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)

BUFDRVR July 21st 04 01:19 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38.


I guess the IP demo was done so they could accurately perform the demo?

Got a book review brief on your book today Ed (yes,yes I'm going to get it!).
Only critique was that you used too much jargon. The review was done by a Comm
officer.


BUFDRVR

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

Michael Kelly July 21st 04 01:28 AM

They do. My next door neighbor flew T-38Cs in SUPT and absolutely loved
the glass cockpit.

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer

BUFDRVR wrote:
Mary wrote:


Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD?



Hmm, good question, I know the T-38Cs headed for IFF do, but I'm not sure about
the SUPT T-38s?


BUFDRVR

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



Regnirps July 21st 04 06:23 AM

Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam wrote:

But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.


"The NYT said what I suggest."


-- Charlie Springer


So you don't have a source.


You asked for quote so I quoted myself. It happens to be true.

-- Charlie Springer


Ed Rasimus July 21st 04 03:42 PM

On 21 Jul 2004 00:19:04 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38.


I guess the IP demo was done so they could accurately perform the demo?

Got a book review brief on your book today Ed (yes,yes I'm going to get it!).
Only critique was that you used too much jargon. The review was done by a Comm
officer.


BUFDRVR


Dunno about your comm officer. The "jargon" is the language of the
business. IOW, I didn't popularize or "dumb-down" the language ala
"Top Gun". But, I spell out all acronyms and there is a
glossary--adequate so that even my wife could understand it and my
editor would accept it.

If you don't hurry, you'll be way behind when the new book comes out
in February.

I've been very fortunate to get cover blurbs for the new one from
Walter Boyne, Dan Ford, Tom Wilson, Mark Berent and Robin Olds. Makes
me blush--but I'll get over it.



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

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 09:26 PM

(Regnirps) wrote in message ...
(ArtKramr) wrote:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over on
the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that certainly
isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how different?
Count the holes afterword?).


Mr Kramer was speaking (correctly) about cumulative probablity whereas
the other argument was correct about the probability per event.

If you throw the dice twenty times the probability that you'll throw
snake eyes is higher than if you only threw them 10 times BECAUSE
the probability of throwing snake eyes is the same on each roll.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 09:30 PM

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

... in my day the law didn't

require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting date.



It did,



You sure about htat?

you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.



I believe that is true also.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 09:55 PM

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...
Bush was not elected. He was appointed. We'll fix that in November.



Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.


Michael Moore uses some footage in "Fahrenheit 911" from the 2000 certification
of Florida's elctoral votes in the Senate. They could have been challenged if
any one senator had agreed to co-sign the documentation provided by black
members of Congress.


My recollection from 2001 (which could be wrong) was that every Democratic
Congressman from FL got up and voiced an objection.

The reason no Senator signed on to the objection was becuase Al Gore
did not want any Senator to do so. As you know, Joe Lieberman, his
vice presidential cadidate, was a Senator.


Since you seem pretty familiar with this, what do you think about the rationale
the Supreme Court used to close out the Florida recount?


IMHO, the USSC ruled correctly that the differences in voting
technology and variation standards for acceptance of a ballot
from one county to the next in FL violated the equal protection
clause of the 14th amendment.

In view of that, it made no sense to enjoin FL from attempting to
remedy the error.


My understanding is that the Court has usually deferred to state courts in
interpreting state constitutions. But here, they took the issue away from the
state court and basically declared Bush the winner.


The 14th amendment quit eclearly trumps state constitutions. It is one
area where the USSC clearly can and should, if necessary, overule
the state courts.


In "F-911" you can hear Congresswoman Corrine Brown say that 16,000 of her
constituents had been illegally disinfranchised in Duvall County.


I don't know her basis for that statement. The post-election examination
of the undervoted and overvoted ballots found that few of them had
anything that could be reasonably interpreted as the clear intent of
the voter by any objective standard. Fewer than 1500 throughout the
entire state where there were perhaps 100,000 under and/or overvoted
ballots in total.

