"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..

..

Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.

I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
time did NOT go to Vietnam.

I don't have a number to refute that, but I'm fairly confident that
the number of guardsmen over the ten years of conflict that served in
Vietnam would greatly exceed 8,000.

One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG.
While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the
AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and
maintaining operational readiness.

What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to brush
up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops who
deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that lost
*eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was
assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful about
pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing
through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you feel
it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG
look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were
given in that conflict.

Brooks

snip stuff I agree with