AviationBanter

AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Military Aviation (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=9357)

Ed Rasimus June 13th 04 11:22 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:07:21 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

Burkitt reserves a lot of space in his book to discuss the VA.



Meaning what? Does he claim combat vets and/or disabled vets working for
the VA are less than honest?


"Stolen Valor" is a very worthwhile read. It covers a lot of urban
myths about the war--things like the average age of the combatants
being only nineteen or predominantly minorities. It covers the poseurs
and wannabes--folks claiming distinctive service, high level awards,
and special status. It also talks extensively about the VA's interest
in perpetuating PTSD to the point of falsifying diagnoses for the
purpose of maintaining high funding levels.

(Please do not jump ahead and suggest that I'm all wet if I deny PTSD.
I certainly do not. Read the book and see what Burkitt documents.)


During Rolling Thunder, I got up each day and went to a briefing with
25 other guys. On average, each and every day for six months, one of
those 25 would be lost. Some days, none. Some days three or four.
Average, one a day. Keep going to the briefing and one day you will be
the one.


Well my hat goes off to you and to all those who paid in blood or risked
that blood doing what their country told them to do. I find it next to
impossible to understand how any vet (especially a combat vet) would
make statements about not "****ing on somebody if they were one fire"
when that somebody also risked their all and shed blood for their
country.


It isn't Kerry's combat experience that can speak for itself whether
you respect it or find it self-serving. It is his conduct during the
Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities, his throwing of
someone else's medals over the White House fence, his alignment with
VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.

He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.

The odds of completing a 100 mission NVN tour were poor. In '66 an
F-105 was lost every 65 missions over NVN. For every five that started
a tour, three of the five would be lost. 40% survival rate.

There are definitely ground units from the war that suffered similar
rates, but that is the exception.



I don't doubt what you're saying for a minute. Never having been in
combat, I can't speak from experience, but numbers on paper be
damned...I'll take fighting from above over eyeball to eyeball at close
quarters any day.


So will I.

Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
got to employ your skills?



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

Michael Wise June 14th 04 01:14 AM

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

...It also talks extensively about the VA's interest
in perpetuating PTSD to the point of falsifying diagnoses for the
purpose of maintaining high funding levels.



Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
who answered the call and paid for it in blood.

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).


(Please do not jump ahead and suggest that I'm all wet if I deny PTSD.
I certainly do not. Read the book and see what Burkitt documents.)



Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed immensely.


...
It isn't Kerry's combat experience that can speak for itself whether
you respect it or find it self-serving.


I don't find ANYBODY's combat experience to be self-serving. If you put
your ass on the line and/or shed blood, honor is merited.

It is his conduct during the
Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,


Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
guilty of atrocities?


his throwing of
someone else's medals over the White House fence


What of it?

his alignment with
VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.



How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?


He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.



He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
honorable service to country?

The Republicans made such a big deal about Clinton not having served and
avoiding serving. Now that their opposition served in combat and served
with honor while their candidate and many of the people in his admin
(the people who really run this country) did everything in their power
to avoid putting their asses on the line is on the table...they do
everything to discredit honor where honor is due and inflate the service
to country of a chickenhawk administration.

It's bad enough when chickenhawk politicians use such tactics, but its
shameful when real vets do. You don't have to like John Kerry (I
personally don't although the alternative is unthinkable) and you don't
have to vote for him. But to **** on his service because he came home
against the war (like many vets) and was outspoken about it is shameful.


...
Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
got to employ your skills?



Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the first
Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in the
first place).

My CSAR experience is limited to the Nevada desert around NAS Fallon and
a few close calls with some Iranian gunboats off of Bandar Abbas.


--Mike

B2431 June 14th 04 02:08 AM

From: Michael Wise
Date: 6/13/2004 1:09 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
suppose that is?


There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
"hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.


I doubt any of us who are or have been on active duty have much trouble
spotting a poseur. I'm speaking based on conversations I had with people
who most definitely fought hand-to-hand, like the people I served with
who flew CSAR, some of the people I worked with at the VA, and more than
a handful of disabled vets who I assisted in getting their benefits.

Why is it that most of those people are far less gung-ho about that
conflict than people such as yourself who flew high above the ground?
I'm not trying to denigrate any type of combat experience, but 24/7
dangers faced on the ground apparently fostered different impressions.


The primary differences between those of us on the ground and those in the air
was we had a shorter distance to fall and they had better quarters. We spent
98% of the time bored out of our minds, they had a lot less boredome time. Are
you under the impression all Ed had to do was hop into his 105 fly for 2 hours
then hop out and go to the club? I assure you between mission planning,
briefing, preflight, ops, debrief etc he had a longer period of activity in his
day than those on the ground. We could relax and watch the grass grow at least.




Of those who served on the ground, the proportion of career to draftee
and officer to lower-rank enlisted could change the perception of
events. Of ground vets from Vietnam, I have seldom encountered any
that went so far as John Kerry in their condemnation of their fellow
warriors.


Are you speak of encounters with them while the war was still going...or
years later?


As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in comparison
to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
POWs between the ground and air combatants.



Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving.


That's funny. Did you happen to notice the vast majority of the grunts in the
field actually survived?

I don't see how
that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
potential CSAR missions was not good.