If the objective standard used to determine the clear intent of the
voter required at least one of the four corners of the chad to
be broken then the post election showed that Bush won the vote by
approximately (just a tiny bit less IIRC) the same as the margin
at the time the USSC closed the show down. However, if 'dimpled'
chads were interpreted as indicating the clear intent of the voter
then Gore would have won by a very small margin. One should consider
how a chad gets to be dimpled. If the ejection port under the chad
on a votamatic becomes clogged with accumulated chads then it may
become impossible to press the chad down far enough to seperate the
corners resulting in a dimpled chad. It seems reasonable to suppose
that the ejection ports under those chads that are being punched out
most often will be most likely to become plugged. So it may be
that the votomatics discriminate slightly against whoever is
getting the most votes.

This is from an article in the Washington Post published about
6 months into 2001.

One Republican dominated county used a two-page ballot for the
Presidential candidates and that county had the highest rate of
rejected ballots due ot overvotes. Up to 15% of the voters
had voted for President on page 1, and voted for president again
on page 2.

As in the country at large there is no clear answer to the question
who won the popular vote in Florida, let alone who would have won
absent mechanical malfunctions and voter error.

The person the Congress says is the winner becomes President on
inaguration day.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 09:57 PM

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?

Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator

sign.


Walt

What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.

George Z.


Sorry. the subject was the certification of Florida electors in 2000.

Walt


So, the comment about Daschle would have referred to something like what Denny
Hastert did with the discharge petition for the vote on concurrent receipt which
got only ONE Republican vote from the entire House? Or doesn't one size fit all
when it comes to politics.....nasty when the Dems do it in the Senate, but OK
when the Repubs do it in the House? Sounds like a case of the whines to me.



What are you talking about?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 10:10 PM

"Mark Cook" wrote in message m...

Yes, they could have challenged, but would have lost. With the make up of
Congress, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, only the candidate who held
state certification would win this type of challenge. Of course, Bush held
state certification as a result of the remedy crafted by the Democrat
majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
vs. Harris). Instead of ordering a full recount, the court decided that
state certification would be awarded to the winner of 4 Democrat majority
county recount.


As I recall, the second FLSC decision that was appealed to the USSC
required that all undervoted ballots through out the state of FL
be recounted by hand using the standard for interpretation established
in FL election law: 'the clear intent of the voter'.

This was the decision that was first stayed, and later overturned
by the USSC.

"Rougher translation: We're giving you a chance to explain your way out of
the federal law trap into which you stumbled on Nov. 21. But we don't see
how you can do it. And by the way, it isn't only us that you have to
convince. Under another provision of that 1887 act (3 U.S.C. section 15),
the Bush electors that Gov. Jeb Bush has already certified and sent to
Congress, via the archivist of the United States, will be the ones counted,
unless any Gore electors approved by the Florida courts can pass muster with
both the Republican-controlled House and the Senate. Not much chance of
that."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...2000-12-13.htm


This article concerns the first ruling of the FLSC which was appealed
to the USSC, not the second, which I think is the one Walt was writing
about.

--

FF

Ed Rasimus July 21st 04 10:11 PM

On 21 Jul 2004 13:30:09 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

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

... in my day the law didn't

require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting date.



It did,



You sure about htat?

you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.



I believe that is true also.


The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
birthday.

The registration requirement was suspended from 1975 to 1980, but
that's the only time. Lots of info at
http://www.sss.gov/Default.htm


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

Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 10:13 PM

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...
That is the problem. The US Constitution gives the state legislature the
right to enact election law. The Florida Supreme Court CANNOT use the state
constitution to change those codes. See the article above.


Very interesting. Thanks.

Saw Howard Fineman of Newsweek on 'Hardball' last night. He said the Dems were
ouy-lawyered in 2000 and they had admitted as much. Kerry is working to be
better prepared this year.


Many states use different voting technologies in different precints and
probably most will have different defacto standards for how they handle
the ballots. We will probably see a lot of court cases arising pursuant
to the precedent set by Bush v Gore.

--

FF

Brett July 21st 04 10:20 PM

"Fred the peabrained moron" wrote
"Brett" wrote in message

...
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

... in my day the law didn't

require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your

reporting date.


It did,



You sure about htat?


Well since you eliminated what the response was given to I'm sure my
response to the comment originally presented that you cut away was correct.




ian maclure July 21st 04 10:21 PM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:06:33 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jul 2004 23:06:39 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



You need to read some good history of the war and stop reading Terry
McAullife dispatches.


