry about in Kerry's record, it is that "Christmas in Cambodia" debacle. Remember? - The one that was "burned" into his memory and gave his arguments to the Senate a lot more bang for the buck.
Don't forget that it is Kerry who chose to make Vietnam an issue in this election and he deserves every bit of questioning about his record that he gets for making us all re-live that time.
I don't think the issue of the Vietnam War for good or bad was ever really settled. We got the heck out of there, the liberals claimed victory and we didn't discuss it anymore.
To me the medals are not an issue, nor is Kerry's service. The issue I have with Kerry is what he did after his service.
If there is anything that we should worry about in Kerry's record, it is that "Christmas in Cambodia" debacle. Remember? - The one that was "burned" into his memory and gave his arguments to the Senate a lot more bang for the buck.
Don't forget that it is Kerry who chose to make Vietnam an issue in this election and he deserves every bit of questioning about his record that he gets for making us all re-live that time.
I don't think the issue of the Vietnam War for good or bad was ever really settled. We got the heck out of there, the liberals claimed victory and we didn't discuss it anymore.
I may debate the particulars, but I have no problem with paragraph #2. Both paragraphs together, however, frame the problem (as I see it) perfectly.peptoabysmal said:
What is scandalous about the SBVs is that lesser, arguably legitimate allegations have been stirred together with the incendiary (discredited) allegations of medal-scamming. The result is one big pot of stew that reeks of character assasination.
And no, there are more than "just opinions". A number of SBVs have signed affidavits stating thet they have first-hand knowledge that Kerry lied about his medals, yet when pressed, admit they don't have first-hand knowledge. (And then there are the SBVs who were added to the list without permission.)
If I thought Kerry was a rat for saying what he said state-side, and/or for xmas in Cambodia, and I believed in fair play, I'd be very upset with the SBVs for the medal-scamming allegations -- for tainting the "legit" allegations.
A nitpick: Why do the SBVs have "at least" an equal right? What does that mean? Are you suggesting they might have a more than equal right? And equal to who or what?
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
Which SBVT guys signed affadavits saying they were eyewitnesses but turned out to not be eyewitnesses?
In what way have SBVT allegations been discredited? The last I heard it was an impasse, with Kerry refusing to address the allegations or release the relevant documentation, and the SBVT guys not having any further proof at hand (at least until Kerry releases his records).
It does sound as if your mind is made up, but that's hardly a reason to consider the other side 'debunked'... and it doesn't even address the problems with Kerry's versions of events.
In what way have SBVT allegations been discredited? The last I heard it was an impasse, with Kerry refusing to address the allegations or release the relevant documentation, and the SBVT guys not having any further proof at hand (at least until Kerry releases his records).
It does sound as if your mind is made up, but that's hardly a reason to consider the other side 'debunked'... and it doesn't even address the problems with Kerry's versions of events.
Gary Gordon said:
This is where I put on my Detective Columbo trench coat and try to annoy The Rich Guy, using innuendo and veiled accusation....
"....... I don't mean to suggest anything, sir, but... uhh... well you see... the black beret wasn't standard until June of 2001, l'anniversaire de l'armée américaine. With notable exceptions, I grant you...... the Army Rangers wore black, for example.....
I uhh. Oh shoot. You know something.... No. Never mind.... Thank you very much, Mr. Hertzbach. I think you answered all of my questions...."
Luke: I think you miss the point.
I don't think the criticism of Kerry is essentially that he "hasn't earned" his medals--even if he didn't, and indeed there was a serious "inflation" in medals, he would a). hardly be alone, and b). in any case he was awarded them, "earned" or not, and he hadn't invented this fact.
I don't think the criticism of Kerry's DD-241 as being inaccurate and his medal citations "puffing him up" is especially serious, either. Such government documents are notoriously inaccurate and if there are some discrepancies between what he said he earned and what is on his documents, there might very well be a reasonable explanation. And at worse--he "puffed up" his record a bit and said he earned four "stars" on his medal instead of two--it would not be too serious either. Lots of people do that.
