 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
MtG, I think you are mathematically challenged. A fragment can have serious wounding potential at a distance of 15 m but can't penetrate the skin at 18+ m?
|
Are you literacy challenged? Or just creating a strawman? I said the maximum blast radius was 15 meters, nothing about a fragment having "serious wounding potential" at that range. 
The probable lethal range is only 5 meters, and as I stated before in another post, most of the effect is concussive, not fragmentation. 18 meters is also the minimum arming range, as I've stated before. Not standard, minimum. The arming range for this type of round is 18-36 meters, so rounds fired 18 meters won't even reliably be armed and won't detonate to full effect, if at all, on impact.
quote:
A ricochet event can translate angular KE into linear KE, effectively increasing the range at which a fragment could penetrate the skin.
|
We're talking about an alleged richochet event that would have to return the fragment full range to the shooter, not a small angular deflection. And we're also talking a thin-cased HE round fuzed to explode on impact, not a solid ballistic object like an FMJ smallarm round.
quote:
And we are talking about a fragment that barely penetrated the skin. |
According to what? One individual's claim "seared into his memory?"
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 23-08-2004 at 08:29
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Only a desperate minority.  |
It might make for a pleasing balance if some of Kerry's detractors in these posts had exercised as 'scorching' a direct gaze on the records of previous Republican Presidents and the incumbent.
Seems to me, I recall George Bush Sr.'s wartime heroics' account changing over the years, to present him in a better light.
Then of course there's the Bush family's part in Savings and Loan, but hey, that wasn't in Viet Nam, so who cares, it was only taxpayers' money.
And of course, Iran Contra, but that was only Americans held hostage in Lebanon, aid to terrorists, and breaking laws, no Khmer Rouge involved.
Oh, and of course, being an alcoholic war evader, who drops out of drug tests, and can't remember whether he had a criminal record, and when exactly it was that he had one, and how many times he may have broken the law, but then well, he's a Republican, those things don't matter that much, when you're voting for people on their 'reputation'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
Molly, For your doubting eyes, here is a transcript of the Chris Matthews show. Malkin was supposed to come back for the next segment. She did not.
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/
"Joining me is San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and Michelle Malkin.
Malkin is that the correct pronunciation?
MICHELLE MALKIN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Malkin.
MATTHEWS: Malkin, I like it better.
She‘s the author of in “Defense of Interment: The Case for Racial Profiling.” We‘ll get to that in a minute, that sounds hot enough.
What do you make of the president‘s—this campaign being run on behalf of the president, if not officially to try destroy John Kerry‘s war record?
MALKIN: I don‘t think that President Bush orchestrated this at all.
MATTHEWS: Why doesn‘t he call up and say stop it.
MALKIN: Well, look he‘s already made his statement. The White House said, it doesn‘t associate itself with these 527 campaigns, any of them. And he said that Kerry has served nobly. What else do you want him to say?
MATTHEWS: Well, back when we had the Willie Horton Act, back in 1988, all that Jim Baker or anybody at the White House campaign had to do was call on behalf of President Bush Sr., and say stop running that racist ad. Nobody ever did, OK. I‘m asking if you‘re speaking on behalf of President Bush, why doesn‘t he make a phone call to these veterans, including Mr. Thurlow and say stop running the ads. Why doesn‘t he do that?
MALKIN: Well first I‘m not here speaking on behalf of the Bush campaign. Second of all...
MATTHEWS: Well, do you think these guys should be running.
MALKIN: Well, second of all, you brought up Willie Horton. I think that‘s quite interesting that you did. The underlying implication is that some how this is a Republican orchestrated thing, just like the swift boat campaign. Of course, it was Al Gore who brought up Willie Horton first.
MATTHEWS: No, the ads. No the ads were ran, by something called the American Security Council supporting President Bush.
MALKIN: And who made the issue—who made the issue germane, Al Gore and the Democrats. And it‘s the same thing here, John Kerry said, bring it on and the Swift Boat Veterans have brought it on.
MATTHEWS: Fair enough. So you—lets get your position here on the program, since you are on the program. Your position it‘s OK, for the veteran groups to attack John Kerry on this issue?
MALKIN: They are exercising their free speech, absolutely.
