Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Gt" wrote: (snip) They did not occur at return points for the military, but at schools when the Vets would enroll and attend, and sometimes in other groups when some one identified a member of the military in the immediate area. (snip) Sorry, I don't buy that either. I've been a veteran for 30 years and my wife is a disabled veteran. We've attended school with many veterans, attend veterans events throughout each year, and both have been members of veterans organizations for at least the last 20 years. Throughout all that, we've never met a veteran yet who has said he or she personally was spit on or attacked. Instead, these claims most often come from those who were not directly involved with the military at the time, and almost always involve a third party ("I knew a guy who said..."). This is the stuff myths, not facts, are made of. (snip) I saw myself, watched repeated and got involved in breaking up a few or the attacks! The worst one was when a gang of about fifty demonstrators tried to prevent an ex Marine from going to class because the demonstration was "shutting down" the school.. It was only heated discussion, until some jackass decided that since the Jar-Head wouldn't do what they told him they would restrain him. He was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention. NEVER JUMP a mud Marine! The crowd scattered when he started breaking bones. (snip) When and where was this? A violent incident like that (fifteen injured, broken bones, and so on) should easily be verifiable through newspaper accounts of the time. My brother told me that while he was flying home (civilian air lines) he encountered people who spit on him. (snip) Really? Which civilian airlines flew into the Vietnam war zone? Which airlines allowed passengers to spit on other passengers? Never jump to conclusions without all the facts. There may be nothing there to land on. The theory that China would have joined the war was never a factor, except in the eyes of the peaceniks since the Chinese WERE FINANCING the war!!! (snip) The possibility of China openingly joining the conflict was a major factor in decision making of the time. China was obviously supporting the North Vietnamese, but that is vastly different from what I said ("an esculation of the conflict would have caused China to *openly join* the conflict"). An open conflict with China would have led to several million Chinese soldiers flooding into Vietnam to fight our soldiers directly, and may have even led to nuclear warfare between China and the USA. Only a darn fool would have ignored that possibility (yet some military leaders did actually want to ignore the possibility - our civilian government was wise enough not to). BUT civilian politicos are not Generals, lacking the training and skills required in warfare, and often have wrong headed motivations. (snip) BUT interference by non military government personal was a major factor in the length of the conflict and the level of losses we sustained. And Generals lack the knowledge and skills to judge the wider political implications of a conflict. They also don't have a mandate from the people of this country, a Constitutional mandate, to make decisions that could impact all Americans. The elected President is Commander in Chief of the military and I expect that Commander to command and the soldiers (including Generals) to obey. Anyone who has a problem with that should consider relocating to a country controlled by a military - this country and it's military is controlled by an elected civilian government. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, this can go no further, you CHOSE not to believe
anything you like, but I was there at the incidents described. Perhaps it was a local phenomena, we were told otherwise. The Media would cover Demonstrations, but never showed the violence! I believe many demonstrations were staged! (Phony) Your opinions are yours to hold dear. My memories are painful reminders that it is not a perfect world. I did not say My brother was on a civilian airline in a war zone. That was your error! It happened when he boarded a flight at SFO on his way to PHX! BTW: He doesn't talk about it with strangers either, not knowing what to expect as a reaction. You clearly have a difficulty understanding what I have written, probably due to the wide gulf between our experiences. I understand. I do not have an obligation to explain or convince you. Also I do not care to burst your bubble. Or to break your rose colored glasses. So I will not continue, didn't meant to get sucked into this line of discussion anyway. The direction this has taken is not in the topic of the radio group, and I am leaving the group since it has produced nothing of value or interest to me. "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "Roger Gt" wrote: (snip) They did not occur at return points for the military, but at schools when the Vets would enroll and attend, and sometimes in other groups when some one identified a member of the military in the immediate area. (snip) Sorry, I don't buy that either. snip I've been a veteran for 30 years And your experience is all you know. I Understand! That is my perspective as well! Throughout all that, we've never met a veteran yet who has said he or she personally was spit on or attacked. Instead, these claims