"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:3PqdnZv90ddv-N_ZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...
: From: "DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET>
:
: Newsgroups:
:
alt.news-media,alt.war.vietnam,alt.military,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.security.terrorism
:
: References: <7o2dnXoFD_ePyqHZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com>
: <vpednYGWNvG99aHZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>
: <frGdnekIDYNzPKHZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>
: <jZCdnZk-j-P9yKDZ4p2dnA@comcast.com>
: <6vCdnalZv8RA_qPZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>
: <-62dncKA1KRO-KPZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com>
: <nJidnf4p-u0iUqPZRVn-hg@comcast.com>
: <opydnQCCfYHjTKPZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com>
: <S8OdnSg5DbhjcqPZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com>
: <Dai-Uy-147314.17552113042006@news-lb-02.socal.rr.com>
: <BNOdnTd8HL7hM6LZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com>
:
: Subject: Re: BS BROOKS VIETNAM LIES
:
: Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:09:06 -0400
:
: X-Priority: 3
:
: X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
:
: X-Unsent: 1
:
: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
:
: X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
:
:
:
: "Big Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
:
: news:BNOdnTd8HL7hM6LZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
:
: > "Dai Uy" wrote
:
: > : "DGVREIMAN" wrote:
:
: > : > Doug Says: I still am not sure you were at that reunion
:
: > last
:
: > : > year. What was your proof again? Something from Gary
:
: > wasn't it?
:
: > : > Or photos from the 2005 Vet Day gathering?
:
: > :
:
: > : This self explanatory photo IS from the 14th Annual
:
: > Wolfhound
:
: > : Reunion 2005 http://tinyurl.com/l735o
:
: > :
:
: > : From URL: http://tinyurl.com/r5us2
:
: > :
:
: > : Introduction:
:
: > : Alfred R. Snyder (Big Bear)
:
: > : drafted 2/69
:
: > : Boot Camp/AIT - Fort Jackson, SC 2/69-6/69
:
: > : 30 day leave
:
: > : Vietnam 7/69-7/70
:
: > : Co. B, 1/27 Wolfhounds, 25th Division, III Corps
:
: > : grenadier.
:
: > : 30 day leave
:
: > : Stateside - Fort Carson, CO
:
: > : Discharged - 2/71
:
: > :
:
: > : > The Vet Day gathering
:
: > : > was not the reunion, and why hide your information
anyway.
:
: > Most
:
: > : > Vietnam vets are proud of their service, what are you
so
:
: > ashamed
:
: > : > of?
:
: > :
:
: > : Come on Bear, why not be as straightforward about your
:
: > service as
:
: > : Doug had been when he first appeared on AWV?
:
: > http://tinyurl.com/khovw
:
: > :
:
: > : That is a very interesting posting. Does that ring any
:
: > alarm bells?
:
: > :
:
: > :
:
: > : > Also didn't you say your former Hound CO would vouch
for
:
: > : > you? Are you sure of that claim?
:
: > : >
:
: > : > Doug Grant (Tm)
:
: > :
:
: > : Bear has voluntarily provided ten times the information
:
: > that Doug
:
: > : presented. He has not threatened to sue anyone.
:
: Doug Says: Duh, when I was forced into this NG it was because
:
: people were already trying to smear me on the basis of what
they
:
: were falsely claiming I said in the past. Only a complete
fool
:
: would provide obvious smear merchants and unethical liars and
:
: fraud merchants ANY information. I did not join this NG to
:
: participate in discussions about Vietnam, if I had, I
certainly
:
: would have revealed everything asked about that service, but
:
: instead, I was forced here to defend myself. Quite a bit of
:
: difference. Big Bear has posted some information about his
:
: service above that means 50 times more than any photographs.
:
: That is if it is true and he is who he says he is.
:
: > :
:
: > : If you didn't constantly resort the childish insults "Big
:
: > Butt,"
:
: > : "Pooh Bear," etc., you could have just asked him. You
didn't
:
: > ask if he
:
: > : were a Wolfhound, you said he was not, that he was a
fraud.
:
: > You
:
: > : wondered if he was a combat vet -- insinuating that he
was
:
: > not -- but
:
: > : why would he answer you after all of your insults.
:
: Doug Says: I only insulted him in response to his insulting
me.