And you got this data where?


--Mike


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired








B2431 June 14th 04 02:16 AM

From: Michael Wise
Date: 6/13/2004 1:24 PM Central


snip

A gazillion trained bodies with a dirty AK's in one hand and white
flags in the other does not constitute a major force.


Mike, trained forces don't have dirty weapons. If you had ever been in the
military and had weapons training you'd know that. The only time I came across
dirty weapons they were either abandoned or USAF aircrew weapons in my last
unit since they tended to not clean their weapons even after firing them,

Now how is a "gazillion trained bodies" with weapons NOT a major force? Would
you go up against them? The VC did pretty good work for a bunch of people with
low tech weapons as did the Soviet infantry in WW2.

--Mike


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Michael Wise June 14th 04 02:42 AM

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

A gazillion trained bodies with a dirty AK's in one hand and white
flags in the other does not constitute a major force.


Mike, trained forces don't have dirty weapons.


Actually, I meant to say "untrained" as should be apparent within the
context of the sentence.


If you had ever been in the
military and had weapons training you'd know that.


Growing up in a house with several hundred pistols and rifles (my father
is collector); qualifying with .45, 9mm, and M-60 in the military
frequently flying with an firing the (M-60 in the door of my helo); and
visiting the range at least once a month now, I'm quite well aware of
that.

As I said, it was a typo: I meant to say "untrained."


The only time I came across
dirty weapons they were either abandoned or USAF aircrew weapons in my last
unit since they tended to not clean their weapons even after firing them,



Not surprising...given it's the USAF we're talking about. ; )


Now how is a "gazillion trained bodies" with weapons NOT a major force?



Because they were "untrained."



--Mike

Michael Wise June 14th 04 02:55 AM

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:


Why is it that most of those people are far less gung-ho about that
conflict than people such as yourself who flew high above the ground?
I'm not trying to denigrate any type of combat experience, but 24/7
dangers faced on the ground apparently fostered different impressions.


The primary differences between those of us on the ground and those in the
air
was we had a shorter distance to fall and they had better quarters.


And also faced with the day to day real possibilities of close quarter
brutal combat.

We spent
98% of the time bored out of our minds, they had a lot less boredome time.
Are
you under the impression all Ed had to do was hop into his 105 fly for 2
hours
then hop out and go to the club?



Nope. That's not what I said or meant to say.

I assure you between mission planning,
briefing, preflight, ops, debrief etc he had a longer period of activity in
his
day than those on the ground. We could relax and watch the grass grow at
least.



Having flown some 6-7 hundred missions (peacetime) myself, I'm quite
well aware of what is involved outside the actual flight itself. Still,
I would much rather take my chances in the air than on the ground.




Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving.


That's funny. Did you happen to notice the vast majority of the grunts in the
field actually survived?


As did the vast majority of aviators.


I don't see how
that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
potential CSAR missions was not good.


And you got this data where?



From the 1/3 of the pilots in my helicopter squadron who flew CSAR in
Vietnam; CSAR training, and real-world CSAR exercises where we were
constantly lit up. Is that a good enough source for you, or do you know
better?



--Mike

Pete June 14th 04 03:13 AM


"Michael Wise" wrote

Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
who answered the call and paid for it in blood.

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).


This condition has been in effect for a very long time.

If a military member is receiving BAS (Basic Allowance for Subsistance), and
is also receiving meals in a military facility (mess facility or hospital),
s/he is required to either pay for the meals at whatever the standard rate
is, or forfiet the per day BAS pay.
You can't receive money to eat, and also get free meals.

See DOD 7000.14-R VOL 7, Ch 25 (Feb 2002)
http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynam.../07a/07A25.pdf

------------------------------
2505 Meal collection rate

250501. Any member receiving a full BAS type must pay for all meals and
rations that he or she receives from, or on behalf of, the government. All
meals furnished by or on behalf of the U.S. Government will be charges at
the rates established annually by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller)

C. All members receiving any type of full BAS and not on per diem orders, in
the following listed categories, will have the collections for meals
deducted from their pay account. The collections will be for full days at
the discouont meal rate, except the first and last day will be collected at
25 percent of the discount meal rate. Exception to pay account collection
will be made for any meals paid in full by the individual in cash.

1. Sea duty or temporary afloat assignment.
2. Field duty or temporary field assignment
3. Group travel
4. Essential messing
----------------------------------------

Let me reiterate - you can't get paid for BAS, *and* eat free meals.

Now...the case may be made that combat hospitalized personnel should be
exempted, but this is not a condition put in place by Bush and Co to screw
the military members over. It would be an exception to the standing rule.

It certainly *sounds* bad to the non-military person! "OMG....you're making
wounded GI's pay for their own meals in a military hospital? You cheap
*******s!"

Of course, I could be completely wrong, and this was a specific change by
the current administration to the previous regulations. But I'd have to see
some proof of that.

It certainly was the case when I enlisted in 1976, and still was when I
retired in 1997.

Pete



Buzzer June 14th 04 03:51 AM

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.


"...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
last few years..." ?

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).


"The rule was established because most military personnel receive
$8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when
they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
double-dipping."