most often come from those who were not directly involved with the military at the time, and almost always involve a third party ("I knew a guy who said..."). This is the stuff myths, not facts, are made of. I suppose we have never met, at least in person. I was in the reserves, working in military related work, and witnessed the events personally. BTW: Myth = one definition, an old story where the origin is not known.... like the Bible! (No author credited) (snip) I saw myself, watched repeated and got involved in breaking up a few of the attacks! The worst one was when a gang of about fifty demonstrators tried to prevent an ex Marine from going to class because the demonstration was "shutting down" the school.. It was only heated discussion, until some jackass decided that since the Jar-Head wouldn't do what they told him they would restrain him. He was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention. NEVER JUMP a mud Marine! The crowd scattered when he started breaking bones. (snip) When and where was this? A violent incident like that (fifteen injured, broken bones, and so on) should easily be verifiable through newspaper accounts of the time. There have been auto accidents in California with over a hundred cars involved, you heard how many were hurt and the outcome of these accidents of course! I don't know where you would see it, the school handled it in their clinic and I didn't see any press or TV about it locally. I do not know why because I would have thought it was big news! A broken wrist two broken collar bones, and lots of bruises and a couple of black eyes didn't seem so big. There were more hurt in a fight after the end of season football game! However the Demonstration got almost a whole page! But why would you believe the news papers, with known bias, and not an eye witness? Not to good on jury duty to ignore direct testimony. But there is no trial. And I decline to testify further. My brother told me that while he was flying home (civilian air lines) he encountered people who spit on him. (snip) Really? Which civilian airlines flew into the Vietnam war zone? Which airlines allowed passengers to spit on other passengers? See above.... I think it was Delta from SFO to PHX! Never jump to conclusions without all the facts. There may be nothing there to land on. The theory that China would have joined the war was never a factor, except in the eyes of the peaceniks since the Chinese WERE FINANCING the war!!! (snip) The possibility of China opening joining the conflict was a major factor in decision making of the time. China was obviously supporting the North Vietnamese, but that is vastly different from what I said ("an escalation of the conflict would have caused China to *openly join* the conflict"). An open conflict with China would have led to several million Chinese soldiers flooding into Vietnam to fight our soldiers directly, and may have even led to nuclear warfare between China and the USA. Only a darn fool would have ignored that possibility (yet some military leaders did actually want to ignore the possibility - our civilian government was wise enough not to). Thank you for clarifying what you meant to say, I didn't understand the point as more than what was originally stated. Well they didn't ignore it, did they? BUT civilian politicos are not Generals, lacking the training and skills required in warfare, and often have wrong headed motivations. (snip) BUT interference by non military government personal was a major factor in the length of the conflict and the level of losses we sustained. And Generals lack the knowledge and skills to judge the wider political implications of a conflict. They also don't have a mandate from the people of this country, a Constitutional mandate, to make decisions that could impact all Americans. The elected President is Commander in Chief of the military and I expect that Commander to command and the soldiers (including Generals) to obey. Anyone who has a problem with that should consider relocating to a country controlled by a military - this country and it's military is controlled by an elected civilian government. You state the obvious as if you have a problem believing it. Why if Generals lack this magically unique knowledge are they sometimes elected to the office of President? Like for example, Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, etc! I respect your opinion, though I do not agree with much of it. Why do you believe you have the right to suggest that a citizen of this country should leave because they disagree with you? (Rhetorical, I AM dropping this group.) |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... (snip) I saw myself, watched repeated and got involved in breaking up a few or the attacks! The worst one was when a gang of about fifty demonstrators tried to prevent an ex Marine from going to class because the demonstration was "shutting down" the school.. It was only heated discussion, until some jackass decided that since the Jar-Head wouldn't do what they told him they would restrain him. He was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention. NEVER JUMP a mud Marine! The crowd scattered when he started breaking bones. (snip) When and where was this? A violent incident like that (fifteen injured, broken bones, and so on) should easily be verifiable through newspaper accounts of the