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)

Bill Shatzer July 19th 04 05:57 AM

"Billy Preston" ) writes:
"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.


The phrase "baby killer" nor any approximation there of was not
used in his senate testimony. The text is available on line and
that can be readily confirmed.

http://www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/tim...j_kerry_s.html

Kerry obtained most of his "evidence" of supposed atrocities from
the Winter Soldier project which collected the testimony of a number
of veterans. It later turned out that many of the incidents testified
to were exaggerated or could not be confirmed. In some cases, it turned
out that the veterans had not even been in Vietnam.

OTOH, some of the testimony was essentially accurate.

If Kerry was guilty of any thing, it was being overly naive and trusting.
Perhaps the stories related during the Winter Soldier project should have
be subject to greater scepticism and better investigation and cross-
checks.

But, I can understand why that did not occur. VVAW had limited resources
for conducting any investigation and it seems unlikely the US military
would have cooperated with any information request from them in any event.
And, I would think, there would have been an inherent bias to -believe-
the word of fellow veterans - both because the basic bias of folks who
have served is to -want- to believe our "comrades in arms" and because
their stories conformed to Kerry's "mind-set" about the war.

Perhaps he was overly credulous but then that is not an uncommon vice
of the young. I find it difficult to find anything more sinister than
that in his activities and testimony.



--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 06:30 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

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.


What Ketty learned through his experience and what his fellow soldiers
had told him that in practive free fire zones were treated by many
(and I'm sure not by all) as areas of authorized total destruction and
wanton killing. The paperwork on file at the Pentagon might not have
said that.

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.


In many specific areas of eh Geneva conventions, and as a general
rule there is a prohibition of tactics that endanger civilians
without military necessity or which endageer civiains disprotionately
to the military necessity (my paraphrasal). As an example I
specifically recall that it is prohibited to target dams if breaching
the damse
would cause excessive civilian casualties. The COnventions are v
ague on the issue of how much would be 'excessive' or
disproportionate.

Clearly that decision would be made by the party conducting the trial,
if any.

It is clear to me that Kerry was sayign that harrassment and
interdiction
fire was routinely used in Vietnam in a manner that subjected the
civilians to risk that was disporportionate to military necessity.
An example might be the (possible) reconnaisance by fire incident
in which Kerry wounded himself.



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.


Over in sci.mil a while ago a fellow who said he was a vegteran of
the Swedish army (don;t know if he was as they say, 'on the net
no one knows you're a dog and that doesn;t jsut apply to
alt.personals)
who said in his basic training he was taught to not fire their
heavy machine gun (equivalent to .50 cal) ar individual personell.
He was taught that to do so was a violation of the Geneva Conventions,
that the heavy machine gun was to be used against equipment only.
The only support anyone found for that argument was a general
prohibition
agains weapons that cause excessive suffering. It was pointed out
that
shooting a man with .50 caliber does not cause excessive suffering,
it reduces his suffering because he is more likely to be killed
outright
than if he is shot with a smaller caliber. I tend to agree but the
point is that in some countries, one presumes those without combat
experience in living memory, the use of a .5o caliber machine gun
against peiople is considered to be a war crime.


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.


That also depends on what is being searched for and destroyed. If
memeory serves me correctly, there was a program of 'resettlement'
in VIetnam in which villiagers were rounded up and moved to
ostensibly safer parts of the country and their homes were destroyed
to deny the support of that civilian infrastructure to the enemy.
That program was a clear violation of the Geneva conventions, the
excuse being that it was supposedly condoned by the South Vietnamese
government and the GCs do not prohibit nations from abusing their
own people. One wonders if the the government of South Vietnam was
coercved into accepting that program.


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


Again, it depends on what is reasonably expected to be in the target
area in addition to the enemy. The cornerstone of Kerry's arguments,
if I understand them correctly, is that the war itself was inflicting
more suffering on the Vietnamese people that he would expect to be
inflicted on them if 'their side' lost the war. The idiology of
one's government means little to a subsistance former.