: And then only after he maliciously libeled me as well based
upon
: pure ***** from you and BS Brooks. This guy is clearly a
BS
: Brooks sock puppet and everyone that posts here knows it. Why
is
: the question if he is truly a Vietnam Vet? Why attack other
Vets?
: I haven't lied a farthing about my service, and my records
prove
: that fact. Why enter this NG with attacks and defamation?
:
: > :
:
: > : I'll ask him.
:
: > :
:
: > : Bear, are you a "combat" vet? You know what a "combat"
:
: > vet is?
:
: >
:
: > Yes. Yes.
:
: Doug Says: A "Combat Vet" designation is someone that has
seen
: combat in a war. Most people know that, and no doubt that
: question probably is not a question you needed to ask any
Vietnam
: Veteran. However, it is important that this definition be
linked
: to the DOD's definition, of a "Combat Veteran." For years the
: proper definition of a "Combat Veteran" is anyone that
received
: Combat Pay and has spent more than 90 days in a combat zone
: (There are other qualifications if a Soldier was not in a war
: zone long enough to earn Combat pay).
:
: It is the DOD's position that it is possible that an 11B at
Cam
: Rahn Bay, although an infantryman, could experience much less
: danger than a Cook at the 25th Infantry base camp. "Danger"
: Hazardous" are the two key phrases that describe "Combat
: Veterans." It was clearly the position of the DOD that a
grunt
: that saw little or limited action cannot be deemed more of a
: "Combat Veteran" than a First Sergeant that is ducking Rocket
and
: Mortars while playing "sitting target" in an orderly room
back at
: base camp. (Big Bear calls these sitting ducks "REMF.")
:
:
: If any Vietnam Veteran drew combat pay, you can bet he was in
: danger, and in a combat area. Some vets were of course in
more
: danger than others depending upon the dates they were in
Vietnam,
: and where they were located during their time in Vietnam. But
: anyone that went to Vietnam and drew combat pay was certainly
in
: some level of danger of losing his life and limb.
:
: Actual Combat Defined: (American heritage dictionary)
:
: Com-bat...1. To oppose in battle; fight against. 2. To oppose
: vigorously, struggle against.
:
: I would say most men that pulled any kind of combat related
duty
: in Vietnam, especially during 1968, would certainly qualify
as
: "to oppose in battle."
:
: >Question from Dai Uy:
:
: > : Have you been wounded, or watched your friends wounded or
:
: > killed?
:
: >
:
: Big Bear answer:
:
: > Yes to all.
:
: Doug Says: Now that is an interesting response. Assuming he
: received a Purple Heart for his wounds, (or not) I
congratulate
: him for his sacrifice of life and limb to his country. But I
am
: somewhat
: confused?http://brownwater-navy.com/guestbook/army-gb.htm
:
: At the above Web Site, Big Bear's CO, Cpt. Henry P. Bergson,
(Feb
: 1969 to March 1970) said that during his entire command of
: Company B, 1/27th (Big Bear's unit) he only lost one KIA.
:
: Here is what Cpt. Bergson posted - I have emphasized the key
: passage with **:
:
:
: "Henry Bergson Company Commander: A name found and remembered
: Shelby Stover was a member of B Co 1/27 Inf 25th Div. I was
his
: company commander. For many years after I came to grips with
my
: Vietnam experience **I had been trying to remember the name
of
: the only soldier from B Company who was killed when I was the
: commander."**
:
: So if Big Bear has watched his friends killed, then I assume
he
: was friends with "Hillbilly" (Shelby Stover) and he and Cpt.
: Bergson were together when Hillbilly was killed? And
shouldn't
: that be watched a "friend" killed and not "friends?"
:
: However, I will say this Cpt. Bergson must have been one
hellva
: Company Commander. To lead those men through all that combat
and
: not lose more than one KIA is an amazing and commendable feat
of
: leadership if you ask me. I highly respect any officer that
takes
: care of his men, and clearly Cpt. Bergson was one of those
rare
: officers that did precisely that.
:
: Yet I wish I could make the same claim as Cpt. Bergson did
when I
: was involved in patrols for the 25th Infantry. But then my
time
: in the 25th was at a very different time than Big Bear's. I
was
: in the 25th during the Tet Offensive of 1968, and the
: counteroffensives, and during that short period the 25th lost
a
: high percentage of its casualties for the entire war:
:
: As just a couple of examples:
http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html
:
: As the above Web Site confirms, In 1968 US Casualty figures
for
: US KIA, WIA AND MIA
:
: were 102,158 in total.
