Bondage Forums

From this one paragraph and my memories of the times, he was drafted or about to be at any minute and knew it.

Please anyone more acquainted with this, correct me if I am wrong. But as I remember, you were given the opportunity to finish your education, before being called up for service. Your notice to appear may have come before your graduation, which is what your student deferment was for, that kept you in school. Upon graduation though, you were fair game.

Once you were called up, you had a few choices, go and do your two years in the Army, head to Canada, or enlist for a longer hitch in one of the other branches of service. Towards the end, as I remember, the only branch that would take someone who was already "drafted" was the Marines. At that time joining the Marines was considered, by those of us close to or at draft age, a "one way ticket" to VietNam.

Mike had mentioned that both Naval and Air Force pilots were counted heavily in the casualty figures. I do belive though, many of the other positions in those two branches were considered "much safer" than either the Army or the Marines, hense why they ended up with the moritorium on "drafted" enlisties.

Like many young men, Mr. Kerry most likely weighed his options and choose the Navy as his best bet. No one from that time would fault him for that. To say though that he "volenteered" is rather misleading. Many in this country did volenteer and the draft was not their motivation. They went as you would expect, out of a desire to serve this country. Not because they were trying to find the "safest way" to get through it all. All the Vets from VietNam deserve our gratitude, and those that truly volenteered without the local draft board running after them, deserve EVEN more of our thanks and admiration.

You are right Kinky!!!

"I can already hear the liberals ears plugged and chants of lalallalalallalalalallalala..I can't hear you...lalalallaalalala."

That is EXACTLY what they are doing!!!!
--
Ceanthia

Making a rare appearance in this forum. This topic will do as well as any other to say what's on my mind.

In 1969, you were about 11, ceanthia. You, kinky, were not born. I was 22. For you, whether someone "volunteered" or not is a clever semantic argument to bolster your toxic partisanship. That is all you care about. That is all the Swift Boat Liars for Bush care about. You do not care at all how much anger and pain your verbal stunts rake up for those of us who had to make those choices, and above all for those of us who served. Let me tell you a few family stories about "volunteering."

I volunteered. Like most people who volunteered after college, I explored alternatives that didn't work out. Like most, I felt the hot breath of the draft. I chose the Navy, and a combination of chances kept me out of the Delta, where most of my service school class went. All the same, I had a small share of "interesting times" that pay dividends to this day.

I had a brother-in-law who joined the National Guard after looking at alternatives, so I suppose he doesn't qualify as volunteering. His unit was one of the few sent to Vietnam. He survived his tour to die at 29 of connective tissue cancer caused by exposure to Agent Orange.

My younger brother volunteered, after his alternatives didn't pan out. He joined the Marines. His tour was in a duty that makes even three-tour Vietnam vets wince, in action every night for eight months, with the souvenirs to match. The Reagan-Bush 1 administrations stalled his disability claim for more than ten years.

One of my best college friends, a Marine brat, probably meets your exalted standard as a volunteer. As a platoon leader near the DMZ, he watched his unit take 30 percent casualties in a a single action and never got over it. he died this year at 58, so he is finally at peace.

This is not about liberal versus whatever it is you are. It's about simple respect. You do not--you cannot--possibly understand what you're talking about. You will never have the constant, living, daily companionship of memories that are the common inheritance of those who have seen the worst war has to offer. All you can do is to use that experience to advance a political agenda and score points over liberals.

To many of us (the veterans who don't speak out a lot and don't wear our status on our sleeves) all of this is SSDD. Everyone, and I mean everyone, trashed us and used us 30 years ago, and it's still going on. Don't reply and drivel on about all the respect you have for veterans, then go out and support an administration that has done more to deny material suppport to veterans and active duty personnel than any in the last hundred years.

Tell me, is veteran-bashing as much fun for you as liberal bashing?

I can't help noticing how many of the Kerry haters here are under 40. I have a bright idea for all of you: enlist. Go on...there are plenty of active duty personnel your age in Iraq. A lot of them are Guard and Reserve and would enjoy being relieved by fire-eating heroes like you.
Either that, or accept the label "chickenhawk."

Your also a vet-basher. You are bashing a veteran's service....don't you see that? Kerry should be able to proudly run on his combat experience without the official military reports being trashed by a bunch of lying pieces of shits (SBVFT)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_2.htm

We both know that Congress holds the purse-strings, not the President, so check out what our public "servants" have been up to: The DAV lobbied for Amendment 3409 to increase DV medical benefits for inflation, and to take care of the influx of new DV's from Iraq and Afghanistan. It was rejected - Reps against, Dems for, but no 60 votes for it to be adopted. Look who didn't even bother to show up to vote.... If you look at the amendments - and the convoluted way they're tied to irrelevant pork-barrel crap - two things are obvious: 1) neither the Dems nor the Reps have a corner on the market when it comes to screwing the troops before or after we've served; and, 2) Kerry didn't think that the appropriations bill for FY05 was important enough to show up to vote on it.

Then he has the nerve to say he'll support the troops and the vets? His Senate record - check for yourself - shows that he has voted more consistantly anti-military than any other senator in the past 20 years....that is, if he bothers to show up. He also has one of the highest "no vote" percentages. He's only authored two bills in his whole career (about one per DECADE), and the second one was a bill to gut the intelligence community by about $6 million - AFTER 9/11. Even his co-senator from MA (Kennedy) had the sense to vote against THAT one.

One final thing: did you know that when he testified before congress back in '71, he admitted to meeting Madam Nguyen Thi Binh (diplomatic envoy for the political arm of the Viet Cong) in Paris during the peace talks in May '70? And that he agreed with her infamous "8 Points" to bring peace to Viet Nam...two of those points being "reparations" and the trying of American POW's as "war criminals"? Oh, and he wasn't released from the Naval Reserve until 1972! He violated the UCMJ, yet somehow managed to keep from being brought up on charges..... Don't take my word for it, it's all in the Congressional Record (note: this is a link to wintersoldier.com, but the transcript of Kerry's testimony is presented unedited, in its entirety. Be sure to read both parts.)

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony

Look, we both know that politicians only look out for themselves, but vet or not, decorated or not, I wouldn't vote for this shmuck if he was running for trash collector.

Play Safe (and never trust any politician)
Ahto

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln