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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (539930)	2/13/2004 2:48:37 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769667

This dweeb was no more near Nam than Bill Clinton. Pathetic when a leftist tells lies about Nam to gain credibility. She should just allow her ill-formed arguments to stand on their own, instead of washing up all these leftist myths. "OH I kin prove mess by my dd220s! You come on ovah heah and take a look! I kin proooooove mess! Well, I kin! I kin! I got the dang dd947s!" Leftists are such liars...

To: JDN who wrote (539930)	2/13/2004 4:56:43 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

His ramblings do shed more light on how the wrong memories of Vietnam sparked and fueled the anti-hero zeitgest of the 70s that ultimately led to the moral relativism and nihilism of the Clinton years. But you know what? The timeless spirt shown by this 1980 survey is what will always matter most. Those who were merely there can never take that away from those who truly served. <font color=blue> A 1980 Harris survey commissioned by the Veteran's administration, the most comprehensive ever done regarding those who served in Vietnam, revealed that 92% of those who served in combat were "glad they'd served their country"; 74%, "enjoyed their time in the military"; and 80% disagreed with the statement that "the U.S. took unfair advantage of me." Nearly two out of three would go to Vietnam again even if they knew how the war would end. The only national media report on the survey's results was an Associated Press story headlined "One in three would not serve again if asked." <font color=blue> jameswebb.com

To: JDN who wrote (539930)	2/14/2004 12:35:02 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Hi JDN. No, I was never wounded three times in less than three months. Are you thinking that his purple hearts weren't valid? I don't know how it was when you were there but during my time they gave out purple hearts for ANY wound suffered in combat. It got a little silly sometimes. I told the medic not to put me in for a purple heart once when I picked up a piece of shrapnel from my own frag in a firefight. I was never badly wounded. The longest time I was out of the field for wounds was less than two weeks and I was wounded again less than two months later. Yes, I do think it's possible. PS. I don't agree with your politics but I think you have real integrity. Too much integrity to associate with some of the churlish, childish and small minded posters that try to identify with you.