I don't even think the criticism of Kerry is that he "flip-flopped" on Vietnam and threw (or didn't throw) his medals over the White House fence. Heck, that was the kind of stupid cr@p a lot of young people then, especially veterans, were doing.
No, the criticism of Kerry is that he lied to Congress and made up accusations of war crimes which never happened about the American Army.. I've read the transcript of his appearance before Congress. This is not just puffing himself up, or changing his mind and opposing the war. This is at the very least perjury, certainly also malicious libel, and could even be treason: the US was still at war at the time, and he, by inventing lies, was giving comfort to the enemy (althought it would not be treason legally, only morally, of course).
That is why Kerry is disliked by so many vets. Not his medals, not his Vietnam stories, not even his opposition to the war as such. He told Congress what, in effect, is a blood libel about the Army, to aggrendize his own political goals. When the Vietnam soldiers were coming home and getting dissed as "baby-killers" instead of a welcome, that was, to a significant degree, due to John Kerry.
Let me put it this way: suppose it turns out that the entire Abu Gharib bruahaha was made up by the soliders accusser, who fakes those pictures in order to make himself look good as "whistleblower"? What would that make you think about them? (Of course this is, at least, extremely unlikely--but that's not the point).
Now multiply that story by a factor of a few thousands, to compensate for the difference between Kerry's false accusations of routine mass murder and the Abu Gharib story of out-of-control sex orgies, and imagine what you would think of someone who falsely makes such claims.
As one vet put it, "a Kerry defeat would be the welcome-home parade we never had."
I don't think the criticism of Kerry is essentially that he "hasn't earned" his medals--even if he didn't, and indeed there was a serious "inflation" in medals, he would a). hardly be alone, and b). in any case he was awarded them, "earned" or not, and he hadn't invented this fact.
I don't think the criticism of Kerry's DD-241 as being inaccurate and his medal citations "puffing him up" is especially serious, either. Such government documents are notoriously inaccurate and if there are some discrepancies between what he said he earned and what is on his documents, there might very well be a reasonable explanation. And at worse--he "puffed up" his record a bit and said he earned four "stars" on his medal instead of two--it would not be too serious either. Lots of people do that.
I don't even think the criticism of Kerry is that he "flip-flopped" on Vietnam and threw (or didn't throw) his medals over the White House fence. Heck, that was the kind of stupid cr@p a lot of young people then, especially veterans, were doing.
No, the criticism of Kerry is that he lied to Congress and made up accusations of war crimes which never happened about the American Army.. I've read the transcript of his appearance before Congress. This is not just puffing himself up, or changing his mind and opposing the war. This is at the very least perjury, certainly also malicious libel, and could even be treason: the US was still at war at the time, and he, by inventing lies, was giving comfort to the enemy (althought it would not be treason legally, only morally, of course).
That is why Kerry is disliked by so many vets. Not his medals, not his Vietnam stories, not even his opposition to the war as such. He told Congress what, in effect, is a blood libel about the Army, to aggrendize his own political goals. When the Vietnam soldiers were coming home and getting dissed as "baby-killers" instead of a welcome, that was, to a significant degree, due to John Kerry.
Let me put it this way: suppose it turns out that the entire Abu Gharib bruahaha was made up by the soliders accusser, who fakes those pictures in order to make himself look good as "whistleblower"? What would that make you think about them? (Of course this is, at least, extremely unlikely--but that's not the point).
Now multiply that story by a factor of a few thousands, to compensate for the difference between Kerry's false accusations of routine mass murder and the Abu Gharib story of out-of-control sex orgies, and imagine what you would think of someone who falsely makes such claims.
As one vet put it, "a Kerry defeat would be the welcome-home parade we never had."
George Elliott and Alfred French, to name two.crackmonkey said:
It's debunked every bit as much (far moreso, I contend) as the allegation that Bush willfully lied about WMDs.
But since this isn't a court of law, and since there is no official definition of "fair play", I suppose you're right -- nothing is debunked; anything and everything is possible; no topic is out of bounds; written evidence be damned; 35 yr retroactivity, no prob.