Military personnel that had to eat in the chow hall, and usually live
on base, pay nothing while in the hospital, but those authorized,
usually to live off base, whether married or unmarried get $8.10 a day
extra to pay for food.

So if they forgive the $8.10 a day one person makes money and the
other gets nothing? And they will probably end up changing the law
because the single person living in the barracks eating in the chow
hall is always the one coming out on the short end of the stick...


Steven P. McNicoll June 14th 04 04:38 AM


"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Ed, can I ask when John Kerry ever said that _everybody_ serving in
Vietnam has committed atrocities and were war criminals (verifiable cite
please)?

I don't see him how saying that atrocities were going on translates to
everybody was doing them.


Can I ask who said that Kerry said that_everybody_ serving in Vietnam had
committed atrocities and were war criminals? (Verifiable cite please?)

Kerry said that thousands had committed atrocities in Vietnam, that it was a
policy ordered from the top and known at all levels in the chain of command.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals." John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971



"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." John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement,
April 23, 1971



Steven P. McNicoll June 14th 04 04:53 AM


"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

So a single person who boasts of being a "staunch Republican"


What boast?



and whose
name was given to the press by "a Republican close to Bush" and who
claims to have witnessed all these appearances which nobody else can
recall constitutes credible evidence on your planet?


Yes, on my planet, Earth, this man is a credible witness. Not so on your
planet?



Michael Wise June 14th 04 05:26 AM

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Ed, can I ask when John Kerry ever said that _everybody_ serving in
Vietnam has committed atrocities and were war criminals (verifiable cite
please)?

I don't see him how saying that atrocities were going on translates to
everybody was doing them.


Can I ask who said that Kerry said that_everybody_ serving in Vietnam had
committed atrocities and were war criminals? (Verifiable cite please?)



Don't you think its polite to answer previous questions directed at and
ignored by you before demanding cites for subsequent questions not
directed at you??? How about we start with your weak credible evidence
posting.

Even so, I'll entertain you:


06.12.04, 22:21/Ed Rasimus
...From one of Kerry's accused war criminals


How could Ed write such a thing unless either a) he's alleging Mr. Kerry
accused him personally of being a war criminal or b) he's insinuating
that Kerry 30 years ago believed everybody in theater was a war criminal?


Since it's extremely doubtful Mr. Kerry knew Ed then or even knows him
now, b is the logical interpretation.


06.13.04, 15:22/Ed Rasimus
...It isn't Kerry's combat experience that can speak for itself...It is his
conduct during the Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the
military still in harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities



Ed did not write "most of the military," "some of the military," or even
a "few of the militart." He wrote "the" military which implies all. He
certainly seems to have a fondness for constantly repeating that John
Kerry accused Ed Rasimus of being a war criminal 30 years ago.




Kerry said that thousands had committed atrocities in Vietnam, that it was a
policy ordered from the top and known at all levels in the chain of command.



Are you talking to me or to Ed?


"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals." John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971



I don't see anything overtly unbelievable in that statement made 30+
years ago. Such statements probably hold true in most wars on either
side since the dawn of man.


"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." John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement,
April 23, 1971


see above response


--Mike

Michael Wise June 14th 04 05:33 AM

In article ,
"Pete" wrote:

Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
who answered the call and paid for it in blood.

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).


This condition has been in effect for a very long time.

If a military member is receiving BAS (Basic Allowance for Subsistance), and
is also receiving meals in a military facility (mess facility or hospital),
s/he is required to either pay for the meals at whatever the standard rate
is, or forfiet the per day BAS pay.



1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.



--Mike

Michael Wise June 14th 04 05:40 AM

In article ,
Buzzer wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.


"...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
last few years..." ?


If you're going make citations, don't you think you should be including
attributions as well?

Who said that? In what context? How much did Bush slash from the health
care budget before increasing it?


The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).


"The rule was established because most military personnel receive
$8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food.


When I was in, only military personnel who lived off-base received such
compensation. If you were at sea or in the field, BAS stopped.


But when
they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
double-dipping."


Better to go after the kid not even old enough to drink who will never
walk again for that $8.10 than chickenhawk government cronies like
Cheney who fleece there way out of millions.


--Mike

Michael Wise June 14th 04 06:00 AM

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


and whose
name was given to the press by "a Republican close to Bush" and who
claims to have witnessed all these appearances which nobody else can
recall constitutes credible evidence on your planet?


Yes, on my planet, Earth, this man is a credible witness. Not so on your
planet?




Let's see:

1) one person whose name was submitted to the press by a "Republican
close to Bush"

2) Who seems to recall all these things in vivid detail where not a
single other soul in the unit (including the unit CO) recalls even
seeing Bush there.

3) Who admits to being a staunch Republican

...is a credible witness?


How exactly is it you define credible? That which is in concurrence with
what you personally want to believe?




--Mike

Steven P. McNicoll June 14th 04 06:48 AM


"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Don't you think its polite to answer previous questions directed at and
ignored by you before demanding cites for subsequent questions not
directed at you??? How about we start with your weak credible evidence
posting.


What the hell are you talking about?



Even so, I'll entertain you:


06.12.04, 22:21/Ed Rasimus
...From one of Kerry's accused war criminals


How could Ed write such a thing unless either a) he's alleging Mr. Kerry
accused him personally of being a war criminal or b) he's insinuating
that Kerry 30 years ago believed everybody in theater was a war criminal?


