Noble Motive
Bill Clarke
name in Safire’s column yesterday I read it and thought he had some words
that many of us here would appreciate.
Quote Safire, “Are there no voices left, after that costly loss of human
life, to reject the Syndrome’s humiliating accusation of national
arrogance---and to recall a noble motive?”
The Syndrome he talks of refers to the “self-flagellation” we have suffered
after the war. The revulsion at the use of military power and the brutality
that goes with it.
I went to Vietnam with a noble motive. I thought it was noble then and I
still think that way today. I believe that the men here on AWV did the
same. If some 4 Star or politician made my efforts less than noble there
was and is nothing I can do about it. That is a bad reflection on the 4
Star and the politician, not me. My motive was noble.
I have had it up to here with these fuckers calling me a baby killer. The
fact that the self serving damn the truth news media interviews an Ordnance
Officer and a prissy frat rat looking little prick from the Clinton
administration to explain Kerrey’s operation that night is as insulting to
me as being called a baby killer.
And I have to conclude, as Patrick has said many times, they don’t have a
clue as to the war or us. They don’t understand. And I don’t think they
want to understand or know the truth. Fuck them.
Bill Clarke
F Troop, 17th Cav
Jim Elbrecht
>I’m not pushing William Safire’s politics here but after seeing Kerrey’s
>name in Safire’s column yesterday I read it and thought he had some words
>that many of us here would appreciate.
Bill & I agree again.
For those who missed it, Safire's column is on line at;
http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/tuesday/opinion_a3ee655f50da10e2002b.html
[Atlanta Journal Constitution]
-snip good summary and stuff I agree with-
>
>And I have to conclude, as Patrick has said many times, they don’t have a
>clue as to the war or us. They don’t understand. And I don’t think they
>want to understand or know the truth. Fuck them.
Funny how sometimes those who you least expect to make some sense, can
come through. Of all the network anchors Dan Rather just rubs me the
wrong way. For reasons that aren't clear to me, just seeing his face
[lifted since the last time I saw him?] makes me want to spit.
But Rather *was* there. and though I got the impression he leans
towards Klann's account, he closed the show with;
"Whatever the precise details -- which we may never know for certain
-- it turned into a nightmare. Think of it what you will, but know
this: it is what some of war is like, what it's really like... a
nightmare of unimaginable horror and savagery... the full depths of
which only those who live through it can know."
Jim
Patrick T.
<cla...@livingston.net> wrote:
Bill,
First of all I want to thank you for saying this. Not for me, but for
all of us. Having said that, this thing with Kerrey is very
disturbing to me.
Some 15 weeks after joining the Marine Corps, I had my first occasion
to fight a Swabee, we have been giving each other a hard time ever
since. But the United States Marine Corps is in fact an important
part of our Naval Strategy. Those guys on the ground that were in the
Navy deserve the highest respect and I am quite incapable of letting
anyone knock them just for shits and giggles.
When Mac 10 (SEABEE'S went to Khe Sahn to fix the old airstrip in July
66, I was sent up there with the rest of my company. Those guys were
not pussy, and I never in the months following ever had a reason to
believe they were not true warriors. I can say too, that what I am
seeing on this newsgroup the last couple of days disgusts me.
There is a huge difference between the way each branch operates for a
lot of reasons. But the ones who go in with small man teams in a
hostile area, including SOG, Special Forces, Seals and CAPS were more
than up the challenge.
Just look at any 1000 men in Viet Nam in a combat relationship and
then look at their awards, purple hearts, etc., Now look at the
special ops guys and do the same. We owe them. Because without them,
we could not have found and fixed the enemy, we could not have imposed
the chain of commands will on the various areas we went into, etc.
etc. ad naseum. They got bloodied for us, but they gave it back in
spades!
What I am seeing here is mostly big unit people thinking they did it
all and were the only honorable people in the whole damn thing. Noble
motive? More like fair weather friends to me.
Take any seven of these guys crying the loudest about Kerrey and send
them to Charlie Ridge in 1965, or Long Vei, or North Viet Nam and Laos
and tell me they were going to get out alive without fighting just
like Charlie did. This is getting real fucking personal real fast.
From the outside, you can't understand it
From the inside, I can't explain it
Semper Fi
!Jones
<cla...@livingston.net> wrote:
>Fuck them.
Come on, Bill... don't be shy. Tell us how you *really* feel.
Jones
Lou Redmond
-Lou-
"Bill Clarke" <cla...@livingston.net> wrote in message
news:tf04lbh...@corp.supernews.com...
William Moore
Safire's article is helpful. Thanks for pointing it out.
Bill Moore
Tom Dier
I got caught up in the war and it was not my choosing. I went anyway
and promised myself that I would do the very best job that I could.
I did. After all of these years the actions of Calley or Kerrey or
anyone else can't take away from what I accomplished in Vietnam.
Last night I got the impression that Kerrey was bullshitting us.
We can debate all day long, but I state without equivocation that I
did not serve in Vietnam to kill civilians - under any circumstances.
No matter what the "reason".
I think that this mission may have been one of retribution as a plan
to destroy the morale of the VC. A few days before the killings there
was a report which stated that 14 civilians in the ville. Kerrey
denies any knowledge of that report.
There have been whispers about the Phoenix Program over the years. If
there is the slightest chance that this was part of that program, I
say shame on any who would conceive of such a thing.
Remember one thing, Bill. Nothing can take away from what you consider
noble - even if this operation was not as Kerrey describes (which I
strongly suspect to be the case).
Tom Dier 1/52 Americal Division 1970
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
john stevens
john stevens
Charles G. White
> Vietnam to kill civilians - under any circumstances.