:
: In 1969 total U.S. KIA, WIA and MIA were 64,916
:
: In 1970 total U.S. Kia, WIA and MIA were 29,157
:
: In 1971 total U.S. KIA, WIA and MIA were 19,489
:
: So if Big Bear arrived in Vietnam in July 1969 and left in
July
: 1970, (like he said above) the approximate amount of total
KIA,
: WIA, and MIA that occurred during his period in Vietnam for
all
: U.S. units would have been:
:
: 47,036
:
: However, for my period in Vietnam, the approximate total KIA,
WIA
: and MIA for all units was
:
: (92% of 1968's totals =93, 985, and 33% of 1969 = 21,422) or
a
: total of:
:
: 115, 407.
:
: So Big Bear's war produced a total of 46,036 casualties for
all
: units in Vietnam during his time in Vietnam, and my war
produced
: a total of 115, 407 casualties for all units in Vietnam
during my
: time in that country. ***My war produced 2&1/2 times the
amount
: of US casualties as Big Bear's war.***
:
: It is very clear to anyone objective that Big Bear's war, and
my
: war, while both occurring in Vietnam, were very different
wars.
: Also look at Dai Uy's war period: In 1970: 29,157 versus my
: 115,407. Again two different wars. (That is not to diminish
Big
: Bear's service nor personal danger, nor Dai Uy's, these
figures
: are presented to simply show that all Vietnam experiences,
: opinions, slang and conclusions can never be the same).
:
: I have often said that your experiences in Vietnam are
directly
: related to where you were, what you were doing, and at what
time
: you were there. Nothing Big Bear experienced was anything
: remotely like what I saw and experienced during the Tet
offensive
: period, and the rest of 1968 for that matter, and Dai Uy's
: experiences were nothing like mine nor Big Bear's.
:
:
: During the Tet offensive and counteroffensive periods, (Feb
: through June 1968) most of the really good fighting Units in
the
: 25th were down in Saigon or at Hoc Mon defending Saigon. That
: left no one to defend the base camps and complete the
necessary
: sweeps, interdiction and ambush patrols needed to control the
: 25th's sector of responsibility. The Adjutant of the 25th
wrote a
: letter and even offered special leave for anyone that did not
: have a 11B-11C or other combat related MOS to volunteer for
: combat duties, (that letter must still be in the 25th
Archives).
: Hundreds volunteered. I was one of them. I was assigned to
: Company D 1/27th for a very short time, (three weeks I
believe
: and never had to report) and my combat experiences for the
25th
: occurred mostly in a volunteer reactionary force hodgepodge
: company that Division controlled. Thank God it was a
temporary
: assignment, but I saw enough combat to last me a lifetime,
and I
: suspect more than Big Bear and Dai Uy have seen combined
(judging
: from what Cpt. Bergson has said and what Dai Uy has said. I
of
: course could be wrong about that, but that is my opinion).(I
: should also mentioned that I did participate in some other
Combat
: duties after I left the 25th).
:
: Some time in the past I mentioned the names of two men I lost
on
: one of those RIF patrols I was on when I was in the 25th
: Infantry. Their names were Olson and Nelson. Both were in my
: squad, and both were wounded on the same night, and both
received
: their purple hearts the next day. Olson was med evaced out,
and
: Nelson told me later that he had heard Olson had died of his
: wounds. (Yet his name is not on the wall). (They were both
either
: SP4's or PFC's, at the time and Nelson later made E-5 -and
with a
: court's help I should be able to easily find them as they
were
: both wounded on the same day -how many men named Nelson and
Olson
: could possibly be wounded on the same day in the same unit?)
I
: also lost another KIA when I was recruiting available men for
a
: reactionary patrol in May, 1968, while we were under a
vicious
: Rocket/Mortar attack, and he was not an infantryman either.
(I
: will need to check the NARA for records to be absolutely sure
of
: his name, as like Cpt. Bergson, sometimes these kinds of
memories
: are blotted out. Yet I believe his name was Sp4 Pate or
something
: similar). I also lost approximately four other men to wounds
: later, two others to Convoy duty, and a few of the men on
guard
: duty or reactionary force duty in the 1969 Can Tho attack
that
: were killed or wounded were billeted in a barracks in which I
was
: the senior NCO, and thereby I was partially responsible to
make
: sure they pulled that duty. And when I was a member of a
large
: RIF or an Interdiction patrol, I also saw many other
casualties
: that were suffered by other units working with my patrols.