I am not familiar with Mr McAullife.


Chairman of Dumbocrapic Nazi Comintern or DNC.

[snip]

I find it very hard to beleive that you blame all that on Kerry's
testimony.


No, he had help. But it was still TREASON.

[snip]

Why? It was the same view that was help by a great many ordinary
Americans at that time.


Kennedy and Johnson's legacy to the body politic.

[snip]

If we killed that many and they didn't give up, or we killed fewer
and they didn't give up, isn't the essential fact that they
didn't give up?


Having the ability to indecriminately execute anybody who says
you nay helps a great deal.
Wonder how docile the North Vietnamese population would have been
had they known just how bad the losses actually were.

[snip]

Do you really think that absent domestic protests the US would
ever have pulled our ground forces out of Vietnam while the war
continued?


Wouldn't have been any need to absent the RVN capitulating.

[snip]

I find it odd that you think that would be a good thing.


Who says it is?
Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE.

IBM

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


Fred the Red Shirt July 21st 04 10:23 PM

(Bill Shatzer) wrote in message ...
"ian maclure" ) writes:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:34:06 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:


[snip]


Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.


Not quite.
The size of the electoral college is approximately the same
as Congress ( both houses ).
Congress only gets a direct vote if the Electoral College is
a dead heat.


'Tis the House of Representives, not congress as a whole, which can
select a president. And that duty falls on the HoR when no one
receives a majority of the votes in the electoral college. A dead
heat is not required.

The HoR selected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson in 1825 even
though Jackson received more electoral votes - Henry Clay finished
3rd but secured enough electoral votes to deny either Jackson or
Adams a majority.


What you and Mr McClure and others are not considering is that it
is the Congress, meeting in joint session, that decides which
Elecotral votes to accept and which to reject. The USSC held in
1877 that the decision of the Congress in doing so is not
subject to judicial review.

So the Congress can see to it that no candidate recceives a
majority in the EC by selective rejecting electoral votes.

Not as silly as it sounds. Consider:

State laws dictating to electors how they should vote have been
ruled unconstitutional. So in a close election a small number
of maverick or corrupt electors could swing the vote in the
EC for a candidate who would otherwise have lost, and the Congress
can reject their votes.

--

FF

ian maclure July 21st 04 10:23 PM

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:57:14 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

[snip]

Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
to vote at all, mooting recounts.


Congresswoman Brown is a barking moonbat.
She gives lunatics a bad name.

IBM

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


Paul J. Adam July 21st 04 11:17 PM

In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
My point is that I've heard other folks say that using a .50 cal
machine gun against people is a war crime, though I didn't agree
with them.


Urban myth, I think, growing out of it being both technically illegal
and practically pointless to fire the .50" spotting rifles for 106mm
recoilless rifles at people (it fired explosive rounds designed to make
an obvious flash when they hit the tank you were aiming for, hence
violating Hague rules).

I've heard stories about how you had to claim you were shooting a .50"
Browning at the enemy's web gear or helmets or rifles and it was just
too bad their bodies got in the way. However, I've got the UK tactical
guidance for the .50" heavy machine gun at work, and it's almost
enthusiastic in its description of the effects on personnel as well as
light armoured vehicles, soft-skinned transport, patrol boats and even
helicopters and aircraft if you manage a hit. Doesn't sound like there
are legal worries about firing .50" machineguns at people in the UK.

(*Please* don't shoot one at me. They sound like very effective weapons.
I would hate to have to go through the trouble of cowering and appeasing
you at the time to persuade you to stop, and then hunting you down and
killing you later :) )

Digressing, were there not objections to the effect that the US
used napalm in Vietnam in a manner that violated the GCs?


I daresay a lawyer could take the case, and even that there were
instances of illegality (where a pilot didn't land pre-strike and get
signed declarations from everyone who might be hit that 'I agree that I
am (delete as applicable) (a) an active armed member of the Viet Cong
who will be carrying my weapon when this airstrike hits, (b) a uniformed
soldier of the North Vietnamese Army, (c) so strongly sympathetic to
those groups that I directly supply aid and comfort to them'.

