BROOKS DISHONORS REG ARMY SOLDIERS

[dgvreiman]

BROOKS DISHONORS REG ARMY SOLDIERS

(See Secretary Rumsfeld’s comments about Vietnam draftees below):

"Nigel Brooks" <1. nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6u12n4F...@mid.individual.net...

2.
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
of my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an
editorial on contemporary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in
this article represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical
fact, nor is about, directed toward or against any particular person -
other than those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being
posted for entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post
personally annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please
notify me of your specific reasons for annoyance via email at
legal...@comcast.net. If we find your detailed objections
reasonable (considering the “reasonable person” doctrine and case law)
we will then remove this post, or the offending passages contained
therein, from the Google archive, publicly apologize and retract. My
intent is to entertain, and to present articles to USENET readers
prior to publication to determine interest, and not to annoy, abuse,
humiliate, or in any way cause anyone emotional harm by posting on
USENET or elsewhere. Please note that defending myself from harassment
and obloquy with rebuttal posts has been deemed a “lawful and
legitimate” publication by my legal counsel. If I am not attacked,
libeled, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles not
interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
and all ISP’s and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web
site or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).

SMEAR MERCHANT DISCLAIMER TWO: Considering the typical ridiculous,
absurd and obviously false claims about my military service that
originates from the crackpot smear and con gang that operates on
alt.war.Vietnam, I also hereby certify and attest this article is NOT
a secret coded message that only gang members can decode with their
secret Federal Agent/Sp4 draftee/former Junior Reserve Officer/ midget
decoder and mind reading rings.
This means the Brownie crackpots’ inevitable accusations and howls
that this article is really me claiming in a special soothsaying code
(a code only crackpots et al smear gang can only read of course which
involves their typical claim the American Heritage Dictionary’s
definitions of simple terms, such as “we” “estimated” “involved”
“retired from” and “not representing any biographical claim” are all
incorrect, and only their “special interpretations of the English
language can apply to all English terms I use, and of course the
gang’s standard nonsensical mind reading and soothsaying claims that
(1) I was a CIA cross border assassin that sniper killed Ho Chi Minh,
HOORAH - (2) that I personally killed 1803 enemy soldiers in Vietnam
and then feasted on their bodies (burp) (3) that I was a secret member
of the Mi Lai massacre, (let god sort them out) that I hunted down and
murdered unarmed Priests (take that choir boy) (4) that I was trained
by the Martian Army on Mars, and I have green blood, and retractable
fangs (slurp), (5) that the movie "Rambo" was copied after my deeds in
Vietnam and I still live in caves in the northwest (6) and best of
all, I went to the Carlise War College to study WWII tactics even
before I was born!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHHA.

Needless to say, the smear gang misrepresentations of my past posts
are of course, not true.

I have posted dozens of times on USENET that I will not post
autobiographical facts about my life on USENET in any detail. Only a
quip now and then. And, if anyone wants to know the true facts, or a
clarification of any quip, or more information and details about an
issue which are clearly missing in my quips they must first contact
me via email, identify themselves, and then I will determine if I want
to exchange such personal information with them.

Although the above is my standing offer, I should mention that NOT ONE
member of the gang has ever contacted me directly over any one of my
posts. It is clear the gang does not want to know about obvious
typos, errors, and occasional ambiguities, nor clarifications, nor
corrections, nor do they even want verification whether I was the
actual author of the post in question.

As experts on Investigations and the US Military have noted, the gang
leaders and their members clearly want to avoid the truth whenever it
contradicts their contrived and conspired defaming parsing and
fraudulent misrepresentations and distortions of what I have written
in the past, or contradicts their lies and fraud in respect to what is
and is not truly contained in my military records, and of course,
their fraudulent use of USENET posts they know others have written to
use to smear me, defame me, hold me up to public ridicule, stalk me,
and otherwise further their years’ long demonizing and vilification
campaign they have been regularly waging against me.

In short, the gang does not want to know the truth, and they are
desperate to stop me from defending myself as they know my truthful
rebuttals, which they cannot defend as they know what I am posting is
true, reveals them for what they really are.

The gangs lies and fraud border on the pathological, and include the
gang’ preposterous and goofy fraud that (7) a Purple Heart VA card is
the same as a Purple Heart Medal (I have posted on USENET dozens of
times I did not receive a Purple Heart Medal) (8) Nor that removing
hundreds of typos, errors, misstatements made by typists and I found
so far in about thirty-five THOUSAND extemporaneous posts under
accounts I used, and then replacing the errors with the true intended
context and meaning by the author is somehow “sinister” and the
original discarded post was the correct intended post and the
corrected version is false! (Giggle).
Such glaring preposterous crackpot et al smear and fraud gang claims
about me are, as usual, blatantly false and equally ridiculous. (Ask
the gang leaders for proof of their claims the next time they make
such ludicrous claims and watch them scurry for their rocks or produce
their own forgeries, or perhaps typos, errors and such that have long
been detected and discarded in my waste basket they have dug out of
that trash). And no, regardless of forgeries and discarded posts found
in my waste basket that were thrown there because of an error or
typist misstatement by one of our typist’s, I have posted about two
dozen times in the past that my time in South America was spent (other
than an assignment and short visit to Southern Command after I left
Vietnam) exclusively as a Civilian working for Montana Western Oil and
Gas or PCA, which evidence was scanned and posted years ago.)
Also, in response to the smear gang’s et al repeated and convenient
outright lie and fraud that I never said that others were using the
same accounts to post on USENET as I did until the smear gang leaders
started their fraud, con and smear campaign against me and thereby
forced me to post on this newsgroup to defend myself, please see the
following proof that of course the gang leaders et al have been caught
lying again:


http://tinyurl.com/7kfaqz Experts on Smear Gangs reveal what the
Nigel Brooks con and smear gang is all about.

http://tinyurl.com/6d4aay TYPISTS’ GALORE POST proves there were about
71 previous posts prior to the gang’s glaring lie that I never
mentioned others posting under the same accounts I used until after
the gang leaders started to use a few typos, errors and post fragments
written by many different people, years apart, never written on any
military forum, deceptively spliced together with forged words added
into or subtracted from the hodgepodge of different context post
fragments so as to fraudulently alter their meaning or context.


End Disclaimer - Rebuttal Begins below:

BROOKS DISHONORS REGULAR ARMY SOLDIERS


>
>
>>> BROOKS IS MORE OF A CLOWN THAT AN EXPERT
>>>
>>> 1. To start, Nigel Brooks was a Sp4 two year draftee and he did not
>>> even serve in the Regular Army. He is NOT an expert on the military nor a
>>> "judge" on anyone's military service. In fact his self acclamation and
>>> braggadocio in that regard is a complete joke on the level of Bozo the
>>> Clown. His low rank and lack of service, not to mention his numerous
>>> fraud about his military service and false statements about events during the
>>> Vietnam war clearly indicates he is lying about being an expert on the
>>> US Army, lying about being a "judge" of anyone's military service but his >>> own, and has been and is lying about events in Vietnam that he knows his
>>> sources deliberately falsified or knew were not entirely accurate.
>>>
>>> 2. Nigel Brooks also is not an "Investigator." In my opinion, he is a
>>> moron, a clown, a stumbling, bumbling idiot as my series of rebuttals
>>> have already proved. Brooks is an "Inspector Cluso" type and just a plain
>>> ol serial liar, fraud and smear merchant that uses outright fraud, false
>>> innuendo and serial lying to smear those that call out his con man smear
>>> and fascist tactics he and his gang use against their targeted smear
>>> victims.
>>>
>>> Nigel Brooks propensity to use forgeries, fraud and false accusations to
>>> smear his gang's targeted smear victims indicates to me he is one of
>>> those few people you meet in life that you know need to be promoted three
>>> times just to be an asshole.
>>>
>>> 3. A short sampling of Nigel Brooks forgeries in which he has been
>>> caught forging words or context into or out of my past posts:
1.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/a5ff9z
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Forgeries from Tom Rau: http://tinyurl.com/9wt93m
>>>
>>> B. More forgeries from Nigel Brooks: http://tinyurl.com/7zlbpm
>>>
>>> There is much more I could post to give all a little background on Nigel
>>> Brooks the serial liar and fraud merchant and how he and his fascist
>>> smear gang operate, but I thought I would first start to rebut the outrageous
>>> fraud, smears and con man "false conclusions" we have seen Nigel Brooks'
>>> post about me on his "smear and defame for profit" web site.
>>>
>>> First, understand from my disclaimer above, (which Brooks and gang have
>>> acknowledged several times) I never post any autobiographical facts
>>> about my past in any detail. At best any quip I make about my military
>>> service is incomplete and/or ambiguous, and I have offered anyone that wanted to
>>> know more detail about any quip to contact me via email.
>>>
>>> I have made it clear I do not wish to post autobiographical detailed
>>> facts about my life on USENET, and I also want to know who I am exchanging
>>> information with before I do so privately. Nigel Brooks and gang have
>>> NEVER contacted me privately about any quip or issue. They are simply afraid
>>> to do so, as they know the truth will expose their fraud and serial lying.
>>> So Brooks refused my access to his serbianbog web site out of fear that I
>>> would do precisely what I am doing, proving he has been lying and using >>> outright fraud to smear and defame for years.
>>>
>>> Brooks' Splicing and Dicing
>>>
>>> Nigel Brooks and his gang operate like a kidnapper would in respect to
>>> composing a ransom letter: Brooks' cuts out excerpts from several
>>> different posts, years apart, not even about the same topic, not even
>>> posted on the same forum, then he splices those selected sentences together to
>>> form a completely different context and meaning from what each post (which
>>> contained the original quip) was conveying or stating. Nigel and his
>>> gang (especially Tom Rau) also will forge certain key words into, and remove
>>> key words out of sentences they have selected from my past posts so as to
>>> bolster their obvious fraud and forgeries about their targeted smear
>>> victim - which lately has been me.
>>>
>>> Although the sentence the gang selects may be ambiguous, and clearly
>>> requires more detail or clarification to understand fully, Nigel Brooks
>>> and smear gang will fraudulently and maliciously assign the most defaming
>>> interpretation they can dream up to every sentence they can exploit and
>>> splice coming from their target victim.
>>>
>>> As an example: Let's say that when someone asked you how many enemy
>>> soldiers you killed in Vietnam, you replied with "As many as I could." And added
>>> that you *estimated* your team (units you were assigned to) achieved a
>>> body count of 1803 with only two or three Lieutenants wounded. Of course
>>> you clearly said "estimated" which means of course you really do not know
>>> the correct number. And you later even posted an addition to your statement
>>> that said your estimate was probably wrong.
>>>
>>> And in another post years from that post, in respect to a completely
>>> different topic and context, you said in the context of you not quitting
>>> difficult tasks, and in complete satire, you laughingly stated the
>>> following well-known hyperbole figure of speech:
>>>
>>> "I was taught to take no prisoners and eat the wounded".
>>>
>>> After the smear gang found those two quips via a malicious search for
>>> anything to use to defame you, the smear gang cut out the two different
>>> quips mentioned above, spliced them together, and then posted hundreds
>>> of times on web sites and on USENET, that "Doug Grant said he personally
>>> killed 1803 confirmed enemy soldiers in Vietnam, and feasted on the bodies of
>>> the wounded!" (Or equally preposterous words to that effect).
>>>
>>> So to start, everyone must understand that when you deal with Nigel
>>> Brooks and his gang, you are dealing with unethical con men that wantonly use>>> fraud, forgeries and spliced together sentences to perpetrate outrageous
>>> deceptions and fraud about their smear victims. The above example is a
>>> true example of the gang's fraud - believe it! I know it sounds too
>>> unethical, fraudulent and fascist to believe, but this is precisely what the gang
>>> forged in respect to the two quips I mentioned above.
>>>
>>> I also should and must mention that anytime an author removes a post
>>> from the Google archive due to error, or something poorly written, and/or
>>> clarifies that post later, the Nigel Brooks gang claims that author is
>>> "hiding posts." But when Nigel and gang do the same, they are just
>>> "clarifying" their posts.
>>>
>>> So we also must realize and accept that Nigel and his gang are perhaps
>>> the biggest hypocrites on USENET.
>>>
>>> NIGEL BROOKS 'THE INTERROGATOR" FRAUD, LIES AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS EXPOSED
>>>
>>> 1. When I said in a quip that I helped to and did interrogate
>>> prisoners in Vietnam.
>>>
>>> A. Nigel Brooks posted the following outright deception and fraud:
>>> Reiman was a SSG - E-6 with an MOS of 71H40 (personnel NCO) assigned to
>>> Co D, 1Bn 27th Infantry Regiment (Wolfhounds), 25th Infantry Division for
>>> an approximate five month period. He subsequently transferred to Can Tho
>>> Vietnam - where he was assigned to the 51st Maintenance Company (Lt).
>>> Nothing in Reiman's military records indicate any expertise in interview
>>> techniques or the Vietnamese language.
>>>
>>> First, Nigel Brooks fails to mention I was a SFC E-7 in Vietnam and was
>>> not always a SSG E-6.
>>>
>>> Strange how he would fail to mention that key fact about my rank?
>>> Brooks apparently does not want anyone to know I was once a platoon sergeant
>>> that would be required BY ARMY REGULATIONS to interrogate prisoners in the
>>> field to determine if they could provide any instant information in respect to
>>> arms caches, enemy locations, etc.
>>>
>>> Brooks hid my true rank so as to lie about and avoid that pesky Army
>>> regulation fact. (I was promoted to SFC E-7 after I was assigned to Can
>>> Tho ).
>>>
>>> Regardless, even as a SSG E-6 infantry qualified NCO in the 25th
>>> Infantry Division during the 1968 Tet offensive and counteroffensive months, on
>>> some occasions I acted as a platoon sergeant because there was an extreme>>> shortage of NCO's, as the experts in the following URL clearly prove.
>>> (Note Nigel "omitted" the fact I was in the 25th during the 1968 Tet offensive
>>> and counteroffensive months - you already know why).
>>>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/9b8ald Experts and the US Government confirm Nigel
>>> Brooks, Tom Rau and gang have been lying about my military records for
>>> years, and confirm MOS's meant very little in respect to combat
>>> operations in Infantry Units during the 1968 Tet offensive and counteroffensive
>>> months in Vietnam.
>>>
>>> Nigel hid the fact I was in the 25th Infantry Division during the 1968
>>> Tet offensive and counter offensive months. In comparison, Brooks was not
>>> even in the Army during that period. And he was never assigned to the 25th
>>> Infantry in his life. So in truth Nigel Brooks does not have a clue
>>> about his fraudulent claim that my rank and MOS somehow implies or proves I
>>> did not use an interpreter to ask prisoners questions while I was in
>>> Vietnam, not one time!
>>>
>>> Note also that Nigel apparently "has never heard of" an interpreter!
>>>
>>> It must have slipped Inspector Cluso's mind. He is actually trying his
>>> best to con the readers that every time anyone asked prisoners
>>> questions in the field they had to first fluently learn Vietnamese. Did I mention
>>> this guy Brooks is a liar *and* an idiot?
>>>
>>> Speaking French - Brooks knows I lived in France *before* I went to
>>> Vietnam:
>>>
>>> I also mentioned that I helped to interrogate some prisoners in Can Tho,
>>> where a very large POW camp was located. There were enemy prisoners
>>> running around the Can Tho base camp all the time. Some were out on
>>> work details, others were being regularly brought into the various units in
>>> which their previous interrogations had applicability and had turned into Kit
>>> Carson's. The unit I worked for controlled six other units, and much of
>>> what was being extracted from prisoners applied directly to the missions
>>> of those units. Receiving information from POW's was essential and
