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)

Jack June 11th 04 10:06 PM

Lisakbernacchia wrote:

They kicked our ass. Rasimus hasn't tthe guts to admit it.



They may have kicked your ass, Lisa my dear, but Ed and I came home winners,
just as we left.

LBJ, MacNamara and a host of other losers just like yourelf lost that war. It is
also untrue that the country has been divided ever since. Only a relatively few
unrepentant fools, as they have grown older, still hold on to their sophomoric
and unquestioning hatred of the flag and the people who defend it.



Jack

Paul J. Adam June 11th 04 11:17 PM

In message , Jarg
writes
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...


You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that sad,
unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was

that big,
black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that apparently

exists
to this day. What was it that we supposedly won?


The United States certainly did not achieve our political objectives in
Vietnam. On the other hand, it is a stretch to say the US lost the war
since it won all the military actions, and left several years before North
Vietnam overran the south.


But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
on to achieve their goal. Sounds like a success to me, even if the end
result wasn't the Socialist Worker's Paradise they'd hoped for.


You're absolutely right on the military success side (though some of the
victories were expensive: on the other hand, there were lessons learned
and put to use) but the final objective - an independent non-communist
South Vietnam - was lost.


There's a supposed a quote I'd like to get a proper source for (and to
know it correctly) that goes along the lines of a senior North
Vietnamese being told that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam, and
replying that this is quite true, but also quite irrelevant. (It's got a
lot of resonance for current "effects-based" doctrine)

Finally, if you have been to Vietnam recently,
as I have, you would be hard pressed to say they won, or it was a Pyrrhic
victory at best.


Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
applies, of course)


Anyone saying there's an easy simple answer to this discussion hasn't
studied it :)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam June 11th 04 11:31 PM

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
needs of the moment.


Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians."


As I understand it, there would be a need to prove either recklessness
or intent for there to be a crime. Proving "Intent" would be difficult
because the prosecution would have to show that you deliberately
intended your jettisoned weapons/tanks/racks to strike the victim,
knowing they held protected status. (Not necessarily that you aimed at a
particular person, but that you knowingly and deliberately dumped them
where they would be more likely to hurt noncombatants than if they were
dumped elsewhere)


Proving "recklessness" is easier in some ways because you just had to be
careless about the danger: on the other hand, it requires that you be
shown to owe a duty of care to the victims.

I'm not a lawyer, nor an expert on military law: but from the limited
study summarised above, I don't think there's a case against Mr Rasimus.


For example, one example I've heard of his "jettisoning ordnance
recklessly" involved him cleaning up his aircraft to avoid an attacking
enemy fighter, and aiming what he dropped in the direction of an AAA
site that was also engaging him. I'll be *very* interested in meeting
the lawyer who can show that a pilot owes a "duty of care" to gunners
trying to shoot him down!

The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.


Too much can be bad, as can too little. Trouble is, you never get the
answers: you just find out whether you got it "right enough" or not.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Kevin Brooks June 11th 04 11:43 PM


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....

If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you

ever
jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your

assigned
bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who

might
make the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity

or a
war crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I

personally
don't care to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn

that
some people might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they

feel
that way.


"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
needs of the moment.

Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
proscribed.

A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.

Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians." But making the argument isn't
following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
a despicable level of hyperbole.

The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.


Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was trying

to
make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are

people who
don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong just

because
they differ with you.

I could argue some of the points you make, as for example your referring

to
"innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians", by asking how you would

categorize
the three day or week or month old Vietnamese infant blown apart by one of

your
jettisoned weapons in his or her own home, but I'll let others more

qualified
than I deal with that.


Did you really retire from the military? It is hard to believe that you did,
based upon the above drivel. War results in death, and sometimes the deaths
are of noncombatants. As Ed has already told you, however, intent matters.
Even you, with your obvious incapacity for handling reality, should be able
to get a grasp of that incontrovertable fact.

Brooks


George Z.





Jarg June 11th 04 11:53 PM

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Jarg
writes
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...


You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that

sad,
unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was

that big,
black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that

apparently
exists
to this day. What was it that we supposedly won?


The United States certainly did not achieve our political objectives in
Vietnam. On the other hand, it is a stretch to say the US lost the war
since it won all the military actions, and left several years before

North
Vietnam overran the south.


But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
on to achieve their goal. Sounds like a success to me, even if the end
result wasn't the Socialist Worker's Paradise they'd hoped for.



Well, you could make the arguement that the US objective changed at the end.