I'll take that to be an admission that nobody said that Kerry said
that_everybody_ serving in Vietnam had committed atrocities and were war
criminals.



Are you talking to me or to Ed?


I responded to your message, my statement follows quoted material written by
you, it should be obvious I'm talking to you.



Steven P. McNicoll June 14th 04 06:51 AM


"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Let's see:

1) one person whose name was submitted to the press by a "Republican
close to Bush"

2) Who seems to recall all these things in vivid detail where not a
single other soul in the unit (including the unit CO) recalls even
seeing Bush there.

3) Who admits to being a staunch Republican

..is a credible witness?


Yes. Why not?



How exactly is it you define credible? That which is in concurrence with
what you personally want to believe?


Capable of being believed; plausible. Worthy of confidence; reliable.



Buzzer June 14th 04 07:00 AM

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:40:44 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

How much did Bush slash from the health
care budget before increasing it?


WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob
Stump (R-AZ) welcomed the Clinton/Gore Administration’s proposed $1.3
billion increase for VA health care in fiscal year 2001, but wondered
why veterans had to wait so long to get their attention.
The proposed increase is the first from the Administration since the
1996 budget.


Pete June 14th 04 07:04 AM


"Michael Wise" wrote


1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)


You have been in the military, right?

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/.../pay/blbas.htm
"Enlisted members, with or without dependents, used to lose BAS if they were
deployed (or "in the field"). In 1998, Congress changed this. Now, enlisted
members temporarily assigned to duty away from their permanent duty station
or to duty under field conditions at their permanent duty station are
entitled to BAS at a rate not less than that which they had at their
permanent duty station."

hmm...it seems it has changed slightly since I retired. But not by Bush...:)

i.e....you used to lose your BAS, and were provided either per diem pay, or
meals in the dining facility or field kitchen, or MRE's.
Now, it is...you don't lose your BAS (your paycheck remains the same), but
you must pay for all meals, either by deduction, or cash.

Either way, it ends up the same. You cannot double dip. The members actual
money remains the same. You get BAS, or meals, but not both.

Aquaint yourself with DOD 7000.14-R Vol 7A, Chapter 25
http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fmr/07a/07A25.pdf

2502
250201
Section P
"Military members *may not receive* a full BAS (SEPRATS, RIKNA, EMRATS, or
officer BAS) and meals or rations at no charge for the same period of
service. Members in reciept of any type of full BAS *must pay for meals and
rations*. This is a personal obligation of the individual. Meals and rations
may be paid for with cash, by payroll deduction or by collection/reduction
of otherwise entitled per diem. "

[emphasis mine]

2505
250501 Meal Collection Rates
"Any member receiving a full BAS type *must pay for* all meals and rations
that he or she receives from, or on behalf of, the government."

[again, emphasis mine]

It has always been thus.


2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.


They're not being 'charged'. They are giving back BAS money that they are
not entitled to because they're getting meals provided by the govt. It
'looks like' a charge, because the finance dept at Walter Reed or Landstuhl
may not be set up to automatically change a members TDY status upon
admission. Their system might be to charge the daily rate, and the member
works it out as far as TDY/per diem/BAS status with their particular finance
office.

It used to **** me off too, having to be the accountant shifting DOD money
from MyHomeBase to the TDY location housing and dining facility. (That's
what computers are for...you figure it out!) But it wasn't extra money I was
entitled to.

Or are you suggesting that military members be entitled to BAS *and* free
meals?

Pete



Kristan Roberge June 14th 04 07:23 AM



Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Kristan Roberge" wrote in message
...


Michael Wise wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

...
What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and
fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam
in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties
during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in
Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons.

Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
and "advisors" has anything to do with it?


nevermind the fact that the US didn't really have air superiority over
vietnam,


air superiority: That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force
over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its
related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without
prohibitive interference by the opposing force.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/dod...a/a/00291.html
It appears that by that definition (though maybe you are not using the
definition agreed to by the US military branches) we did indeed have air
superiority--can you identify any targets we wanted to strike that we were
prevented from striking, whenever we so chose?

nor
did they have the benefit of having waxed almost all the SAM batteries
already,


An unfortunate political decision, but regardless, having ADA and SAM's does
not by definition deny us 'air superiority". Though you are getting a bit
warmer here--the US did learn a lesson in regards to taking down the IADS,
instead of letting some politico back DC decide it was not a worthwhile
target...

nor
did they have AWACS aircraft to tell their fighters where the Migs were

200
or 300 miles
out.


Maybe not to the degree that we have now, but we did have these nifty things
called EC-121's...

Yeah...learned some lessons... learned how not to do it next time.


I don't know about that; yes, we did learn from the mistakes we made (which
is why we are the best, right?), but everything we did was not a mistake.
LBII seemed to be on the right track, and accomplished its goals. The first
truly effective use of heavy bombers in support of tactical ground units on
a widespread basis, the use of modern PGM's, effective use of helicopter
gunships (to include use of reliable ATGM's from helos, during the 72 Easter
Offensive IIRC), and the most effective use of heliborne airmobile assets up
to that time, etc.

And
how not to do it
is against someone as capable as themselves again.


Well, after we get finished with round one, the opposition tends to not be
very effective at all; witness ODS.

Go after the small
enemies, then your president
can look good on tv. ignore the big fish that'd kick yer arse again.


And which fish would that be?


china, ya know...that great country full of human rights abusers/oppressors that
the USA is so buddy-buddy with lately because they need their help in dealing
with north korea.



Billy Beck June 14th 04 01:21 PM


"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Michael Wise wrote:


One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
suppose that is?


Maybe because they were fighting different kinds of wars. They each had their
own peculiar and different kinds of hell, but generally speaking, the one aloft
was a whole lot cleaner and smelled a whole lot better than the one on the
ground.


Uhm.. what the hell are you two doing here? Isn't there an
infantry group where you could go hang?


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

Michael Wise June 14th 04 03:15 PM

In article ,
Billy Beck wrote:

One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
suppose that is?


Maybe because they were fighting different kinds of wars. They each had
their
own peculiar and different kinds of hell, but generally speaking, the one
aloft
was a whole lot cleaner and smelled a whole lot better than the one on the
ground.


Uhm.. what the hell are you two doing here? Isn't there an
infantry group where you could go hang?



Were you asked to go to an architecture group when you posted here about
the symmetry of the Vietnam War Memorial? No? Then, pack sand.


--Mike

Ed Rasimus June 14th 04 03:29 PM

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

...It also talks extensively about the VA's interest
in perpetuating PTSD to the point of falsifying diagnoses for the
purpose of maintaining high funding levels.



Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
who answered the call and paid for it in blood.


The period addressed was the late '70, '80' and early '90s. The issue
was the prevalence of PTSD from the Vietnam war. So, your linkage to
funding cuts is a bit late. You might consider that Clinton also cut
funding for vet programs--it was under his watch that my promised
lifetime health care became an HMO under Tricare which I now pay for.

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).


I was hospitalized once during my active duty years (1968) and paid a
per diem charge. You aren't really being charged--you've already been
paid BAS (basic allowance for subsistence) and when your meals are
provided, you repay what has already been advanced to you.

I was hospitalized in 2003 for 2.5 days. Had a 10.5 hour cancer
surgery and post-op care. Total bill was $16.80--that was the cost of
the meals. Outrageous!


(Please do not jump ahead and suggest that I'm all wet if I deny PTSD.
I certainly do not. Read the book and see what Burkitt documents.)



Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed immensely.


It would be self-serving to suggest that you might enjoy When Thunder
Rolled. There are several SAR stories you might find interesting.

It is his conduct during the
Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,


Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
guilty of atrocities?


Yes, he did.

his throwing of
someone else's medals over the White House fence


What of it?


You don't see a problem with such a grandstanding effort using someone
else's awards?

his alignment with
VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.



How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?


His picture hangs in honor in the Vietnamese War Remembrance Museum.


He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.



He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
honorable service to country?


C'mon. You really haven't been paying attention. Kerry is the one who
repeatedly brings it up. His TV spots running in CO start out with him
slogging through the jungle (unusual position for a Swift boat CC),
and listing his awards.

The Republicans made such a big deal about Clinton not having served and
avoiding serving. Now that their opposition served in combat and served
with honor while their candidate and many of the people in his admin
(the people who really run this country) did everything in their power
to avoid putting their asses on the line is on the table...they do
everything to discredit honor where honor is due and inflate the service
to country of a chickenhawk administration.


I think we've been repeatedly through the issue of length of service
between the two candidates. We've also discussed the dangers involved
in flying single-seat/single-engine military tactical jets.

It's bad enough when chickenhawk politicians use such tactics, but its
shameful when real vets do. You don't have to like John Kerry (I
personally don't although the alternative is unthinkable) and you don't
have to vote for him. But to **** on his service because he came home
against the war (like many vets) and was outspoken about it is shameful.


I feel no shame at all. I've got a pretty clear idea about what honor
is and what the "band of brothers" thing is about.

...
Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
got to employ your skills?



Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the first
Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in the
first place).


Is it unfair to note that you should have been told that when you
signed on to the reserves that you could be "sent over there in the
first place"? And, to go a bit further, to note that your service
seems quite parallel to the President's? Except, of course that when
you signed on there was not the possibility of conflict and when there
was the possibility you got out?


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

Ed Rasimus June 14th 04 03:32 PM

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:33:55 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)


Except for the lowest ranking enlisted troops, almost everyone gets
BAS. Low ranks get a "meal card" which they display at the chow hall
to eat for free. Those on BAS pay the surcharge rate when they eat in
the chow hall.

It has long been a sore point that troops deployed in the field or TDY
to bare-base facilities get docked their BAS when they submit their
travel vouchers. It isn't a new policy.

2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.


My wife has a favorite quote: "It ain't right, but it's real." What
you think is "right" means nothing. What is in the JTR's is real.




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

Tammy June 14th 04 03:51 PM

(OXMORON1) wrote in message ...
BuffyToU "asked"
So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless.


Heroism is one thing, going against policy and beaching/grounding your boat in
an area known to have recently contained enemy troops, to recover an empty RPG
launcher is stupid and endangers your crew. This is leadership?