Technically, without those signed declarations from every single person
you might possibly injure with your strike, you're potentially a war
criminal for not taking all possible precautions to protect
noncombatants. However, I don't think you'd get a case out of it. The
GCs require you to try to avoid noncombatant casualties where they would
be disproportionate to the military results, not to eschew them
completely. (As a data point, notice how few civilians were killed per
ton of bombs dropped when the B-52s hit Hanoi in late 1972)


Bear in mind that the US and UK were attacked for "illegally" using
cluster munitions in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. While there have
been cries that assorted Presidents, secretaries of states and senior
air marshalls will be prosecuted and sentenced to life at hard labour
for their wickedness, none of these claims have amounted to much more
than hot air.

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

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

BUFDRVR July 21st 04 11:18 PM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

If you don't hurry, you'll be way behind when the new book comes out
in February.


I actually grab the copy that the comm guy used and read up to page 20 while
half paying attention to the other book reviews. I was hooked by page 20 so I'm
resolved to buy it this weekend.


BUFDRVR

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

WalterM140 July 21st 04 11:30 PM

The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
birthday.


ON the 18th birthday?

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
not to worry about it.

Walt

B2431 July 22nd 04 12:41 AM

From: (WalterM140)


The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
birthday.


ON the 18th birthday?


Actually I believe there was a grace period. Thirty days?

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
not to worry about it.

Walt


Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he was
not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law? If you went
straight to active duty you would have been classified 1-C. If you went DEP you
would have been classified 1-D. If the draft had stayed in effect and you had
completed the mininum total service, 6 years then (8 years now) IIRC, you would
have been classified 4-A

Based on many of your posts I seriously doubt you served a day in any branch of
the military.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

George Shirley July 22nd 04 01:34 AM

B2431 wrote:
From: (WalterM140)



The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
birthday.


ON the 18th birthday?



Actually I believe there was a grace period. Thirty days?

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
not to worry about it.

Walt



Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he was
not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law? If you went
straight to active duty you would have been classified 1-C. If you went DEP you
would have been classified 1-D. If the draft had stayed in effect and you had
completed the mininum total service, 6 years then (8 years now) IIRC, you would
have been classified 4-A


I registered for the draft in November 1960 and I was 21 years and two
months old. I had enlisted at 17 and wasn't required to register at that
time. I was classified as 4A, still got my draft card, and I had only
served about 3 and a half years. Didn't get my discharge until July 1963
after completion of my six-year obligation. Minor nit pick but you're
otherwise right. Shocked the hell out of the draft board ladies when I
walked in to register at 21 though. I don't think either of them had
ever registered a kiddie cruiser.

George

Based on many of your posts I seriously doubt you served a day in any branch of
the military.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



ArtKramr July 22nd 04 02:11 AM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "ian maclure"


Who says it is?
Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE.

IBM


Takes one to know one.


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


George Z. Bush July 22nd 04 02:41 AM


"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message

...
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?

Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no

senator
sign.


Walt

What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic

had
been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.

George Z.


Sorry. the subject was the certification of Florida electors in 2000.

Walt


So, the comment about Daschle would have referred to something like what

Denny
Hastert did with the discharge petition for the vote on concurrent receipt

which
got only ONE Republican vote from the entire House? Or doesn't one size fit

all
when it comes to politics.....nasty when the Dems do it in the Senate, but

OK
when the Repubs do it in the House? Sounds like a case of the whines to me.



What are you talking about?


Nothing....I'm too tired to bother trying to restate my views. Next case.

George Z.



George Z. Bush July 22nd 04 02:43 AM


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 21 Jul 2004 13:30:09 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

"Brett" wrote in message

...
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

... in my day the law didn't
require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your

reporting date.


It did,



You sure about htat?

you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.



I believe that is true also.


The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
birthday.

The registration requirement was suspended from 1975 to 1980, but
that's the only time. Lots of info at
http://www.sss.gov/Default.htm

I stand corrected. Thanks.

George Z.



Billy Preston July 22nd 04 02:47 AM

"WalterM140" wrote

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
not to worry about it.


That's not the same as you claimed originally. What Marine unit were you in?



Ian MacLure July 22nd 04 03:41 AM

"Billy Preston" wrote in
news:[email protected]:

"WalterM140" wrote

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter
told me not to worry about it.


That's not the same as you claimed originally. What Marine unit were
you in?