:
: No doubt Big Bear, from his memories and his perspective, has
: developed opinions about the Vietnam war. I on the other
hand,
: have based my opinions from what I experienced and did, which
was
: clearly very different from anyone else's experiences that
was
: not in the 25th and in the other units I was in during my
Vietnam
: tours of duty.
:
: Big Bear is of course entitled to his opinions, and I to
mine.
:
:
:
: Question from Dai Uy:
:
: > : Have you killed?
:
: >
:
: Big Bear's Answer:
:
: > Fortunately for my consicence, during a firefight in the
dark,
:
: > there is no
:
: > way of telling who really was responsible for the killing.
:
: Doug Says:
:
: A rifleman, M-60 man, and even a Grenadier firing only at
flash
: points at night would know that he killed the VC/NVA he was
: aiming at when the bodies were rounded up for a BC. A patrol,
: even at a squad level, would have pre-designed ranges and
areas
: of fire responsibilities, if not, and especially at night,
the
: men could end up firing at each other. If a Grenadier pops a
HE
: round at a flash point at night, and then later a enemy body
is
: taken from that area with his head or limbs blown off, there
is
: little doubt in the patrol who was responsible for the kill.
: However, for the sake of his conscience, if Big Bear does not
: want to admit to killing anyone that is certainly up to him.
But
: he is wrong about there being no way of telling who was
: responsible for the kill "all the time." Sometimes it is
: impossible to tell, but most of the time it is not. When I
was in
: Vietnam BC was a big big deal, perhaps things changed after I
: left. Or perhaps tactics changed dramatically.
:
: Question from Dai Uy:
:
: > : Do you know what combat is really like?
:
: >
:
: Big Bear
:
: > Definitely.
:
: Doug:
:
: So do I.
:
: >
:
: > : Do you know what the rear is like?
:
: >
:
: > Yes I do. I was witness to it while on stand down, while
:
: > attending Tropic
:
: > Lightming Leadership Course, Tropic Lightning Demolition
:
: > Course, and while
:
: > passing through on the way to R&R.
:
: Doug Says: I don't think there was *any* rear areas in the
25th
: Infantry Division during the Tet offensive. Charlie was
hitting
: the mess halls, the airfields, the ***** houses and the
showers
: almost daily. I don't know how many hits the Alamo took
during
: that period, but it was more than once.
:
: >
:
: Question from Dai Uy:
:
: > : Did you have to pull guard duties when you were on stand
:
: > down? Was
:
: > : that combat?
:
: Answer from Big Bear:
:
: >
:
: > Nope. Stand down wasn't combat.
:
: Doug Says: Please now. That is not what he asked you. If you
were
: really standing down and resting you would not have any
duties to
: pull, except drink beer. If you believe Bunker line guard
duty,
: and guard S&D, Eagle Eye, and RIF patrols are not combat,
: especially when a base camp is under attack, then you need to
: contact the families that were killed performing that duty
and
: let them know that according to PFC Big Bear, their sons were
not
: killed in combat like the US Army told them.
:
: In my entire history of dealing with Vietnam Veterans, I have
: found only two that claim that fighting the enemy with any
MOS
: other than 11B-11C etc.., was not "combat." Those two Vietnam
: Vets are coincidently (perhaps coincidently) both posting on
this
: Newsgroup. Big Bear and Nigel Brooks are the two I am talking
: about (I haven't heard this from Dai Uy, but after this post
no
: doubt I will - gang unity and all that).
:
: Frankly, I am amazed at the disrespect PFC Big Bear and the
other
: PFC draftee Brooks have for those that risked their lives
: everyday in and around base camps throughout Vietnam. Anyone
that
: claims Bunker Line Guard Duty during the 1968 Tet Offensive
was
: "not combat" disagrees with the DOD, the commanding officer
of
: the 25th Infantry Division, and I suspect just about every
: officer and NCO that was assigned to the 25th Infantry during
the
: Vietnam war. Of course it was combat! And when I was in
Vietnam a
: lot more men lost their lives pulling that duty than PFC Big
Bear's
: unit lost in his entire tour of duty! In Can Tho alone, as
just
: one example, *all* of the men that lost their lives or were
: wounded during the attack on the Can Tho airbase in 1969 were
: pulling "guard duty or reactionary force duty." (Not counting
the
: MP's of course-but then PFC Big Bear calls the MP's REMF).