Oxmoron1


The Military thought it was.

As I recall, the actual event was that Kerry turned his bat around,
and went back for wounded soldiers who were in the water. That he
stood on the bow of the boat, exposed to enemy fire and personally
grabbed the soldiers out of the water even though he was wounded
himself. At least, that is what the military report said.

Maybe you are thinking of some other event where he earned a medal for
bravery and heroism.

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?

Steven P. McNicoll June 14th 04 04:13 PM


"Tammy" wrote in message
om...

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?


They all earned the same number as Bill Clinton. Why do you ask?



Lisakbernacchia June 14th 04 04:53 PM

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: (Tammy)
Date: 6/14/2004 7:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

(OXMORON1) wrote in message
...
BuffyToU "asked"
So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless.


Heroism is one thing, going against policy and beaching/grounding your boat

in
an area known to have recently contained enemy troops, to recover an empty

RPG
launcher is stupid and endangers your crew. This is leadership?

Oxmoron1


The Military thought it was.

As I recall, the actual event was that Kerry turned his bat around,
and went back for wounded soldiers who were in the water. That he
stood on the bow of the boat, exposed to enemy fire and personally
grabbed the soldiers out of the water even though he was wounded
himself. At least, that is what the military report said.

Maybe you are thinking of some other event where he earned a medal for
bravery and heroism.

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?


ROFL !!!!

Lisakbernacchia June 14th 04 04:56 PM

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 6/14/2004 8:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: et


"Tammy" wrote in message
. com...

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?


They all earned the same number as Bill Clinton. Why do you ask?



Clinton is in the distant past, same place you are.


Leslie Swartz June 14th 04 05:52 PM

So according to your "logic," President Washington should have never "turned
his back on" Benedict Arnold?

Others may criticaize Kerry's service during the war; much of his record is
arguable.

I'm pretty sure it's his actions after the war that the other vets find
disagreeable.

Unlike Art Kramer, I don't believe in giving someone a lifetime pass for
everything because they served.

Steve Swartz



"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do

you
suppose that is?


There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
"hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.

I doubt any of us who are or have been on active duty have much trouble
spotting a poseur. I'm speaking based on conversations I had with

people
who most definitely fought hand-to-hand, like the people I served with
who flew CSAR, some of the people I worked with at the VA, and more

than
a handful of disabled vets who I assisted in getting their benefits.


Burkitt reserves a lot of space in his book to discuss the VA.



Meaning what? Does he claim combat vets and/or disabled vets working for
the VA are less than honest?


During Rolling Thunder, I got up each day and went to a briefing with
25 other guys. On average, each and every day for six months, one of
those 25 would be lost. Some days, none. Some days three or four.
Average, one a day. Keep going to the briefing and one day you will be
the one.


Well my hat goes off to you and to all those who paid in blood or risked
that blood doing what their country told them to do. I find it next to
impossible to understand how any vet (especially a combat vet) would
make statements about not "****ing on somebody if they were one fire"
when that somebody also risked their all and shed blood for their
country.

Partisanship should never trump honor and respect. It's sad that
uber-partisans of both major political parties in the U.S. have lost
sight of that (if they ever had it in the first place).



As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in

comparison
to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
POWs between the ground and air combatants.


Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving. I don't see how
that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
potential CSAR missions was not good.


The odds of completing a 100 mission NVN tour were poor. In '66 an
F-105 was lost every 65 missions over NVN. For every five that started
a tour, three of the five would be lost. 40% survival rate.

There are definitely ground units from the war that suffered similar
rates, but that is the exception.



I don't doubt what you're saying for a minute. Never having been in
combat, I can't speak from experience, but numbers on paper be
damned...I'll take fighting from above over eyeball to eyeball at close
quarters any day.


--Mike




Leslie Swartz June 14th 04 05:56 PM

So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
his spreading of anti-bush lies and propaganda . . . .

Steve Swartz




"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:33:55 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)


Except for the lowest ranking enlisted troops, almost everyone gets
BAS. Low ranks get a "meal card" which they display at the chow hall
to eat for free. Those on BAS pay the surcharge rate when they eat in
the chow hall.

It has long been a sore point that troops deployed in the field or TDY
to bare-base facilities get docked their BAS when they submit their
travel vouchers. It isn't a new policy.

2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.


My wife has a favorite quote: "It ain't right, but it's real." What
you think is "right" means nothing. What is in the JTR's is real.




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




Leslie Swartz June 14th 04 05:57 PM

So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
spreading his ant-Bush lies and propaganda . . .

Steve Swartz

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.


"...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
last few years..." ?

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).


"The rule was established because most military personnel receive
$8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when
they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
double-dipping."

Military personnel that had to eat in the chow hall, and usually live
on base, pay nothing while in the hospital, but those authorized,
usually to live off base, whether married or unmarried get $8.10 a day
extra to pay for food.

So if they forgive the $8.10 a day one person makes money and the
other gets nothing? And they will probably end up changing the law
because the single person living in the barracks eating in the chow
hall is always the one coming out on the short end of the stick...