You're absolutely right on the military success side (though some of the
victories were expensive: on the other hand, there were lessons learned
and put to use) but the final objective - an independent non-communist
South Vietnam - was lost.


There's a supposed a quote I'd like to get a proper source for (and to
know it correctly) that goes along the lines of a senior North
Vietnamese being told that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam, and
replying that this is quite true, but also quite irrelevant. (It's got a
lot of resonance for current "effects-based" doctrine)



Yep, I've also seen the quote to which you are referring:

You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,' said the American
colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment.
'That may be so,' he replied, 'but it is also irrelevant.'-- (On Strategy,
Harry Summers, p. 21)

And from the point of view of the communist Vietnamese leadership, that view
was correct. They did achieve their political objectives, though
practically destroying themselves and S. Vietnam in the process.


Finally, if you have been to Vietnam recently,
as I have, you would be hard pressed to say they won, or it was a Pyrrhic
victory at best.


Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
applies, of course)




I never said the US won in Vietnam! But if that is victory, I'm not sure it
was worth winning. I'm certain Vietnam would be a far better place had the
North lost.


Anyone saying there's an easy simple answer to this discussion hasn't
studied it :)



Indeed.

Jarg

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk




Leslie Swartz June 12th 04 12:20 AM

Georgr:

By refusing to acknowledge that there is such a thing as "objective
truth," you are ceding much of what it means to be a rational human being-
and for that, I pity you. You will never know the joy of rational inquiry.

Much of what separates Man from the Animal Kingdom is the awareness of
Truth- and the joy in its pursuit.

Of course I will let you have the last word- your kind needs it so very
much; you have little else.

And besides, this whole thing is so far off topic I am beginning to
despair of ever getting the newsgroup back.

Steve Swartz



"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Yeff wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:00:09 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:

Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was

trying to
make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are

people
who don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong

just
because they differ with you.


But sometimes they *are* necessarily wrong. People arguing that

something
is a war crime when what they're arguing about doesn't meet that

definition
means those people are wrong. Period.


You might be right and you might be wrong, and putting "Period" at the end

of
your comment doesn't mean that the matter's been decided. You might wish

it'd
be that way, but that's not the way it works.

George Z.





Pete June 12th 04 12:38 AM


"Paul J. Adam" wrote

Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
applies, of course)


And 50 yrs later, people would be writing about "Another evil dictator that
the Americans kept in power"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Pete



Steven P. McNicoll June 12th 04 01:12 AM


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
ex-colony


Yes.



and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh?


No.



Cub Driver June 12th 04 10:30 AM


But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
on to achieve their goal.


Two years passed between those two events. That's a long time: an
entire hitch, for a draftee. There were troops who entered the army
after the last American combat unit left Vietnam in March 1973, who
served out their term, and who were back in civilian life before Hue
fell in March 1975.

It is true, of course, that the U.S. accepted in 1975 what it wouldn't
have accepted in 1965: a North Vietnamese invasion across the DMZ.
There were three U.S. presidents involved in making policy on Vietnam
(four if you include Eisenhower), so there is little wonder that the
policy changed. Why should Nixon have felt obligated to carry out a
policy formulated by the president who preceded the president who
preceded him?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum
www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

WalterM140 June 12th 04 12:28 PM

If you want to allege influence, it was over the
length of the drop, not over the fact that he got one.


"The official record of Bush's military service indicates that Bush did not
report in person for the last two years of his service. In addition, superior
officers in both Alabama and Texas say they never saw him during this period.
And George Magazine offers no credible evidence to contradict this...."


"Bush did accumulate the days of service required for an honorable discharge,
but these appear to be no-show days that were credited to him as part of the
extraordinary favoritism that characterized his service from the beginning to
the end of his service."

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=157

Walt



Brett June 12th 04 12:49 PM

"WalterM140" wrote:

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=157


Moron why don't you try finding a valid source for the garbage you want to
present - democrats.com might be a valid source for where the next left wing
riot might occur. That is the only news item it would ever have a chance of
getting right.



George Z. Bush June 12th 04 03:54 PM

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....


If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your assigned
bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who might
make the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a
war crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally
don't care to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that
some people might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel
that way.


"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
needs of the moment.


Let's take the red herring off the table. Let's just assume that the situation
I described is a violation of the section of the Geneva Accords that prohibits
punishing the civilian populace of the nation with which we are at war, to which
the US is a signatory.

Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
proscribed.


I didn't suggest any imminent emergency. I was just suggesting that you had a
piece or ordinance hung up that you couldn't release on target. I also did not
suggest deliberately targeting civilians.

A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.


Let's assume that your exceptions to the definition of a "free fire zone" are
accurately stated, as they probably are. The problem becomes one that you may
be somewhat delusion if you think that some people might not take exception to
your conclusion regarding delivering ordinance in a free fire zone when (let's
assume) the entire Gulf of Tonkin was readily and safely available for that
purpose

Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians."


Well, we've finally reached an area of agreement in that there might be some
who would consider dropping ordinance on enemy civilians to be an atrocity or a
war crime. I happen to be one of those who think those terms are not
necessarily mutually exclusive in that traumatically amputating the extremities
of an unarmed civilian might well be both an atrocity and a war crime.

I've previously challenged your categorization of innocent enemy civilians since
you apparently suggested that they can't be enemy and innocent at the same time.
Infants and young children are incapable of posing a credible threat to our
armed forces, as are other civilians, including the excessively aged and the
infirm. Pretending that they don't exist in a free fire zone simply because you
can't see them is unacceptable. Only those who take up arms against you are
legitimate targets; those you suspect might do so are not until such time as
they arm themselves. As long as they're unarmed, they're protected by the
provisions of the Geneva Conventions regardless of our suspicions.

But making the argument isn't
following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
a despicable level of hyperbole.

The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.


In other words, you're saying that anything goes and that you have no
constraints on anything you or the military choose to do. If you claim
something like that, you have to realize that the entire world will snicker and
smirk when our government issues its next annual report of nations who have
egregiously violated the human rights of its own citizens or of others. How can
we expect others to live by our human rights rules when we fail to do so
ourselves? Won't we have lost the moral high ground that our nation has always
enjoyed in the past? Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims look on us with a
clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as many others of our former
friends and admirers. What happened to bring that about?

George Z.



Steven P. McNicoll June 12th 04 03:54 PM


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

"The official record of Bush's military service indicates that Bush did

not
report in person for the last two years of his service. In addition,

superior
officers in both Alabama and Texas say they never saw him during this

period.
And George Magazine offers no credible evidence to contradict this...."


"Bush did accumulate the days of service required for an honorable

discharge,
but these appear to be no-show days that were credited to him as part of

the
extraordinary favoritism that characterized his service from the beginning

to
the end of his service."

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=157


The record shows Kerry didn't complete his Vietnam tour.



Steven P. McNicoll June 12th 04 03:56 PM


"Brett" wrote in message
...

Moron why don't you try finding a valid source for the garbage you want to
present - democrats.com might be a valid source for where the next left

wing
riot might occur. That is the only news item it would ever have a chance

of
getting right.


There is no valid source for his assertions. WalterM140 is not interested
in facts or logic.



Paul J. Adam June 12th 04 10:08 PM

In message , Pete
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote
Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
applies, of course)


And 50 yrs later, people would be writing about "Another evil dictator that
the Americans kept in power"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Sadly, you're right.


Now, for some very my-opinion analysis... (assayed at exactly $0.02)

Maybe Vietnam would go the way of South Korea (prosperous, stable, but
not pleasant to be labelled a 'dissident' in). Or maybe it would be a
new Argentina with its own "dirty war" (where 'dissidents' are subject
to 'a process of elimination').

But given the grief the US got over Vietnam, how much worse could it be?
After all, the US _did_ prop up an assortment of corrupt dictators and
generals in Vietnam before the collapse - if nothing else, better to be
condemned for successfully either walking away or backing the winners,
than for failure.


I'll ask a really cynical question - was the combat experience that the
US gained in Vietnam worth the lives and treasure expended, and the
alleged intangible costs that are so hard to pin down?

(Would the US military have been stronger or weaker without Vietnam? I
have honestly no idea. Would it have been a rejuvenated force as old
equipment was replaced, or would it have placed blind trust in new kit
and - for example - still been using AIM-9Bs into the late 1970s because
tests proved the missiles were marvellous?)


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam June 12th 04 10:19 PM

In message , Jarg
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
on to achieve their goal. Sounds like a success to me, even if the end
result wasn't the Socialist Worker's Paradise they'd hoped for.


Well, you could make the arguement that the US objective changed at the end.


So why change *at the end* if the original goal was so unimportant?

Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
applies, of course)


I never said the US won in Vietnam!


Sorry, Jarg - my comment was generic rather than particular and
certainly not aimed at you.