At a guess FMF, REMF Supply Battalion. And of course a rifleman
by courtesy at least.

IBM

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


Ian MacLure July 22nd 04 03:46 AM

(ArtKramr) wrote in news:[email protected]
m06.aol.com:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "ian maclure"



Who says it is?
Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE.

IBM


Takes one to know one.


I can recognise lots of things.
Paying attention does that.
I've seen Trotskerry's type before.
Usually glad to see the back of them.
Kerry is a User. He takes something, uses
it for his own ends and buggers off leaving
somebody else ( a Builder ) to clean up the mess.
He's also a TREASONOUS SWINE but we knew that.

IBM

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


WalterM140 July 22nd 04 05:09 AM

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told
me
not to worry about it.


That's not the same as you claimed originally. What Marine unit were you in?


My claims have been consistent.

I was at Parris Island from 11/12/73 to 2/11/74. I had ten days leave and
seven days transit time before I had to report to Intantry Training School at
Camp San Onofre -- Camp Pendleton.

Here's a picture I took from San Onofre of Mount Mother****er in 1974:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/mountmother****er.jpg

I graduated from ITS on 4/12/74. I had a follow on school at Portsmouth --
the Sea Duty Indoctrination Course. That was a 4 week course. From McGuire
AFB I flew to Rota, Spain and joined the Marine Detachment of the U.S.S. Simon
Lake.

Here's a picture of the Lake:

http://www.beachrealty.com/simonlake/as336.jpg

Here's a picture I took in the Marine Detachment in 1975. That's Tye Wright
and FiFi King in the foreground. In the left background is Gunnery Sergeant
Carlos Hathcock. Gunny Hathcock killed 93 men in Viet Nam. Some of his real
accomplishments were fictionalized in the movie "Sniper."

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/mardet75.jpg

Here's a picture I took on a CAX at 29 Palms in 1983:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/cax84.jpg

Here I am at the Marine Corps Ball in 1983:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/oki83.jpg

Oh. Here's a picture of my Porsche 928:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/porsche928.jpg

Is that enough?

Walt

WalterM140 July 22nd 04 05:16 AM

Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he
was
not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law?


Nope.

Walt

Fred the Red Shirt July 22nd 04 08:16 AM

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Fred the peabrained moron" wrote
"Brett" wrote in message

...
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

... in my day the law didn't

require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your

reporting date.


It did,



You sure about htat?


Well since you eliminated what the response was given to I'm sure my
response to the comment originally presented that you cut away was correct.


Easily corrected:

George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.


I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register and he
said not to worry about it.

Walt


You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
clearer with each posting why think the way you do.


Unless they changed the law back in the 70s, in my day the law
didn't require you to registerin my day the law didn't require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your
reporting date.



It did, you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.

*******

Now, are you sure that the law did require Walt to register for the draft
after he had volunteered and was waiting for his reporting date?

--

FF

B2431 July 22nd 04 08:29 AM

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/21/2004 11:16 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he
was
not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law?


Nope.

Walt


I guess that explains why you try to pass off half baked political theories and
accusations on us.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Fred the Red Shirt July 22nd 04 08:57 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jul 2004 22:40:58 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message ...

The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
of war crimes.


I disagree. That is a gross distortion of the facts, just like the
way neocons used Sherman's words form a protion of one of his letters
to 'prove' that he had confessed to war crimes.

... If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.


Perhaps someone should point that out to him and ask him to address that.

Somehow I don't think it would satisfy you if he did, even if he had
done so back then.

What Kerry said was clearly figurative speech, just like when I say
we Americans are responsible for the wrongdoing that America does
anywhere in the world today?


Here's what Kerry said (again!) on Meet the Press:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

Does that sound allegorical or less than a literal admission of war
crimes?


No, this time you picked out a quote wherein Kerry referred to
specific
activities. Read again:

"I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers"

NOWHERE in the paragraph you just quoted doe he accuse you of all
being involved with or have knowledge of war crimes.


I'm not sure if I should question your competency or your honesty
but something is not right.



I've once gone through the litany and challenged that free fire zones,
harrassment, interdiction, .50 cal, search-and-destroy, air raids, etc
are NOT in any way violations of the Geneva Convention.