>>> commonplace as the major POW camp was located at the Can Tho base.
>>>
>>> Once again we find Nigel Brooks trying to con the readers that although
>>> the POW camp was located in the very base I worked in, and the units I was
>>> involved with sometimes relied heavily on information that came from
>>> POW's, I not once, ever, said a word to any POW - as that would count as an
>>> "interrogation." Did I mention Nigel Brooks is a clown and an idiot?
>>> If I didn't I should have.>>>
>>> Some more Nigel Brooks lying exposed:
>>>
>>> Nigel above said I was exclusively a SSG E-6 in Can Tho, I wasn't, I
>>> was a SFC E-7, for several months before I left Vietnam. Brooks knows that
>>> fact and he lied about it.
>>>
>>> Brooks then claims I was assigned to duty in Can Tho with the 51st
>>> Maintenance Company, again Brooks has been caught lying through his
>>> teeth.
2.
>>> My duty assignment had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the 51st
>>> Maintenance Company. I was NOT assigned to that company for any duty as Brooks is
>>> carefully avoiding mentioning. In fact Brooks completely ignores my
>>> duty assignment in Can Tho because he knows it will prove he lied about other
>>> issues. Brooks is also lying about my MOS; he says it was 71H40, in fact,
>>> it was 71H40L which denotes a linguist.
3.
>>> Now why would Nigel want to lie about my linguist designation on my MOS?
>>> And why would he lie about my duty assignment? For obvious reasons of
>>> course.
>>>
>>> When I said I was asked to help interrogate some prisoners in Can Tho
>>> because I spoke French and some of the prisoners also spoke French and
>>> the interrogators wanted to know if their Vietnamese Interpreters were lying
>>> to them about what the prisoners said - Brooks then claimed I was lying
>>> because my military records do not show me learning French in any Army
>>> school.
>>>
>>> Yet Nigel Brooks also knows from my records I was selected to go to
>>> France in 1966 for a very special duty from Ft. Benning primarily BECAUSE I
>>> SPOKE FRENCH! When President DeGaule was kicking NATO out of France I was
>>> sent there for a very special assignment by the US Army, and I was promoted
>>> to SSG E-6 within eight days of my arrival in France. Now why in the
>>> world would the US Army offer me that special assignment to France, and
>>> promote me from E-5 to SSG E-6 in a MOS I never held if I agreed to accept the
>>> assignment? DUHHH - Because I did *not* speak French like moron Brooks
>>> claims? BWHAHAHAHA. (In fact to be assigned to France at that time it
>>> was a basic requirement to speak French in the capacity and duty I was
>>> assigned to perform).
>>>
>>> Brooks hides the fact that I was assigned to France because I spoke
>>> French, and my France assignment occurred BEFORE I went to Vietnam, and I lived
>>> on the economy in France because it was an "all others tour" at that time.
>>> Obviously, I could speak French in France, but Brooks claims I could not>>> speak French in Vietnam? I suspect Brooks wants people to believe that
>>> if you leave France you no longer can ever speak French? That claim is
>>> nutty of course, but it is typical Nigel Brooks, Da Clown.
>>>
>>> Moreover, considering some of my closest relatives were raised in
>>> Montréal, and all of their family immigrated to Canada from Europe, and then to
>>> the USA, guess what we spoke a lot around the house - Chinese?
>>> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>>>
>>> My records clearly show that I was assigned to France during a period in
>>> which you had to speak French to be assigned to that country, and during
>>> a time when we were pulling out. I also studied German which Brooks
>>> admits is reflected in my records to assist in the withdraw of our troops from
>>> France.
4.
>>> I was a linguist, Brooks hides that fact, I was promoted in Vietnam to a
>>> SFC E-7 Brooks also hides that fact, and Brooks lied openly about my duty
>>> assignment in Can Tho.
>>>
>>> In general Nigel Brooks fraudulently claims that a serviceman's MOS
>>> exclusively dictated his entire duties in Vietnam. Of course Brooks was
>>> not in the US Army when the 1968 Tet offensive hit (although he lied and
>>> said he was). However, the report from a retired First Sergeant with 30 years
>>> service, and a former MI NCO that is presently a lawyer, and the US Army
>>> combat policy for all NCO's in a war zone, proves irrefutably that a
>>> MOS meant very little if anything when it came to being assigned to combat
>>> duties in Vietnam during the 1968 Tet offensive and counteroffensive
>>> months in an Infantry Division like the 25th Infantry.
>>>
>>> We will get to Brooks equally ridiculous lies and fraud about "Enemy
>>> Tactics" in my next rebuttal.
>>>
>>> Now you know why ol Nigel did not want me to have access to his
>>> serbonianbog private smear group where he repeatedly posts his fraud, lies and
>>> serial lying about his victims without fear of rebuttal. Surprise Nigel! One
>>> member of your gang does not believe you anymore. I have seen and
>>> downloaded it all, and I will rebut your fraud item by item. Stay
>>> tuned.
>>>
>>> Doug Grant (Tm)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6telfsF...@mid.individual.net...>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.23db19796...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>>>>> In article <LO6dnZ0Mdq1UruzU...@giganews.com>,
>>>>> dgvr...@comcast.net says...
>>>>>> BROOKS IS MORE OF A CLOWN THAT AN EXPERT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. To start, Nigel Brooks was a Sp4 two year draftee and he did not
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> serve in the Regular Army.
>>>>> So exactly what is Reimans point here?
>>>>
>>>> That I was a draftee?
>>>> That I was an SP4?
>>>> or
>>>> That he was in a different Army than I.
>>>>
>>>> I would imagine that most, if not all of those 2 million or so Vietnam
>>>> Era draftees would be a little perplexed to discover that Reiman did
>>>> not consider that they were in the same Army as he was.
>>>>
>>>> In his usual multi-line incoherent posting style he'll of course claim
>>>> point out that folks who enlisted were part of the "Regular Army" and
>>>> that folks who were drafted were part of the "Army of the United
>>>> States" - but that is of course totally immaterial.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that AUS and RA personnel served in exactly the same active
>>>> duty units, they did exactly the same duties, wore exactly the same
>>>> uniforms, received the same pay, ate the same food, and used the same
>>>> latrines.
>>>
>>> Doug Says: My point is that a Sp4 top rank, with a total of only two
>>> years in service, a draftee that was forced into service and was NOT
>>> even a member of the Regular Army, who claims he is an expert on the US
>>> Army, is lying, full of shit, an idiot, and such self acclamations are
>>> beyond preposterous. Brooks is no more an expert on the US Army than he
>>> is on truthful posts on USENET.
>>>
>>> Moreover, Brooks is lying about AUS and RA personnel performing the same
>>> duties: They did not perform the same duties. Regular Army personnel
>>> were afforded hundreds of duties and schools that draftees were not even
>>> offered nor could perform even if they wanted to do so. On top of that,
>>> many commanders did not want these "draftees" in their units as they
>>> believed their Regular Army troops would not accept them as equals, and >>> this was especially true in combat units. My experience with draftees
>>> was they whined, cried, ducked jobs, hid out, constantly bitched about
>>> the US Army, did heavy drugs, wallowed in the whore houses and took
>>> Village Rat discharges, and in my opinion provided very little if any
>>> value to the US Army. The miserable performance of draftees was one of
>>> the main reasons the US Army decided to go to an all volunteer Army.
>>> Brooks claim that a two-year draftee SP4 is an "expert on the US Army"
>>> is akin to Brooks normal bullshit.
>>>
>>> However, if we changed our draft programs, such as not allowing
>>> deferments for College, requiring all draftees to spend the same time as
>>> Regular Army personnel in enlistments, and affording draftees the same
>>> job opportunities based upon testing, and we gave a reason for draftees
>>> to be proud of their service, then the draft should resume and there
>>> should be very little difference between draftees and Regular Army
>>> personnel. But back during the Vietnam war, there was a major
>>> difference between the two - draftees were NOT in the Regular Army.
>>>
>>> Doug Grant (Tm)
>>>
>>>> "draftees as a general rule were *never* sent to Vietnam, and if they
>>>> went with a complete unit call, they *never* were placed in a combat
>>>> role."
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7lf9qq
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a Maroon
>>>>
>>>> Nigel Brooks
>>>
>>> Doug Says: The above is quite correct during the period when it
>>> applied. I was a station commander at a field recruiting station when
>>> Nigel Brooks was playing civilain village rat in Saigon. I *KNOW* how
>>> draftees were assigned during that period. Brooks only knew how much
>>> the Saigon whore houses charged. Most combat units did not want
>>> draftees in their units. Some went of course, and many converted to RA
>>> status and volunteered, which of course Brooks has left out of his
>>> "statistics." Please provide a link to your data base Mr. Brooks. We
>>> need some dates to see if I really am a "run away slave" like your
>>> "Maroon" comment indicates.
>>>
>>> Doug Grant (Tm)
>>>>
>> draftees went to Vietnam until Nixon said only volunteers would be sent
>> (1972)....so hop skip and try to jump around that.>
>
> He cannot.
>
> Reiman is a buffoon of the highest order. Regardless of what how much he
> tries to denigrate those who served in the US Military as conscripts there
> are many of us who served with honor and distinction.
>
> As is his usual practice Ranting Reiman has the temerity to suggest that
> draftees in Vietnam were drug addicts, whined, cried, ducked jobs, hid
> out, constantly bitched about the US Army, did heavy drugs, wallowed in
> the whore houses and took Village Rat discharges, and in my opinion
> provided very little if any value to the US Army.