But if that is victory, I'm not sure it
was worth winning. I'm certain Vietnam would be a far better place had the
North lost.


The knee-jerk reaction is to insist you're wrong, of course. Which is
why it's rubbish. (Would a South Vietnam dependent on US supply and
still a proxy battlefield for the USSR and to lesser extent China, be
much more stable and prosperous?)



Thinking about it, the problem is getting support and consensus for what
'the national government of Vietnam' is doing. (Can't develop isolated
locations if you can't move supplies without dissident ambushes...) and
a clear win is needed for that - by either side, but one of them has to
show that There Is No Alternative.


It's too late and I'm too tired to put much more on that thought for the
moment. Willing to discuss it, but not right now. (Seriously, Jarg - if
it offends you, I'm sorry and let's leave it be. If you're interested in
it, very willing to debate)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

WalterM140 June 13th 04 12:07 AM

Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims look on us
with a
clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as many others of our former
friends and admirers. What happened to bring that about?


The Bush 43 administration.

Walt

Steven P. McNicoll June 13th 04 12:21 AM


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims
look on us with a clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as
many others of our former friends and admirers. What happened
to bring that about?


The teaching of radical Islam.



Michael Wise June 13th 04 06:11 AM

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?




--Mike

Michael Wise June 13th 04 06:20 AM

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

" I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into
the
campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst
possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential
campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and
written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning."


Ahh, yes. That from he who repeatedly inserts Vietnam into the
campaign. How duplicitous.

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have
personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone
who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their
country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting
in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of
that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who
ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people
who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn
against the will of their own aspirations?"

Senator John Kerry, Jan 30, 1992


Why do I feel this strong urge to regurgitate?

From one of Kerry's accused war criminals...



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.

Or is it that partisanship compels you to play the victim when you're
not one?


--Mike

Michael Wise June 13th 04 06:27 AM

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

From one of Kerry's accused war criminals...


"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."

"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, April 1971


Yeah, ain't war a bitch.

And, wasn't it amazing how many of those "honorably discharged and
...highly decorated..." assholes turned out to be wannabes and
neverweres.

Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators
from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame.



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?


--Mike

Kristan Roberge June 13th 04 06:30 AM



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, nor
did they have the benefit of having waxed almost all the SAM batteries
already, nor
did they have AWACS aircraft to tell their fighters where the Migs were 200
or 300 miles
out. Yeah...learned some lessons... learned how not to do it next time. And
how not to do it
is against someone as capable as themselves again. Go after the small
enemies, then your president
can look good on tv. ignore the big fish that'd kick yer arse again.




Regnirps June 13th 04 06:32 AM

(WalterM140) wrote:


Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims look on us
with a
clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as many others of our former
friends and admirers. What happened to bring that about?


The Bush 43 administration.


If you are old enough to think back, you will recall that the US was declared a
Great Satan under the Carter Administration, and ever since.

Walt

(Apparently born yesterday

-- Charlie Springer


Michael Wise June 13th 04 06:34 AM

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


He only gave it to the USO after unsuccessfully waiting for months for
somebody to come forward with some credible evidence. When
nobody did, he turned the money over to the USO even though there
was no winner.


But someone did come forward with some credible evidence. Did Trudeau make
the donation in the name of John Calhoun or did he renege on his promise?


http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22924488


Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama



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


--Mike

Michael Wise June 13th 04 06:35 AM

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:08:22 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik
wrote:

I got a 6 month "early out" in 1974 from the USAF.I jumped at the chance to
get it,was the first one to apply on my base.(LG Hanscom Fld,Ma.)


My advice is don't run for political office.



Not unless its on the Republican ticket. ; )


--Mike

Kevin Brooks June 13th 04 07:51 AM


"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?

Brooks







George Z. Bush June 13th 04 12:30 PM

Michael Wise wrote:
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

From one of Kerry's accused war criminals...


"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."

"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, April 1971


Yeah, ain't war a bitch.

And, wasn't it amazing how many of those "honorably discharged and
...highly decorated..." assholes turned out to be wannabes and
neverweres.

Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators
from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame.



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.

George Z.


--Mike




George Z. Bush June 13th 04 12:34 PM

Regnirps wrote:
(WalterM140) wrote:


Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims look on us
with a
clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as many others of our former
friends and admirers. What happened to bring that about?


The Bush 43 administration.


If you are old enough to think back, you will recall that the US was declared
a Great Satan under the Carter Administration, and ever since.

(Apparently born yesterday

-- Charlie Springer


That was true, but in those days, it was mostly by Iran acting alone because of
our involvement with the late Shah. Nowadays, just about the entire Muslim
world has joined in, minus a handful of Islamic governments whose viability is
tied to their relationships with our government.

George Z.



Ed Rasimus June 13th 04 05:52 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 05:27:27 GMT, 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?


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.

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. I know of none that have called their service traitorous,
their actions and those of their comrades criminal, or their service
dishonorable. Maybe I don't travel in the right circles.

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.


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

Ed Rasimus June 13th 04 05:55 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 05:11:46 GMT, 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?


You might want to check out the equippage, advising, training and
doctrine in place at the start of Desert Storm before repeating that
bit of revisionism. Some analysts even contend that the failure of
Soviet militarysupport so clearly displayed contributed to the
collapse of the SU.


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

Michael Wise June 13th 04 06:37 PM

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?


You might want to check out the equippage, advising, training and
doctrine in place at the start of Desert Storm


What part of "real-time" support, arming, training, and advisors do you
not understand?

... before repeating that bit of revisionism.



The only revisionism here are people trying to imply that battlefield
opposition in Iraq was even a fraction of what existed in Vietnam (or
Korea, for that matter)


Some analysts even contend that the failure of
Soviet militarysupport so clearly displayed contributed to the
collapse of the SU.



Some analysts also claim Elvis was hiding in the same rat hole with
Saddam...but escaped. Gorbachev's glasnost/perestroika policies are the
main reason the East Bloc collapsed.


--Mike

Ed Rasimus June 13th 04 07:03 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:37:13 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

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?


You might want to check out the equippage, advising, training and
doctrine in place at the start of Desert Storm


What part of "real-time" support, arming, training, and advisors do you
not understand?


What part of "in place" doesn't equate with "real-time"?

... before repeating that bit of revisionism.



The only revisionism here are people trying to imply that battlefield
opposition in Iraq was even a fraction of what existed in Vietnam (or
Korea, for that matter)


At the start of Desert Storm, the military of Iraq was ranked as fifth
largest in the world. Battlefield opposition at the start of Vietnam
was strictly small-arms, guerilla forces. Ia Drang was an
enlightenment. But, there was no armor, little artillery, zero modern
logistics possessed by the VC at the start in '64-'65. The Air Order
of Battle possessed by NVN was never more than 120 aircraft and
usually closer to 75 throughout the war.


Some analysts even contend that the failure of
Soviet militarysupport so clearly displayed contributed to the
collapse of the SU.



Some analysts also claim Elvis was hiding in the same rat hole with
Saddam...but escaped. Gorbachev's glasnost/perestroika policies are the
main reason the East Bloc collapsed.


Gorbachev's policies can also be attributed to the generational shift
from the leadership of the Stalinist cronies to the thirty year
younger generation that he represented. His glasnost (what a
concept--free exchange of information with the non-communist world)
and perestroika (participating in a free-trade global economy rather
than continuing the failures of central planning) were little more
than acknowledgement of the shortcomings recognized by George F.
Kennan in 1947.



--Mike


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

Michael Wise June 13th 04 07:09 PM

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.


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. 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.



--Mike

Michael Wise June 13th 04 07:24 PM

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

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?

You might want to check out the equippage, advising, training and
doctrine in place at the start of Desert Storm


What part of "real-time" support, arming, training, and advisors do you
not understand?


What part of "in place" doesn't equate with "real-time"?


"In place at the start" is static. It means at point A, this, this, and
that were there. Real-time means that not only were this, this, and that
there at point A, but they were sustained and augmented throughout the
conflict.

So to answer your question of "What part of "in place" doesn't equate
with 'real-time'"?: none of it equates to real-time.


... before repeating that bit of revisionism.



The only revisionism here are people trying to imply that battlefield
opposition in Iraq was even a fraction of what existed in Vietnam (or
Korea, for that matter)


At the start of Desert Storm, the military of Iraq was ranked as fifth
largest in the world.


Great, and I hear Spiderbreath, Kansas has the 3rd largest ball of yarn
in the world.

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




Battlefield opposition at the start of Vietnam
was strictly small-arms, guerilla forces. Ia Drang was an
enlightenment. But, there was no armor, little artillery, zero modern
logistics possessed by the VC at the start in '64-'65. The Air Order
of Battle possessed by NVN was never more than 120 aircraft and
usually closer to 75 throughout the war.