And I addressed those issue in this thread where you or someone
else discussed them. So could you pick it up there, if you wish
to continue?


I challenged Kerry's assertion regarding .50 cal as "our only weapon
against people" comparing it to his narrative of one of his BS awards
indicating he had an M-16 which jammed so he picked up another M-16 in
the boat.


The sentence is pretty awkward. I think one could honestly parse
it as 'there were times when conducting harrassment and interdiction
fire that the 50 cal was the only weapon we used.'

'were our only weapon' by itself is of course literally as well as
gramatically incorrect. 'We' (America) literally had tanks and
aircraft and all sorts of other weapons. Heck, we had nuclear
weapons too, just not in Vietnam.

Do you suppose that, given the sentence is both ungrammatical and
blindingly obviously literally incorrect he might have mispoken?

Just because he doesn't talk like Bush doesn't mean he never screws
up.


Did I just stab you in the back?


And here's from Kerry's Senate testimony (under oath):

"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. It is impossible
to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions
in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their
experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this
country, in a sense, made them do.


And here where he does use 'all' he is clearly speaking generally.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off
ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks,


And here, of course, he is clearly referring to specific anecdotes.


and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the
normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which
is done by the applied bombing power of this country."


And here of course, he is speaking generally again.


Now Mr Rasimus, I gather from your writing that you are a literate
man of at least moderate intelligence. You have indicated that
you are older than myself, that you work for the Smithsonian and
you read the Washington Times. Few people outside of the DC
area (and not a whole lot there either) read the Times so I figure
you live in the DC area.

I would guess that over the years you have heard at least as much
Senate 'testimony' as I have. You must have listened on one or
more occasion when people 'testified' by reading prepared speeches
and were then 'questioned' by Senators whose questions were themselves
also speeches.

So please, don't expect me to believe that you hope that when
someone testifies befor the Senate they are speaking literally.
You know better. Don't expect me to believe that you cannot tell
when a speaker shifts between general statements to specific
anecdotes and back again.

You're smart enough, and you're experienced enough. It is odd that
you do not seem to have expected others in the newsgroup to be
similarly endowed with those attributes.



It certainly sounds like LITERAL testimony. Of course, the fact that
his "150 honorably discharged....etc" veterans turned out to not be so
makes it questionable, but let's give John the benefit of the doubt
that he didn't know it at the time.


I appreciate that last sentence was written in an effort to be fair.
But I still ask you to show some evidence that the 'testimony' of
the 'Winter Soldiers' was debunked.

Lots of people make that claim.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 22nd 04 09:04 AM

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

Kerry's crew said there was no enemy fire, so the folks didn't think they
were in a battle.


No, that's not correct at all.

His former commander (one echelon removed) now claims that's
what they said. The crew currently claim no such thing.

With one exception, -everyone- who served under Kerry on the
Swift boats speaks most highly of him and NONE claim it was
anything but a battle. Or, at least an assumed battle.


It would be nice i you could point us to a source because I may
sometime want to say that too. And if I do, respectfully,
I'd like to have a source closer the to story than yourself.

Also, I thought all the Free-nets were long gone. I used to have
a Cleveland Free-net account.

--

FF

Brett July 22nd 04 10:15 AM

"Fred the peabrained moron" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message

...
"Fred the peabrained moron" wrote
"Brett" wrote in message

...
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

... in my day the law didn't

require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your

reporting date.


It did,


You sure about htat?


Well since you eliminated what the response was given to I'm sure my
response to the comment originally presented that you cut away was

correct.

Easily corrected:

George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.


I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register

and he
said not to worry about it.

Walt

You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
clearer with each posting why think the way you do.


Unless they changed the law back in the 70s, in my day the law
didn't require you to registerin my day the law didn't require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your
reporting date.



It did, you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.

*******

Now, are you sure that the law did require Walt to register for the draft
after he had volunteered and was waiting for his reporting date?


Now peabrain since he was over 18 and he was under 27 and he wasn't on
ACTIVE DUTY at the time, the law did require him to register and they did
change the law during the 1970's.




ArtKramr July 22nd 04 03:36 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/21/2004 9:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told

me
not to worry about it.


That's not the same as you claimed originally. What Marine unit were you

in?

