AviationBanter

AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Military Aviation (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=9683)

Steve Mellenthin July 16th 04 07:11 PM

I was hoping you would have the common deceny not to remind me of it. I've
spent 60 years trying to forget it.




Arthur Kramer


Fact of life in war. I am not sure anyone could or should forget that, even
when one relate ones experiences with putting bombs on target, dodging enemy
fighters, and flying through flak. There is always another side to war besides
the glory and I think we all should keep that in balance.

BUFDRVR July 16th 04 07:55 PM

ArtKramr wrote:

Based on his testimony befiore congress he may be the most honest man ever to
run for public office.


You're a sad, sad man. Ed points out several bold faced lies Kerry told and you
still ignore it.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

ArtKramr July 16th 04 09:18 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/16/2004 11:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I was hoping you would have the common deceny not to remind me of it. I've
spent 60 years trying to forget it.




Arthur Kramer


Fact of life in war. I am not sure anyone could or should forget that, even
when one relate ones experiences with putting bombs on target, dodging enemy
fighters, and flying through flak. There is always another side to war
besides
the glory and I think we all should keep that in balance.


What glory????


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


ArtKramr July 16th 04 09:32 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "ian maclure"
Date: 7/16/2004 1:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:33:48 +0000, ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Jack

Date: 7/16/2004 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time


o you consider this to be the truth of your own combat experience as
well? Care to tell us about the atrocities which you committed and which
we should, by extension, assume were common among US Soldiers, Sailors,
and Airmen in WW2?


Not a day goes by that I don't remember my bomb patterns falling in

crowded
cities that I don't wonder how many children were down there at the time.

I
never talk about that apect of the war. Kerry has a lot more courage than I

do.

The industrial paradigm of the day had the plants and living areas
interpersed within the cities. Kind of made what happened inevit-
able. Regrettable of course but given the non-precision technology
of the day unavoidable. The level of skill required to carry out
some of the pinpoint raids ( Shell House for one ) wasn't something
you could get in mass quantities. That would have reduced civilian
deaths but not eliminated them entirely.
Its not something you should dismiss lightly and if at times it
bothers you thats only to be expected. You need not however
chastise yourself for the results.


I don't think I chastise myself. It is just the persistance of memory. I did
what had to be done at the time. And I did it without reservation or regret.
But I raised three children. When they were young I would play with them, read
them stories give them hugs and kisses as a daddy does. But every now and again
as I was doing this I would think of the bomb patterns over Cologne and the
smoke and flames rising to 5,000 feet and wonder. And I am still wondering. I
guess it is the occupational hazard of all bombardiers. The bombardier on the
Enola Gay became a priest in Japan.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Steven P. McNicoll July 16th 04 09:49 PM


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I don't think I chastise myself. It is just the persistance of memory. I

did
what had to be done at the time. And I did it without reservation or

regret.
But I raised three children. When they were young I would play with them,

read
them stories give them hugs and kisses as a daddy does. But every now and

again
as I was doing this I would think of the bomb patterns over Cologne and

the
smoke and flames rising to 5,000 feet and wonder. And I am still

wondering. I
guess it is the occupational hazard of all bombardiers. The bombardier on

the
Enola Gay became a priest in Japan.


The bombardier on the Enola Gay, Thomas W. Ferebee, retired from the USAF as
a Colonel in 1970. After leaving the Air Force, he worked in real estate in
and around Orlando, Florida. He and his wife had four sons.



B2431 July 16th 04 10:18 PM

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 7/16/2004 11:19 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus

Date: 7/16/2004 9:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 16 Jul 2004 16:01:52 GMT,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus

Date: 7/16/2004 8:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

There is nothing in
international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
personnel. Nothing.

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy

machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.


Has old age dimmed your eyes so that you cannot read plain English?

Here's the quote again, "I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were
our only weapon against people."

It doesn't say "ordered to use against civilians." It says "people".
If he were "only following orders" and they said kill civilians with
.50 cal, then he was one very sorry excuse for an officer and a
leader.

You may have read some of the twaddle of your old buddy Walt that
recounted Kerry with his M-16, which jammed. So he reached into the
boat for another M-16....does that mean he lied in the quote when he
says "which were our only weapon." Do you believe he was really
leading a Swift boat crew and they only had .50 cal?

Which is the truth and which is the lie? If he tells the truth (under
oath) in his Senate testimony, then he lies when he claims the heroism
for his actions under fire and he lies when he expounds on his
honorable service. If his service and courage under fire where
honorable, then he lied to the Senate under oath. Can't be both ways.

Can I expect another one-liner assertion of the glory of the
candidate? Or will you explain what is going on here?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Based on his testimony befiore congress he may be the most honest man ever to
run for public office. Note that he never accused the Viet Cong of using WMD.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Art, give it a rest. In another thread someone made a case that many of the
"150 honourably discharged Viet Nam vets" were frauds. For the sake of
discussion let's say they aren't. That's 150 out of how many men who saw
combat? I put them in the same category as George Lincoln Rockwell who
apologized to the Nazis for having fought against them.

I was in the Army in Viet Nam and saw nohing approaching the level of approval
kerry says the chains of command presented. Did U.S. servicemen commit war
crimes without being charged? Yes. Did I see it? No. Did it occur in my AO?
Probably not. These things get around. Most of the servicemen in Viet Nam knew
something had happened in My Lai before charges were filed. They just didn't
know the specifics.

The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
of war crimes. I know many GIs who told war stories that simply weren't true
but were good stories nonetheless. Want to hear the one about the Huey with a
broken main rotor blade so they nailed a girl to it for balance and flew home?

Art, you are supporting a man who stabbed all of us who served in Viet Nam in
the back. If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.

How would you as a veteran feel if Bob Dole started saying all WW2 vets were
either war criminals or did nothing to stope war crimes?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



B2431 July 16th 04 10:22 PM

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 7/16/2004 3:49 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: .net


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I don't think I chastise myself. It is just the persistance of memory. I

did
what had to be done at the time. And I did it without reservation or

regret.
But I raised three children. When they were young I would play with them,

read
them stories give them hugs and kisses as a daddy does. But every now and

again
as I was doing this I would think of the bomb patterns over Cologne and

the
smoke and flames rising to 5,000 feet and wonder. And I am still

wondering. I
guess it is the occupational hazard of all bombardiers. The bombardier on

the
Enola Gay became a priest in Japan.


The bombardier on the Enola Gay, Thomas W. Ferebee, retired from the USAF as
a Colonel in 1970. After leaving the Air Force, he worked in real estate in
and around Orlando, Florida. He and his wife had four sons.


One of the men from Doolittle's raid who survived Japanese captivity went back
to Japan as a missionary.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Sam Byrams July 16th 04 10:24 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Sam Byrams wrote:

[Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.


I found the T-38 easier to fly than the Tweet. It was a bit "tricky" landing,
but it was also easy to learn how to land it well.


Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
dollar check. What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?
Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
attention handle this airplane?

Steve Mellenthin July 16th 04 10:30 PM


What glory????


The stuff you glamorize in your writings. Maybe that isn't your intent but
your writing style sometimes says otherwise.

Ed Rasimus July 16th 04 10:34 PM

On 16 Jul 2004 14:24:16 -0700, (Sam Byrams)
wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Sam Byrams wrote:

[Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.


I found the T-38 easier to fly than the Tweet. It was a bit "tricky" landing,
but it was also easy to learn how to land it well.


Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
dollar check.


?????? What is that about? Who is Chuckie?

What we have here is "failure to communicate."

What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?


It isn't a "beast". It's a military high performance trainer. It makes
things happen fast, but it is fairly docile.

Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
attention handle this airplane?


If you're comfortable at 4G, can handle being upside down, can deal
with basic instrument procedures, and don't get complacent, you can
probably learn to fly the airplane. If you've got some talent, you
could probably be trained to fly it near max performance. It ain't
rocket science.

But it also isn't flying fighters.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Jack July 16th 04 11:34 PM

Sam Byrams wrote:


Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
American would, i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
dollar check. What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?
Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums, some decent
aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
attention handle this airplane?


If you've got the attitude you can get the altitude. Thousands have. But
remember not to exceed 50,000' without a pressure suit. Thousands have.

Ooops, I wasn't supposed to say that.


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

ArtKramr July 16th 04 11:51 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/16/2004 2:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


What glory????


The stuff you glamorize in your writings. Maybe that isn't your intent but
your writing style sometimes says otherwise.


I never glamorised anyything. You just read glamour into it where in fact
there was none. The glamour is here on the ground with you. Not in the air with
me.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


ArtKramr July 16th 04 11:59 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (B2431)
Date: 7/16/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time


How would you as a veteran feel if Bob Dole started saying all WW2 vets were
either war criminals or did nothing to stope war crimes?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Dole has that right under the 1st. amendment. I am secure and comfortable with
my experiences no matter what anyone says. But millions of Americans agreed
with Kerry, were against the war and still are to this day. Kerry was not alone
in his thoughts or statements. And for someone who has been stabbed in the back
you seem in very good health.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


John A. Weeks III July 17th 04 01:30 AM

In article , Sam
Byrams wrote:

Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
dollar check. What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?
Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
attention handle this airplane?


You can take lessons in an L-39. It will cost some bucks, but
you don't have to hit the powerball to do it.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications
http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

BUFDRVR July 17th 04 02:29 AM

Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
dollar check.


I'm not sure who Chuckie is, but there are a few civilian owned T-38s. I'm not
sure how much you would have to throw down to pry it away from the current
owners though? Additionaly, you better hit the lottery for much more than the
cost of the Talon because its going to cost quite a bit to fly and maintain it.

What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?


To fly it VFR all you need is a multi-engine (centerline thrust) rating....I
think?

Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
attention handle this airplane?


I'd get lessons from Ed or some other former IP. While I found the aircraft
easy to fly, it could kill you if you don't have "UPT quality" training,
particularly in the landing phase.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

MLenoch July 17th 04 02:37 AM

Lately the Feds are really frowning on the T-38.......dunno why, as they are
not bothering the Mig-21 crowd too much. Something to do with ex-US military
possibly.
VL

Regnirps July 17th 04 06:18 AM

(ArtKramr) wrote:

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy

machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.


Depends on what they are doing at the time. What about a lynch mob after you?

-- Charlie Springer


Regnirps July 17th 04 06:26 AM

(Sam Byrams) wrote:

Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
dollar check. What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?
Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
attention handle this airplane?


There was one in TAP for about a year for one million, and with hot ejection
seats. I wonder what that does to your insurance? I think you have to be on the
ball though since IIRC it only flys for about an hour between fuelings and you
can make with the sonic booms pretty easy.

They had an automatic landing system.

They sure are good lookin.

-- Charlie Springer


Regnirps July 17th 04 06:28 AM

Jack wrote:

If you've got the attitude you can get the altitude. Thousands have. But
remember not to exceed 50,000' without a pressure suit. Thousands have.


Ooops, I wasn't supposed to say that.


Did you ever see anyone come back with a glove caught in the canopy?

-- Charlie Springer


Bill Shatzer July 17th 04 06:32 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" ) writes:
"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...


Assumed but not proven. In any case irrelevant if the folks
-thought- they were in a battle.


Kerry's crew said there was no enemy fire, so the folks didn't think they
were in a battle.


No, that's not correct at all.

His former commander (one echelon removed) now claims that's
what they said. The crew currently claim no such thing.

With one exception, -everyone- who served under Kerry on the
Swift boats speaks most highly of him and NONE claim it was
anything but a battle. Or, at least an assumed battle.

You think those folks in the Bradley who got zapped by a blue
on blue Maverick didn't get PHs? There was no -real- battle,
they were just motoring along when the A-10 mistook them for
a T-72 or whatever. The A-10 driver -thought- it was a battle.


Irrelevant.


Quite relevant.

"Purported" experience. The things have to cover a minimum
distance before they arm themselves and that distance is
sufficient to place the shooter outside of the blast/shrapnel
radius.


I recall one story from the vietnam conflict where an army
surgeon got written up for removing an unexploded M-79 round
from an ARVN trooper. -He- got shot by friendly fire but the
round hadn't traveled far enough to arm itself.


Based on the best information, Kerry was not entitled to that award.


Based on the best information, there is no way he could put
shrapnel into himself from his own M-79 round. The damn things
just don't work that way.

Based upon the best information, he was fully entitled to his
Purple Heart.
--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Ian MacLure July 17th 04 06:47 AM

(B2431) wrote in
:

[snip]

One of the men from Doolittle's raid who survived Japanese captivity
went back to Japan as a missionary.


Which comes from an entirely different point of view than the
Enola gay crew.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source


Bill Shatzer July 17th 04 06:50 AM

Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire, and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.


How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Jack July 17th 04 07:01 AM

Regnirps wrote:

Did you ever see anyone come back with a glove caught in the canopy?


Nope.

Especially not from 50,000'. ;

4 PSI isn't much, but it's all you've got.



Jack

Jack July 17th 04 07:02 AM

Regnirps wrote:

They had an automatic landing system.


They had ILS, if that's what you mean, but no autopilot.


Jack

Ron July 17th 04 07:21 AM

There was one in TAP for about a year for one million, and with hot ejection
seats.


I think that was the one I used to see in the hangar in Wichita Falls (SPS).
It was blue, and I think one of the ENJJPT IPs was instructing the owner it it.

Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India


Ron July 17th 04 07:32 AM

One of the men from Doolittle's raid who survived Japanese captivity went
back
to Japan as a missionary.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


And one of the Japanese participants in Pearl Harbor later became a protestant
minister in the US.



Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India


ArtKramr July 17th 04 12:47 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (Regnirps)
Date: 7/16/2004 10:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy

machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.


Depends on what they are doing at the time. What about a lynch mob after you?

-- Charlie Springer


Excellant point. 50's for everybody.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Steve Mellenthin July 17th 04 01:22 PM

Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that

encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,

and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.


How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?


Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphed
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours. And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone, or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.

One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.
Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.



And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.

--


That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops were
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.

Regnirps July 18th 04 05:05 AM

Jack wrote:

Regnirps wrote:


They had an automatic landing system.


They had ILS, if that's what you mean, but no autopilot.


I'm pretty sure there was a system in the T-38's where you could throw the
panic switch on approah and it did the rest -- provided you met certain
constraints about being lined up right.

-- Charlie Springer


Dave Kearton July 18th 04 05:08 AM


"Regnirps" wrote in message
...
|
|
| I'm pretty sure there was a system in the T-38's where you could throw the
| panic switch on approah and it did the rest -- provided you met certain
| constraints about being lined up right.
|
| -- Charlie Springer
|



....and it's got a convenient yellow handle between the pilot's knees. ;-)







Cheers


Dave Kearton





Regnirps July 18th 04 05:09 AM

Jack wrote:

Regnirps wrote:


Did you ever see anyone come back with a glove caught in the canopy?


Nope.


I recall a persistant rumor that you could go vertical and if you were fast
enough you could open the canopy a little and slam the thin glove in the seal
as you topped out. They called it the Clam Shell Club and said getting caught
was an automatic washout. I didn't believe it becuase the canopy blows off way
too easy and I didn't hear of any "canopy free" landings.

-- Charlie Springer


BUFDRVR July 18th 04 01:24 PM

Regnirps wrote:

I'm pretty sure there was a system in the T-38's where you could throw the
panic switch on approah and it did the rest -- provided you met certain
constraints about being lined up right.


There is no such system on any T-38, including the new C models with glass
cockpit.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR July 18th 04 01:25 PM

Dave Kearton wrote:

...and it's got a convenient yellow handle between the pilot's knees. ;-)


Actually, the handles are outside your legs.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Bill Shatzer July 18th 04 10:58 PM

-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that

encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,

and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.


How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?


Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphe
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours.


If you're speaking of "Hanoi Jane", it should be noted that Fonda's
North Vietnam visit came -after- the Kerry photo and, indeed, after
Kerry had broken with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

It would seem a bit much to expect him to make an accurate prediction
of her -future- actions.

And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone,


Is there any doubt at all that Americans were committing some
atrocities - or at least some pretty bad things - in the combat
zone?

What is the appropriate moral response when one has evidence of
such things? Indeed, what is the appropriate patriotic response
when one has evidence of such things?

Somehow, being a good German doesn't seem the correct response.

or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.


My goodness! Whoever claimed -other- than that it was "staged".

It was a demonstration and a photo-op for gawd sakes. Everything
was "staged" in the sense that it was organized and choreographed
in advance.

One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.


