Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (46096)	5/2/2001 1:35:37 PM
From: mitch-c	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT - Kerrey story/Vietnam in general Age: 37. Tail end of the baby boom / leading edge of GenX. Training and experience as an Armor (M-1 tank) officer in the 80's and early 90's. opinionjournal.com worldnetdaily.com Hackworth and Webb have clearly described my feelings on the subject. Both were there and understand those incidents better than I could. In the absence of CONCLUSIVE evidence, I believe the benefit of the doubt rests with Kerrey. I point to several things in summary: 1) War is hell; Civil war is more so. Civilians get caught in the crossfire; in fact, they may also participate as combatants and become legitimate targets. Usually, they lack the uniforms or characteristics of regular soldiers, and their behavior is the only means to judge whether they are targets. 2) This expose has been pitched for several years. Only now has it passed someone's editorial scrutiny. That someone began his career giving slanted reports from the field on US participation in Vietnam; in retrospect, Dan Rather helped to lose the war. Given his recently blatant political leanings, I'm suspect of the depth of this story. It's carried more by his (failing) reputation than by fact. 3) Quoting Webb, "Given the tone of the story, this radio transmission was probably included because it refers to the Kerrey patrol as having committed an atrocity. But a closer reading would appear to confirm the position of Mr. Kerrey and the five others on the patrol that they took fire and returned it, with the loss of civilian lives an unfortunate consequence." Mike, you're reliving a phenomenon known as survivor's guilt. In my view, you have NOTHING to feel guilty about. If you honestly and honorably opposed our participation, you may feel as proud as those who served and fought. I feel strongly that, GIVEN the fact that we were engaged in Vietnam, we should have made the effort to win; however, we probably should never have been engaged in that manner in the first place. History is made by the participants, but written by the survivors. - Mitch

To: michael97123 who wrote (46096)	5/2/2001 2:38:14 PM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT - i pretty much see the war as you do. Also see that whichever version is true, I don't find a reason to punish Kerry for how it was handled. These very small units were highly vulnerable and had to take extremes to live through their missions. I am disappointed that Kerry might be painting a more favorable view of things than is true.

To: michael97123 who wrote (46096)	5/2/2001 8:29:43 PM
From: RMP	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

Michael, you are opening up a can of worms. I saw the Rather piece last night and found it interesting. We will never know the truth! My gut is telling me that Kerry being the consummate politician is doing what he needs to do to stay alive politically. Therefore I tend to believe Klanns version. Its fair to say Kerrys presidential aspirations are dead. I was drafted in 1968 and just got lucky and spent 18 months in Germany. I was so ashamed of having served in the military upon separation I got into civilian clothing before leaving the base because I did not want anyone to see me in uniform. Sentiment sure has changed since then. If you really feel guilty about not serving I will send you my address and you can send me a small check each month. The Vietnam war was a mistake. The military lost the war because the politicians were tying their hand. After the Tet offensive the VC and North Vietnamese were defeated. It was the images on tv and press that forced us out. We should have provided Ho with aid instead of sending troops and today we would be great trading partners. Your arguments are just rationalizations to justify your actions. ps. I enjoy reading your posts…