:
: (Also I do not believe Big Bear was just a PFC like his
roster
: name states. I don't know anyone that spent an entire year in
a
: rifle platoon in the 25th that did not at least make SP4. But
I
: notice above where Big Bear revealed some of his military
: information that his rank is conspicuously missing. So all I
have
: to go on is the name and rank on some mysterious roster his
buddy
: Andy sent me, and that says PFC - so Big Bear and Brooks
should
: both correct me if I am wrong -(mysterious roster because I
asked
: Andy where he got the roster and he never replied).
:
: If a company came in from the field to rest (stand down) and
that
: unit was not required to pull reactionary force duty, bunker
: guard duty, convoy duty, nor any other base camp protection
: duty -that meant someone else was pulling those combat duties
for
: them. But if they were NOT in the field for very long and had
: just returned and were not scheduled for rest, then even the
men
: in these rifle units were required to pull all of those said
: combat duties. Moreover, during Tet 1968, including the May
1968
: Tet offensive, the US forces were suffering many casualties
in
: their base camps throughout Vietnam. Does PFC Big Bear also
claim
: that patrols outside the wire on base camps and in and around
: forward fire bases is "rear echelon duty?" Yet, in spite of
his
: claims of REMF he cannot remember a single firefight in which
he
: can positively say he shot anyone during his entire time in
: Vietnam? What kind of hypocrisy is that?
:
:
:
: If PFC Big Bear is claiming that ALL personnel (with rare
: exceptions, medical, chaplains etc) at Cu Chi, Dau Tieng and
Tay
: Ninh were not required to pull combat duty, such as
participate
: in reactionary force patrols and other similar duties, then
: things must have really changed from the time I was at Cu
Chi,
: Dau Tieng, and Tay Ninh (as anyone that was there at the same
: time I was will verify- ask any Company Commander, or
higher).
: And if he is claiming that reactionary force and Bunker Line
: guard duty did not involve combat, then he disagrees with
every
: officer and NCO ever assigned to the 25th Infantry Division
that
: I know of- and I suspect he disagrees with every Wolfhound
that
: ever pulled that duty during the 1968 Tet Offensive as well.
:
: Dai Uy:
:
: > : Is that why you suspect that Doug's "quips" are simply
:
: > rear echelon
:
: > : bull-*****?
:
: >
:
: Big Bear:
:
: > Yep.
:
: Doug Says: The only "rear echelon" in Vietnam during the Tet
: offensive of 1968 was Cam Rahn Bay and I think I remember
even
: that area received a few incoming. This PFC Big Bear cannot
even
: remember a single firefight in which he killed anyone, and by
his
: own claim he did not even arrive at Cu Chi until July 1969.
July
: 1969 is not the Tet offensive of 1968, and *ANYONE* that
claims
: they know about what went on in the 25th during Tet 1968 that
was
: not there is clearly full of BS.
:
: Moreover, PFC Big Bear's distrain and contempt for all those
REMF
: he keeps talking about would also include about one third of
all
: the men that died in Vietnam. Even if we include all
Infantryman
: MOS's, Helicopter Crewmen, Armor, scouts etc.., a full one
third
: of the men on the wall DO NOT have those MOS's - and by PFC
Big
: Bear's account were contemptible REMF that did not die in
combat!
: (I am sure that will be big news to the families of those
: thousands of dead men and the US Army as well, because the
DOD
: has clearly told their families otherwise).
:
: In fact, Big Bear's own unit commander spent more time in
base
: camp than he did in the field, so I guess PFC Big Bear is
calling
: him a REMF, non combat type as well?
:
:
:
:
:
: When PFC Big Bear goes to the 25th Division Reunion, and to
the
: Wolfhound reunion, I hope he makes it clear that he believes
that
: all those non-infantry MOS's that died or were wounded in
Vietnam
: were "not in combat" and were REMF bull-*****. I hope he
brings
: this post with him to show all those Wolfhound REMF's and
25th
: REMF that were wounded performing such duties his total
contempt
: for them, and his claim they really were never in combat -
which
: I assure you will be one hellva surprise to them!
