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)

Regnirps July 15th 04 04:06 PM

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote:

I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor.


When you view the P-47 films from the 78th FG you find that ground attacks
occure from ever greater altitudes or distances as the war goes on. Some of
this is because the guys who liked to bet very close didn't last, but others
are from experience with ground fire.

Art didn't have the discretion that the escorts had. I'm sure there were
assigned altitudes and headings and you stayed with the group.

Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?

-- Charlie Springer


ArtKramr July 15th 04 04:10 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (Regnirps)
Date: 7/15/2004 8:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse

the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over
on
the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that
certainly
isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how
different?
Count the holes afterword?).

-- Charlie Springer



True. But if you roll the same number 5 times in row a crap table, note how
everyone is shocked and the house will change the dice.The difference between
a mission and a crap table is that at the crap table a bad roll doesn't result
in death. And a mixture of targets results in a mixture of odds depending on
defenses. So not all missions are equal like dice rolls. But other than
that......



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


Ed Rasimus July 15th 04 04:12 PM

On 14 Jul 2004 22:58:46 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

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

Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac


Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.


Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the way
in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:-)

Arthur Kramer


There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
business but your own.


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

ArtKramr July 15th 04 04:22 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (Regnirps)
Date: 7/15/2004 8:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote:

I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine

it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor.


When you view the P-47 films from the 78th FG you find that ground attacks
occure from ever greater altitudes or distances as the war goes on. Some of
this is because the guys who liked to bet very close didn't last, but others
are from experience with ground fire.

Art didn't have the discretion that the escorts had. I'm sure there were
assigned altitudes and headings and you stayed with the group.

Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?

-- Charlie Springer



I don't know. Some General up at wing I guess.. But it was always straight and
level with bomb bay doors open and no evasive action on the bomb run. And down
at 10,000 feet. Besides evasive action was imposible on the bomb run, It would
tumble our Vertical Flight Gyros in the Norden, black out the sight, and we
would have to do a go-around, Bad stuff. A go-around could spoil your whole
day. And with all our vast experience flying missions we all knew that being
down at 10,000 feet was nuts. We wanted to be higher but no chance. So much
for doing what experiencve tells you to do.




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 15th 04 04:27 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/15/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 14 Jul 2004 22:58:46 GMT,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

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

Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac


Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.


Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the

way
in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:-)

Arthur Kramer


There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
business but your own.


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


I guess you didn't have 55 other planes in tight formation behind you did you?
In that csse they (we) are all involved. Do it right or you'll hear about it
336 times.


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


Ed Rasimus July 15th 04 04:36 PM

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:29 -0500, Jack
wrote:

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.


In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.


You've got that right. I had 132 hours in Tweets before Talons. The
UPT syllabus dropped that to 120 with introduction of the T-41
screening. No problems. Later with better simulators the total UPT
syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming
prior to T-38 qualification.

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.

Easy to fly, no adverse characteristics. Reliable. I wound up with
about 1500 hours in Talons, more than 1200 accrued as an instructor in
Fighter Lead-In teaching new instructor candidates. (And taking the
occasional recreational trip to ski in CO/UT, visit the sea-food
paradises of FL or the sexpots of LSV.)


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

Jeff Crowell July 15th 04 04:53 PM

Regnirps wrote:
Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event.


I'll take issue with this, Charlie.

While each throw is statistically independent (assuming honest dice,
naturally), the fact that they are honest dice requires that the most
common throw be a seven. The more consecutive boxcars you
throw, the higher the probability that the next throw will NOT be
a 12. Boxcards is not a statistically likely event. Each throw **is**
an independent event, but the total population of throws is governed
by the overall statistical distribution.



Jeff



Mike Marron July 15th 04 05:00 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote:
Ed Rasimus
wrote:

There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
business but your own.


I guess you didn't have 55 other planes in tight formation behind you did you?
In that csse they (we) are all involved. Do it right or you'll hear about it
336 times.


Just more sour grapes because you weren't good enough to be
a pilot, much less a fighter pilot?




OXMORON1 July 15th 04 06:50 PM

Ed wrote:
There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
business but your own.


Art replied:
I guess you didn't have 55 other planes in tight formation behind you did
you?
In that csse they (we) are all involved. Do it right or you'll hear about it
336 times.


Differnt war, Different aircraft, Different Tactics, Different weapons,
Different politicians, Same intent..Kill that other poor SOB before he gets
you.