Doug Says: Yep, that was my opinion of most of the draftees I
encountered.
They did not want to be in the US Army. If they did, they would have
enlisted. DUHHHHH!
>
> He then goes on to claim that his view of the role draftees played in
> Vietnam is the correct one. Well tell that to Tom Ridge!!!

Doug Says: I am sure there were some draftees that were a service to
the
US Army, but they were rare, and I only met a very small amount of
draftees
that had even close to he same attitude as Regular Army troops. If
Nigel
Brooks is tying to claim that draftees had the same attitude about the
US
Army, and therefore aspired to the same high quality levels, and
worked as
hard, then he certainly was not in the same Army as I was during that
period.

The US Army went to an all volunteer Army because of the failures of
the
conscription program. I know that, Brooks knows that and the world
knows
that fact. Nigel Brooks' claim that draftees were as valuable to the
US
Army as Regular Army troops is preposterous.
>
> As usual Reiman is wrong - but being incapable of accepting the truth, he
> is also willfully blind to the the fact that draftees were sent to Vietnam
> as a matter of course. They filled the same slots as did those who were
> RA. Department of the Army never made a distinction between US or RA when
> it came to selecting individuals for Vietnam Service.

Doug Says: Mr. Brooks was a Sp4 personnel clerk with two whole years
of
draftee service. And during the period I am referencing he was not
even in
the US Army. My last assignment was a station commander of a
Recruiting
Station, and MI operations related to that station. I *KNOW* how units
and
individuals were chosen for Vietnam service. Draftees were not
afforded the same choices of schools and training that Regular Army
personnel were during
the time I was in the position to know. Outside of that time period I
would
not have any inside information, but at the time, there was a serious
distinction between draftees and RA being sent to Vietnam. The war
was
winding down in 1969, and for many reasons the general policy,
considering
there was a waiting list to go to Vietnam by RA personnel, was NOT to
send
Draftees to Vietnam. Most of the major commands simply did not want
them,
and there was also political reasons not to send them at the time.

Brooks' claim I am wrong about a duty I performed and knowledge I had
to
have, and knowledge there was no way he could possess, is "pot kettle
black"
as usual with Brooks.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Additional Rebuttal:

WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THIS ISSUE - NIGEL BROOKS, SMEAR MERCHANT, OR MR.
DONALD RUMSFIELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE?

Mr. Brooks is deliberately denigrating the honor of the Regular Army
by claiming conscripts and now “village rats” performed the same
duties equally well and contributed as much to the Viet Nam war effort
as Regular Army volunteers. Several studies by the US Army state
otherwise. (Yes I will furnish MORE if challenged). Here is what the
Secretary of Defense had to say about this issue:

“When asked about his feelings regarding the draft proposal by Charles
B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) last Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld recalled the experience of the draft during Vietnam.
1. Rumsfeld said troops from Vietnam War conscription added "no value,
no advantage, really, to the United States armed services . . .
because the churning that took place, it took an enormous amount of
effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."
He spoke of the fact that many of those who were drafted were trained,
served for a short time and then left the service. Rumsfeld first
referred to the many exemptions issued to certain men in the draft and
then said, "what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a
period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage,
really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period
of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount
of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense.



Yes there were many draftees that were killed during the Vietnam war.
And God bless them for it. But being dragged into the US Army kicking
and screaming and then sent out as cannon fodder during the early
parts of the war did nothing but prolong the war, and create problems
in the ranks. Ergo, by the time I returned from Vietnam, (1969) the
general rule was to try and keep Draftees out of Vietnam, and
especially out of combat. Prior to that time I have no reason nor
special knowledge what was going on in Recruiting. Brooks hides the
fact my context was about my particular time in Recruiting and what I
knew at that time. However, according to our former Secretary of
Defense, Draftees provide "no value, no advantage, really, to the
United States armed services.” during the entire Viet Nam war.

(I am sure Mr. Brooks and Mr. Rau will now call Mr. Rumsfeld a liar,
just like they normally do whenever their fraud and BS has been
exposed).

Further, what else Mr. Brooks is hiding from the readers is the fact
that a draftee during the period I mentioned could have joined the
Regular Army on a two-year Regular Army enlistment program.

Now if you believe that since a draftee decided to be *forced* into
the US Army for a period of two years, instead of enlisting in the
Regular Army and receiving a good school of his choice while
committing to the *same exact enlistment time* of two years of active
duty the same as a Draftee was required to serve, is of the same
caliber and attitude of a Regular Army enlistee, then you and Nigel
Brooks belong with each other. Dumb and dumber. We all know
differently don’t we?

What kind of person would demand to be dragged into the US Army
kicking and scratching for a two year period when he could have
enlisted for the same time commitment and been a part of the Regular
Army?

Some more questions for Mr. Brooks: (1) Why Mr. Brooks did you not
enlist in the Regular Army for two years instead of forcing the US
Government to conscript you into the US Army for the same two years?
*Obviously, Mr. Brooks wanted nothing to do with the Regular Army at
that time!* But now he wants to boast and lie that he was the same as
all those RA personnel! He should be ashamed!

Brooks is deliberately belittling the Regular Army with his BS
braggadocio. Brooks clearly ducked the Regular Army when he was
drafted. And now it is too late for him to boast that he was a part
of it - he was not!

Nigel Brook’s claims that he was in the same Army as real Regular
Army soldiers is beyond contemptible. Mr. Brooks knows that his
service number prefix was NOT “RA” it was “US” - which denoted a
draftee, and which the US Army used to deliberately distinguished
Draftees from Regular Army personnel. If Draftees and Regular Army
volunteers were the same as Brooks is claiming, then the US Army would
NOT have used different prefixes in front of their service numbers to
distinguish the difference between a conscript Draftee and a Regular
Army Volunteer.

Obviously there *was* a difference between the two, and the US Army’s
own designation of Draftees from RA personnel proves that fact
unquestionably.

(Brooks has been caught lying again with evidence from the US
Government - typical Brooks - a simple service number prefix proves
that Brooks is lying through his teeth again - not to mention the
conclusion of the Secretary of Defense).

Village Rats Contributing to the War Effort?

Brooks said that civilian Village Rats in Vietnam “were contributing
to the war effort.” I strongly disagree based upon my experiences
with Village Rats:

2. All of the Village Rat Civilians I met in Vietnam were either in
the black market up to their eyeballs, or were shacking up with
Vietnamese whores while they drew big money from the US Government,
which made them rich in the Vietnamese economy, or all three.

So, Mr. Brooks: (3). While you were in Viet Nam as a civilian did
you shack up with whores? (Some of these Village Rats actually fell
in love with these whores and married them and dragged them back to
the States - I hope this is not the case with Mr. Brooks -if it is it
explains a lot).

(4). While you were in Viet Nam as a civilian did you deal in the
black market in any manner? (Brooks has already admitted he drove
around in a stolen jeep stolen from the US Military, so I guess we
already know the anser to that question).

(5). Did your income in Viet Nam make you a wealthy “American” living
on the Vietnamese economy? (If it didn’t he was different from all
the US civilian village rat’s I ever met).

Do you really expect us real Regular Army soldiers to believe that
your Village Rat civilian job in the PX was the same as ours when we
were in Vietnam? Do you really expect us to believe that your Village
Rat activities as a civilian supported our war effort? I suspect it
did a lot more damage to our war effort than it did provide support,
that is unless you were one very different Village Rat civilian from
those I had the misfortune to encounter when I was in Viet Nam.

(Don’t expect Nigel Brooks to answer those questions above - he will
be too ashamed).

Doug Grant (Tm)