:
: PFC Big Bear seems to have an denigrating opinion about
Vietnam
: Vets that did not have 11B MOS's, and he is entitled to his
: opinion - but I doubt if many real Vietnam Vets will agree
with
: that strange "opinion."
:
: I respect all Vietnam Vets, regardless of their MOS or actual
: duties in Vietnam, and I know that some in the base camps saw
: more fighting than those in the field. More fighting occurred
in
: or around Saigon Ton San Nuht, and the 25th Base Camps when I
was
: there during Tet than during sweeps in the field. PFC Big
Bear's
: opinion that during the 1968 Tet Offensive the guards and
: reactionary forces located at Cu Chi, Tay Ninh, Dau Tieng,
and
: the forward Firebase or FOB's, or at Ton San Nuht airbase,
and
: the MP's, were REMF and were not really in combat, will be a
: revelation to hear not only by the men that fought and were
: wounded there, but by the families of the men that died
there.
:
: I suggest PFC Big Bear, Dai Uy, and the alias MAC, and PFC
: Brooks, pay attention to the following statement by Lt. Gen.
: Barry R. McCaffrey, provided at the Wall:
:
: "All Vietnam Veterans should be held in high
: esteem:http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html"
:
: [McCaffrey] Speech by Lt. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey,
(reproduced in
: the Pentagram, June 4, 1993) assistant to the Chairman of the
: Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Vietnam veterans and visitors
gathered
: at "The Wall", Memorial Day 1993.
:
: Doug Says: I belive PFC Big Bear and PFC Brooks both owes me
and
: all those other REMF that fought in Vietnam an apology- don't
you
: think?
:
: Doug Grant (Tm)
:
: >
:
: > --
:
: > Machque (Bear)
:
: > Nec Aspera Terrent
:
: >
:
: > "A wannabe is someone who basks in the valor earned by
:
: > others." -Norb
:
: > "Telling war stories is as old as war itself, but flights
of
:
: > fancy can also
:
: > be shot down." -B.G. Burkett
:
: >
:
: "Mac" <Mac-NoSpamThankYou@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
: news:57n342pu9vat1fm1vfu4pg35ln26t4hds7@4ax.com...
: > On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 02:47:22 GMT, Dai Uy
<Dai-Uy@hawaii.rr.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >> I suggest PFC Big Bear, Dai Uy, and the alias MAC, and PFC
: >> Brooks, pay attention to the following statement by Lt.
Gen.
: >> Barry R. McCaffrey, provided at the Wall:
: >>
: >> "All Vietnam Veterans should be held in high
: >> esteem:http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html"
: > **************
: > You have claimed I am not a veteran.
: > You have claimed I was not in Vietnam.
: > You have been asked to provide your alleged proof.
: > As is usual with your posting history and your posting
antics
: > and your
: > threats, you quickly showed you could not substantiate what
you
: > claim.
:
: Doug Says: You were the one that made the claim, you are the
one
: that needs to post the proof. You can start by posting your
name
: and unit you were assigned to, and the time you claim you
were in
: Vietnam. So if you are so desperate to prove this issue, and
me
: wrong, then what is stopping you? Bear Butt did it - what
are
: you ashamed of?
: >
: > Second, I am not an alias.
:
: So your real name is MAC? Now why do I doubt that.
:
:
: > Third, I have respect for anyone who served in Vietnam and
has
: > done so
: > without spewing forth fabrications about their military
: > servicel I
: > have respect for any who served who have done so and need
not
: > to
: > drastically endeavor to embellish their duties, their
actions.
: > FINALLY; I suspect that the Lt. General McCaffrey never
heard
: > the
: > likes of you nor read what you have been spewing forth...
:
: Doug Says: I have not embellished anything, I do not lie,
have
: no need to do so. If you can, without distortions and lies,
: which to provide some of your evidence that I embellished
: anything, now is the time to do so. Google archives please,
no
: forgeries, no out of context *****, no lies, no false
: accusations, no defaming goofy interpretations. I am
presently
: answering all of Dai Uy's false accusations, and if you have
any
: others you might want to add them to that list. Moreover,
your
: conclusions are always defaming, you actually believe and
post
: forgeries and claim they are true, and your knowledge about
: Vietnam is non existent, so you really need to prove you were
a
: Vietnam vet.
:
: Doug Grant (Tm)
:
: > ---Mac
:
: