|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 31, 2004 9:35:15 GMT -5
genesda - "There were those who went with a commitment to overthrow the enemy occupation of the south, as depicted in the factual movie 'We Were Soldiers'."
Now, you've made some amazing ridiculous statements in your time, but to claim Braveheart 3 to be a "factual" movie ranks right up there with the worst of them. Please look into the vast differences between the factual and the fictitious.
--BDT
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 1, 2004 7:47:02 GMT -5
genesda - "There were those who went with a commitment to overthrow the enemy occupation of the south, as depicted in the factual movie 'We Were Soldiers'."Now, you've made some amazing ridiculous statements in your time, but to claim Braveheart 3 to be a "factual" movie ranks right up there with the worst of them. Please look into the vast differences between the factual and the fictitious. --BDT Braveheart 3? You're showing your bias. Col. Moore wrote a book on his experiences in S. Vietnam and it was made into a movie, a factual movie since Col. Moore was a consultant and was there for the movie's making. If Kerry had been with the air calvary, he might have had some courage rub off on him, but looking at him as he is today, I doubt it. It would take courage to first be in the air calvary who were assured of seeing horrific battle. Face it. Kerry is an empty shell trying to make everyone believe he has substance, that's why he joined the Navy instead of the Army or Marines in that time of war. I don't fault the navy or John Kerry for choosing the Navy. I just take issue with his "hero" status. Without the Navy we could never win any war, but face facts. The Navy is almost assured of an easy tour, unless you're on an aircraft carrier, which is extremely dangerous.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 1, 2004 9:07:30 GMT -5
A loss is a loss, nothing about being in the military during the war is easy. Vietnam War, 4 Aug. 1964 - 27 Jan. 1973
Navy KIA: 1,629 WIA: 4,178
Marines: KIA: 13,091 WIA: 51,392 www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 1, 2004 9:17:47 GMT -5
A loss is a loss, nothing about being in the military during the war is easy. Vietnam War, 4 Aug. 1964 - 27 Jan. 1973
Navy KIA: 1,629 WIA: 4,178
Marines: KIA: 13,091 WIA: 51,392 www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm I never said any military service was easy. There are just some areas that are more prone to battle than others. During WW2, it didn't matter what branch you were in, the danger was always there for all branches. There is no comparrison today. The Navy today is a cushion compared to the foot soldier in the Army or Marines. By the way, I believe the most of those navy deaths in Vietnam were fliers. They certainly don't fit in with those on the ships.
Those KIA figures can't be right. I think over 130 were lost in the USS Forrestal accident alone.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 1, 2004 11:55:58 GMT -5
A loss is a loss, nothing about being in the military during the war is easy. Vietnam War, 4 Aug. 1964 - 27 Jan. 1973
Navy KIA: 1,629 WIA: 4,178
Marines: KIA: 13,091 WIA: 51,392 www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm I never said any military service was easy. There are just some areas that are more prone to battle than others. During WW2, it didn't matter what branch you were in, the danger was always there for all branches. There is no comparrison today. The Navy today is a cushion compared to the foot soldier in the Army or Marines. By the way, I believe the most of those navy deaths in Vietnam were fliers. They certainly don't fit in with those on the ships.
Those KIA figures can't be right. I think over 130 were lost in the USS Forrestal accident alone.
[/color][/quote] I grabbed those numbers from the Navy's site - feel free to go check them out.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 1, 2004 19:28:59 GMT -5
[/color][/quote]
Whoa....I've never seen such a jaded response in my life. What branch of the service were you in?
Aside from the sailors on the the large "cushy" ships and the flyboys (try landing on a moving platform in the middle of the sea during a typhoon at night), their is splenty of "risk" in todays and Vietnam era Navy.
The easiest to name is the Navy SEALS. Just ask one of them how "cushy" it is. But if I were you I do it from a distance....like another state. We already know your opinion of the "shallow-water" Navy, but gee someone has to land those SEAL teams or retrieve downed pilots.
Or how about the men of the "Silent Service", the submariners. It must be "easy" to lock yourself into a big, black metal tube and submerse yourself for months at a time. The work of this "cushy" job is credited with eventually bringing the USSR to their knees and never having to fire a shot.