My claims have been consistent.

I was at Parris Island from 11/12/73 to 2/11/74. I had ten days leave and
seven days transit time before I had to report to Intantry Training School at
Camp San Onofre -- Camp Pendleton.

Here's a picture I took from San Onofre of Mount Mother****er in 1974:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/mountmother****er.jpg

I graduated from ITS on 4/12/74. I had a follow on school at Portsmouth --
the Sea Duty Indoctrination Course. That was a 4 week course. From McGuire
AFB I flew to Rota, Spain and joined the Marine Detachment of the U.S.S.
Simon
Lake.

Here's a picture of the Lake:

http://www.beachrealty.com/simonlake/as336.jpg

Here's a picture I took in the Marine Detachment in 1975. That's Tye Wright
and FiFi King in the foreground. In the left background is Gunnery Sergeant
Carlos Hathcock. Gunny Hathcock killed 93 men in Viet Nam. Some of his real
accomplishments were fictionalized in the movie "Sniper."

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/mardet75.jpg

Here's a picture I took on a CAX at 29 Palms in 1983:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/cax84.jpg

Here I am at the Marine Corps Ball in 1983:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/oki83.jpg

Oh. Here's a picture of my Porsche 928:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/porsche928.jpg

Is that enough?

Walt



What percentage of those on this NG who challenge your service ever volunteered
for anything, much less the Marines?


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


Ed Rasimus July 22nd 04 03:56 PM

On 22 Jul 2004 00:57:58 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Now Mr Rasimus, I gather from your writing that you are a literate
man of at least moderate intelligence. You have indicated that
you are older than myself, that you work for the Smithsonian and
you read the Washington Times. Few people outside of the DC
area (and not a whole lot there either) read the Times so I figure
you live in the DC area.


Now Fred (I hesitate to use first names after you have been so
courteous, but also feel uncomfortable with whether or not "the Red
Shirt" is your entire last name or should be hyphenated. So, I'll use
the familiar.)

You aren't doing your homework, and that seems exceptional because in
other posts you've clearly demonstrated an ability to use Google and
maybe even Nexis.

Thank you for the compliment to my literacy and the moderation of my
intellect. I am, indeed probably older than you. Nearly as old as
dirt, having grown up shortly after the invention of fire.

But, you haven't paid attention at all regarding the remainder. I
don't work for Smithsonian. My books are published by Smithsonian
Institution Press. I'm a retired military tactical aviator and have
done freelance writing for computer magazines and teaching of
political science at my local college. I've got no employment
relationship with the Smithsonian.

Further I don't live in the DC area and I don't read the Washington
Times. I read the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Denver Post and the
Wall Street Journal.

I would guess that over the years you have heard at least as much
Senate 'testimony' as I have. You must have listened on one or
more occasion when people 'testified' by reading prepared speeches
and were then 'questioned' by Senators whose questions were themselves
also speeches.

So please, don't expect me to believe that you hope that when
someone testifies befor the Senate they are speaking literally.
You know better. Don't expect me to believe that you cannot tell
when a speaker shifts between general statements to specific
anecdotes and back again.


"Literal" testimony is fact. The opposite of literal is figurative.
General statements or specific statements of fact are literal.
Anecdotes are literal as are statistical data.

You're smart enough, and you're experienced enough. It is odd that
you do not seem to have expected others in the newsgroup to be
similarly endowed with those attributes.


I only observe the evidence. Many in the newsgroup are more amply
endowed than I. Some, regretably, regularly emphasize the contrary.

I might suggest that you Google my name and find out a bit about me.
Or query my name on Amazon.com and see what the books are about.



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

oh boy July 22nd 04 04:04 PM

Paying attention to what?

You dodge any debate where you are asked to back up statments with
anything but "spin"
You make up things as you go along....
You quote out of context to create lies.....
You dismiss public military records or GWB because you don't like what
they say
You use a "fact" the unfounded opinions of other rabid usenet posters
who agree with you
etc, etc, etc

Ian MacLure wrote in message . ..
(ArtKramr) wrote in news:[email protected]
m06.aol.com:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "ian maclure"



Who says it is?
Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE.

IBM


Takes one to know one.


I can recognise lots of things.
Paying attention does that.
I've seen Trotskerry's type before.
Usually glad to see the back of them.
Kerry is a User. He takes something, uses
it for his own ends and buggers off leaving
somebody else ( a Builder ) to clean up the mess.
He's also a TREASONOUS SWINE but we knew that.

IBM

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


Buzzer July 22nd 04 05:51 PM

On 22 Jul 2004 04:09:14 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Oh. Here's a picture of my Porsche 928:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/porsche928.jpg

Is that a Bondo patch down low on the right rear and looks like rust
just under the door?

WalterM140 August 4th 04 09:01 AM

He is dead wrong in his support of Bush for reelection, IMHO. Bush
has cost our nation dearly with his unacknowledged mistakes and gaffes,
and if we are to believe the saying that "when you're in the hole, the

first
thing you've got to do is to stop digging" then it's clearly time for a

change.


What mistakes and gaffes are you referring to? What hole are we in?



Well, last night on MSNBC, Chris Mathews quoted Pres. Mubarak of Egypt as
saying invading Iraq had created 1,000 Bin Ladens.

Bush is a disastrous failure as president.

And:

"But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now,
in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are
guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll.
Correspondent Steve Kroft reports. “There has been poor strategic thinking in
this,” says Zinni.

“There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to
think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over
Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least
hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a
failure.”

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat,
rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a
reputation for candor.

Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle
Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its
conduct of the war in Iraq.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground
and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was
dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the
finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is
owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He
didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy.
And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the
war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress:
“This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it
needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war
the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.

“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al
Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60
countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and
intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this
one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”


Mo

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you another excerpt from your {senator Byrd] book:
"We keep hearing the refrain, `Stay the course.' What is the course? Is it
that we continue sending American troops to be used as sitting ducks in an
Iraqi shooting gallery? How long are we going to be fed the pap that fighting
the terrorists on the streets of Baghdad saves us from fighting terrorists on
the streets of New York City or Washington, D.C.?"

Mo

4-Star Marine General
Says Time To Get
Rid Of Neocons
`The Neo-Cons Have Had Their Day -
Now It's Time for a Clean Sweep'
Executive Intelligence Review
Interview With Gen. Joseph P. Hoar
By Jeffrey Steinberg
EIR
5-31-4

Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), a four-star general, was Commander in
Chief, U.S. Central Command (1991-94), commanding the U.S. forces in the
Persian Gulf after the 1991 war. He also served in the Vietnam War, as a
battalion and brigade advisor with the Vietnamese Marines. He was
interviewed by Jeffrey Steinberg on May 6, 2004.

EIR: You were one of the people who had been critical before the
outbreak of fighting, over whether or not the situation warranted going
to war. I believe you also had some rather accurate warnings about what
might happen, as the war unfolded, especially after the hot phase.
What's your thinking on these issues now, in hindsight, as we're over a
year past the formal fighting phase?

Hoar: There's small comfort in realizing that perhaps you were closer to
reality than the elected and appointed figures in the civilian
government. Those of us that have had some experience in the region over
the years, and don't necessarily have ulterior motivations, particularly
people that know very much about Iraq?and I don't necessarily put myself
in that category; specifically, I know a fair amount about the
political-military situation in the region, but know enough about Iraq
to know that any military operation and any subsequent reconstruction
efforts, to include the interjection of democracy, were going to be
extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible.

But, my major concern, Jeff, really was, that while I was in favor of
regime change, I was not in favor of it a year and a half or two years
ago, and certainly not these means."

KIA count in Iraq: 915

For nothng.



Walt

WalterM140 August 4th 04 09:02 AM

I can think of no action more despicable than false public
condemnation of warriors on the field of battle, as John Kerry made
under oath.


I don't think anyone has shown that Senator Kerry made any untruthful
statements in his 1971 testimony.


snip clueless reference

But what does a news story about former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska have
to do
with that?


Can you show that Kerry made false statements back in 1971?


Walt

Billy Preston August 6th 04 03:47 AM

"Peter Kemp" wrote

Each of those you listed, is our sworn enemy. They are free to point their
swords at us, or their leadership, and they have chosen us.


And this differs to Iraq - how?


Kurds, Shiite's, Marsh Arabs, and Exiles.




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:20 AM.

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