Tom, on the other hand, how can you be certain that your unit did not kill
civilians -- particularly in the free fire zone areas. There were times
when we could observe distant individuals in the valleys and along streams
in free fire zones, and we would fire upon them. While I may had had some
initial concern about this, when the incoming would start in at night from
those areas, I became convinced that these were enemy troops, but we could
never be certain. I carry no guilt with me about this type of firing. On
another occasion when I was not there, our unit was receiving constant
mortar and small arms fire from a neighboring village. The XO gave
authority to return fire with small arms only (including the 50's). That
stopped the enemy fire for a long time after that. A Marine Col. called in
and asked who gave the order to fire. The XO said he did. The Col. said
"Great -- we were under orders not to return fire on that village, and
somebody needed to stop it before we had any more troops killed."
The other end of the spectrum is where an area is secured, and then the
civilians, children, or prisoners are systematically executed. That is
unquestionably a war crime -- a crime which I hope none of us were involved.
The lesser defined situations occur in operations such as Kerry's where it
appears that the operation plan may have included the elimination of
occupants near the outer perimeter before the mission really commenced, and
where civilians are involved in the first group encountered. After 32 years
I will leave judgment on that situation to the scholars and self-proclaimed
experts.
I just hope that after Kerry's group did not line the civilians up and then
execute them as Klan(sp?) seems to indicate. I will be greatly disappointed
if that is the case.
Patrick T.
wrote:
Tom,
Well, I guess in all the excitement today, I let this one slip right
on by me.. A serious question to you too.....
Were you on the ground looking up 52,000 feet as the air force bomber
"softened" up the area instead of sending a Seal Team, SOG, SF, RECON.
I truly don't understand the anger here. Is it that people don't
understand the V.C. and N.V.A. know the concept of forward listening
post or what?
We went at it during Kosovo. What is different? Please enlighten me.
I don't understand about "Whispers" about Phoenix, it is in all the
books I have, no ambiguity, no guess work, nothing but right in your
face fact of life. If anything can be said about Phoenix it is, "The
Civilians made me do it".
Why isn' t this anger directed at those Civilian "Engineers"?
Tom Dier
<p.t.h...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 22:40:42 GMT, win...@greene.xtn.net (Tom Dier)
>wrote:
>
>Tom,
>Well, I guess in all the excitement today, I let this one slip right
>on by me.. A serious question to you too.....
>
>Were you on the ground looking up 52,000 feet as the air force bomber
>"softened" up the area instead of sending a Seal Team, SOG, SF, RECON.
>I truly don't understand the anger here. Is it that people don't
>understand the V.C. and N.V.A. know the concept of forward listening
>post or what?
If you saw Kerrey on 60 Minutes II, you would have seen him stutter
and stumble when asked about the Rules Of Engagement. I would like to
obtain a transcript. The rules I was familiar with did not designate
unarmed women and children as targets. I know yours were the same.
>We went at it during Kosovo. What is different? Please enlighten me.
>I don't understand about "Whispers" about Phoenix, it is in all the
>books I have, no ambiguity, no guess work, nothing but right in your
>face fact of life. If anything can be said about Phoenix it is, "The
>Civilians made me do it".
>
>Why isn' t this anger directed at those Civilian "Engineers"?
I'm not angry. Below, I mention that those who "conceived" such plans
as Phoenix should be ashamed. WRT Kosovo, I know of no instances where
it was NATO or US policy to deliberately kill unarmed civilians.
Our mission in RVN was to win hearts and minds. Every CAP program and
every Medcap that I participated in was undermined by any systematic
acts of terror perpetrated by us against Vietnamese civilians.
>
>>We can debate all day long, but I state without equivocation that I
>>did not serve in Vietnam to kill civilians - under any circumstances.
>>No matter what the "reason".
>>
>>I think that this mission may have been one of retribution as a plan
>>to destroy the morale of the VC. A few days before the killings there
>>was a report which stated that 14 civilians in the ville. Kerrey
>>denies any knowledge of that report.
>>
>>There have been whispers about the Phoenix Program over the years. If
>>there is the slightest chance that this was part of that program, I
>>say shame on any who would conceive of such a thing.
>>
>>Remember one thing, Bill. Nothing can take away from what you consider
>>noble - even if this operation was not as Kerrey describes (which I
>>strongly suspect to be the case).
>
Tom Dier 1/52 Americal Division 1970
Tom Dier
<whit...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>"Tom Dier" > I state without equivocation that I did not serve in
>> Vietnam to kill civilians - under any circumstances.
>
>Tom, on the other hand, how can you be certain that your unit did not kill
>civilians -- particularly in the free fire zone areas.
Killing or wounding of civilians while I was there was accidental or
occurred during firefights. If Kerrey's story of taking fire from the
hamlet is true, then his actions are understandable. After seeing 60
Minutes II, I have very strong suspicions that he is not telling the
truth. Especially after hearing his words wrt to Rather's question
about the Rules Of Engagement.
Free Fire Zones in our AO consisted of remote areas. The mountains.
However, a couple of clicks all around LZ Stinson was FFZ. It is
marked that way on my map.
After 6PM in all areas there was a curfew. So, in a sense, the whole
countryside became a FFZ. Since our movement was for the most part
restricted at night, there was not much chance of civilians becoming
targets - unless they happened through a night time ambush or walked
up to the perimeter. If they were out at night, they were considered
VC/NVA.
This is not the same as herding people together and executing them -
which is being alleged by Klann.
>There were times
>when we could observe distant individuals in the valleys and along streams
>in free fire zones, and we would fire upon them. While I may had had some
>initial concern about this, when the incoming would start in at night from
>those areas, I became convinced that these were enemy troops, but we could
>never be certain. I carry no guilt with me about this type of firing.
The Vietnamese knew where the FFZ's were. Question. Would a farmer
with a water buffalo been a target if he had happened into the FFZ?
> On
>another occasion when I was not there, our unit was receiving constant
>mortar and small arms fire from a neighboring village. The XO gave
>authority to return fire with small arms only (including the 50's). That
>stopped the enemy fire for a long time after that. A Marine Col. called in
>and asked who gave the order to fire. The XO said he did. The Col. said
>"Great -- we were under orders not to return fire on that village, and
>somebody needed to stop it before we had any more troops killed."
LZ Stinson had the above mentioned FFZ for a buffer. Nearby LZ Dottie
did not. In our AO, it is doubtful we would have received artillery
clearance if we took fire from a ville. At night it would have been
tough to determine where mortar fire was originating and doubtful we
would have targeted a ville if we did not know.
>
>The other end of the spectrum is where an area is secured, and then the
>civilians, children, or prisoners are systematically executed. That is
>unquestionably a war crime -- a crime which I hope none of us were involved.
>
>The lesser defined situations occur in operations such as Kerry's where it
>appears that the operation plan may have included the elimination of
>occupants near the outer perimeter before the mission really commenced, and
>where civilians are involved in the first group encountered.
Actually in my opinion the incident in the first hooch is the more
defined situation. I don't think there is much dispute there. What
questions are yet to be answered have to do with what happened after
that. Did they take fire or no?
>After 32 years
>I will leave judgment on that situation to the scholars and self-proclaimed
>experts.
I keep hearing that people who did not serve in Vietnam do not have a
right to question or judge.
I was there and I did the very best I could, as someone who led
people, to follow the rules. I understand the "fog of war" scenarios
and witnessed more than one friendly fire fuckup. These things happen.
But, we can't condone the murder of unarmed civilians as alleged by
Gerhard Klann. Until there is a formal investigation, then there will
be a trial in the press such is happening now. No one wins in that
case, and justice will not be served.
>I just hope that after Kerry's group did not line the civilians up and then
>execute them as Klan(sp?) seems to indicate. I will be greatly disappointed
>if that is the case.
I have always considered Kerrey a hero. But, I still want to know what
happened. If this incident was normal policy as part of some covert
operations then it needs condemnation.
Jim Elbrecht
-snip-
>If you saw Kerrey on 60 Minutes II, you would have seen him stutter
>and stumble when asked about the Rules Of Engagement. I would like to
>obtain a transcript.
Read it here;
http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,287964-412,00.shtml
-lots of snips-
>Our mission in RVN was to win hearts and minds.
But there were still politicians and commanders who felt that 'If you
grab them by their balls, their hearts and minds will follow.'--- I
don't think the SEALS ever had a hearts and minds program.
>Every CAP program and
>every Medcap that I participated in was undermined by any systematic
>acts of terror perpetrated by us against Vietnamese civilians.
Sometimes it did seem that both sides were trying to convert the
civilians to the other.
Jim
Nigel Brooks
"Tom Dier" <win...@greene.xtn.net> wrote in message
news:3af13160....@news.xtn.net...
> On Wed, 2 May 2001 20:04:24 -0500, "Charles G. White"
> <whit...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>
> >"Tom Dier" > I state without equivocation that I did not serve in
> >> Vietnam to kill civilians - under any circumstances.
> >
> >Tom, on the other hand, how can you be certain that your unit did not
kill
> >civilians -- particularly in the free fire zone areas.
>
> Killing or wounding of civilians while I was there was accidental or
> occurred during firefights. If Kerrey's story of taking fire from the
> hamlet is true, then his actions are understandable. After seeing 60
> Minutes II, I have very strong suspicions that he is not telling the
> truth. Especially after hearing his words wrt to Rather's question
> about the Rules Of Engagement.
Agreed. I'm afraid that he is withholding information about part of this
mission. I hope that it is true that they did come under fire - and that
the civilian casualties resulted from the response of the team and not from
a rounding up and execution. If you note the after action report - it
states that two carbines were captured. Lacking any admissions by any of
the other team members I doubt that the issue will be resolved, without a
wholesale investigation to include forensic autopsy's of the deceased.
It does appear that the only dispute about the first hootch is whether or
not there were five males there or a man, woman, and three children.
Kerrey did take responsibility for ordering their deaths either by directly
ordering the action, or by tacit acquiesence. I would like to see the ops
order or any other document which would have authorised what is apparently
a violation or exception to what was commonly the rules of engagement.
I cannot believe that seal teams or other special ops teams were used to
terrorize the populace, no matter what their political affiliation. I can
fully understand that if their mission was to capture a VC official that
they would be authorized to use deadly force to accomplish the capture.
But that first hootch really troubles me. There is a great difference
between eliminating military forces in a guard shack, and a family in a
hootch - but then again perhaps the lines between the two are so blurred
that the team felt that what they were doing was justified.
> >After 32 years
> >I will leave judgment on that situation to the scholars and
self-proclaimed
> >experts.
>
> I keep hearing that people who did not serve in Vietnam do not have a
> right to question or judge.
>
> I was there and I did the very best I could, as someone who led
> people, to follow the rules. I understand the "fog of war" scenarios
> and witnessed more than one friendly fire fuckup. These things happen.
> But, we can't condone the murder of unarmed civilians as alleged by
> Gerhard Klann. Until there is a formal investigation, then there will
> be a trial in the press such is happening now. No one wins in that
> case, and justice will not be served.
>
> >I just hope that after Kerry's group did not line the civilians up and
then
> >execute them as Klan(sp?) seems to indicate. I will be greatly
disappointed
> >if that is the case.
>
> I have always considered Kerrey a hero. But, I still want to know what
> happened. If this incident was normal policy as part of some covert
> operations then it needs condemnation.
>
> Tom Dier 1/52 Americal Division 1970
Nigel Brooks
Jim Elbrecht
>The Vietnamese knew where the FFZ's were. Question. Would a farmer
>with a water buffalo been a target if he had happened into the FFZ?
At night, without question. It would be reported as 'Saw movement of
VC with Water Buffalo. Killed both, swept area for weapons. 1 VC/NVA
KIA; 1 Water Bo KIA'
In the daylight, it could read more like this;
'Saw Vietnamese male with Water Buffalo. Gave order to halt while
one member of patrol approached'
If the VN male ran or looked like he was going for a gun or grenade,
the end of the story would be;
'VC suspect reached for _____[ or 'ran'], and squad opened fire.'
The body of the male would be taken to the nearest ville for ID.
Chances are that someone would claim the Water Bo & be paid for it.
The VN male was less likely to be claimed.
Sometimes it was a mistake. Sometimes it saved lives.
Jim
Patrick T.
wrote:
Tom,
Jim makes the same points I would have made. No matter what we may
think, two things stand out in this whole affair:
1. SOG, including SEALs didn't get their PUC until about a month ago.
In that context, most everything they did is still classified. That
would certainly tell me anyway that their Rules of Engagement were
different than ours.
2. Regarding 60 Minutes, I did see it, the Marine Corps has a lot of
reasons to never trust 60 Minutes about anything, and I am actually
surprised Kerrey even agreed to talk to them. I saw the pregnant
pause, and I would say I disagree with your assessment. If a reporter
asked me something that was out of bounds, none of thier business or
even a question for the record some 35 years ago, I guess I would be
guilty too, cause I would do the same thing.
If they lined them up and shot them, that is one thing, but if it was
an outpost, or they even took 1 round in that area, the outcome was
not a war crime in my thinking.
NameBase
> still think that way today.
I don't doubt that you "thought" it was noble, and that you had the best
of intentions within the confines of what you believed, and within the
confines of the information that was put in front of you, regarding what
the U.S. was doing in Vietnam.
I thought the same way in 1964-1966. I had a Goldwater sticker on my
motorbike in 1964. But in 1967 I took the trouble to read a few books on
the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
I ended up publicly resisting the draft, and doing everything I could
to protest the war. I'm still engaged in similar activities, 30+ years later.
We BOTH have noble motives. It's just that I had better information
than you did by the end of the 1960s. This information was available
for those who bothered to dig it out. Unfortunately, social conditioning,
and crummy history teachers, and careerist reporters (such as Dan
Rather), all contributed to a situation where few felt any incentive to
go out and get their own information.
I don't blame you for participating in the war. I don't question your
motives. But by now there's no excuse for failing to inform yourself.
A positive step in this direction would be a formal war crimes investigation
of the Kerrey incident. Another postive step would be to negotiate with
Vietnam on the issue of reparations, and help them with their horrible
Agent Orange problems. Anything short of this is just more bullshit
from people who should have better information by now.
As for Kerrey himself, I am sympathetic because I believe he has
privately suffered as much as he says he has over the last 30 years.
But that doesn't help the 3,000,000 dead Vietnamese. Kerrey deserves
a fair trial, with testimony given under oath, but beyond that we must
remain focused on our responsibility to future generations. The only
to do this is to address our own history honestly.
-- Daniel Brandt
U.S. v. Brandt, 435 F.2d 324 (1970)
Bill Langston
this 'information' on the horrible AO problem for a start?
Yours truly, Bill Langston.
"NameBase" <name...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010503111415...@ng-ff1.news.cs.com...
Charles G. White
> I ended up publicly resisting the draft, and doing everything I could
> to protest the war. I'm still engaged in similar activities, 30+ years
later.
Dear Mr. "Anonymous NoName". Because of your courageous confession before
this revered group of baby killers Tell us what kind of medal you want us to
seek out for you. Please check the medal of your choice:
[ ] "Nobel Peacenik Prize"
[ ] "Slick Willie Medal of Honor
[ ] "Gay Courage"
[ ] "Yellow Ribbon
[ ] "Pussy Willow"
[ ] "Other [Specify] __________________
P.S. Although, you did not have the courage to fight (even as a
conscientious objector in a non-combat capacity), it is time for you to
acquire the courage to reveal your name. Otherwise, we will not know the
correct spelling of the name to put on the award.
NameBase
> some more of this 'information' on the horrible AO problem for
> a start?
>
>Yours truly, Bill Langston.
Los Angeles Times Saturday, September 26, 1998
Vietnam Ends Silence on Issue of Wartime Exposure to Agent Orange
Asia: It has linked herbicide used by U.S. to deformities in babies.
Hanoi is seeking help in finding solution.
By DAVID LAMB, Times Staff Writer
HANOI--Not until he was dying did Dao My tell his family his secret
of the war. His voice was faint and raspy, and the gaunt face bore
little resemblance to that of the smiling man who, in a photograph
on the bedside table, wore the uniform of a North Vietnamese
colonel and a chestful of medals.
"There is Agent Orange in my body," his wife remembers him saying.
"And in yours," he added, nodding to his two handicapped sons. "I
have seen doctors. There are no drugs, no cures. It is time you
understand this, and perhaps I should not have waited so many years
to tell you."
My was 62 when he died two years ago. He had diabetes, a bad heart,
itchy skin, respiratory problems--the result, his wife believes, of
his exposure to chemical defoliants sprayed by the United States
over Vietnam's southern jungles, where he fought for six years.
She cites their five children as evidence: The three born before My
went south are normal; the two after Agent Orange entered his
blood, are severely disabled, mentally and physically.
His wife, Nguyen Thi Nhan, 67, who lives on a $14-a-month pension
and cares for her two sons, now 29 and 27, smiles today,
remembering the joy she felt when My, home from the war, appeared
unexpectedly at her door in 1975. She had not seen him or heard a
word about him in three years.
"He said, 'Get some food for a party,' " she recalled. "But all I
could manage was crab chowder. No beer. No wine. It was wartime."
She sighed quietly. "In Hanoi, it was always wartime."
Hanoi, basking in a generation of peace, is now a prosperous place,
its markets bountifully supplied. But the legacy of war lingers.
Families in Vietnam search for 300,000 soldiers still listed as
missing in action. Mines laid three decades ago still explode,
killing farmers and children. Deformed, disabled kids known as
"Agent Orange babies" are still born in large numbers. And studies
on the people most affected by chemical defoliants used in the war
lag far behind those done on U.S. servicemen who became victims.
"Agent Orange is our most important problem remaining from the
war," said Nguyen Van Hoi, director of the state's War Aftermath
Division. "It is a bigger problem than the mines, bigger than the
number of handicapped from the war. It is getting more and more
serious, and it is something we need scientific and financial
support to solve."
For a long time Vietnam remained relatively silent about the
problems created by Agent Orange, a defoliant named for the color
of the band around the barrels in which the chemical was stored.
Though Hanoi did study its effects and hold seminars on the use of
herbicides in war, it never directly raised the issue with visiting
groups of U.S. officials or veterans.
"I asked the foreign affairs ministry a couple of years ago why," a
U.S. veteran said, "and their reply was that relations with the
United States were slowly normalizing, and it wouldn't have been
constructive."
But in the last several months, with normal relations realized and
a U.S. ambassador now in residence, Vietnam has taken Agent Orange
out of the closet.
Articles about its continuing effects are printed almost daily in
state-run newspapers, and officials never miss an opportunity to
raise the issue with visiting U.S. delegations--partly as a
counterweight to Americans who always bring up U.S. MIAs. Vietnam
has kept discussions free of political rhetoric and has not
mentioned compensation. What it wants, the government says, is
scientific help to research the precise depth of the problem and to
find a solution.
Tran Van Dieu, 47, who served as an artillery gunner near Da Nang
and has two mentally disabled sons, remembers the U.S. C-123 cargo
planes that used to sweep low over the jungle-covered hills,
trailing misty plumes of defoliants. Within a day or two the canopy
of leaves would disappear, and in a few weeks a swath of jungle
would be stripped bare of all living things.
"We thought of it as more a nuisance than a danger," Dieu said.
"Our commanders gave us gas masks, but usually we threw them away.
We'd just put wet scarves over our nose and mouth when the planes
came.
"When you are a soldier, you expect to suffer. Soldiers on both
sides suffered. So I don't hold the Americans responsible, but I
wish someone would help solve my difficulties. My wife and I have
to do everything for our boys, and that means I am home all day and
cannot work."
Operation Ranch Hand, carried out from 1962 to 1971, was designed
to destroy the camouflage the jungle provided Communist supply
routes and base camps--not to kill or maim. During that period, the
U.S. dumped 12 million gallons of chemicals on South Vietnam, said
to be the most used in any war. The chemicals destroyed 14% of
South Vietnam's forests, according to official U.S. reports.
Generally the herbicides--the most prominent of which was Agent
Orange--dissipated within weeks but left behind a toxic
contaminant, dioxin, that was inadvertently created during the
manufacturing process. Dioxin, Vietnamese officials say, remains to
this day in the soil of regions that were heavily sprayed--and in
the blood of soldiers and civilians who spent long periods in the
areas.
Vietnam, which runs 11 hospices called "peace villages" for "Agent
Orange babies," estimates that half a million people have died or
contracted serious illnesses over the years because of the chemical
campaign. It says about 70,000 are still affected.
The United States has no official position on the effects of Agent
Orange on the Vietnamese, with its diplomats saying only that more
evidence is needed to prove a link between the chemicals and the
birth of deformed babies. Vietnam believes that it has established
the link beyond a reasonable doubt but acknowledges that its
findings may fall short of what the international scientific
community would accept as conclusive evidence.
Dioxin is found in people everywhere, in proportion to the
industrialization in their countries, and scientists say it would
be expensive and difficult at this late date to establish that
Agent Orange--not the chemicals that farmers spray on their crops,
or other factors--was responsible for deformities.
"To be frank, some American scientists question our findings," said
Dr. Hoan Dinh Cau, chairman of the national committee researching
the effects of Agent Orange. "But they don't say what we have found
is not true. They just say more research is needed."
In 1978, Washington told Hanoi during talks aimed at mending
relations that there were two subjects that would end the
discussion immediately if they were even brought up. One was
compensation to rebuild the North. The other was Agent Orange.
American servicemen--whose exposure to dioxin was measured in
months, as opposed to years for many North Vietnamese
soldiers--reached an out-of-court settlement in 1984 in their
liability suit over generic effects and illnesses associated with
Agent Orange. The seven manufacturers paid $180 million to
establish a fund for the veterans, who number at least 180,000.
Copyright 1998 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved
NameBase
Tuesday July 21, 1998 7:05 AM EDT Reuters
Vietnam to set up Agent Orange victim fund
HANOI, Vietnam (Reuters) - The Vietnam Red Cross Society
will establish the country's first nationwide fund to help
victims suffering from exposure to the chemical defoliant
Agent Orange, an official said on Tuesday.
The official said many areas across the country had already
set up local funds, but a decree signed last month by Prime
Minister Phan Van Khai instructed the Vietnam Red Cross to
set up a nationwide vehicle for contributions.
Money would come from the Vietnamese community,
organizations abroad, profits of the fund's own investments
and the state budget, the official said. The fund would be
formally launched on Friday, he added.
During the Vietnam War, the United States sprayed millions
of liters of chemical defoliants over vast areas of the
country in an attempt to prevent communist forces using
forest and jungle cover to carry out operations.
Agent Orange, containing highly toxic dioxins, was the best
known of those compounds.
The issue remains a sore point in Hanoi's ties with
Washington 23 years after the Vietnam War ended and three
years after the two countries established diplomatic
relations. Moves by Vietnam to win compensation from the
United States have made little headway.
The Tuoi Tre (Youth) newspaper recently quoted professor
Hoang Dinh Cau, chairman of Vietnam's 10-80 Committee, as
saying nearly two million Vietnamese were affected by toxic
chemicals. This includes tens of thousands of children born
with birth defects. Agent Orange has also been connected
with cancer.
The 10-80 Committee specializes in investigating the
consequences of the use of chemicals during the Vietnam
War.
The Red Cross official said research would be carried out
by several ministries to get an accurate picture on the
number of victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam by the end of
next year.
"Our country has had many things to do since the war ended,
and despite the late establishment of this fund, we still
try to do our best," he said.
_____________________________
Excerpts from:
"U.S., Vietnam continue to fight over Agent Orange"
by Seth Mydans, New York Times
Reprinted in the San Antonio Express-News, May 16, 1999,
p. 13A
...
"Until there is proof that chemical herbicides are to
blame, the United States says it cannot take
responsibility.
...
"The strongest evidence so far that some areas are still
contaminated was published in October by a Canadian
environmental research group, Hatfield Consultants.
"In a five-year study of the Aluoi Vallen in central Quang
Tri province, the researchers found high levels of dioxin
in the soil, in fish and animal tissue, and in the blood of
people born after the war.
"'If such data were collected in most Western
jurisdictions, based on similar sampling levels, major
environmental cleanup and more extensive studies would be
implemented,' the report said. 'As Western- based
scientists, we can hardly recommend less be done in
Vietnam.'
...
"Over the years, tests conducted by Vietnamese and foreign
researchers in localities here have documented high levels
of contamination of breast milk and blood. Though the
methodology may not be as rigorous as that in
more-developed nations, the findings are often striking.
"[Dr. Le Cao Dai, who runs the Agent Orange program of the
Vietnamese Red Cross] said sharp contrasts are evident
between the south, which was sprayed, and the north, which
was not, and between northern residents who fought in the
south and those who did not."
...
END
NameBase
> conscientious objector in a non-combat capacity), it is time for you to
> acquire the courage to reveal your name. Otherwise, we will not know > the
correct spelling of the name to put on the award.
I can see that your keyboard finger is about as itchy as Kerrey's
trigger finger was in 1969, but please calm down long enough
to note that I signed the piece with my name.
I also gave you the legal citation so that you can read the several-
page Ninth Circuit decision regarding my draft case.
What is a more effective way to stop the war -- serve as a C.O. or
spend years organizing against it at home on campuses? And resist
it publicly? By the way, the Ninth Circuit reversed both counts of
my conviction on what is admittedly a technicality -- my draft board
was too zealous in classifying me a delinquent, so the court decided
that the I-A leading to the induction order I refused was itself invalid.
Incidentally, draft resistance clogged the courts. And military desertion,
heroin use, etc. had the U.S. armed forces in a seriously-disintegrated
condition by the early 1970s. I contend that this is why we pulled out.
We merely reached the point in the war where we had more to lose
by staying in than by pulling out.
You won't read this in the New York Times, because the editors
and reporters are paid NOT to report certain things, as often as they
are paid to write and publish news stories.
We never had much to lose by losing the war in the first place. Look
at the U.S. now. Who's controlling the world? Who's richest? The
U.S. or Vietnam?
That's the ultimate point, isn't it? The U.S. effort in Vietnam was
never fought in self-defense. It was an offensive war on foreign
soil 8,000 miles away. The South Vietnamese government was
always a puppet government, with the strings pulled first by the
French, and then by the U.S. When our puppet stopped bending
in response to our tugs on his string (like Diem in 1963), we killed
it and got a new puppet.
Vietnam was lucky to have material assistance from the USSR and
China, but that was mostly a reaction to the U.S. escalation, not the
reason for it.
And here's my web site: http://www.pir.org/
-- Daniel Brandt,
founder & president,
Public Information Research, Inc.
Patrick Hughes
Why are you here, why not over in Viet Nam helping them. You already
got a big break from Jimmy Carter, now you are on this newsgroup
wanting yet more. It seems to me you are greedy, you want your cake
and eat it too.
It is too soon to help them much anyway. Give it another 50 years or
so and we will see how it goes.
Bill Langston
There is no scientific proof for what you claim, only supposition.
I'm only 'hooking' onto this post because it has your name attached, your
arguments below are also merely what you suppose the situation was. I could
for example maintain that because there was a World Wide Communist Movement
that had the ultimate goal of turning the entire world communist that our
actions in Vietnam *were* defensive, or preemptive.
Probably the best thing for you would be to take your arguments back to your
Web site unless you are trolling for a fight here. (just a suggestion, you
do whatever the hell you want)
Bill Langston.
"NameBase" <name...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010503135120...@ng-mb1.news.cs.com...
Bill Clarke
to be appropriate here Charlie. This boy has seen the elephant!
Bill Clarke
F Troop, 17th Cav
Charles G. White <whit...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
news:K_fI6.206860$lj4.5...@news6.giganews.com...
NameBase
> Wide Communist Movement that had the ultimate goal of
> turning the entire world communist that our actions in Vietnam
> *were* defensive, or preemptive.
That's what the John Birch Society maintained, and the general
in the Dr. Strangelove movie. The World Wide Commie
Conspiracy, according to this view, was floridating our water
and corrupting our precious bodily fluids.
Okay, maintain whatever you like. At least the commies weren't
spraying large portions of our countryside with dioxin.
Bill Clarke
NameBase <name...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010503111415...@ng-ff1.news.cs.com...
>
>
> I don't blame you for participating in the war. I don't question your
> motives. But by now there's no excuse for failing to inform yourself.
>
>
> -- Daniel Brandt
> U.S. v. Brandt, 435 F.2d 324 (1970)
I'm way ahead of you hotshot. I did a little reading and guess what? I
learned about the cold war but I assume your books must have left those
chapters out. I see no excuse for you not getting off your self-righteous
holier than thou Jody ass and informing yourself about it.
This high and mighty attitude seems to be prevalent with your group of
"Pussy Willow" warriors. Why is that?
Charles G. White
> I signed the piece with my name.
> I also gave you the legal citation so that you can read the several-
> page Ninth Circuit decision regarding my draft case.
I read your draft dodging case. From reading the case I assume that you are
from California and probably know O.J. You and O.J. have a lot to be proud
of for your great legal victories. You have come to the right forum to get
all due recognition. In behalf of all of us, may I tell you how proud we
are of you. Although you may have disclosed your name in your court case
citation, you forgot to tell us what award we should bestow upon you. We
know that you are craving recognition, or else, you would not be appearing
on this site. Again, your choices are (note that I had under-estimated your
public achievements, so I added a couple of categories):
[ ] "Elephant Hunter" [For courageously seeing the elephant -- you may need
help on the meaning of this one].
[ ] "O. J. Simpson Justice Award"
[ ] "Nobel Peacenik Prize"
[ ] "Slick Willie Medal of Honor
[ ] "Gay Courage"
[ ] "Yellow Ribbon
[ ] "Pussy Willow"
[ ] "William Calley Peace Award"
[ ] "Other [Specify] __________________
John Wayne
Bill Langston wrote:
>
> Just as I thought Mr. Brandt, your claim of Agent Orange problems are bogus.
> There is no scientific proof for what you claim, only supposition.
>
> I'm only 'hooking' onto this post because it has your name attached, your
> arguments below are also merely what you suppose the situation was. I could
> for example maintain that because there was a World Wide Communist Movement
> that had the ultimate goal of turning the entire world communist that our
> actions in Vietnam *were* defensive, or preemptive.
>
> Probably the best thing for you would be to take your arguments back to your
> Web site unless you are trolling for a fight here. (just a suggestion, you
> do whatever the hell you want)
>
> Bill Langston.
Mr. Brandt, don't let the fringe "patriots" (like Langston here) bother you.
Just accept that you WILL be called a Communist by them. Dont mean nothin.
Just like it didn't mean nothin back in '68. :-)
Bob (RS)
worms and slugs for now..
Bob
On 03 May 2001 16:52:13 GMT, name...@cs.com (NameBase) wrote:
Bob (RS)
popup, buck from the pit,redvet and a few other no name liars.
Dioxin is and has been used for many years by RailRoads, Airports and
utilities for starters and many other entities. Your neat and tightly
wrapped package of disinformation has too many holes for water much
less truth. Have you ever tried the Comedy Store?
Matt Osborn
"NameBase" <name...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010503111415...@ng-ff1.news.cs.com...
Bill Langston
Strangelove. There is a name for this kind of crap when debating but
unfortunately I don't know what it's called. (my fault for not paying more
attention to my English classes but it's still wrong)
I'll also wager that you don't know jack shit about dioxin either. I'll
state that it's probable that there has been more dioxin generated by
Vietnamese fires than Ranch Hand by far.
I know more about some of the things the communists were planning and did
than you do know or ever will know I reckon.
Bill Langston.
"NameBase" <name...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010503160739...@ng-fm1.news.cs.com...
Bob (RS)
You're too stupid to be a communist unless you mean Party Member
On Thu, 03 May 2001 20:12:54 GMT, John Wayne <jwa...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Bill Langston
the 'Worker's Paradise'. It looks like the son of the North Korean communist
leader was caught trying to sneak out of the country TO GO TO DISNEYLAND!
(G)
God, I love it!
Yours truly, Bill Langston.
"NameBase" <name...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010503160739...@ng-fm1.news.cs.com...
NameBase
>I read your draft dodging case. From reading the case I assume
> that you are from California and probably know O.J. You and O.J.
> have a lot to be proud of for your great legal victories.
I was a USC student when O.J. was a famous Trojan football player,
but I've never met the man. By 1967 I was doing SDS meetings
instead of attending football games. USC was a fairly hostile place
for me by then. Once we had a peaceful draft-card turn-in ceremony
on campus (November 1968), and a bunch of frat boys physically
ousted us from campus. We had to take refuge in a local church
to continue the event. The frat boys didn't dare follow us into the
church. A poll by the Daily Trojan showed that most students
agreed with what the frat boys did. The university administration
cited us for holding an unauthorized event on campus, but didn't
even call the frat boys on the carpet.
The term "draft dodger" is relative, and more complex than your
casual use would suggest. Dan Quayle and George W. went into
some Guard or reserve unit, through special connections. Clinton
used various manipulations. I don't mind if you call them "dodgers,"
but I wouldn't use the term. I think they were smart to want to stay
out of that war, but they should have spoken out against the war
also. Clinton did do this, but it was too little, too late, and only after
he determined that it was worth votes on campus for his student
body campaigns.
On October 4, 1968, Edmund Muskie came to USC to speak because
he was running for vice-president. I burned my draft card during
the question-and-answer period. It was carried on the three
networks. My name was in the New York Times. This isn't exactly
"dodging," it's more like taking a risk, since draft-card burning
was a separate felony with a 5-year sentence. And it wasn't very
popular; I was roundly booed by the packed auditorium, and Muskie
had a smug reply that was roundly cheered.
Later, Spiro Agnew accused Muskie of being soft on draft-card
burners. So my protest probably helped Nixon get elected. That
should make you happy.
When the FBI asked me months later what it was that I burned,
I said it was about the size of a draft card and had printing on it.
I "dodged" the question and they lacked evidence to prosecute
on that count because the evidence was already in ashes. Of
course, if I had been smarter at the time, I wouldn't have even
talked to the FBI. I was naive in many respects, and came very
close to losing the case. It's legal for the FBI to lie to you, but
illegal to lie to the FBI. Where's the percentage in consenting
to an interview?
The feds satisfied themselves with two counts -- failing to appear for
a physical and refusal of induction.
When both counts of the conviction were reversed on appeal 18
months later, my file went back to the draft board and I was not
only I-A all over again, but since my case had been deferred,
I was now at the very top of the list for induction. At least I had
the satisfaction of knowing that my case was the first time at the
appellate level that an order to report for a physical was invalidated
along with an invalid I-A. The extra count hadn't been used by
the feds up to that point, as far as I know.
Now I did another dodge. I stopped eating and weighed in a
pound and a half underweight at the pre-induction physical.
That stalled things long enough until the Selective Service System
collapsed.
But I don't consider myself a draft-dodger. I tried to confront the
system as much possible, short of handing them the keys that they
needed to lock me up. There were draft resisters I knew who
were much "purer" than I in this regard, and felt that they should
walk into prison without even offering a technical defense. We all
drew lines in the sand in the 1960s that we've been living with
for a long time. That was the nature of the era. I came away from
the 1960s with FBI and CIA files (I got copies of them in 1976).
It could have been even riskier than it turned out to be. This isn't
exactly "dodging" the issue, but I haven't suffered any personal
anguish over what I did, unlike some veterans.
This sort of confrontation, and/or manipulation, was available to
anyone who knew more about the draft law than their local board.
That wasn't hard, as there were many draft counselors offering
their services for free. I did several years as a draft counselor
myself. Whatever the person who needed counseling wanted
to do, I gave them information that would help them do it. No one
who wanted to stay out of Vietnam had to go. Therefore, if you
went to Vietnam, you either lacked the information to to stay out,
and therefore felt you had no choice, or you were gung-ho like
Kerrey was, who wanted to attack Hanoi with a knife in his teeth.
Or something in between.
I don't seek recognition for myself, but I think the Vietnamese
deserve some aid. Now that I've told all, the question is, "What
did you do during the war, Daddy?"
Worse than that, these days it's more often, "What did you do
during the war, Grandpa?" It takes a long time to get the word
out that the war was immoral, unjust, and illegal, as this forum
proves. Surely that's a strong testiment to the spin powers of
the political / media / business elites who run this country.
> We know that you are craving recognition, or else, you would
> not be appearing on this site.
It was my war too, even though I didn't go to Vietnam. I haven't
noticed many newsgroups for aging, unreconstructed New Leftists.
The multiculturalists and feminists kicked all the white males out of
the Movement around the mid-1970s, and expected us all to confess
our crimes or promptly disperse.
I can't win with you. If you think I left my name off of the post,
then you call me a coward. When I point out that my name was
there all along, you accuse me of greedily seeking recognition
for myself. How about just half of my name?
-- Daniel
Yeff
NameBase<name...@cs.com> wrote in
alt.war.vietnam:
<snip self-serving coward crap>
[BANG!]
-Jeff B. (who had trouble aiming because this ass makes me sick)
yeff at erols dot com
Charles G. White
suffering that you have undergone, including giving up the Trojan games for
your SDS work, you undoubtedly have converted this heathen group of men --
please point me to the nearest SDS confessional. I know that all of the
other baby killers on this group will want to follow, and perhaps contribute
to the "Daniel Brandt Legal Defense Fund." Oh yes, more about the award.
What do you want to call it?
P.S. A possible answer for your children:
Q. "What did you do during the war Daddy?"
A. "I suffered -- I sacrificed -- I even skipped the Trojan games. I may
have worn some, but I did not inhale. But my time was taken up with SDS
activities. But, son don't confuse that with SKS, although I would have
considered SKS an honorable artifice."
"NameBase" wrote
Tom Dier
For once a war protestor signs his name. Grade for the day: "A". Most
with contrary views are too timid to provider an ID. Hope you are a
real person and not a concoction of one of our anonymous trolls.
Most here do not agree with your actions of 30 years ago, but I think
you will gain some respect - if not approval - if you stand by what
you write.
Keep your mind open and your head down.
I served in Vietnam and am proud of that service. I learned alot and
have come to the conclusion that any actions by someone else during
that time have no bearing on my actions.
Be patient. You might learn something here.
On 03 May 2001 15:14:15 GMT, name...@cs.com (NameBase) wrote:
>> I went to Vietnam with a noble motive. I thought it was noble then and I
>> still think that way today.
>
>I don't doubt that you "thought" it was noble, and that you had the best
>of intentions within the confines of what you believed, and within the
>confines of the information that was put in front of you, regarding what
>the U.S. was doing in Vietnam.
>
>-- Daniel Brandt
>U.S. v. Brandt, 435 F.2d 324 (1970)
>
Tom Dier 1/52 Americal Division 1970
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Doug Reese
harassed a scientist at the airport who went there to take soil samples
out for testing?
This was in customs as he was trying to depart with the soil samples.
Chalk the first time up to an ignorant customs official. No excuse for
the second time.
This guy had the proper paperwork, too, whatever that is.
So if this doesn't move forward at a satisfactory pace to suit the
Vietnamese, they have themselves to blame.
Doug
Charles G. White
games with you. I admire my friend Tom Dier who is a compasionate and
forgiving person. However, during my tour in Vietnam, I felt that I had
been betrayed to such an extent that I will always hold people like you in
utter contempt. I never will achieve Tom's level of understanding, and will
carry this contempt to my grave. It is difficult to put into words how your
type of people inconsiderately hurt those who were serving their country to
the best of their ability. To me, your public burning of your draft card
(or prentense of burning it) was tantamount to burning the U.S. flag. My
story and how I feel is best told by a friend of mine who served in my
battalion. His short story of how his brother hurt him is told at this
site. Please read it, and maybe you will understand the other side. See:
http://geocities.com/whitecgw/comehome.html and be sure to view the two
small pictures.
Carl Hatchell
"Tom Dier" <win...@greene.xtn.net> wrote in message news:3af1e96e....@news.xtn.net...
>
> I served in Vietnam and am proud of that service. I learned alot and
> have come to the conclusion that any actions by someone else during
> that time have no bearing on my actions.
>
Tom,
Very well said. When it comes right down to it, our own actions are
the only ones we can really explain and sometimes even those are not
readily explainable to someone else.
Carl Hatchell