MATTHEWS: And the president is totally innocent in this campaign. He has nothing to do with it.
MALKIN: Well, I don‘t think so. Yes. Yes, there were Bush supporters who helped fund the ads. But this was not directed from the White House.
MATTHEWS: When the president says publicly that he has no problem with John Kerry‘s war record, in fact he finds it noble, is that hypocritical or is that honest?
MALKIN: I think it is absolutely honest.
MATTHEWS: Because what? What makes it honest?
Because how they are attacking Kerry?
MALKIN: He can‘t—he did not control these—there was no—can you show me directive that said, Swift Boat Veterans do this.
MATTHEWS: I‘m waiting for the phone call that said stop doing it, buddies.
MALKIN: It is interesting. I saw the interrogation of Larry Thurlow. All I can say if the main stream media interrogated these private citizens, and did that as aggressively as...
MATTHEWS: Nobody has ever called me mainstream before but thank your for the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I guess I‘m big time now.
MALKIN: Aggressively as...
MATTHEWS: I think the president, if he wanted this to stop would make one phone call. Karl Rove, would make one phone call and that would be the end of the ads. That‘s what think, and you know that‘s true, right?
MALKIN: Well, there...
MATTHEWS: Is that true? If he wanted to stop them, he could stop them.
MALKIN: No, I don‘t think he could. No. I don‘t.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me go to Mayor Brown. Mayor Brown, what do you make of this salient attack from these 527 groups, they‘re called, they‘re independent groups attack the war record of John Kerry.
Do you believe in any way the president could be held politically responsible for these attacks?
+
WILLIE BROWN, FORMER SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR: He should be held politically responsible, Chris. When I served as speaker of the California legislature as well as mayor, whenever any independent group did anything that was for my benefit, and it was a slimy and as below the belt and as dishonest as these ads are, I had for purpose of my own integrity, denounced them and asked that they be stopped, just as I would if I was just being not effective at all. Period.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask but the nature of this campaign. Why is John Kerry so unsuccessful as a candidate, that he‘s allowed his challenging role to be determined to be transformed into a defendant‘s role?
Instead of him carrying the fight against incumbent president which is the norm in a American society in a reelection campaign, he has become the issue himself. How did he let that happen?
BROWN: John Kerry is the kind of a guy who is always laid back. He is always been dealing with people who were gentle, who were in every way respectful, who have a sense of dignity about themselves and a sense of honor. John Kerry may not be fit for the terrible battles and wars of the world of politics.
He may be absolutely perfect as a president. But in term of a candidate, he probably has a series of imperfection that‘s may be fatal in his successful, in his pursuit of a successful candidacy. That‘s not to take anything away from his integrity. He should have been doing exactly what he‘s doing today. He should have been doing that from day one.
MATTHEWS: Do you think Massachusetts politics is softball?
BROWN: I think Massachusetts politics is always been very respectful of the other person‘s view and very committed to the idea they don‘t want to seem negative and they don‘t want to be criticized for an absence of integrity.
MALKIN: He is a boy in the bubble, Chris. And...
MATTHEWS: What does that mean?
MALKIN: He hasn‘t been subjected to this kind of heat. And as Willie Brown is suggesting, if he can‘t stand the heat from his fellow veterans, do we really want to trust him to stand up to Islamic extremists?
By the way, it‘s not just—not just these right wingers who have been questioning his record. The “Boston Globe” isn‘t, aren‘t operatives of the Bush campaign and they have said the same thing as the veterans did about all three incidents regarding the purple hearts. You were hammering Larry Thurlow about specific name.
BROWN: He volunteered twice. He volunteered twice in Vietnam. He literally got shot. There‘s no question about any of those things. So what else is there to discuss? How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel?
MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?
MALKIN: Did you read the book...
MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers...
MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.
MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.
MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.
MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...
MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.
MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
MATTHEWS: Tell me where that...
MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969.
MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?
MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these...
MATTHEWS: Give me a name.
MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph).
MATTHEWS: They said—Patrick Runyan...
MALKIN: These people have...
MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound?
MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not...
MATTHEWS: That‘s cast a lot of doubt. That‘s complete nonsense.
MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book...
MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart.
MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying...
MATTHEWS: Why did you say?
MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book.
MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?
MALKIN: On.
MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.
MALKIN: In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event.
MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.
MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.
MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.
I haven‘t heard you say it.
MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?
MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.
MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?
MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.
Look, thank you Mayor Brown. We‘ll stay with Michelle Malkin.
Still ahead, David Gergen and Dana Milbank on the battle for the White House. We are going to keep things clean on this show. No irresponsible comments are going to be made on the show.
And don‘t forget you can keep up with presidential race on Hardblogger, our election blog Web site. Just go to hardball.msnbc.com.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
In his blog, Matthews had this to say about Malkin:
"• August 19, 2004 | 8:10 p.m. ET
On tonight's interview with Michelle Malkin (Chris Matthews)
One of my jobs on 'Hardball' is to cut through to the truth. Tonight on 'Hardball,' one of our guests pushed the idea that John Kerry had won his Purple Heart by deliberately shooting himself. The charge was without merit and baseless, as our guest under close questioning herself admitted.
We'll keep covering the political issues and will stand up against any attempt to broadcast misinformation."
|
So that show differed substantially from right wing shows how?
Have you ever seen Margaret Thatcher interviewed? Actually, 'monologued' would be a better description.
She meted out that kind of treatment to her interviewers, or at least anyone callow enough to put up with it.
Do people like Limbaugh talk across awkward callers?
Do they shut them down, and their staff say they'll never get on air again?
Again, this has nothing to do with Kerry- he's in no way responsible for the behaviour of a talk show host.
'Molly, For your doubting eyes'
Ned
Gee thanks, Ned, but as I stated in another thread, in the O.T. it's only: 'In God We Trust', everyone else has to provide a cite, quote or link.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I think Che's point is most valid:
The Nixon admin. did set itself out to investigate Kerry becuase they saw him as a threat- in fact, in PBS they had part of a documentary in wich hear tapes of Nixon talking with his Chief of Staff and Kissinger about the protests Kerry was in, talking about him, and they also talk about O'Neil as a counterweight. It was a very good interview, at it also showed that Nixon and his machine was trying to discredit him- if any of these accusations had much validity, they would have begun back then, not now all of a sudden. |
Well it seems to be the most oft-repeated, a sure sign that it has been handed down by the Kerry campaign as a talking point. I'm not so sure about it though. IMO they did a much better job of getting their points across by using O'Neil as a spokesman for their policies (and having him debate Kerry) than they would have by tearing Kerry down, assuming that they even knew he was vulnerable on the medals issue. And I also doubt that they would have known for sure that something was (perhaps) fishy about Kerry's war record. Certainly a document search yields them nothing, because everything is based upon a few reports generated sometimes haphazardly by a unit in combat, and some of these reports are going to have been written by Kerry himself. To pursue this line would have meant exhaustively interviewing the people who served with Kerry who in the end might be inclined to protect him / expose your investigation. I can see no reason why the administration would have any reason to assume that such a line of action would have paid dividends. Nixon may have been a fvck, but he wasn't a stupid fvck.
People like to quote the Bronze Star Citation as proof that such and such happened, but citations are ritualized paragraphs which at best only summarize what has already been reported in official combat reports. This means that eyewitness accounts (in sum) are better than the documentation generally because all that the documentation amounts to is one person's (or in some cases a few people's) eyewitness account, jaundiced by the immediate need to make himself / his friends look good. At least with the bulk of surviving witnesses making their views heard we'll have a balance of different political motivations and perhaps somehow a little truth will leak out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I don't know how much experience you've had with the M79 / M203 / Mk19, but I really doubt it's possible to frag yourself with one, since the fuze is designed to prevent self-injury.
With the M383 or M384 40mm HE grenade, blast radius is a maximum of 15 meters, while the arming distance of the M533 fuze is 18-36 meters. There's also not enough casing mass in the grenade to have very effective fragment density at 15 meters, so the effects at that range are generally limited to concussive effects.