Rick Clark
MFE

Peter Stickney July 15th 04 07:08 PM

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Jack wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?

Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.


Oh, I dunno. If a Debonair exercized a bit & slimmed down a bit, it
would probably serve as a Mentor.


Before we end up (s)punning in, I hereby declare a moratorium on all puns based on the names
of Beech (or any other company's: I can feel someone loading up with the Tutor even as I
write) a/c names. Sure, I know it's probably futile, but the effort has to be made. This is
_not_ s.m.n. ;-)


Well, I do see your point. But now that you mention it, you did know
that the nickname at Canadair and in the CanForce for the Malay CL-41
COIM variant equivalant to teh A-37 was the "Shooter Tutor"

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Jack July 15th 04 07:23 PM

Jeff Crowell wrote:


While each throw is statistically independent (assuming honest dice,
naturally), the fact that they are honest dice requires that the most
common throw be a seven. The more consecutive boxcars you
throw, the higher the probability that the next throw will NOT be
a 12. Boxcards is not a statistically likely event. Each throw **is**
an independent event, but the total population of throws is governed
by the overall statistical distribution.


The total distribution is not "governed" by anything you can name,
except in hindsight, and is therefor no governance at all.

You must make up your mind -- either each roll is an independent event
or it is not.

In aviation, designers refer to "a wing of infinite length" when
analyzing and describing airfoils. In a sample of "an infinite number of
rolls of the dice" it is perhaps easier for you to see that you have no
basis for your claim of governance according to "statistical
distribution", and each roll must have the same probabilities as the
previous roll and the following roll.

It is necessary for statisticians to understand before they can explain.
Unfortunately for many, circular argument is as much a fallacy in the
use of statistics as it is everywhere else.


Jack

Ron Parsons July 15th 04 08:40 PM

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:29 -0500, Jack
wrote:

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.


In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.


You've got that right. I had 132 hours in Tweets before Talons. The
UPT syllabus dropped that to 120 with introduction of the T-41
screening. No problems. Later with better simulators the total UPT
syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming
prior to T-38 qualification.

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.

Easy to fly, no adverse characteristics. Reliable. I wound up with
about 1500 hours in Talons, more than 1200 accrued as an instructor in
Fighter Lead-In teaching new instructor candidates. (And taking the
occasional recreational trip to ski in CO/UT, visit the sea-food
paradises of FL or the sexpots of LSV.)


Preceded you a little bit. Did the T-34, Tweet & T-bird. Old T-bird had
a lot of inertia with full tips and a lot of slack in the stick.

There was a noticeable drop in instrument skills and ability to handle
older aircraft when the all Tweet/Talon guys started coming out the end
of the pipeline. They were just TOO easy to fly.

Our T-34/Tweet instructors were "civilian" at least technically. Mine
was actually one of those much reviled in another tread TANG types, in
fact became GWB's commander in the Deuce.

My best friend, then and now was another instant airman to lieutenant
guardsmen. A second guard classmate went on to command his state guard
with 2 stars on his shoulders. None of us saw Vietnam. All 3 of us
managed 30+ years of airline.

Beats working for a living.

--
Ron Parsons

Fred the Red Shirt July 15th 04 08:50 PM

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 13 Jul 2004 17:15:57 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
...
That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
reason.


In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.

Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
within the context of historical reality.


This is called "allegory"--I honestly don't believe that Art had a
father in the Spanish-American War ...


Of course not.

But your choice of allegory furthered the myth that the US declared
war on Germany first in WWII. It is a persistant myth that needs
debunking whenever it is implied.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 15th 04 08:51 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

snip

Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
within the context of historical reality.


... Ed was making a fictitious example.


Unless I am mistaken the part I corrected was not INTENTIONALLY
ficticious.

--

FF

Brooks Gregory July 15th 04 09:16 PM

John Kerry, he flew an Evinrude and John Edwards, well, he just got high.


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory



Ed Rasimus July 15th 04 09:23 PM

On 15 Jul 2004 12:50:02 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 13 Jul 2004 17:15:57 -0700,
(Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
...
That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
reason.

In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.

Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
within the context of historical reality.


This is called "allegory"--I honestly don't believe that Art had a
father in the Spanish-American War ...


Of course not.

But your choice of allegory furthered the myth that the US declared
war on Germany first in WWII. It is a persistant myth that needs
debunking whenever it is implied.