Lisakbernacchia June 14th 04 05:57 PM

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: "Leslie Swartz"
Date: 6/14/2004 9:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


Unlike Art Kramer, I don't believe in giving someone a lifetime pass for
everything because they served.


And how did you serve, if at all

Michael Wise June 14th 04 06:07 PM

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:


Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed immensely.


It would be self-serving to suggest that you might enjoy When Thunder
Rolled. There are several SAR stories you might find interesting.



I will read it without a doubt. I just checked and the San Francisco
Public Library system doesn't have it yet....but I'm sure I can find it
somewhere around the city.


It is his conduct during the
Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,


Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
guilty of atrocities?


Yes, he did.


Verifiable citation please (one that specifically states _all_)



his throwing of
someone else's medals over the White House fence


What of it?


You don't see a problem with such a grandstanding effort using someone
else's awards?



If that someone else was OK with it; so am I.



his alignment with
VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.



How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?


His picture hangs in honor in the Vietnamese War Remembrance Museum.



So? How does/did that give aid and comfort to the enemy?


He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.



He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
honorable service to country?


C'mon. You really haven't been paying attention. Kerry is the one who
repeatedly brings it up.


I have been paying attention. Kerry went months without bringing it up.
The media would have nothing of that and repeatedly glorified him
(unnecessarily, IMHO) because of it. The Bush campaign then took
pre-emptive strikes on his service. Since everybody seems intent on
making it an issue...he included it. I can't say he isn't entitled to
that.


His TV spots running in CO start out with him
slogging through the jungle (unusual position for a Swift boat CC),
and listing his awards.



I don't know about that. I worked alongside a fellow by the name of
Nathan Benjamin for three years at the VA. Nate was also a river rat in
Vietnam. We had numerous conversations about his experience
there....starting with me asking him how he got the the horizontal scar
from side-to-side on the back of his neck. Seems they routinely set
ashore for various missions not limited to search and destroy. During
once such occasion, they had just set ashore and hadn't gone more than
100 ft into the jungle when they were immediately engaged in
hand-to-hand combat with Nate taking a machete blow to the back of his
neck. The fact that he was falling forward saved him from being
decapitated and able to recover and fire his favored weapon (.44 mag
with the ammo tips cross cut by his knife)...putting an immediate end to
his attacker's life. All of this happened while in the jungle and during
the course of a brown water mission.



...
Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
got to employ your skills?



Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the first
Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in the
first place).


Is it unfair to note that you should have been told that when you
signed on to the reserves that you could be "sent over there in the
first place"?



Been told what? That I could be sent into harm's way? Having come into
the active reserves in December 1987 directly from a 4.5 year hitch on
active duty...I was very well aware of such possibilities.

In 1987 Iraq was our buddy. I doubt any of envisioned Operation Re-elect
Bush would be coming a few years down the pike. When hostilities began,
I was onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln doing my two weeks for the year
with HS-6.

Did I bug out then? No (although I was under no obligation to the
reserves). I was against that operation from the start and joined
protesters every Sunday in Balboa Park (San Diego), but I stayed
in...all of us with orders to have our gear ready for immediate
deployment to a fleet squadron. I couldn't fathom getting out when the
people I flew with and cared about most would have to pick up my missing
slack if called upon.

I waited till _after_ hostilities ended. Shortly thereafter in the
middle of a drill week-end, I got in my car and drove off NAS North
Island and said goodbye to the military forever.


And, to go a bit further, to note that your service
seems quite parallel to the President's?


The president served on active duty?



Except, of course that when
you signed on there was not the possibility of conflict


The economic draft lives on in this country. I joined for the same
reason the vast majority of enlisted people join: as a 17 year-old
emancipated minor, it was the only way I could see ever getting a chance
to go to college. I also believed everything my country told me and even
voted for Reagan.


and when there
was the possibility you got out?


There was less of a possibility of being sent in harm's way when I got
out than when I came in...although the possibilities of dying did not
favor in to the equation in either case.



--Mike

Tammy June 14th 04 06:52 PM

Make that "he turned his boat around"

(Tammy) wrote in message . com...
(OXMORON1) wrote in message ...
BuffyToU "asked"
So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless.


Heroism is one thing, going against policy and beaching/grounding your boat in
an area known to have recently contained enemy troops, to recover an empty RPG
launcher is stupid and endangers your crew. This is leadership?

Oxmoron1


The Military thought it was.

As I recall, the actual event was that Kerry turned his bat around,
and went back for wounded soldiers who were in the water. That he
stood on the bow of the boat, exposed to enemy fire and personally
grabbed the soldiers out of the water even though he was wounded
himself. At least, that is what the military report said.

Maybe you are thinking of some other event where he earned a medal for
bravery and heroism.

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?


Billy Beck June 14th 04 11:21 PM


Michael Wise wrote:

Billy Beck wrote:

One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
suppose that is?

Maybe because they were fighting different kinds of wars. They each had
their own peculiar and different kinds of hell, but generally speaking, the one
aloft was a whole lot cleaner and smelled a whole lot better than the one on the
ground.


Uhm.. what the hell are you two doing here? Isn't there an
infantry group where you could go hang?


Were you asked to go to an architecture group when you posted here about
the symmetry of the Vietnam War Memorial? No? Then, pack sand.


Not bleedin' likely.

