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)

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


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.



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.



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?


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.



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

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

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


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

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

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.



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



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.


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.


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

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.


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

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

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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 PM.

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