He was, as you correctly noted, speaking against "atrocities", not
folks "honorably following orders".

Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.


He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
choosen the WRONG conflict.

And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.


That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops wer
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south


Wasn't that just about the time Dewey Canyon II and Lam Son 719 were
ongoing? And the notorious Cambodian invasion was but nine or ten
months in the past?

US forces had been largely, though not entirely, withdrawn from aggressive
search and destroy ground missions by mid-71 but there were a lot of
aviation companies, artillery units, engineering battalions, and the
like still providing active combat support to the ARVN units. And lots
of PBI-types still taking significant casualties. Certainly to claim that
the "only major combat troops were air units" overstates the case by
quite a bit.

so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal
political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.


Well, perhaps. But certainly the more useful tact for a decorated
war hero to take were he concerned about politics would NOT have
been active opposition to the war. You can certainly raise more
campaign contributions at the local VFW hall than at any number of
VVAW rallies populated by folks in tie-dye and wearing beads.

Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Steve Mellenthin July 18th 04 11:43 PM

If you're speaking of "Hanoi Jane", it should be noted that Fonda's
North Vietnam visit came -after- the Kerry photo and, indeed, after
Kerry had broken with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

It would seem a bit much to expect him to make an accurate prediction
of her -future- actions.



You are reinforcing an oft held belief of at least half the holds, judging by
the polls, that he feels strongly both ways on most every issue.



And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone,


Is there any doubt at all that Americans were committing some
atrocities - or at least some pretty bad things - in the combat
zone?


That is an awfully strange remark. War is a pretty bad thing. Just as many
atrocities are committed on the streets of the US every day. I don't see the
relevance of your comment. My point was that Kerry was way off base accusing
everyone who ever served in Vietnam of committing them. As one of those who
served honorably in combat, I take major offense at his remark.





What is the appropriate moral response when one has evidence of
such things? Indeed, what is the appropriate patriotic response
when one has evidence of such things?

Somehow, being a good German doesn't seem the correct response.

or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.


My goodness! Whoever claimed -other- than that it was "staged"


He did. He, or one of his aides later said those weren't his when asked why
those medals he through over the White House fence were back on his office
wall.

..

It was a demonstration and a photo-op for gawd sakes. Everything
was "staged" in the sense that it was organized and choreographed
in advance.


Call it what you want, it was bad judgement for someone in his position,
especially, as you say, he later dissociated himslef with the VVAW.



One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.


He was, as you correctly noted, speaking against "atrocities", not
folks "honorably following orders".



That sure isn't what he said. He didn't differentiate between those committing
atrocities and those who followed orders.





Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or

follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.


He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
choosen the WRONG conflict.



I don't debate that point and I support his right to do so. The movement at
the time was as much agains the people following orders as it was their
leadership and people like Fonda and Kerry were inciting acts of abuse against
those who served honorably. Talk to anyone in uniform who passed through San
Francison International in uniform in the late 60s and early 70s..




And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.


That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops

wer
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south


Wasn't that just about the time Dewey Canyon II and Lam Son 719 were
ongoing? And the notorious Cambodian invasion was but nine or ten
months in the past?


The only thing notorious about the Cambodian invasion was the way the press
handled it. We invaded an unihabited area of Cambodia to try to cut supply
lines to the south. The press played it up like it was equal to the Soviet
invasiopn of Hungary in the 50s. At that stage in the war we were winding down
our efforts and attempting to put the SVN government where it could defend
itself. The Viet Cong was essentially defeated as a fighting force and and the
NVN forces were building up prepatory to an invasion of the south.



US forces had been largely, though not entirely, withdrawn from aggressive
search and destroy ground missions by mid-71 but there were a lot of
aviation companies, artillery units, engineering battalions, and the
like still providing active combat support to the ARVN units. And lots
of PBI-types still taking significant casualties. Certainly to claim that
the "only major combat troops were air units" overstates the case by
quite a bit.



I don't disagree at all. We were withdrawing in a manner so as to allow the
SVN a menas to defend itself agains NVN agression. A year later most had
departed except for support and liaison forces.



so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal
political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.


Well, perhaps. But certainly the more useful tact for a decorated
war hero to take were he concerned about politics would NOT have
been active opposition to the war. You can certainly raise more
campaign contributions at the local VFW hall than at any number of
VVAW rallies populated by folks in tie-dye and wearing beads.

Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.



I accept that as a possibilitybut is is hard for me to escape the sense that he
used his position in the anti war effort as a springboard for his fledgling
political career. And it is hard for me to understand how one could be ashamed
enough of his service and his heriosm to call his actions atrocities and return
his medals only to later give them a place of honor on his I love me wall. To
change one's mind like that is impossible for me to understand. I speak as one
who served 24 months in combat.

Steve

Billy Preston July 19th 04 12:12 AM

"Bill Shatzer" wrote

Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.


He didn't even write the "baby killer" speech before Congress.

Nice try Fluffy...



Billy Preston July 19th 04 12:14 AM

"Steve Mellenthin" wrote

I accept that as a possibilitybut is is hard for me to escape the sense that he
used his position in the anti war effort as a springboard for his fledgling
political career.


No **** Sherlock. He didn't even write the speech before Congress.



Buzzer July 19th 04 03:41 AM

On 18 Jul 2004 21:58:24 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:

He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
choosen the WRONG conflict.


Wasn't he still a commissioned officer and out of uniform besides when
he testified?
Seems a few officers are not happy campers after being recalled for
Iraq after "they were no longer in the military."

Sorry I just noticed this from

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 04:29 AM

"Brooks Gregory" wrote in message ...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jul 2004 20:57:04 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Can you show that Kerry, ever LITERALLY accused every soldier in Vietnam
of committing war crimes? Are you the only person allowed to use

analogies.

--

Let me introduce you to John Kerry:


Thank you.


http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

Actually, that site appears to be run by an opposition group. They
seem to be both anti-Kerry and anti-McCain. The rest of the site has
a lot of accusations against both but evidence to support those ac-
cusations is conspicuous by its absence.

http://www.pow-miafamilies.org/


Nothing about Kerry on that page.

http://www.jpac.pacom.mil/


Nothing about Kerry on that page.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssctest.html


Nothing about Kerry on that page.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php


That link seems to mostly be about Vietnam Veterans Against the
War (VVAW). Here and there one finds soem rather wild accusations
against Kerry, but no evidence to support them.

The do have a link to some exerps from the winter soldier campaign
'testimony' (quotes becasue it was not a legal proceding) upon which
much of Kerry's famous speach to the US Congress was based. There
is a link called _debunking_ that leads to a page with sowmwhat
disorganized claims that some of the 'testimony' of the winter soldier
campaign had been debunked. But the person's whos testimony was
supposedly disproved are not named. Dewey Canyon III is named but
for what purpose is a mystery.

The (anonymous) author(s) of that page claim that the VVAW used fake
witnesses, but do not name a single example.

If we follow the link 'key points' we find thirteen paragraphs:

First:

In his April 1971 speech to the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, John Kerry claimed that war crimes committed by
the American military against Vietnamese civilians were "not
isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis..."
War crimes in Vietnam were actually quite rare.

Yet the author(s) of that page offer no evidence in support of this
'key point'.

Second:

Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact,
military personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules
of engagement, you can be tried and punished." War crimes were
never a matter of policy, and were prosecuted when discovered

Yet the author(s) of that page offer no evidence in support of this
'key point'.

And so on. Wherea Kerry had the 'testimony' of the Winter Soldier
project to support his own testimony befor Congress the author(s)
of this page present no evidence at all to support their 'key point'.

But don't trust me. See for yourself.

See also:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/si.../WS_entry.html

--

FF

Bill Shatzer July 19th 04 05:32 AM

Buzzer ) writes:
On 18 Jul 2004 21:58:24 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:


He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
choosen the WRONG conflict.


Wasn't he still a commissioned officer and out of uniform besides when
he testified?


Not so far as I know. He may have still been a name on a list in
the inactive reserve or whatever they called it then but he was no
longer in an active duty or in the ready reserve. It would have been
inappropriate and probably illegal for him to have appeared in uniform.

Seems a few officers are not happy campers after being recalled for
Iraq after "they were no longer in the military."


Rules change if one is activated - assuming he was still eligible of
activation. Until that happens however, one is essentially a civilian.

Certainly he was not subject to the UCMJ.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AviationBanter.com