Unless the Swiftboat vets come up with (and they haven't, it's just another inconsistency of many) a real good explanation for self-inflicted injury, I think it's safe to just disregard those allegations as the sort of stories that go around after the fact about somebody you didn't like. Typical FNG stories, but in this case, not possible as described. |
I heard that the M-79 ammunition was altered to prevent self-inflicted wounds (with an obvious exception for the buckshot rounds) sometime after it was initially deployed. That may be wrong, but it's what one of my Vietnam Veteran sergeants told me in basic training. We also learned that the rounds have a kill radius (%50 chance of causing a casualty to anyone within) of 5 meters.
It seems quite possible (though perhaps unlikely) that someone could fire one 25 meters or so away and still get a minor ding from shrapnel which can cause nasty wounds five meters away. I note that hand grenades (fragmentation) are still considered a danger no matter how far they are thrown, and we had to throw them 30+ meters on the grenade range. Of course they are a lot heavier than the 40mm grenades and contain a lot more "shrapnel" (in their case notched wire). But then again the main effect of the 40 mm grenade is (as you say) concussion, which means that a much higher percentage of the total weight of the round is in the form of explosives and propellants.
I'm not convinced by the (lack of) evidence either way on this point, but it is possible (IMO) that he could have been wounded by friendly fire. I'm convinced enough that I wouldn't want to test this hypothesis using my own body.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
I agree with the citation assesment. I write them all the time and they are limited to seven lines, four of which are almost always uniform, no matter what particular citation it is.
It is also very common for officers to write their own citations, simply because their boss is too busy to do it himself. You still have the get it approved, but the language is yours. In Vietam I highly doubt Kerry's overall commander had the time or inclination to read all the citiations that came through his desk. PH's were everyday things at that time, and coming from an officer it probobly didn't get as much scrutiny.
As for the AAR, in peace time every incident would be filed and refiled. In wartime, especially one like that, you record what was really important. A swift boat hitting a mine in a non-combat atmosphere would not have been considered significant by anyone concerned, unless you were milking it for medals.
And while I am normally in line with you MtG about military stuff, and know you are greatly experianced in the topic, tryign to whitewash arguements by throwing out specs is wrong. The fact is that it is very possible for Kerry to have wounded himself with such a grenade, even if using it properly. And god knows how often they used them, just increasing the chance for an incident. And yes, I have fired them as well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Observing Michael the Great over years, I would say that one of the thing that he hates the most are chickenshits.
|
Yep.
quote:
I think that Kerry clearly merits that denominator based solely on his request for at least one, and probably two, Purple Hearts for minor shrapnel wounds that probably were self-inflicted.
|
Only a few problems with this one.
(a) Where are the records that Kerry "requested" decorations?
(b) The Swiftboat vets need to get their basic story straight. According to one story, Kerry was this dangerous chickenshit officer who they wanted to be rid of, so their CO gave him bogus citations (including two for valor, even though that has nothing to do with getting out of 'Nam) to get rid of him. According to the more recent version, they knew nothing until his book came out, then they were shocked at his supposed lies and distortions. Even though he'd been a prominent public figure who they hated for decades.
(c) Whether or not the "minor shrapnel wounds" were minor or not, Kerry must apparently be the only vet who ever got to write and approve his own Purple Heart recommendations.
quote:
Virtually everyone who knew the facts at the time in Vietnam thought that Kerry was a chickenshit.
|
Except for people like Rassmann, and everyone who actually served on Kerry's boats except Gardner. But obviously, they don't count, and only the self-serving politically motivated after-the-fact claims of guys who admit disliking Kerry for his VVAW activities count. Those were the guys with infallible memories, everyone else was just brainwashed. Oh yeah, and according to at least one of these people, McCain's a gook spy who spent his captivity partying with the Soviets and banging a Vietnamese mistress.
Besides, while Kerry was being an alleged chickenshit in 'Nam, Bush was bravely defending the skies over Texas from the Free Mexican Air Force, then working on a political campaign in Alabama after getting bumped from flight status for failing to show up for a physical. Let's talk about chickenshit, shall we? And Bush is too chickenshit to weigh in on one side or another - just like he was in the primaries against McCain.
quote:
So I wonder just how much longer Michael The Great can continue to support this empty suit, this fraud, this chickenshit. |
At least four years, baby. Infinitely longer than I would ever support the real fraud and chickenshit currently in office.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2004 07:57
|