Ahhh, hoist on my own petard. As a chronic debunker of persistent
myths, I must accede to your demands. My parallelism of FDR going to
war against Germany when it was the Japanese who attacked us was much
too obtuse in the relationship of the current argument that we went to
war in Afghanistan & Iraq when the attackers of 9/11 were Saudi.

Please debunk me whenever I imply. And, I will reciprocate. Hopefully
in understandable metaphor.


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

Ed Rasimus July 15th 04 09:29 PM

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:08:57 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Well, I do see your point. But now that you mention it, you did know
that the nickname at Canadair and in the CanForce for the Malay CL-41
COIM variant equivalant to teh A-37 was the "Shooter Tutor"


And a two-seat A-4 with guns would be a Scooter Shooter Tutor?


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

Brett July 15th 04 09:59 PM

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message

...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

snip

Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
within the context of historical reality.


... Ed was making a fictitious example.


Unless I am mistaken the part I corrected was not INTENTIONALLY
ficticious.


The information you provided as a "correction" was historical incorrect.




Guy Alcala July 16th 04 01:02 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:08:57 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Well, I do see your point. But now that you mention it, you did know
that the nickname at Canadair and in the CanForce for the Malay CL-41
COIM variant equivalant to teh A-37 was the "Shooter Tutor"


And a two-seat A-4 with guns would be a Scooter Shooter Tutor?


A pox on both your houses! ;-)

Guy


BUFDRVR July 16th 04 04:15 AM

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.


BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR July 16th 04 04:16 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Later with better simulators the total UPT
syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming
prior to T-38 qualification.


I got a bit over 200 total with a little over half that in the T-38.


BUFDRVR

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

Fred the Red Shirt July 16th 04 04:30 AM

"Brett" ,

without bothering to do even a simple reality check,

wrote in message .. .
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message

...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.

Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
within the context of historical reality.

... Ed was making a fictitious example.


Unless I am mistaken the part I corrected was not INTENTIONALLY
ficticious.


The information you provided as a "correction" was historical incorrect.


http://members.aol.com/POESGIRL/Hitlerdow.htm

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html

Congressional Declaration of War on Germany December 11, 1941

The President's Message

To the Congress of the United States:

On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany,
pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against
the United States...

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state
of war between the United States and Germany, and between the
United States and Italy.

...

--

FF

Brett July 16th 04 04:44 AM

"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
"Brett" ,

without bothering to do even a simple reality check,


peabrain your claim was:

"In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them."

The claim "Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them." is
invalid.






Fred the Red Shirt July 16th 04 04:57 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
...


He went to Congress, stood before the
US Senate and said that you and he had been guilty of war crimes. That
you had all committed atrocities. That you were rapists, baby-killers
and violators of the Geneva convention. Would he be exhibiting
"honesty to admit it"?


What if everything he said was true? Would that not be honest and
courageous?

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.

Or are you misrepresenting general statements and statements of
general moral responsibility?

In my opinon we Americans are collectively responsible, whether for
good or ill, for the invasion of Iraq. Would you take that to be
an accusation that you LITERALLY commited the crimes at Abu Ghraib?

Consider the following letter written On 4 Aug 1863, From William
Tecumseh Sherman wrote, to John Rawlins, which read in part:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism. I have endeavored to repress this
class of crime, but you know how difficult it is to fix
the guilt among the great mass of all army. In this case I
caught the man in the act. He is acquitted because his
superior officer ordered it. The superior officer is acquitted
because, I suppose, he had not set the fire with his own hands
and thus you and I and every commander must go through the war
justly chargeable with crimes at which we blush.

Now, after looking up to see what sorts of things Kerry REALLY said,
and the context in which he said them, would you not consider that
context to be much the same as General Sherman's remarks?

It is noteworthy that certain neocons (in this context, neo-confederates)
have taken the last sentence of that paragraph out of its proper
context, and misatributed it to a a letter from Sherman to Grant,
to prove that Sherman was an admitted war-criminal.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 16th 04 05:05 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..


Please debunk me whenever I imply. And, I will reciprocate. Hopefully
in understandable metaphor.


Being confident that I shall afford you the opportunity, I now
thank you in advance.

--

FF

Regnirps July 16th 04 08:07 AM

"Jeff Crowell" wrote:

I'll take issue with this, Charlie.


While each throw is statistically independent (assuming honest dice,
naturally), the fact that they are honest dice requires that the most
common throw be a seven. The more consecutive boxcars you
throw, the higher the probability that the next throw will NOT be
a 12. Boxcards is not a statistically likely event. Each throw **is**
an independent event, but the total population of throws is governed
by the overall statistical distribution.


