posted on February 19, 2001 08:28:12 AM new
No, Kennedy's father wanted the elder son to be president and planned for him to lead the invasion of Canada, but Joseph was killed in WW2.
posted on February 19, 2001 08:42:07 AM new
The site is timing out for me right now, but there's a lot available here: http://www.va.gov/vbs/health/ including a state by state list of VA facilities. Get him examined for free by asking to be placed in the Agent Orange Register. Any local vet center can start the process.
posted on February 19, 2001 08:54:56 AM new
I will call him today.
It is (now) becoming clear that he was experiencing some physical ailments e.g., skin lesions and mild jaundice, soon after his return from Vietnam. He just did not connect it with AO at the time.
Recent tests have shown that various and certain internal organ scarring, that can be associated with herbicides, have occurred sometime in the past.
posted on February 19, 2001 09:04:35 AM new
krs - FYI the 1960 is referring to the NLF being organized. "after the N Vietnamese unitied the S. Vietnamese communist...."
This information was taken from Britannica.Com. A very reliable source.
But while checking on when the first US troops were reported injured, please see that the URL below is a statistical chart shows the first soldiers wounded in the Vietnam war were in 1961.
posted on February 19, 2001 09:06:54 AM new
Make absolutely sure that he's tested for Hepetitis C, and have both methods of test done. It's important as that has reached levels that the VA has termed epidemic. Symptom onset can be delayed aas long as 30 years and it typically doesn't show up for twenty. It's liver destructive and is killing vietnam vets now when the cause is found in the dozens per month around the country. No telling how many are not diagnosed. It's really a big problem that isn't mentioned in media.
Here, a bone:
Dumbya did one thing right. His appointee to be the Director of the Dept. of Veteran's Affairs is a good one. Italian sorta' name.
posted on February 19, 2001 09:12:57 AM new
Linda_K,
The first two American soldiers killed in vietnam were killed in 1959. I'm not interested in your pecking crusade.
posted on February 19, 2001 09:27:23 AM new
krs - Believe it or not, the posts I make to any of these threads are NOT for your benefit. When there is any thread I am interested in, or have something to share on, I will do so. But you not being interested in what I share, doesn't concern me. These boards belong to all of us.
This thread was probably started because too many weren't agreeing with your views on your thread, and so you asked for it to be closed.
It seems to bring you great distress when others disagree with any thing you post. Others do have different opinions on varying subjects, and they don't have to agree with your views.
Many who post here were either not born or were very young when we entered full force into the Vietnam war and may enjoy reading some facts.
posted on February 19, 2001 09:38:34 AM new
Perhaps you historians could tell me something then as I am not sure how to even look it up.
When was the last president that sat out his term without some military action? I sort of doubt we have had one since WWII.
I worked with an air force technie in the 80's before we started on eBay and he often sold African items at work because he was concerned about having people case out his apartment and would have them meet him at the shop where we worked. I asked him where did you collect all the African stuff. He had some really nice pieces like massive Ivory Bookends. He said I was stationed in the Congo and never got to work electronics because the base perimeter was too small and we had to post two armed guards under every aircraft all night. So I spent several months standing under a loaded aircraft every night with a loaded m-16.
I told him "I don't remember hearing of us in any conflict in the Congo."
He said "That's OK -That's one of those little wars you weren't supposed to know about."
posted on February 19, 2001 09:45:12 AM new
Oh gee, Linda, excuse me for thinking that
Linda_K posted on February 19, 2001 09:04:35 AM
krs - FYI the 1960 is referring to the NLF being organized. "after the N Vietnamese unitied the S. Vietnamese communist...."
This information was taken from Britannica.Com. A very reliable source.
But while checking on when the first US troops were reported injured, please see that the URL below is a statistical chart shows the first soldiers wounded in the Vietnam war were in 1961.
was adressed to me. I don't know how I could have thought that.
And as for your analysis in:
"This thread was probably started because too many weren't agreeing with your views on your thread, and so you asked for it to be closed".
It seems to bring you great distress when others disagree with any thing you post. Others do have different opinions on varying subjects, and they don't have to agree with your views.
I thought that I had stated the reason for the request to close, but I guess I forgot to, or you didn't read it. Either way, it had nothing to do with "views".
Many who post here were either not born or were very young when we entered full force into the Vietnam war and may enjoy reading some facts.
Well, there's an odd idea. Do you intend to provide some facts? Or just "views".
posted on February 19, 2001 10:04:26 AM new
Yes, krs, I did address that post to you. You hadn't read my quoted post correctly and you challenged my source (Britannica.com) by implying what I'd shared wasn't correct because Kennedy wasn't president until 1961. Good spin though.
I posted the URL of the wounded soldiers, not deaths of advisors. The point being made was that under President Kennedy, many soldiers were being wounded.
As far as views and facts, I can share whichever I please. One again you don't make/set the rules here. I posted URLs to support my claims.
And Helen Just for you:
As a GREAT source for facts has already posted in this thread:
Facts:
JFK began the war.
LBJ escalated the war.
Nixon stopped the war.
Spin on!
gravid If using a regular search engine for obtaining information doesn't work, try going to 'ask jeeves'. On that site you can ask a question and their engine will run a search for different websites that contain information related to what you're asking.
posted on February 19, 2001 10:35:58 AM new
Well, as Vietnam was never a declared war, it seems to me that the beginning of US involvement there would have to define the beginning of US involvement there, and that began almost as soon as the French left in 1954. Still, if you include the aid and assistance given the French then perhaps it may be earlier than that...even.
But I'm losing track and forgetting that it wasn't Vietnam which was the issue at all, at least until Kennedy was elected, it was Indochina, an entirely different part of the world.
Now that we know, by the facts so kindly provided by Linda_K, that US advisors' deaths in battle in Vietnam do not count as Vietnam War deaths perhaps someone would take the news to their families who fought for years to have their names included amongst the Vietnam war deaths?
And since those deaths did occur in 1959 they should not count as wounded either, according to those same facts so kindly and helpfully provided. After all, if a person is dead, how could that person be wounded? Well, we have to accept that wounds often cause death, so...now only one disparity remains. We must rewrite history to say that JFK was elected in 1958, inaugurated in 1959, so that the wounds suffered by those advisors (if that is what they were), not soldiers, which resulted in their deaths can be shown to have been at the hands of democrats, and not Vietnamese.