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


I missed that comparison. I'll go back and look for it now.
Meanwhile, would you object to being compared to Hugh Thompson?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 06:33 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
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.



Uh, he said most honest, not completely honest.

With most politicians it is easy to tell when they are lying.
You can see their lips move.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 06:40 AM

(B2431) wrote in message ...

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.


Thank you.


The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
of war crimes.


I disagree. That is a gross distortion of the facts, just like the
way neocons used Sherman's words form a protion of one of his letters
to 'prove' that he had confessed to war crimes.

... If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.


Perhaps someone should point that out to him and het him to address that.

Somehow I don't think it would satisfy you if he did, even if he had
done so back then.

What Kerry said was clearly figurative speech, just like when I say
we Americans are responsible for the wrongdoing that America does
anywhere in the world today?

Did I just stab you in the back?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 06:50 AM

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message ...
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.



"War is at best barbarism... it's glory is all moonshine. It is only those
who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the
wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is
hell" -- William Techumseh Sherman


Having never fired a shot I trust and respect those who did.

--

FF

Jack July 19th 04 06:56 AM

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

...would you object to being compared to Hugh Thompson?


Trying to assume that mantle is what Kerry was doing with the VVAW.


Jack

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 07:06 AM

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message ...

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.


Absent the speeches made by Kerry and others like him how much longer
would American forces have remained in Vietnam? How many more would
have died, been wounded or captured. How many more Vietnamese would
have died? How much longer would the POWs have had to wait for
repatriation?

The current government of Vietnam has estimated that we killed 1.4
million of their soldiers. That does not include wounded soldiers
or civilians killed or wounded. The United Staes won every militarily
significant battle of the Vietnam war. And still the communists
did not give up. Kerry realized that the war in Vietnam could not
be won by military means. It could only have been prolonged.

We do not know the answers to the questions I posed above because
men like Kerry did speak out. We did pull out in 1973 and the
surviving POWs did come home. It has been argued that live POWS
were held back by the Vietnamese and others as hostages or slaves
but really, would fewer have been withheld had we remained in the
war longer?

What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
the lies of his government?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 07:09 AM

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message ...
Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-

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.


I am quite sure you know that the hanging out was done after Kerry had left VVAW.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 07:12 AM

Jack wrote in message ...

A presidential candidate is only as good as the people who support him.


Good grief! I hope that's not true.

From what I've seen of the people who are rabid supporters of either of
the major candidates, this year's vote is going to be a difficult choice
for folks who are just trying to avoid the greater evil.


Reminds me of a bumper sticker:

"Cthulu for President! The cadidate for voters who are tired
of choosing the leser of two evils."

--

FF

Jack July 19th 04 07:14 AM

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
the lies of his government?


Kerry was hardly a Canary in a coal mine by that time, but just another
silver spoon sucker with political ambitions looking for a bandwagon to
ride, with no regard for those he defamed.


Jack

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 07:29 AM

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message ...
Edwards in 51 YO. That would put him in the 1971 HS class. The draft ended
in
1972.


1973


I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 07:31 AM

"D. Strang" wrote in message news:o%[email protected]
"Ian MacLure" wrote
(WalterM140) wrote
Whence he graduated in circa 1970.
And the draft ended when exactly? Hmmm?

Edwards in 51 YO. That would put him in the 1971 HS class. The draft
ended in 1972.


So explain how he graduated from a 4 yr college in 1974.
Did he have a time machine?


Summer School? CLEP?


Bernie Kozar, former QB of the Cleveland Browns graduated from a
4-year college after two years. He did it because he was smart
enough to complete a four-year program in two years. I also knew
a girl in college who got her microbilogy degree in three years.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 07:34 AM

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ian MacLure

Date: 7/10/2004 11:32 PM Pa



We won the 2000 election.
We are going to win the 2004 election.
So who's bitter?

IBM


Bush was not elected. He was appointed. We'll fix that in November.



Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.

--

FF

Regnirps July 19th 04 07:45 AM

(BUFDRVR) 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.


Well, I'll be dipped. I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that I had know
people who experienced such a thing. Also would have sworn there was a lengthy
flight test and review in Private Pilot about 35 years ago that described the
whole thing. Well, I have been wrong before, and now it's twice this year and
it isn't even August.

-- Charlie Springer


Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 08:04 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
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.


No. You created teh strawman yourself with your implication that he
was speaking literally. Everyone, including yourself, knows that he
was not speaking literally.


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.


Thank you. You have shown that he was speaking as a representative
of approx 1,000 veterans.

..

Abu Ghraib was reprehensible. It was clearly a failure of leadership
on site.


It was a failure of leadership from the top down. When the Secretary
of Defense re[peatedly and boldly decalres that the United States
will not honor the Geneva Conventions, when he publically scoffs
at accusations of abuse, he sends a clear message on down the line.

It was also an aberration. It is not and should not be
construed as representative of American behavior in combat.


Agreed. But it is an aberration that was fostered and encouraged
at the highers levels of our government.

Colin Powell read the ICRC reports from Iraq and complained about
them to the DOD befor Rumsfeld was even aware of them.



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.


I agree with that but disagree that is is apropos this discussion.


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.


No. I do have an advantage in that I already knew that Sherman wrote
the letter as part of the correspondence he sent with three officers
(not one) he sent back for court martial for (I think) three seperate
crimes. However I also redirect your attention to the first sentence:

"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.

Sherman was writing about what was happening through out his army,
not an isolated incident. Kerry did what Sherman said he wished
to do. Kerry quit and then renounced the drift into vandalism that
was overtaking the military in Vietnam.

There were other differences of course. Sherman was fighting for
the survival of the nation, and he was fighting and winning a war
that clearly could be won, and was being won, by military means.

Kerry not only occupied a lower station in the military, but he
also saw that the survival of the US was not at stake and that
the war in Vietnam could not be won by military means. The US
had prevailed almost to the greatest extent possible in every
military endeavor in Vietnam and still the end of the war was
no where in sight.

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.


I do not believe that it was a lie. Cite an example where an
allegattion of war crimes was promptly investigated without an
extensive, even illegal effort to cover-up or obstruct the
investigation.


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.


No they are not mutually exclusive positions. Moreover they represent
the truth of his experience. Impetuous, even egotistical (and what
politician is not?) he first believed the bull**** and lies about
the glory of war and the righteousness of the cause, and perhaps
there was at one time some truth to that. But once he saw with his
own eyes the reality of Vietnam, and had at his disposal knowledge
gained form his fellow soliders he learned differently, came home,
and tried to fix the problem he had contributed to befor.

Are not all great warriors anti-war in their hearts.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 19th 04 08:25 AM

(Bill Shatzer) wrote in message ...

If one fired an M-79 round "too close", it would simply impact with
a thud and no "boom".

Presenting a possible problem for the ordinance disposal folks who
came along later but no particular problem for the firer.


In a similar incident described to me by a cow-orker the firer
simply put a rock on top of the grenade and theywent on their
way.

--

FF

WalterM140 July 19th 04 09:56 AM

Bush was not elected. He was appointed. We'll fix that in November.



Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.


Michael Moore uses some footage in "Fahrenheit 911" from the 2000 certification
of Florida's elctoral votes in the Senate. They could have been challenged if
any one senator had agreed to co-sign the documentation provided by black
members of Congress.

Since you seem pretty familiar with this, what do you think about the rationale
the Supreme Court used to close out the Florida recount?

My understanding is that the Court has usually deferred to state courts in
interpreting state constitutions. But here, they took the issue away from the
state court and basically declared Bush the winner.

In "F-911" you can hear Congresswoman Corrine Brown say that 16,000 of her
constituents had been illegally disinfranchised in Duvall County.

Bush is already gearing up to steal this election. Karl Rove, his
communication director worked with Donald Segretti, who served time in prison
for his activities in the 1972 campaign. Bush actually has Nixon
adminstration officals working for him. These include Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The Republican Party dirty tricks organization is hard at work and has been
since Nixon's time.

Walt



WalterM140 July 19th 04 09:57 AM

I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.


I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register and he
said not to worry about it.

Walt

WalterM140 July 19th 04 12:11 PM

Was I said was that Kerry didn't seem
particularly committed to his crew and his oath to serve since he took an
"early out" from Vietnam.


That early out took being wounded three times.

Kerry had to volunteer three times to get that early out. He had to volunteer
for the Navy. He had to volunteer for Viet Nam. And he had to volunteer for
the Swift Boats.

I wonder if his experience in the Swift Boats didn't sour him on the war. If
he opted out of being killed for a mistake, I'd say it would be hard to gainsay
him.

He had an honorable out and he took it.

Then, even more to his credit, he protested the war and helped expose some of
the abuses. The more I hear about Kerry, the more I like him.

He's done everything right in his campaign so far. Some of the pundits on TV
yesterday were saying it was Kerry's election to lose. God willing, Bush will
be ejected from the seat he stole.

What you are doing is parroting the Republican Party attack machine. They've
had the gall to attack Senator Kerry when their candidate cannot or will not
account for two years of his own service.

Walt


WalterM140 July 19th 04 12:13 PM

Not that it really matters because what should matter is who would best lead
the country not so much as 35 year old history.


Bush has been a disastrous failure as president.

If Bush wins in November, this country will become even more of a police state.

If Bush wins in November our national flag and national honor will continue to
trail in the dust.

If Bush wins in November we will still be hated and mistrusted around the
world.

If Bush wins in November, we will be less safe than we are now.

If Bush wins in November, he'll still be sucking money out of the middle class
to save the bank rolls of the rich and super rich.

If Bush wins in November our grotesquesly maladroit foreign policies will
continue.

If Bush wins in November, Jeb will be right behind him.

Those ******* Republicans have got to go.



Walt

WalterM140 July 19th 04 12:14 PM

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

Doolittle, I would think.


Walt

Billy Preston July 19th 04 12:39 PM

"WalterM140" wrote

In "F-911" you can hear Congresswoman Corrine Brown say that 16,000 of her
constituents had been illegally disinfranchised in Duvall County.


Yes they were. The county has no voting plan, the congresswoman has never
demanded a plan, and basically, there are no educated people in the county past
the 8th grade. It's a county not up to even third-world standards. I would say
16,000 is too low. I think the people who can't read are about double that number.

This county shouldn't even be allowed to vote, as most of their votes are bought
with cigarettes, booze, and in some cases cash. Then they go to the polls and can't
even drive a nail through a piece of paper correctly. They can't read.

Brown says they all voted for Gore. She should know, she paid them. Alas, they
were too stupid to execute the crime.

If this is Moore shooting his wad to prove a point, he is sorely scrapping bottom.



Billy Preston July 19th 04 01:01 PM

"WalterM140" wrote

I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register and he
said not to worry about it.


That's just the most ignorant thing I've heard from you yet. Registering for
selective service was never an option for men in 1973. If the recruiter told
you to jump in a lake, would you do it?



Billy Preston July 19th 04 01:06 PM

"WalterM140" wrote

The more I hear about Kerry, the more I like him.


Good for you. We all need to know what you think, because you
are a special person.



Billy Preston July 19th 04 01:08 PM

"WalterM140" wrote

Those ******* Republicans have got to go.


Yea! The two party system is a travesty to good Communists.



Billy Preston July 19th 04 01:09 PM

"WalterM140" wrote

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


Doolittle, I would think.


Are you from Duval County?



John S. Shinal July 19th 04 02:04 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
I'm not sure who Chuckie is, but there are a few civilian owned T-38s.


Chuck Thornton owned one that was assembled from three wrecked
T-38 airframes purchased surplus. He allegedly really torqued some
people off over that since he had tried to buy one several times and
been rebuffed. It was painted like an Agressor from Nellis, in a
blue/white/gray scheme that would be hard to spot in the air.

The gossip is that MiG 17s are more of a fun flyer, with fewer
maintenance hours per flight hour, and an easy engine to deal with. I
think spins in the MiG 17 are unrecoverable, though.



ArtKramr July 19th 04 03:20 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/19/2004 4:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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


Doolittle, I would think.


Walt


I have no idea. I just flew he missions.



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 19th 04 03:23 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/19/2004 4:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Not that it really matters because what should matter is who would best lead
the country not so much as 35 year old history.


Bush has been a disastrous failure as president.

If Bush wins in November, this country will become even more of a police
state.

If Bush wins in November our national flag and national honor will continue
to
trail in the dust.

If Bush wins in November we will still be hated and mistrusted around the
world.

If Bush wins in November, we will be less safe than we are now.

If Bush wins in November, he'll still be sucking money out of the middle
class
to save the bank rolls of the rich and super rich.

If Bush wins in November our grotesquesly maladroit foreign policies will
continue.

If Bush wins in November, Jeb will be right behind him.

Those ******* Republicans have got to go.



Walt



They will. The American public has all they can take of Neocon crap.



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 19th 04 03:40 PM

They will. The American public has all they can take of Neocon crap.



Arthur Kramer


Sorry guys, check the polls. More than half the public disagrees with you
including the military, not exactly your neocon type. However all thes "crap"
as you put it will get lots of people to the polls. Then either the "neocons"
win or people find out the truth about Kerry, whatever it turns out to be
and/or if any.

ArtKramr July 19th 04 03:44 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
Date: 7/18/2004 10:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message
...
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.



"War is at best barbarism... it's glory is all moonshine. It is only those
who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the
wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is
hell" -- William Techumseh Sherman


Having never fired a shot I trust and respect those who did.

--

FF



Except of course for the self appointed "Warrior Class" who revel in all that
crap. Save us all from the war lovers.




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


Buzzer July 19th 04 03:47 PM

On 19 Jul 2004 04:32:11 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:

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.


There are some interesting dates and such in his records and timelines
on the internet. Rather confusing actually.

Appears he was discharged to run for congress and within days or weeks
of getting his official discharge on Mar 1 dropped out of the race.

Then transfer to (Ready?) Naval Reserve 3 Jan 70 and Standby Reserve -
Inactive on 1 July 72.
April 23, 1971: Kerry testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.

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.


Appears he was an ID card carrying member of the Naval Reserve at the
time. Don't know if they are subject to the UCMJ?

Ed Rasimus July 19th 04 04:00 PM

On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.


I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register and he
said not to worry about it.

Walt


You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
clearer with each posting why think the way you do.


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

Ed Rasimus July 19th 04 04:03 PM

On 18 Jul 2004 23:34:06 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ian MacLure

Date: 7/10/2004 11:32 PM Pa



We won the 2000 election.
We are going to win the 2004 election.
So who's bitter?

IBM


Bush was not elected. He was appointed. We'll fix that in November.



Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.


Sorry, Fred, but unless you are referring to the certification of the
vote of the EC, you are wrong. The President is elected by majority
vote of the Electoral College which, although it has the same number
as Representatives and Senators of the states, is NOT synonymous with
the Congress.

The EC votes in December of presidential election years, but does so
remotely and does not convene in a single location. They, by law, are
NOT the members of the Congress.

The winner must win by a majority vote, not a plurality. If no
majority, then the Presidential race goes to the house where each
Representative gets a vote and the VP race goes to the Senate where
each State gets one vote.


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

Ed Rasimus July 19th 04 04:23 PM

On 19 Jul 2004 00:04:17 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
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.


No. You created teh strawman yourself with your implication that he
was speaking literally. Everyone, including yourself, knows that he
was not speaking literally.


One fervently hopes that testimony given under oath to the US Senate
is always literal. Speaking figuratively about issues, particularly
issues as important as allegations of war crimes should NEVER be done
figuratively. I take Kerry's testimony under oath as literal and I
take his statement on Face the Nation regarding his own commission of
war crimes as truth. Why would I doubt his veracity?


Abu Ghraib was reprehensible. It was clearly a failure of leadership
on site.


It was a failure of leadership from the top down. When the Secretary
of Defense re[peatedly and boldly decalres that the United States
will not honor the Geneva Conventions, when he publically scoffs
at accusations of abuse, he sends a clear message on down the line.


Once again we see the strawman. While the principle of responsibility
flowing from the top down is correct, the implication that the
President is responsible for every act of the the entire military
establishment down to the lowest enlisted individual in the field is
impossible to support. In the absence of clear written directives to
act in the manner of the Abu Ghraib guards, one must assume that the
problem was localized.

It was also an aberration. It is not and should not be
construed as representative of American behavior in combat.


Agreed. But it is an aberration that was fostered and encouraged
at the highers levels of our government.


That's an unsubstantiated assertion. There has been publication of the
legal opinion statement that suggested a level of detachment from
Geneva Convention rules, but the whole story is that the opinion did
NOT result in an acceptance of that policy.

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.


I agree with that but disagree that is is apropos this discussion.


Well, duh! If you introduced the Sherman letter, why should the topic
of war and the relationship of warriors be inappropriate. It isn't my
dog in this hunt, it's yours.


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.


No. I do have an advantage in that I already knew that Sherman wrote
the letter as part of the correspondence he sent with three officers
(not one) he sent back for court martial for (I think) three seperate
crimes. However I also redirect your attention to the first sentence:

"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.


So, Sherman had sent the officers back for court-martial, in the same
manner that the Abu Ghraib perps have been brought under
investigation. Does that mean that Lincoln condoned war crimes?

Sherman was writing about what was happening through out his army,
not an isolated incident. Kerry did what Sherman said he wished
to do. Kerry quit and then renounced the drift into vandalism that
was overtaking the military in Vietnam.


The big difference is that Kerry quit (good choice of words) and then
accused the ENTIRE US military establishment from the top down and
including every warrior in the field of advocating and executing a
policy of war crimes.

There were other differences of course. Sherman was fighting for
the survival of the nation, and he was fighting and winning a war
that clearly could be won, and was being won, by military means.

Kerry not only occupied a lower station in the military, but he
also saw that the survival of the US was not at stake and that
the war in Vietnam could not be won by military means. The US
had prevailed almost to the greatest extent possible in every
military endeavor in Vietnam and still the end of the war was
no where in sight.


So, Kerry could occupy a "lower station in the military" but he could
view the global strategic picture and determine that the war could not
be won? How very prescient of him.

You state correctly that the US prevailed in every military endeavor
(the great Tet victory of the NVA for example was a huge military
defeat for them). And, the end of the war was in sight within two
weeks at any time that the likes of Kerry could be overcome and the
resolve to gain the victory could be mustered by the politicians.
Witness the rapid end to hostilities, the signing of the treaty and
the release of the POWs in less than 90 days following December '72.

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.


I do not believe that it was a lie. Cite an example where an
allegattion of war crimes was promptly investigated without an
extensive, even illegal effort to cover-up or obstruct the
investigation.


Calley/Medina. Or, how about the Turkestan incident since this is an
aviation group?


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.


No they are not mutually exclusive positions. Moreover they represent
the truth of his experience. Impetuous, even egotistical (and what
politician is not?) he first believed the bull**** and lies about
the glory of war and the righteousness of the cause, and perhaps
there was at one time some truth to that. But once he saw with his
own eyes the reality of Vietnam, and had at his disposal knowledge
gained form his fellow soliders he learned differently, came home,
and tried to fix the problem he had contributed to befor.


You state elsewhere that you turned 18 in 1973. So, you didn't see
with your own eyes the "reality" that Kerry saw. I was there in '66
and I was there again in '72-'73. I continue to associate with
literally hundreds of warriors from the period--USAF/USA/USN/USMC. Not
one of them agrees with Kerry. His view of the total corruption of the
military is his alone. Kerry's "fellow soldiers" from the Winter
Soldier testimony--the 150 accusers of war crimes--have been largely
discredited. Many have been found to be outright liars, some did not
serve at all!

Are not all great warriors anti-war in their hearts.


Actually no. I'm fortunate enough to know many warriors. They are
patriots in their hearts and they take great pride in the profession
of arms.


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

Ed Rasimus July 19th 04 04:32 PM

On 18 Jul 2004 22:40:58 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message ...

The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
of war crimes.


I disagree. That is a gross distortion of the facts, just like the
way neocons used Sherman's words form a protion of one of his letters
to 'prove' that he had confessed to war crimes.

... If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.


Perhaps someone should point that out to him and het him to address that.

Somehow I don't think it would satisfy you if he did, even if he had
done so back then.

What Kerry said was clearly figurative speech, just like when I say
we Americans are responsible for the wrongdoing that America does
anywhere in the world today?


Here's what Kerry said (again!) on Meet the Press:

"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

Does that sound allegorical or less than a literal admission of war
crimes?

I've once gone through the litany and challenged that free fire zones,
harrassment, interdiction, .50 cal, search-and-destroy, air raids, etc
are NOT in any way violations of the Geneva Convention.

I challenged Kerry's assertion regarding .50 cal as "our only weapon
against people" comparing it to his narrative of one of his BS awards
indicating he had an M-16 which jammed so he picked up another M-16 in
the boat.

Did I just stab you in the back?


And here's from Kerry's Senate testimony (under oath):

"I would like to talk on behalf of 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. These were not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible
to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions
in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their
experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this
country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that 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
Ghengis 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."

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, April 22, 1971

It certainly sounds like LITERAL testimony. Of course, the fact that
his "150 honorably discharged....etc" veterans turned out to not be so
makes it questionable, but let's give John the benefit of the doubt
that he didn't know it at the time.

Ghengis Khan? Poisoned food? Wires to the genitals? Gimme a break!



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

Ed Rasimus July 19th 04 04:34 PM

On 18 Jul 2004 22:50:00 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:


Having never fired a shot I trust and respect those who did.



Ahh, we have a break through in communication.


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

Ed Rasimus July 19th 04 04:35 PM

On 19 Jul 2004 14:44:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Except of course for the self appointed "Warrior Class" who revel in all that
crap. Save us all from the war lovers.


Arthur Kramer


Lacking warriors you might find yourself today speaking German,
Japanese or Russian. Next year you might be doing some Quran study and
waiting for the call of muezzin.


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

Ed Rasimus July 19th 04 04:38 PM

On 18 Jul 2004 22:30:57 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:


I missed that comparison. I'll go back and look for it now.
Meanwhile, would you object to being compared to Hugh Thompson?


Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I'd like to think that I'd have
done the same thing in those circumstances.

Similarly I'd prefer to be compared to Robin Olds rather than Jack
Broughton.

None of those are likely to occur.


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

Steve Mellenthin July 19th 04 04:49 PM

Except of course for the self appointed "Warrior Class" who revel in all that
crap. Save us all from the war lovers.




Arthur Kramer


I'll be damned Art! Everyone whom I have passed your website URL to and has
looked at it sees you as squarely in the middle of those war lovers.

You appear to revel in your wartime experiences and can't even send an response
to this board without a signature block that is a mini resume of your wartime
exploits. Most of us here with combat experience rarely do anything close to
that - ever. I respectfully suggest to you that you are speaking out of both
sides of your mouth. You can't have it both ways, my friend.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 AM.

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