I could go on, but why should I.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 6:01:23 GMT -5
Whoa....I've never seen such a jaded response in my life. What branch of the service were you in? Aside from the sailors on the the large "cushy" ships and the flyboys (try landing on a moving platform in the middle of the sea during a typhoon at night), their is splenty of "risk" in todays and Vietnam era Navy. I don't believe air operations take place in the middle of Typhoons. Besides, I didn't list Navy air as "cushy", in fact, I intended the opposite. [/color] The easiest to name is the Navy SEALS. Just ask one of them how "cushy" it is. But if I were you I do it from a distance....like another state. We already know your opinion of the "shallow-water" Navy, but gee someone has to land those SEAL teams or retrieve downed pilots. Navy SEALS are not the average "Navy" although they are of the Navy branch. They are the exception. The average Navy enlistee can't make the SEALS, so don't even go there. [/color] Or how about the men of the "Silent Service", the submariners. It must be "easy" to lock yourself into a big, black metal tube and submerse yourself for months at a time. The work of this "cushy" job is credited with eventually bringing the USSR to their knees and never having to fire a shot. Another exception. [/color] I could go on, but why should I. Go ahead and waste your time. You know that I was referring to the average ship board Navy and not the special services. Kerry would never make it in the SEALS because he doesn't have what it takes just as he doesn't have what it takes to be a good president of the USA! [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 2, 2004 6:09:09 GMT -5
Go ahead and waste your time. You know that I was referring to the average ship board Navy and not the special services. [/color][/quote] So pick a ship, any ship? Or a job in the Navy? You're out in left field on this one my friend. By inference, you're trying to lessen the duty of the shallow-water Navy that Kerry was in. They were considered part of the special services, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 2, 2004 6:12:29 GMT -5
Kerry would never make it in the SEALS because he doesn't have what it takes just as he doesn't have what it takes to be a good president of the USA! [/color][/quote] You and I really do not know that. Besides, the attrition rate for those who do not make it through SEAL training is very high, so it would not be surprising nor a disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 6:50:02 GMT -5
So pick a ship, any ship? Or a job in the Navy? We were talking about combat, not the hazzards of normal duty. The Navy of today really is a cushy job when it comes to combat roles. When was the last time a US ship had to be worried about enemy attacks? Don't bring up the USS Cole either. That was a fluke and not combat. [/color] You're out in left field on this one my friend. By inference, you're trying to lessen the duty of the shallow-water Navy that Kerry was in. They were considered part of the special services, my friend. Yes, and he steered away from a fight at every opportunity. I'm not lessening the duty of the "shallow water Navy" at all. Just Kerry. Again, i don't fault him for this. I just don't like him being portrayed as some kind of big hero. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 6:52:18 GMT -5
You and I really do not know that. Besides, the attrition rate for those who do not make it through SEAL training is very high, so it would not be surprising nor a disgrace. I never said "disgrace" and didn't intend that. I was simply saying that I don't believe Kerry has what it takes by sizing him up in his T.V. appearances, which are usually done for his best showing. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Apr 2, 2004 7:01:55 GMT -5
You and I really do not know that. Besides, the attrition rate for those who do not make it through SEAL training is very high, so it would not be surprising nor a disgrace. I never said "disgrace" and didn't intend that. I was simply saying that I don't believe Kerry has what it takes by sizing him up in his T.V. appearances, which are usually done for his best showing. [/color][/quote] TV appearance are generally not a good measure. But be that as it may, frankly I think you'd be surprised at the appearance of many SEALS. They all do not look like "Rambo". You make have been taken in by the Hollywood caricuture.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 7:05:01 GMT -5
TV appearance are generally not a good measure. But be that as it may, frankly I think you'd be surprised at the appearance of many SEALS. They all do not look like "Rambo". You make have been taken in by the Hollywood caricuture. I haven't been taken in byu anything, but I believe you've been taken in by something called "liberalism". Kerry is nothing but a gigilo, and I don't think he has what it takes to be a man's man.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Apr 2, 2004 8:44:45 GMT -5
TV appearance are generally not a good measure. But be that as it may, frankly I think you'd be surprised at the appearance of many SEALS. They all do not look like "Rambo". You make have been taken in by the Hollywood caricuture. I haven't been taken in byu anything, but I believe you've been taken in by something called "liberalism". Kerry is nothing but a gigilo, and I don't think he has what it takes to be a man's man.
[/color][/quote] ahhh - the 'you're a liberal, so you're wrong' line - isn't it nice to cpkmtyollify someone in order to point out their wrong? People don't believe Kerry was much of a war hero. Same goes for Bush. The thing here is, at least Bush has an action figure. www.talkingpresidents.com/products-af-bush-fs.shtml
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Apr 2, 2004 9:06:20 GMT -5
ahhh - the 'you're a liberal, so you're wrong' line - isn't it nice to cpkmtyollify someone in order to point out their wrong? People don't believe Kerry was much of a war hero. Same goes for Bush. The thing here is, at least Bush has an action figure. You've got it backwards. It's not that he's wrong because he's a liberal......on second thought, that's correct. I haven't seen liberals to be on the right side of important issues in some time now. Alsio, Bush doesn't have people running around touting him as a war hero either. Kerry is no hero. He's weak on everything except raising taxes. This is one place where he doesn't flip flop. [/color]
|
|