You are trying to apply probability to a single event, which isn't valid. It
only covers ensembles, or groups of events. I should have used a single die in
my example or labeled them a and b so that all combinations are unique.

Take coin flipping instead. No mater how many times in a row you get heads, the
chances on the next toss are still 50/50. There is no reason not to get 100
heads in a row. The house plays the odds on thousands of players. It doesn't
work very well for the individual.

-- Charlie Springer


George Z. Bush July 16th 04 12:20 PM


"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...

He went to Congress, stood before the
US Senate and said that you and he had been guilty of war crimes. That
you had all committed atrocities. That you were rapists, baby-killers
and violators of the Geneva convention. Would he be exhibiting
"honesty to admit it"?


What if everything he said was true? Would that not be honest and
courageous?

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.

Or are you misrepresenting general statements and statements of
general moral responsibility?

In my opinon we Americans are collectively responsible, whether for
good or ill, for the invasion of Iraq. Would you take that to be
an accusation that you LITERALLY commited the crimes at Abu Ghraib?

Consider the following letter written On 4 Aug 1863, From William
Tecumseh Sherman wrote, to John Rawlins, which read in part:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism. I have endeavored to repress this
class of crime, but you know how difficult it is to fix
the guilt among the great mass of all army. In this case I
caught the man in the act. He is acquitted because his
superior officer ordered it. The superior officer is acquitted
because, I suppose, he had not set the fire with his own hands
and thus you and I and every commander must go through the war
justly chargeable with crimes at which we blush.

Now, after looking up to see what sorts of things Kerry REALLY said,
and the context in which he said them, would you not consider that
context to be much the same as General Sherman's remarks?

It is noteworthy that certain neocons (in this context, neo-confederates)
have taken the last sentence of that paragraph out of its proper
context, and misatributed it to a a letter from Sherman to Grant,
to prove that Sherman was an admitted war-criminal.


Good analogy, Fred.

George Z.



Ed Rasimus July 16th 04 03:52 PM

On 15 Jul 2004 20:57:04 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

He went to Congress, stood before the
US Senate and said that you and he had been guilty of war crimes. That
you had all committed atrocities. That you were rapists, baby-killers
and violators of the Geneva convention. Would he be exhibiting
"honesty to admit it"?


What if everything he said was true? Would that not be honest and
courageous?


You create a straw man. If everything he said were true, it would have
been a failure at all levels of leadership to fulfill their
obligations as officers and NCOs. If we all had committed atrocities
at all levels of command and he was the single moral voice it would be
honest and courageous. Of course, that was not the case, either in my
metaphor or in the testimony of Lt. Kerry.

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.


Here's a quote:

"Statement of Mr. John Kerry

....I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group
of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group
of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to
sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of
testimony....


WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that
several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over
150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans
testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated
incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off
ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the
normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging
which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Or are you misrepresenting general statements and statements of
general moral responsibility?

In my opinon we Americans are collectively responsible, whether for
good or ill, for the invasion of Iraq. Would you take that to be
an accusation that you LITERALLY commited the crimes at Abu Ghraib?


You start with "in my opinion" which acknowledges that you are not
stating a fact but rather an interpretation. I'll accept that America
is responsible for GOOD or ill for the outcome of the invasion. I tend
to think removal of Saddam and initiation of the process of
democratization of Iraq and hence the Middle East is a good thing.

Abu Ghraib was reprehensible. It was clearly a failure of leadership
on site. It was also an aberration. It is not and should not be
construed as representative of American behavior in combat.

Consider the following letter written On 4 Aug 1863, From William
Tecumseh Sherman wrote, to John Rawlins, which read in part:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism. I have endeavored to repress this
class of crime, but you know how difficult it is to fix
the guilt among the great mass of all army. In this case I
caught the man in the act. He is acquitted because his
superior officer ordered it. The superior officer is acquitted
because, I suppose, he had not set the fire with his own hands
and thus you and I and every commander must go through the war
justly chargeable with crimes at which we blush.


Sherman said "war is hell." Lee, however, said "it is good that war is
so terrible, lest we come to love it too much." Aristotle said that
"war ennobles man." Putting service above self and recognizing that
there are some principles that are worth fighting and dying for is
basic.

Now, after looking up to see what sorts of things Kerry REALLY said,
and the context in which he said them, would you not consider that
context to be much the same as General Sherman's remarks?