So we have established that Iraq was better prepared at the onset of
battle than was Vietnam. I imagine a decade of high-intensity fighting
with Iran probably had something to do with that. In any case, I didn't
refer to what may or may not have existed at a single static moment; I'm
referring to outside help from a major super-power throughout the entire
conflict. Did Iraq have that for even a day of Operation Re-elect Bush
or the latest war?


Some analysts even contend that the failure of
Soviet militarysupport so clearly displayed contributed to the
collapse of the SU.



Some analysts also claim Elvis was hiding in the same rat hole with
Saddam...but escaped. Gorbachev's glasnost/perestroika policies are the
main reason the East Bloc collapsed.


Gorbachev's policies can also be attributed to the generational shift
from the leadership of the Stalinist cronies to the thirty year
younger generation that he represented. His glasnost (what a
concept--free exchange of information with the non-communist world)
and perestroika (participating in a free-trade global economy rather
than continuing the failures of central planning) were little more
than acknowledgement of the shortcomings recognized by George F.
Kennan in 1947.


They were also 99% of the reason why the East Bloc fell.


--Mike

Lisakbernacchia June 13th 04 07:30 PM

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/13/2004 9:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 05:27:27 GMT, 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?


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.

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. I know of none that have called their service traitorous,
their actions and those of their comrades criminal, or their service
dishonorable. Maybe I don't travel in the right circles.

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.


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

Only the infantry stole stole valor, never the airmen?

Ed Rasimus June 13th 04 08:22 PM

On 13 Jun 2004 18:30:24 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: Ed Rasimus


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.

Only the infantry stole stole valor, never the airmen?


You seem intent on becoming a regular contributor here. If that is so,
then might I suggest that you read just a bit more slowly and try to
detach a bit from your agenda.

I did not say that only "the infantry stole valor..." Nor does
Burkitt. There have been a rash of poseurs claiming to be SEALs,
Special Ops, CIA operatives, POWs, MOH recipients, and pilots.

Recently at a ceremony in Colorado a man in the uniform of an AF
colonel, wearing wings and the AF Cross, told stories of having been a
POW, escaping captivity, evading capture, heroic flights, etc. His
problem was that he never rose above the rank of A/1C, that he was
never a pilot, never a POW and never left the US when he was on active
duty. His biggest problem was that also on the podium was the National
Commander of the Nam-POWs who proceeded to blow the whistle on him.

The reality is that while there were hundreds of thousands who saw
ground combat in SEA, there were millions who served in support
functions both in country and elsewhere. Many have made claims of
combat experience that are untrue. Many, of course are very true.


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

Ed Rasimus June 13th 04 08:29 PM

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:09:46 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

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.

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.


Indeed they do. The sustained combat experience on the ground is
decidedly different than an hour or two "across the fence." But there
is also the difference between several days of intense ground combat
(and let's acknowledge that SEA was considerably less intense than the
incredible duration of battle in WW II), and months of daily rising to
face the mission of the day. Consider the Luftwaffe who had no end of
tour, but simply flew until the war would be over or they would be
dead.

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.


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?


I continue to encounter veterans from all services.

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.

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

Lisakbernacchia June 13th 04 09:13 PM

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/13/2004 12:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


You seem intent on becoming a regular contributor here. If that is so,
then might I suggest that you read just a bit more slowly and try to
detach a bit from your agenda.


Only I have an agenda and you have none?. 'Id say that your claim that we won
in VN is clearly an agenda..And one lacking in merit on any basis.

Pete June 13th 04 09:49 PM


"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Recently at a ceremony in Colorado a man in the uniform of an AF
colonel, wearing wings and the AF Cross, told stories of having been a
POW, escaping captivity, evading capture, heroic flights, etc. His
problem was that he never rose above the rank of A/1C, that he was
never a pilot, never a POW and never left the US when he was on active
duty. His biggest problem was that also on the podium was the National
Commander of the Nam-POWs who proceeded to blow the whistle on him.

The reality is that while there were hundreds of thousands who saw
ground combat in SEA, there were millions who served in support
functions both in country and elsewhere. Many have made claims of
combat experience that are untrue. Many, of course are very true.


During Desert Storm, there was a USAF guy from Lakenheath, I believe. Went
home on leave just after (or during) operations, and was interviewed, on TV,
as to his experiences in Iraq.

"Pilot, almost got shot down, blowing stuff up, me and my wingman, blah blah
blah"

Turns out he was also an A1C.

Pete



Michael Wise June 13th 04 11:07 PM

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM.

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