time. Not to get caught up in this, rather a comment. I can't say if/who/when/ where someone got spat upon, but I could BELIEVE that one of those long-haired, granny- glasses drippy-hippy could have been severely injured if he tried such a caper. If any of those cowardly, "peace" niks had jumped upon, or spat upon one of our Marines, then I would supported him, encouraged him, urged him, or HELPED him to put on an old fashioned ***whippin' that SOB would not soon forget! And if any bones got broken, particularly of those pot smoking, #$%^&%$#@, then all the better! My brother told me that while he was flying home (civilian air lines) he encountered people who spit on him. (snip) Really? Which civilian airlines flew into the Vietnam war zone? Which airlines allowed passengers to spit on other passengers? Then he'd have MY a** to whup if he pulled such a caper and spit on me, 'cause being rather a large fella with something of a temper, I'd have stomped a mudhole in his butt he'd not forget. The airlines wouldn't have had to've "protected" me; I'd have attempted to take care of it myself. Now, much older and mellower, but still in pretty good health, I'd think a bit more about getting into an altercation. When I was 21-22? Uh-unh! I'd have smacked hell out of him without a second thought. Hehe! Matter of fact, I GOT into a few fights in those days. LOL! I don't remember hearing personally of spitting incidents, only of vague reports of such. I only know what *I* would have done!~ 73 Jerry Never jump to conclusions without all the facts. There may be nothing there to land on. The theory that China would have joined the war was never a factor, except in the eyes of the peaceniks since the Chinese WERE FINANCING the war!!! (snip) The possibility of China openingly joining the conflict was a major factor in decision making of the time. China was obviously supporting the North Vietnamese, but that is vastly different from what I said ("an esculation of the conflict would have caused China to *openly join* the conflict"). An open conflict with China would have led to several million Chinese soldiers flooding into Vietnam to fight our soldiers directly, and may have even led to nuclear warfare between China and the USA. Only a darn fool would have ignored that possibility (yet some military leaders did actually want to ignore the possibility - our civilian government was wise enough not to). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Gt" wrote:
Sorry, this can go no further, you CHOSE not to believe anything you like, but I was there at the incidents described. (snip) Yes, I choose not to believe accusations against a significant portion of this country's population, or accusations of incompetency against the government of this country, without clear and convincing evidence to back it up. Surely you don't believe your word alone is enough for such accusations, in a public forum, to go unchallenged. (snip) So I will not continue, didn't mean to get sucked into this line of discussion anyway. The direction this has taken is not in the topic of the radio group, and I am leaving the group since it has produced nothing of value or interest to me. (snip) Well, that is certainly your decision to make. However, if what you've said is really true, I strongly urge you to follow up by reporting your experiences to the various veterans organizations in this country. Several have ongoing programs to gather and verify the history of veterans over the years. There have been auto accidents in California with over a hundred cars involved, you heard how many were hurt and the outcome of these accidents of course! No, but there would be a written record of each of those automobile accidents - newspaper accounts, police records, hospital records, insurance claims, and so on. The same is true for the incident you described (fifty demonstrators jumping a marine, with fifteen requiruing medical attention for broken bones), which means your claim can be fairly easily verified if true. (snip) But why would you believe the news papers, with known bias, and not an eye witness? (snip) I'm not going to "believe" anyone, including a supposed eyewitness, without facts to back up what is said. I can ask a newspaper for the source of it's information, or research the incident myself in the same manner as the newspaper did. But, an eyewitness, without verification of what is said, is the absolute least reliable source of information. You state the obvious as if you have a problem believing it. Why if Generals lack this magically unique knowledge are they sometimes... (snip) Again, a military officer does not have a mandate from the people to make decisions that could impact all Americans. In a democracy, we place that authority in the hands of the elected government, not in Generals. The elected President is Commander in Chief of the military and the soldiers (including Generals) obey his commands. Any effort to subvert that system, by claiming government should have no say in the actions of our military or whatever, is, in my opinion, a direct effort to subvert the very system of government in this country. I took an oath many years ago to defend the people, Constitution, and government, of this country. I still consider the ultimate goal of that oath worthwhile. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
I meant to shut this off.
But forgot to unsubscribe the group. When I read your "Reply" I thought about it and finally decided to DE-BUNK the outrageous comments you made. "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message "Roger Gt" wrote: Sorry, this can go no further, you CHOSE not to believe anything you like, but I was there at the incidents described. (snip) Yes, I choose not to believe accusations against a significant portion of this country's population, or accusations of incompetency against the government of this country, without clear and convincing evidence to back it up. Surely you don't believe your word alone is enough for such accusations, in a public forum, to go unchallenged. I made no accusations against any but the persons involved! You were not there, and can only attempt to make it less clear. What "significant portion of this country's population?" The Peaceniks were at most somewhat less than 3% of the population, and don't seem to share your dedication to protecting this country and it's people. I made no "accusations of incompetency against the government of this country" Rather I pointed out My opinion of the generally poor decisions made under a difficult set of circumstances. These are hardly hidden and are for the most part common knowledge. I was engaged in a discussion, not a court case, my word is good in court, and many other forums, all of which I have a right to access and speak in. You can not challenge my stated view of incidents by argument and innuendo! (snip) So I will not continue, didn't mean to get sucked into this line of discussion anyway. The direction this has taken is not in the topic of the radio group, and I am leaving the group since it has produced nothing of value or interest to me. (snip) As I will shortly! Well, that is certainly your decision to make. However, if what you've said is really true, I strongly urge you to follow up by reporting your experiences to the various veterans organizations in this country. Several have ongoing programs to gather and verify the history of veterans over the years. I made every attempt possible to me at the time. The school handled it as a "student altercation" and their report did not state a cause! My sworn statement is on record as were eight others. The school has changed administrations since then, and the records are in storage. It is possible, but not easy to obtain them. I've tried. There have been auto accidents in California with over a hundred cars involved, you heard how many were hurt and the outcome of these accidents of course! No, but there would be a written record of each of those automobile accidents - newspaper accounts, police records, hospital records, insurance claims, and so on. The same is true for the incident you described (fifty demonstrators jumping a marine, with fifteen requiring medical attention for broken bones), which means your claim can be fairly easily verified if true. You are not quoting me, and clearly did not read nor understand what I said. I said only one (Jackass) jumped the marine. There were fifty demonstrators present, most ran when the violence erupted. Many (8) jumped in to help, including myself. fifteen were looked at for medical reasons, but they were only three broken bones, which I stated clearly! At the time the bones were broken, there was some serious reduction in the action! Most were burses, skinned knees and elbows, and (I think) a couple of black eyes. Where do you get off mis-quoting in order to try to cast doubt upon someone else? Is it poor form, dishonest and makes you look foolish! Snipping out partial quotes, and modifying them to allow you more to comment on is not questionable it is dishonest! As to verification. You have clearly never tried to obtain the records of an accident you were not involved in! You must state a reason, and they block out all names and addresses to protect the privacy of the persons named. It takes a court order to obtain more detail. (snip) But why would you believe the news papers, with known bias, and not an eye witness? (snip) I'm not going to "believe" anyone, including a supposed eyewitness, without facts to back up what is said. I can ask a newspaper for the source of it's information, or research the incident myself in the same manner as the newspaper did. But, an eyewitness, without verification of what is said, is the absolute least reliable source of information. You would be a poor juror! The court is clear, testimony and physical evidence are the only material you may base a finding upon. Also, as I said, I was not trying to make you believe, rather relate to you an experience I HAD and verify that I had reason to believe it was more common than the several minor incidents I personally viewed! Nothing you have said changes anything at all! You state the obvious as if you have a problem believing it. Why if Generals lack this magically unique knowledge are they sometimes... (snip) Again, a military officer does not have a mandate from the people to make decisions that could impact all Americans. In a democracy, we place that authority in the hands of the elected government, not in Generals. The elected President is Commander in Chief of the military and the soldiers (including Generals) obey his commands. Any effort to subvert that system, by claiming government should have no say in the actions of our military or whatever, is, in my opinion, a direct effort to subvert the very system of government in this country. I took an oath many years ago to defend the people, Constitution, and government, of this country. I still consider the ultimate goal of that oath worthwhile. Repeating yourself doesn't make you more believable nor more patriotic! You make statements which clearly indicate you either didn't understand what I said, or have twisted the words to mean what you WANTED to hear. That Ho-Ra not withstanding, it is not part of nor has any bearing upon the discussion we were involved in. I choose not to be drawn into a discussion of the responsibilities of officers (Generals) to advise a president. It is not part of this discussion! After a visit to your poorly written web site, I see your travels possibly corrupted your perspective and you have a twisted view of reality! |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Gt" wrote:
(snip) You are not quoting me, and clearly did not read nor understand what I said. I said only one (Jackass) jumped the marine. There were fifty demonstrators present, most ran when the violence erupted. Many (8) jumped in to help, including myself. fifteen were looked at for medical reasons, but they were only three broken bones, which I stated clearly! (snip) Where do you get off mis-quoting in order to try to cast doubt upon someone else? Is it poor form, dishonest and makes you look foolish! Lets see who is really being dishonest here. Your exact words were... "The worst one was when a gang of about fifty demonstrators tried to prevent an ex Marine from going to class because the demonstration was "shutting down" the school.. It was only heated discussion, until some jackass decided that since the Jar-Head wouldn't do what they told him they would restrain him. He was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention. NEVER JUMP a mud Marine! The crowd scattered when he started breaking bones." You clearly said "they," not one, tried to restrain the marine ("they would restrain him"). You said nothing about most demonstrators running when the violence erupted. Instead, you said the "crowd scattered when he started breaking bones." You said nothing about the number of broken bones. And, finally, you said fifteen demonstrators needed medical attention ("He was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention"). The story you're telling now is a lot different from the story you told before. Snipping out partial quotes, and modifying them to allow you more to comment on is not questionable it is dishonest! I have not modified a single one of the quotes of what you've said. Your messages, and my quotes from those messages, are there for all to see. (snip) You would be a poor juror! The court is clear, testimony and physical evidence are the only material you may base a finding upon. Of course, this is a public forum, not a courtroom, Roger. However, lets look at this from that perspective for a moment. The strongest testimony is that backed up by physical evidence. You've offered no physical evidence. Regardless, since you've now changed your story under cross examination, nothing you've said would hold up even in a courtroom. (snip) After a visit to your poorly written web site, I see your travels possibly corrupted your perspective and you have a twisted view of reality! Those travels were arranged, and paid for, by the Department of Defense. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Quoth "Dwight Stewart" in
k.net: "Roger Gt" wrote: (snip) You are not quoting me, and clearly did not read nor understand what I said. I said only one (Jackass) jumped the marine. There were fifty demonstrators present, most ran when the violence erupted. Many (8) jumped in to help, including myself. fifteen were looked at for medical reasons, but they were only three broken bones, which I stated clearly! (snip) Where do you get off mis-quoting in order to try to cast doubt upon someone else? Is it poor form, dishonest and makes you look foolish! Lets see who is really being dishonest here. Your exact words were... "The worst one was when a gang of about fifty demonstrators tried to prevent an ex Marine from going to class because the demonstration was "shutting down" the school.. It was only heated discussion, until some jackass decided that since the Jar-Head wouldn't do what they told him they would restrain him. He was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention. NEVER JUMP a mud Marine! The crowd scattered when he started breaking bones." You clearly said "they," not one, tried to restrain the marine ("they would restrain him"). You said nothing about most demonstrators running when the violence erupted. Instead, you said the "crowd scattered when he started breaking bones." You said nothing about the number of broken bones. And, finally, you said fifteen demonstrators needed medical attention ("He was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention"). The story you're telling now is a lot different from the story you told before. Just for the sake of completeness, the entire article may be found archived at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=RSnGb.2255%24gO.607%40newssvr25.news.p rodigy.com. It does indeed verify the accuracy of Dwight's quote. -- "I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Betz" wrote in message . 