It's pretty funny, however, to watch this sort of thing. "Oooh,
their war was better than *their* war!" I might expect that sort of
rubbish from high-schoolers and other dip****s who have no earthly
idea what they're talking about, but I'm looking at a couple of
posters who surprised me with it.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

Leslie Swartz June 14th 04 11:22 PM

Michael:


*You* are the one who set up the strawman "ALL;" none of the posters with
whom you are currently disagreeing were that stupid.

Kerry didn't have to say "ALL" of those serving in Vietnam committed war
crimes in order for him to be an idiot. What Kerry said (posted here ad
nauseum) was bad enough.

Enough with the "ALL" already; many of us in this forum have studied
rhetoric and logic and we see through your ploy. It's tedious; on the order
of the (ever popular; see 23d iteration of the Keith Wilshaw "use of Humor"
thread) ad hominem. Adds nothing; BORING.

Steve Swartz


"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:


Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed

immensely.

It would be self-serving to suggest that you might enjoy When Thunder
Rolled. There are several SAR stories you might find interesting.



I will read it without a doubt. I just checked and the San Francisco
Public Library system doesn't have it yet....but I'm sure I can find it
somewhere around the city.


It is his conduct during the
Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,

Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
guilty of atrocities?


Yes, he did.


Verifiable citation please (one that specifically states _all_)



his throwing of
someone else's medals over the White House fence

What of it?


You don't see a problem with such a grandstanding effort using someone
else's awards?



If that someone else was OK with it; so am I.



his alignment with
VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.


How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?


His picture hangs in honor in the Vietnamese War Remembrance Museum.



So? How does/did that give aid and comfort to the enemy?


He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat

experience
as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.


He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
honorable service to country?


C'mon. You really haven't been paying attention. Kerry is the one who
repeatedly brings it up.


I have been paying attention. Kerry went months without bringing it up.
The media would have nothing of that and repeatedly glorified him
(unnecessarily, IMHO) because of it. The Bush campaign then took
pre-emptive strikes on his service. Since everybody seems intent on
making it an issue...he included it. I can't say he isn't entitled to
that.


His TV spots running in CO start out with him
slogging through the jungle (unusual position for a Swift boat CC),
and listing his awards.



I don't know about that. I worked alongside a fellow by the name of
Nathan Benjamin for three years at the VA. Nate was also a river rat in
Vietnam. We had numerous conversations about his experience
there....starting with me asking him how he got the the horizontal scar
from side-to-side on the back of his neck. Seems they routinely set
ashore for various missions not limited to search and destroy. During
once such occasion, they had just set ashore and hadn't gone more than
100 ft into the jungle when they were immediately engaged in
hand-to-hand combat with Nate taking a machete blow to the back of his
neck. The fact that he was falling forward saved him from being
decapitated and able to recover and fire his favored weapon (.44 mag
with the ammo tips cross cut by his knife)...putting an immediate end to
his attacker's life. All of this happened while in the jungle and during
the course of a brown water mission.



...
Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
got to employ your skills?


Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the

first
Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in

the
first place).


Is it unfair to note that you should have been told that when you
signed on to the reserves that you could be "sent over there in the
first place"?



Been told what? That I could be sent into harm's way? Having come into
the active reserves in December 1987 directly from a 4.5 year hitch on
active duty...I was very well aware of such possibilities.

In 1987 Iraq was our buddy. I doubt any of envisioned Operation Re-elect
Bush would be coming a few years down the pike. When hostilities began,
I was onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln doing my two weeks for the year
with HS-6.

Did I bug out then? No (although I was under no obligation to the
reserves). I was against that operation from the start and joined
protesters every Sunday in Balboa Park (San Diego), but I stayed
in...all of us with orders to have our gear ready for immediate
deployment to a fleet squadron. I couldn't fathom getting out when the
people I flew with and cared about most would have to pick up my missing
slack if called upon.

I waited till _after_ hostilities ended. Shortly thereafter in the
middle of a drill week-end, I got in my car and drove off NAS North
Island and said goodbye to the military forever.


And, to go a bit further, to note that your service
seems quite parallel to the President's?


The president served on active duty?



Except, of course that when
you signed on there was not the possibility of conflict


The economic draft lives on in this country. I joined for the same
reason the vast majority of enlisted people join: as a 17 year-old
emancipated minor, it was the only way I could see ever getting a chance
to go to college. I also believed everything my country told me and even
voted for Reagan.


and when there
was the possibility you got out?


There was less of a possibility of being sent in harm's way when I got
out than when I came in...although the possibilities of dying did not
favor in to the equation in either case.



--Mike




Leslie Swartz June 14th 04 11:23 PM

Google me tyro; do your homework.

The kids are so lazy nowadays.

Steve Swartz

"Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message
...
Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: "Leslie Swartz"
Date: 6/14/2004 9:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


Unlike Art Kramer, I don't believe in giving someone a lifetime pass for
everything because they served.


And how did you serve, if at all




Lisakbernacchia June 14th 04 11:33 PM

ubject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: "Leslie Swartz"
Date: 6/14/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
spreading his ant-Bush lies and propaganda . . .

Steve Swartz

"Buzzer" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.




Cut VA spending????? No patriot would do that.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 AM.

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