http://gigo-soapbox.org/gigo/index.php
Phony from the Very Beginning
Definition from Websters:
Main Entry: omertà
Pronunciation: o-'mer-tä
Usage: foreign term
Etymology: Italian
: submission : code chiefly among members of the criminal underworld that enjoins private vengeance and the refusal to give information to outsiders (as the police)
This is a very charged definition. Italian is an interesting language. It is close enough to pure Latin that many of its usage patterns are identical. Latin is full of loaded words. So is Italian. Omerta means more than submission. It is closer to a filial (more Latin here) honor of silence. Families deal with eachother behind closed doors and do not involve outsiders.
My father often spoke of a "gentlemen's agreement" among officers regarding warfare. Certain things were not discussed. Once the war was over, one did not speak ill of a fellow officer, for activities or actions that took place during his war time service. His description of the code of silence for the enlisted guys was less genteel thus the code was more apt to be physically enforced… but the code amongst those who served stood. (I am the grandson of a Navy Chief… I know both worlds from my own family.)
He explained the basic rules to be:
1. Do not speak ill of anyone's character, or impugn their honor.
2. Do not claim what you did not truly earn.
3. Do not take advantage of, or exploit the code for personal advantage.
All else seems to have been on the table for open discussion or story telling, especially those sorts of stories that brought honor and praise to a soldier's unit. Personal stories were fine, but rule 2 was always supposed to apply.
The net effect of the two military codes of silence is to shield the good men who served. Yes it protects the less than honorable acts of some, but war is not a game. In the conduct of a war, actions are taken that are so alien and unfamiliar to the average person that it is often impossible to present justification for them.
Men, under the strains of combat, can conduct themselves with great honor. They can also fail miserably to do much more than threaten to get people killed by their gross incompetence. The code largely left those incidents on the battlefields, to be buried with the dead.
I have very rarely seen the code broken. The men who hold these memories are determined to protect the memory of the dead, and the integrity of the effort. I am beginning to see the strains at the seams of the code of silence in regard to John Kerry. You see Kerry has violated all three of these rules. The Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry are angry because he violated rule 1. His congressional testimony and subsequent anti-war activities were rife with assaults on the honor and integrity of the men who served.
He has also violated rule number 2. He more than accepted Purple Heart Medals; he manufactured the reasons for receiving them. We have an example from his former commanding officer in regard to one "wound" being no more than a careless self-inflicted scratch. There is justifiable reason to believe that the other two wounds are suspect, as well. At least one was serious enough to cause him pain and therefore could seemingly be justified. See http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/kerry_pur_hrts.htm for a reference to the circumstances.
Combat is a dangerous business, I do not know first hand, I know from seeing to many fathers come home with grave wounds both mental and physical. I know many soldiers and airmen who have returned with scars from cuts, bruises, and burns, all related to combat, but none justifying awards. Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star seems to be for doing his job. Exposure to fire is sort of par for the course in combat and a (Swift boats really had no armor to speak of. The conditions and events surrounding the actions that resulted in their award are not at the level for which I have seen other BSM awards. I have heard more than one soldier complain that they were "handed" out like candy by 1967 and only those with a V device were actual combat BSMs if awarded after Tet. So, I am not going to question his award, merely ask that it be placed into some realistic context.
The Silver Star (the nation's third highest combat award) seems to have been awarded for completely unfathomable reasons. Please see: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12272
The SSM's integrity, though under assault in the war, was maintained. I wonder how many soldiers or Marines faced a single shot from an RPG in such a manner and were handed major fruit salad to go on the old left pocket? My old man would have been wearing a chest full of SSMs for the year that he spent in the central highlands getting hit with rockets, mortars, machinegun fire… booby traps… you name it.
Okay so he has a rule two violation on his grade card, now how about rule 3? Nope… It seems that John Effing Kerry uses his "awards" for purposes uncontemplated by any normal sailor, grunt, or airman. He used them for the effect of demonstrating solidarity with the anti-war movement by throwing them away at a nationally televised protest. He then went on to display them for the right audience to, evidently, lend credibility to his efforts to eviscerate the military. (I was one of THEM… so I can destroy them with a good conscience.) Oh, and we see them symbolically tossed in our faces, every time we see his Frankenface on a TV commercial. The tendency for Mr. Kerry to wave his awards is so offensive that it has become a grotesque joke.
As you can see by my reference links, the violation of the code, by Mr. Kerry, has become so egregious and abusive of trust that his peers are now compelled to speak out. I hope that people are listening. John Forbes (betcha that grates on Steve Forbes) Kerry is a dishonest, flip-flopping, Leftist. His election would not destroy the country, but fire does not always destroy the tree. I wouldn't count on the exception, however.
Please note that I write this with all apologies to those Vietnam Vets out there who did serve with honor, and do maintain their responsibility to their fellow vets. My father rests at West Point, where we buried him in 1975. My friends on this board know, but many others do not so it bears repeating. He died of a soft tissue sarcoma that was started by a serious wound in his left calf. He received it during the last days of his first tour in 1967. He dug the bamboo shards out and bandaged it up… If he had reported it he wouldn’t have been able to come home before Christmas. He didn't get the wound cleaned out enough… there was a large shard of bamboo and God knows what else… still lodged in the muscle of his left calf. In February 1974, the doctors removed a grapefruit sized tumor, and then his left leg. He never complained about the Army and never asked for anything more than his Honors at his funeral. I know in my heart and mind that he would loathe John Kerry.
Phony from the Very Beginning
Definition from Websters:
Main Entry: omertà
Pronunciation: o-'mer-tä
Usage: foreign term
Etymology: Italian
: submission : code chiefly among members of the criminal underworld that enjoins private vengeance and the refusal to give information to outsiders (as the police)
This is a very charged definition. Italian is an interesting language. It is close enough to pure Latin that many of its usage patterns are identical. Latin is full of loaded words. So is Italian. Omerta means more than submission. It is closer to a filial (more Latin here) honor of silence. Families deal with eachother behind closed doors and do not involve outsiders.
My father often spoke of a "gentlemen's agreement" among officers regarding warfare. Certain things were not discussed. Once the war was over, one did not speak ill of a fellow officer, for activities or actions that took place during his war time service. His description of the code of silence for the enlisted guys was less genteel thus the code was more apt to be physically enforced… but the code amongst those who served stood. (I am the grandson of a Navy Chief… I know both worlds from my own family.)
He explained the basic rules to be:
1. Do not speak ill of anyone's character, or impugn their honor.
2. Do not claim what you did not truly earn.
3. Do not take advantage of, or exploit the code for personal advantage.
All else seems to have been on the table for open discussion or story telling, especially those sorts of stories that brought honor and praise to a soldier's unit. Personal stories were fine, but rule 2 was always supposed to apply.
The net effect of the two military codes of silence is to shield the good men who served. Yes it protects the less than honorable acts of some, but war is not a game. In the conduct of a war, actions are taken that are so alien and unfamiliar to the average person that it is often impossible to present justification for them.
Men, under the strains of combat, can conduct themselves with great honor. They can also fail miserably to do much more than threaten to get people killed by their gross incompetence. The code largely left those incidents on the battlefields, to be buried with the dead.
I have very rarely seen the code broken. The men who hold these memories are determined to protect the memory of the dead, and the integrity of the effort. I am beginning to see the strains at the seams of the code of silence in regard to John Kerry. You see Kerry has violated all three of these rules. The Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry are angry because he violated rule 1. His congressional testimony and subsequent anti-war activities were rife with assaults on the honor and integrity of the men who served.
He has also violated rule number 2. He more than accepted Purple Heart Medals; he manufactured the reasons for receiving them. We have an example from his former commanding officer in regard to one "wound" being no more than a careless self-inflicted scratch. There is justifiable reason to believe that the other two wounds are suspect, as well. At least one was serious enough to cause him pain and therefore could seemingly be justified. See http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/kerry_pur_hrts.htm for a reference to the circumstances.
Combat is a dangerous business, I do not know first hand, I know from seeing to many fathers come home with grave wounds both mental and physical. I know many soldiers and airmen who have returned with scars from cuts, bruises, and burns, all related to combat, but none justifying awards. Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star seems to be for doing his job. Exposure to fire is sort of par for the course in combat and a (Swift boats really had no armor to speak of. The conditions and events surrounding the actions that resulted in their award are not at the level for which I have seen other BSM awards. I have heard more than one soldier complain that they were "handed" out like candy by 1967 and only those with a V device were actual combat BSMs if awarded after Tet. So, I am not going to question his award, merely ask that it be placed into some realistic context.
The Silver Star (the nation's third highest combat award) seems to have been awarded for completely unfathomable reasons. Please see: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12272
The SSM's integrity, though under assault in the war, was maintained. I wonder how many soldiers or Marines faced a single shot from an RPG in such a manner and were handed major fruit salad to go on the old left pocket? My old man would have been wearing a chest full of SSMs for the year that he spent in the central highlands getting hit with rockets, mortars, machinegun fire… booby traps… you name it.
Okay so he has a rule two violation on his grade card, now how about rule 3? Nope… It seems that John Effing Kerry uses his "awards" for purposes uncontemplated by any normal sailor, grunt, or airman. He used them for the effect of demonstrating solidarity with the anti-war movement by throwing them away at a nationally televised protest. He then went on to display them for the right audience to, evidently, lend credibility to his efforts to eviscerate the military. (I was one of THEM… so I can destroy them with a good conscience.) Oh, and we see them symbolically tossed in our faces, every time we see his Frankenface on a TV commercial. The tendency for Mr. Kerry to wave his awards is so offensive that it has become a grotesque joke.
As you can see by my reference links, the violation of the code, by Mr. Kerry, has become so egregious and abusive of trust that his peers are now compelled to speak out. I hope that people are listening. John Forbes (betcha that grates on Steve Forbes) Kerry is a dishonest, flip-flopping, Leftist. His election would not destroy the country, but fire does not always destroy the tree. I wouldn't count on the exception, however.
Please note that I write this with all apologies to those Vietnam Vets out there who did serve with honor, and do maintain their responsibility to their fellow vets. My father rests at West Point, where we buried him in 1975. My friends on this board know, but many others do not so it bears repeating. He died of a soft tissue sarcoma that was started by a serious wound in his left calf. He received it during the last days of his first tour in 1967. He dug the bamboo shards out and bandaged it up… If he had reported it he wouldn’t have been able to come home before Christmas. He didn't get the wound cleaned out enough… there was a large shard of bamboo and God knows what else… still lodged in the muscle of his left calf. In February 1974, the doctors removed a grapefruit sized tumor, and then his left leg. He never complained about the Army and never asked for anything more than his Honors at his funeral. I know in my heart and mind that he would loathe John Kerry.
