AviationBanter

AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Military Aviation (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=9683)

Regnirps July 18th 04 05:09 AM

Jack wrote:

Regnirps wrote:


Did you ever see anyone come back with a glove caught in the canopy?


Nope.


I recall a persistant rumor that you could go vertical and if you were fast
enough you could open the canopy a little and slam the thin glove in the seal
as you topped out. They called it the Clam Shell Club and said getting caught
was an automatic washout. I didn't believe it becuase the canopy blows off way
too easy and I didn't hear of any "canopy free" landings.

-- Charlie Springer


BUFDRVR July 18th 04 01:24 PM

Regnirps 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.


BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR July 18th 04 01:25 PM

Dave Kearton wrote:

...and it's got a convenient yellow handle between the pilot's knees. ;-)


Actually, the handles are outside your legs.


BUFDRVR

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

Bill Shatzer July 18th 04 10:58 PM

-snip-
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.


How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?


Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphe
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours.


If you're speaking of "Hanoi Jane", it should be noted that Fonda's
North Vietnam visit came -after- the Kerry photo and, indeed, after
Kerry had broken with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

It would seem a bit much to expect him to make an accurate prediction
of her -future- actions.

And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone,


Is there any doubt at all that Americans were committing some
atrocities - or at least some pretty bad things - in the combat
zone?

What is the appropriate moral response when one has evidence of
such things? Indeed, what is the appropriate patriotic response
when one has evidence of such things?

Somehow, being a good German doesn't seem the correct response.

or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.


My goodness! Whoever claimed -other- than that it was "staged".

It was a demonstration and a photo-op for gawd sakes. Everything
was "staged" in the sense that it was organized and choreographed
in advance.

One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.


He was, as you correctly noted, speaking against "atrocities", not
folks "honorably following orders".

Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.


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.

And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.


That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops wer
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south


Wasn't that just about the time Dewey Canyon II and Lam Son 719 were
ongoing? And the notorious Cambodian invasion was but nine or ten
months in the past?

US forces had been largely, though not entirely, withdrawn from aggressive
search and destroy ground missions by mid-71 but there were a lot of
aviation companies, artillery units, engineering battalions, and the
like still providing active combat support to the ARVN units. And lots
of PBI-types still taking significant casualties. Certainly to claim that
the "only major combat troops were air units" overstates the case by
quite a bit.

so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal
political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.


Well, perhaps. But certainly the more useful tact for a decorated
war hero to take were he concerned about politics would NOT have
been active opposition to the war. You can certainly raise more
campaign contributions at the local VFW hall than at any number of
VVAW rallies populated by folks in tie-dye and wearing beads.

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.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Steve Mellenthin July 18th 04 11:43 PM

If you're speaking of "Hanoi Jane", it should be noted that Fonda's
North Vietnam visit came -after- the Kerry photo and, indeed, after
Kerry had broken with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

It would seem a bit much to expect him to make an accurate prediction
of her -future- actions.



You are reinforcing an oft held belief of at least half the holds, judging by
the polls, that he feels strongly both ways on most every issue.



And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone,


Is there any doubt at all that Americans were committing some
atrocities - or at least some pretty bad things - in the combat
zone?


That is an awfully strange remark. War is a pretty bad thing. Just as many
atrocities are committed on the streets of the US every day. I don't see the
relevance of your comment. My point was that Kerry was way off base accusing
everyone who ever served in Vietnam of committing them. As one of those who
served honorably in combat, I take major offense at his remark.





What is the appropriate moral response when one has evidence of
such things? Indeed, what is the appropriate patriotic response
when one has evidence of such things?

Somehow, being a good German doesn't seem the correct response.

or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.


My goodness! Whoever claimed -other- than that it was "staged"


He did. He, or one of his aides later said those weren't his when asked why
those medals he through over the White House fence were back on his office
wall.

..

It was a demonstration and a photo-op for gawd sakes. Everything
was "staged" in the sense that it was organized and choreographed
in advance.


Call it what you want, it was bad judgement for someone in his position,
especially, as you say, he later dissociated himslef with the VVAW.



One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.


He was, as you correctly noted, speaking against "atrocities", not
folks "honorably following orders".



That sure isn't what he said. He didn't differentiate between those committing
atrocities and those who followed orders.





Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or

follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.


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.



I don't debate that point and I support his right to do so. The movement at
the time was as much agains the people following orders as it was their
leadership and people like Fonda and Kerry were inciting acts of abuse against
those who served honorably. Talk to anyone in uniform who passed through San
Francison International in uniform in the late 60s and early 70s..




And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.


