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 13th 04 08:08 PM

Regnirps ) writes:
(B2431) wrote:


The "embellishments" are REQUIRED. They are called "devices." If I were still
active duty an was not wearing the V on my bronze star or oakleaves on my
purple heart, good conduct, longevity etc, stars on my national defense and

SEA
sevice medal I would have been out of uniform.


Yes, the devices embellish the medal.


My grandfather received his in the mail in 1935. I guess he was out of uniform
for a looong time.


Not at all. The medal was re-created in 1932 in honor of the 200th
anniversary of Washington's birth. Sometime there after, it was
decided to retroactively award the medal to all personnel who had
been awarded "wound stripes" in WW1.

1935 sounds about right for the retroactive award. Prior to
that, he'd only be out of uniform if he failed to wear the
wound stripe.

Cheers,

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Bill Shatzer July 13th 04 08:20 PM

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


Basically crap, Steven. Army Regulations re the Purple Heart:


(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of
"friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be
awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly"
projectile or agent was released with the full
intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy
troops or equipment.


I'd assume the Navy regulations are essentially similar.


There apparently was no battle to be in the heat of.


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

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

In any case, if I recall correctly, it was freakin' -impossible-
to wound oneself by firing an M-79 round "too close".


Kerry's experience suggests otherwise.


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

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

Cheers,


--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Harry Andreas July 13th 04 09:12 PM

In article , Jack wrote:

Sam Byrams wrote:

[Dr. Joe Bagadonutz is] equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza

for that matter.

Not quite.

Even most Dr.s aren't convinced they can fly a MIG or any real fighter
-- or at least aren't so willing to disprove it. The Bonanza isn't that
tough, after all -- so it's a damn' good thing they are leaving the
fighters, for the most part, alone.

Hell, my Dad owned and flew a Bonanza, and he was only a Major League
baseball player, with a high school education. ;)


Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
That has the rep as the unforgiving GA ship, probably due to lack of training.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

ian maclure July 13th 04 09:51 PM

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 02:38:46 -0500, D. Strang wrote:

[snip]

Pretty typical stuff, that killed a lot of troops who weren't so lucky.
I know four guys in two tours, who have their name on the wall, who
killed themselves doing stuff this stupid.


And willfully stupid at that.
You try telling them to stop before somebody gets killed
and see what thanks you get for it.

IBM

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


ian maclure July 13th 04 10:00 PM

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:07:11 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
16 months:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif


It does not show that he was AWOL.


No, you have to draw that inference yourself.


No, thats not quite true.
Thats the inference YOU WANT folks to draw.
In fact you belabo(u)r the point into insensibility.
Trouble is your thory doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Tough noogies.

IBM

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


ian maclure July 13th 04 10:03 PM

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:10:05 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

Vice [sic] President Bush is the issue, and the only issue.


Why isn't Kerry the issue?


Kerry's military records are complete. Bush's are not.


So, thousands of records have been lost in fires,
transit, during media conversion, etc.
The regular US Navy was evidently more careful about
its records than the ANG. So what?
And what credence can we palce in Kerry's records
when we know that at least some of the details are
not correct.

IBM

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


ian maclure July 13th 04 10:05 PM

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:13:25 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

He seems to think that use of an M2 is
a war crime.


It apparently is.

I can well remember hearing that use of the M2 against troops is not allowed.
However, use of the M2 against equipment -is- allowed. We were advised to
shoot at enemy troops' belt buckles, as that -was- equipment.


Smells like BS to me.
Its a distinction only a lawyer could love.

IBM

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


ArtKramr July 13th 04 10:11 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/12/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 12 Jul 2004 22:09:50 GMT,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "D. Strang"

Date: 7/12/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time


Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero.

But he said he murdered innocent women and children.


So did I. I was a bombardier over Europe.So what? Kerry at least had a

shred
of honesty to admit it..


Let me try to construct a parallel between your experiences and mine,
so that we can possibly find a common ground to understand the
animosity I might feel.

You were a bombardier in B-26s over Europe. You went and fought and
stayed the course. You completed fifty missions.

Now, let's take someone in B-26s. Let's make it an aircraft
commander--not simply a crew-member, but a commander of the vehicle.
Let's say he had some minor injuries. Nothing serious. No
hospitalization, no lost limbs, no surgery. Just injuries. He opted
out of completing his tour. Lemme see, four months out of a one year
tour, so let's say he flew 17 missions out of the 50. Then he went
home. The rest of you on his crew slogged on without him.

But, when he got home, he didn't wear his decorations proudly and
support his brothers in arms still fighting the war that their nation
asked them to fight. He abandoned his uniform and spoke out against
the war. He went still further. 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"?

The German propaganda machine embraced his statements. Publicized them
and called him courageous. Would you? Would the other members of your
crew? Would you call him a hero?

Do you see a parallel here?

Meanwhile, your father, who fought valiantly for his country in WW I
(or the Spanish-American War) or whatever, began to speak out against
FDR. Accusing him of being a wealthy child of privilege who never wore
the uniform and dragged his country into WW II for his own benefit and
under false pretenses. That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
reason. Way too many were dying in Europe for the benefit of the
French who never liked us anyway. Besides, the war had dragged on much
too long and we ought to get rid of him.

Do you see a parallel here?


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


Yes I see the paralell. And I can't disagree with anything you said. And I
understand your feelings in the matter and share many of them However there may
be some other issues worth considering When I flew my missions over western
Europe I bombed many cities And as I saw my bombs explode on the ground I
wondered how many children were down there.How many woman. I also strafed from
down on the deck and could plainly see woman and children in my line of fire.
That is not easy to forget. It still comes to me in the night even after 60
years. It comes to many of us that way. For example the bombardier on the Enola
Gay became a priest in Japan. But we all knew that WW II had tot be fought no
matter what the cost. And while the guilt lingers, we can live with it But Viet
Nam was another matter entirely. There were more quetions than answers. More
doubts that convictions and many doubted the war in every sense. Kerry did.
His guilt was something he had to taken action aginst. And while I would never
throw my medals away as he did, I can understand him but not agree with him.
And when it comes to the deaths of innocents I can understand his feelings in
the matter just as I can understand yours.
But you and I and Kerry know all too well what the elephant looks like. And we
are just a small breed apart vis-a-vis those who have never seen the beast.


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


ian maclure July 13th 04 10:14 PM

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:23:46 -0500, D. Strang wrote:

[snip]

AWOL is a violation of the UCMJ, you don't infer it, there are
records.


You'd think so wouldn't you.
Walty and his Dimmocreep buddies have however constructed
their castle in the air which while disturbing is OK I
suppose. Taking up residence therein is grounds to question
their mental integrity.

IBM

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


ian maclure July 13th 04 10:15 PM

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:51:55 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

No, you have to draw that inference yourself.


I wouldn't draw that inference. No rational person would.


HINT
Walty isn't rationale. He's a broken record Dumbocreep.
/HINT

IBM

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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:50 PM.

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