No, I would not. Sherman spoke of an incident and a failure of an
officer to perform. Kerry spoke of a generic ignoring of the rules of
war, not only tolerated by leadership but condoned and even directed.
That was a lie.

It is noteworthy that certain neocons (in this context, neo-confederates)
have taken the last sentence of that paragraph out of its proper
context, and misatributed it to a a letter from Sherman to Grant,
to prove that Sherman was an admitted war-criminal.


My real issue with Kerry is his desire to have it both ways. He sought
public approval for protesting the war vigorously. That was well
within his right to do so. Now, he seeks approval for being a great
warrior. Those are mutually exclusive positions.

It's sort of like voting FOR the $87 billion before he voted AGAINST
it.



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

Ed Rasimus July 16th 04 04:07 PM

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.

Or are you misrepresenting general statements and statements of
general moral responsibility?


This stuff is way too easy to find. Here's the generic accusation:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971


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

ArtKramr July 16th 04 04:10 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/16/2004 8:07 AM Pa


There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"



The truth hurts. Not everyone can withstand it.




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


Brooks Gregory July 16th 04 04:52 PM


"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:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
http://www.pow-miafamilies.org/
http://www.jpac.pacom.mil/
http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssctest.html
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php


Brooks Gregory



Ed Rasimus July 16th 04 04:53 PM

On 16 Jul 2004 15:10:08 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

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

Date: 7/16/2004 8:07 AM Pa


There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"



The truth hurts. Not everyone can withstand it.

I'm sorry, Art, but that is not the truth. The designation of free
fire zones is not a violation of the Geneva Convention. It is an
acknowledgement of a division between friendly and enemy territory. It
is not, as insinuated, an area of authorized total destruction and
wanton killing. Harrassment and interdiction fire is not, in any way,
contrary to the Geneva Convention. The whole purpose of military fire
is to harrass the enemy and interdict is supply.

There is no prohibition by the Geneva Convention of the employment of
..50 cal automatic weapons. Nothing at all. There is nothing in
international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
personnel. Nothing.

Search and destroy is a viable tactic. It means you search for the
enemy. You might have called it "patrol" in WW II. If you find the
enemy, you engage him and you destroy the enemy and any war material.
That's not prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

And, certainly the authorization of "air raid strike areas" is not
prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

And, the comparison of all of us who fought in the war to Lt. Calley
is despicable.

Can you withstand that truth?


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

ArtKramr July 16th 04 05:01 PM

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.




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


Ed Rasimus July 16th 04 05:15 PM

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

ArtKramr July 16th 04 05:19 PM

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


Jack July 16th 04 05:22 PM

ArtKramr wrote:

[quoting J. F. Kerry]
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed....


The truth hurts. Not everyone can withstand it.


Do 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?

We'd be very interested in hearing about the injuries you have sustained
from the truth, and how you have withstood them.

Or perhaps your war was somehow different for its participants. Since we
supposedly post here on the topic of military aviation, rather than the
exploits of plastic men in plastic boats, why not talk about strafing
women and children in the streets of the cities and towns of
Nazi-occupied Europe v air operations in free-fire zones in Vietnam?

Does it hurt to kill - sometimes, often, never? Is there a greater
purpose, which though it may not justify them, nevertheless renders
certain actions unavoidable?

How far will you go to justify the rhetoric of any particular member of
the politician class, whom most would agree are no less embodiments of
the principle of "necessary evil" than are Soldiers, but as politicians
can rarely claim the honor properly accorded to those who defend us in
battle?

John Kerry's military record is, shall we say, erratic. His political
record is strangely skewed to the left, his principles opaque, and his
biography a cliche of personal and political ambition comparable to that
of Bill Clinton, but without any vestige of personality to explain why
anyone would find him of interest -- as a candidate, nor even as a golf
partner.

Would you shoot skeet with John Kerry? I'd only do it if I could issue
him one round at a time, and then I'd sure never turn my back on him.


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Steve Mellenthin July 16th 04 05:28 PM

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy
machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.




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



Whoa big fella! Dropping incendiaries and high explosives on populatuon
centers in the ETO isn't just as "wrong"?

ArtKramr July 16th 04 05:33 PM

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.


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 16th 04 05:48 PM


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.


Arthur Kramer



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.



ArtKramr July 16th 04 05:59 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/16/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time


Whoa big fella! Dropping incendiaries and high explosives on populatuon
centers in the ETO isn't just as "wrong"?


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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 AM.

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