That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops

wer
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south


Wasn't that just about the time Dewey Canyon II and Lam Son 719 were
ongoing? And the notorious Cambodian invasion was but nine or ten
months in the past?


The only thing notorious about the Cambodian invasion was the way the press
handled it. We invaded an unihabited area of Cambodia to try to cut supply
lines to the south. The press played it up like it was equal to the Soviet
invasiopn of Hungary in the 50s. At that stage in the war we were winding down
our efforts and attempting to put the SVN government where it could defend
itself. The Viet Cong was essentially defeated as a fighting force and and the
NVN forces were building up prepatory to an invasion of the south.



US forces had been largely, though not entirely, withdrawn from aggressive
search and destroy ground missions by mid-71 but there were a lot of
aviation companies, artillery units, engineering battalions, and the
like still providing active combat support to the ARVN units. And lots
of PBI-types still taking significant casualties. Certainly to claim that
the "only major combat troops were air units" overstates the case by
quite a bit.



I don't disagree at all. We were withdrawing in a manner so as to allow the
SVN a menas to defend itself agains NVN agression. A year later most had
departed except for support and liaison forces.



so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal
political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.


Well, perhaps. But certainly the more useful tact for a decorated
war hero to take were he concerned about politics would NOT have
been active opposition to the war. You can certainly raise more
campaign contributions at the local VFW hall than at any number of
VVAW rallies populated by folks in tie-dye and wearing beads.

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.



I accept that as a possibilitybut is is hard for me to escape the sense that he
used his position in the anti war effort as a springboard for his fledgling
political career. And it is hard for me to understand how one could be ashamed
enough of his service and his heriosm to call his actions atrocities and return
his medals only to later give them a place of honor on his I love me wall. To
change one's mind like that is impossible for me to understand. I speak as one
who served 24 months in combat.

Steve

Billy Preston July 19th 04 12:12 AM

"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.

Nice try Fluffy...



Billy Preston July 19th 04 12:14 AM

"Steve Mellenthin" wrote

I accept that as a possibilitybut is is hard for me to escape the sense that he
used his position in the anti war effort as a springboard for his fledgling
political career.


No **** Sherlock. He didn't even write the speech before Congress.



Buzzer July 19th 04 03:41 AM

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?
Seems a few officers are not happy campers after being recalled for
Iraq after "they were no longer in the military."

Sorry I just noticed this from

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

"Brooks Gregory" wrote in message ...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jul 2004 20:57:04 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Can you show that Kerry, ever LITERALLY accused every soldier in Vietnam
of committing war crimes? Are you the only person allowed to use

analogies.

--

Let me introduce you to John Kerry:


Thank you.


http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

Actually, that site appears to be run by an opposition group. They
seem to be both anti-Kerry and anti-McCain. The rest of the site has
a lot of accusations against both but evidence to support those ac-
cusations is conspicuous by its absence.

http://www.pow-miafamilies.org/


Nothing about Kerry on that page.

http://www.jpac.pacom.mil/


Nothing about Kerry on that page.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssctest.html


Nothing about Kerry on that page.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php


That link seems to mostly be about Vietnam Veterans Against the
War (VVAW). Here and there one finds soem rather wild accusations
against Kerry, but no evidence to support them.

The do have a link to some exerps from the winter soldier campaign
'testimony' (quotes becasue it was not a legal proceding) upon which
much of Kerry's famous speach to the US Congress was based. There
is a link called _debunking_ that leads to a page with sowmwhat
disorganized claims that some of the 'testimony' of the winter soldier
campaign had been debunked. But the person's whos testimony was
supposedly disproved are not named. Dewey Canyon III is named but
for what purpose is a mystery.

The (anonymous) author(s) of that page claim that the VVAW used fake
witnesses, but do not name a single example.

If we follow the link 'key points' we find thirteen paragraphs:

First:

In his April 1971 speech to the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, John Kerry claimed that war crimes committed by
the American military against Vietnamese civilians were "not
isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis..."
War crimes in Vietnam were actually quite rare.

Yet the author(s) of that page offer no evidence in support of this
'key point'.

Second:

Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact,
military personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules
of engagement, you can be tried and punished." War crimes were
never a matter of policy, and were prosecuted when discovered

Yet the author(s) of that page offer no evidence in support of this
'key point'.

And so on. Wherea Kerry had the 'testimony' of the Winter Soldier
project to support his own testimony befor Congress the author(s)
of this page present no evidence at all to support their 'key point'.

But don't trust me. See for yourself.

See also:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/si.../WS_entry.html

--

FF

Bill Shatzer July 19th 04 05:32 AM

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.

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.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:42 PM.

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