70... Quoth "Dwight Stewart" in k.net: "Roger Gt" wrote: (snip) You are not quoting me, and clearly did not read nor understand what I said. I said only one (Jackass) jumped the marine. There were fifty demonstrators present, most ran when the violence erupted. Many (8) jumped in to help, including myself. fifteen were looked at for medical reasons, but they were only three broken bones, which I stated clearly! (snip) Where do you get off mis-quoting in order to try to cast doubt upon someone else? Is it poor form, dishonest and makes you look foolish! Lets see who is really being dishonest here. Your exact words were... "The worst one was when a gang of about fifty demonstrators tried to prevent an ex Marine from going to class because the demonstration was "shutting down" the school.. It was only heated discussion, until some jackass decided that since the Jar-Head wouldn't do what they told him they would restrain him. He was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention. NEVER JUMP a mud Marine! The crowd scattered when he started breaking bones." You clearly said "they," not one, tried to restrain the marine ("they would restrain him"). You said nothing about most demonstrators running when the violence erupted. Instead, you said the "crowd scattered when he started breaking bones." You said nothing about the number of broken bones. And, finally, you said fifteen demonstrators needed medical attention ("He was gentle, no fatalities, fifteen taken for medical attention"). The story you're telling now is a lot different from the story you told before. Just for the sake of completeness, the entire article may be found archived at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...wssvr25.news.p rodigy.com. It does indeed verify the accuracy of Dwight's quote. The story has not changed, I only added details to show his assumptions were BOGUS. Actually I DID detail the number of broken bones! The number taken to the Schools clinic included four of us who tried to break it up! I only got a skinned knee. I didn't feel that was a needed detail, or for that matter than any significant detail was needed. I was unaware that Dwight was intending to defend the actions about which he has no first hand knowledge! You are also being very selective and not at all objective. None of these comments has any impact upon the incident which occurred so long ago! So inclusion of "they" was a misleading indicator which cause him to jump to several unfounded assumptions. Again, his perception, not my commentary. There is no point in the "Cross Examination" unless he maintains the Demonstrators were not at fault. Please Name those you are defending! I was there and couldn't get the names! Perhaps more detail would have been needed, but there seemed no point, it is OT! However let me point out that he makes the comment (snip) After a visit to your poorly written web site, I see your travels possibly corrupted your perspective and you have a twisted view of reality! Those travels were arranged, and paid for, by the Department of Defense. On his web page he states, I was born in North Carolina in 1953. However, other than two years on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea near Istanbul Turkey, I spent much of my childhood in Sacramento California. I enlisted in the Army in 1970 and served a little over two years in Germany (MOS 31M - Radio Relay Operator). I returned to Europe in 1977 and found work as a sales representative with a consumer electronics marketing firm based in Basel, Switzerland. I later managed a German-owned computer store in Heidelberg. During those ten years in Germany, I took a course in journalism and public affairs, and an electrician course with several additional sub-courses in communications fundamentals, logical troubleshooting, and electrical physics. In 1998, I went to Europe once again to live in Vicenza Italy for a year. When I returned to the United States, I lived in Washington State for several months and then moved to my present home in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Were all these Junkets paid for by Tax dollars? Shame!!!! So much for your insistent irrelevant nitpicking! Good Bye! |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Betz" wrote in message . 70... Quoth "Dwight Stewart" in k.net: "Roger Gt" wrote: (snip) And why would you care? I only related that I HAD seen a demonstration where violence erupted, and DS wanted to pick it apart. Nether polite conversation, nor good manners were evident! Are there no participants in news groups with a modicum of manners? Are you defending violent demonstrations as a "first amendment right?" Rhetorical, your answers are of no consequence, and will have no effect! All will be as it is now, and the sands will cover it all in time! -- Set wards, light torches, unfurl banners, play a joyous tune. Yes! Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow --- You know the rest! The lot of all living things. To bide a bit, and pass! Leaving only foot steps in the sands of time! Happy Holidays to all! Celebrate as you will! May the Gods be kind to you and yours! |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Gt" wrote:
(snip) However let me point out that he makes the comment (snip) After a visit to your poorly written web site, I see your travels possibly corrupted your perspective and you have a twisted view of reality! Those travels were arranged, and paid for, by the Department of Defense. On his web page he states, I was born in North Carolina.... (snip) (snip) Were all these Junkets paid for by Tax dollars? Shame!!!! If you wanted details, all you had to do was ask (as I did for you, Roger). As for Turkey, my father was stationed there with the Air Force. The trip to Germany was paid for by the Army while my wife was still on active duty. She got out three years later and went to work for the Army as a civilian employee (HQ USAREUR in Heidelberg). For much of that time I worked at civilian jobs, and later for the Army itself. I was still working for the Army, as a civilian employee, when we went to Italy (HQ SETAF in Vicenza) for the Kosovo conflict. My wife retired as DoD employee shortly before the trip to Italy and I retired shortly afterward (just after the trip to Washington state). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|