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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (42103)	5/4/2004 11:50:07 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793622

"As long as we deal with it properly, it is not going to change the face of this war." Maybe not the face of the war but it has put american soldiers at greater risk and poisoned the well further in the islamic world. You know Mike, some kook in MI figured that if you want to torture a muslim, the sexual tool might work. Hell if it would work and it would prevent a future 9/11 i would probably be the first one for it, but to do it without controls and without discipline--my god what a cluster....k. Mike

To: unclewest who wrote (42103)	5/4/2004 1:42:52 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793622

Recognizing Heroism In Battle: A Continuing Series By Captain Ed on Heroes Captain's Quarters blog As I posted earlier with Captain Roger Crossland's excellent essay on the nature of heroism, we make a severe mistake when we only honor victimization in the war on terror. One particular criticism that can be made of the current administration is the lack of communication regarding the heroic efforts of our men and women under combat conditions, not through their death or wounding but through their extraordinary actions under fire to win the war -- which should be the point of their being under fire in the first place. Today I received an e-mail from Peyton Randolph, a regular reader and an officer in the inactive Reserve who currently works with the Army as a contractor, stateside. Peyton sent me an e-mail that the Army released earlier which demonstrates the quick action and bravery that American armed forces demonstrate under fire. Perhaps by reading about their courage, we can brace ourselves as well for the effort needed to win the war against Islamofascist terror. I am starting a new category, Heroes, on Captain's Quarters for stories such as these. Sir, ...I met yesterday outside Najaf with a 1LT from the Iron Dukes of 2-37 Armor who as tank company XO was leading a convoy of two platoons of tanks on HETs [heavy equipment transporters - Ed] from Al Kut in the east to Najaf in the west, a distance of about 175KM. As they passed through the town of Diwaniyah, they were ambushed by a group of insurgents--undoubtedly former regime soldiers with some military training--with RPGs, heavy machine guns, and AK-47s. The Task Force Scouts had passed through only 30 minutes earlier without contact, so this was a well planned ambush of probably 50 or so organized in two and three man teams. The convoy suffered three soldiers KIA in the initial moments of the ambush--one Iron Duke, one 2ACR cavalry trooper, and one transportation officer. The convoy immediately returned fire. They had several HUMMWVs in escort, and the tanks on the back of the HETs were manned with loaders and TCs on crew served weapons. Within minutes of the ambush, one of the HETs was disabled, and the Lieutenant realized he would have to stand and fight to ensure he had everyone. The Iron Dukes "broke chains" as they described it, by essentially driving off the back of the HETs under fire to engage the enemy. In the course of the next hour, they fought their way out of Diwaniyah employing every weapon available to them including main gun. They got everyone and everything out with the exception of one HET. Enemy BDA was 30 killed and an unknown number wounded. A day after this fight, I received an email from CPT Thomas Moore, of the 1175th Transportation, who was the convoy commander. He wrote: "were it not for the courage and actions under fire of the 2ACR and 2-37 soldiers that day, he is certain all his men would have been killed." He asked me if he and his soldiers engaged in that fight with us could wear the 1AD combat patch. I told him I'd be honored. There are many such stories of courage under fire and just as many stories of incredible compassion to the innocent... Continuing mission, sir. V/R Marty To recap: an American convoy was ambushed by well-trained Saddam remnants near Diwaniyah while transporting tanks and weaponry through the area. While being ambushed, the unit managed to unload the tanks from the transports under fire and not only return fire, but essentially wipe out their ambushers, at a loss ratio to the remnants of 10-1, almost unbelievable for an ambush action. By standing and slugging it out, the unit not only survived but delivered a terrible defeat to the enemy.

To: unclewest who wrote (42103)	5/4/2004 4:07:24 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793622

Vietnam vets slam Kerry interestalert.com By RICHARD TOMKINS, UPI White House Correspondent WASHINGTON, May 4 (UPI) -- Sen. John Kerry's accounts of his service in Vietnam and his statements that he witnessed atrocities were attacked as fabrications and political opportunism Tuesday by a group of Vietnam veterans who served with him personally or in the units affiliated with him during his short tour of duty in Southeast Asia. The veterans, including some of Kerry's former commanders and shipmates, have formed an organization called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and called on the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to authorize release of all his service records, including medical records. "We feel it is very, very import that the American people get the actual truth about that three or four months Kerry served in Vietnam since he has made it a center piece of his biography," said John O'Neill, who took charge of Kerry's boat and crew after Kerry left Vietnam. "Second, we resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam. ... We think that those have cast aspersion on those living and dead. "We think he knew he was lying when he made them. We think they are unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people. Third, we believe that based on our experience with him, he is totally unfit to be commander in chief." Kerry, who commanded a river patrol boat, served about 4 months of a one-year tour of duty in Vietnam and won the Silver Star and Bronze Star. He requested and received reassignment to the United States after receiving three Purple Hearts for combat wounds, allowed under Navy regulations. The circumstances and merit of one of those awards has come into question in the campaign against President George W. Bush, leading to acrimonious mudslinging and a resurrection of the turmoil the conflict inflicted on American society. Following his return and then discharge from the Navy, Kerry became a prominent anti-war activist and testified before Congress that he had witnessed U.S. forces committing atrocities and war crimes. "I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces," said retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, chairman of the organization. "This is not a political issue. It is a matter of honesty." Hoffman said Kerry had recently telephoned him and spent 45 minutes attempting to convince Hoffman of not proceeding with the formation of the organization, which Democrats Tuesday attacked as a shill for Bush. Hoffmann, who debated Kerry on television in 1971 over Vietnam allegations, denied any ties to Bush or the Republican Party. The Swift boat veterans held differing political and social views, he said. "There is only one issue we all agree on, and that is the issue of John Kerry." In a letter to Kerry signed by more than 200 Swift boats veterans, they wrote, "It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). "Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war. "We believe you continue this conduct today, albeit by changing from an anti-war to a 'war hero' status," the letter said. The veterans Tuesday were vociferous in denying they had seen or had participated in wartime atrocities and questioned that if Kerry had indeed observed any, why he didn't report it as he was required to do. One veteran, noting the allegations were again made in a book on Kerry's war experiences, choked back tears as he related how his wife and daughter had read about the alleged war crimes Kerry spoke about in Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War" and asked him if he had committed them. Spokesmen for the Kerry campaign were not immediately available for comment Tuesday, but the Democratic National Committee put out a statement attacking the public relations company used by the group as having Republic Party connections. The veterans made no comment on the allegations. Kerry has admitted a poor choice of words in his testimony before Congress in 1971 but says he served with honor in the war. --