Why did Bush join the national guard?

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/7/2004 8:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

A C-54 is not a combat aircraft. Seeing "action" implies that you have
done
harm to the enemy. You can't do harm to the enemy in an unarmed
airliner.
Flying combat airccraft is one thing, Flying airliners is something
else.

Ahh, now we have a new Kramer version of combat. Now, to qualify, you
must
have
delivered explosive ordnance. C-47s flying over "the Hump" and
intercepted by
Japanese Zeros...not "real combat". C-130s landing in Khe Sahn during
artilliary and mortor fire...not combat. UH-60s inserting SF forces
behind
Iraqi lines before the beginning of Iraqi Freedom...not combat. Hell, Ed
Rasimus in an F-4E on MiGCAP over Hanoi...not combat. The list gets
shorter
and
shorter....


BUFDRVR



Don't try to mix Ed with the wannabbes on this NG. Ed fought the good
fight.
But why are you still on that eternal bomb run that never ends? You have
been
on that bomb run for years and never reached the target.

No, Bufdrvr has hit a few targets, and no doubt he demonstrated better
accuracy than you could ever have acheived (despite your whining
protestations that you *never* missed a target...yeah, right...). And you
curiously missed responding to his other examples of what you have termed
"non-combat" flying...I guess my brother was not in combat when he got shot
down during a Dustoff mission in Vietnam? So you are again lying...which
seems to be about all you are capable of doing anymore. Sad.

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 9/8/2004 5:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/7/2004 8:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

A C-54 is not a combat aircraft. Seeing "action" implies that you have
done
harm to the enemy. You can't do harm to the enemy in an unarmed
airliner.
Flying combat airccraft is one thing, Flying airliners is something
else.

Ahh, now we have a new Kramer version of combat. Now, to qualify, you
must
have
delivered explosive ordnance. C-47s flying over "the Hump" and
intercepted by
Japanese Zeros...not "real combat". C-130s landing in Khe Sahn during
artilliary and mortor fire...not combat. UH-60s inserting SF forces
behind
Iraqi lines before the beginning of Iraqi Freedom...not combat. Hell, Ed
Rasimus in an F-4E on MiGCAP over Hanoi...not combat. The list gets
shorter
and
shorter....


BUFDRVR



Don't try to mix Ed with the wannabbes on this NG. Ed fought the good
fight.
But why are you still on that eternal bomb run that never ends? You have
been
on that bomb run for years and never reached the target.

No, Bufdrvr has hit a few targets, and no doubt he demonstrated better
accuracy than you could ever have acheived (despite your whining
protestations that you *never* missed a target...yeah, right...). And you
curiously missed responding to his other examples of what you have termed
"non-combat" flying...I guess my brother was not in combat when he got shot
down during a Dustoff mission in Vietnam? So you are again lying...which
seems to be about all you are capable of doing anymore. Sad.

Brooks



Arthur Kramer


And your combat experience was what oh pathetic 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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 9/8/2004 5:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/7/2004 8:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

A C-54 is not a combat aircraft. Seeing "action" implies that you
have
done
harm to the enemy. You can't do harm to the enemy in an unarmed
airliner.
Flying combat airccraft is one thing, Flying airliners is something
else.

Ahh, now we have a new Kramer version of combat. Now, to qualify, you
must
have
delivered explosive ordnance. C-47s flying over "the Hump" and
intercepted by
Japanese Zeros...not "real combat". C-130s landing in Khe Sahn during
artilliary and mortor fire...not combat. UH-60s inserting SF forces
behind
Iraqi lines before the beginning of Iraqi Freedom...not combat. Hell,
Ed
Rasimus in an F-4E on MiGCAP over Hanoi...not combat. The list gets
shorter
and
shorter....


BUFDRVR



Don't try to mix Ed with the wannabbes on this NG. Ed fought the good
fight.
But why are you still on that eternal bomb run that never ends? You
have
been
on that bomb run for years and never reached the target.

No, Bufdrvr has hit a few targets, and no doubt he demonstrated better
accuracy than you could ever have acheived (despite your whining
protestations that you *never* missed a target...yeah, right...). And you
curiously missed responding to his other examples of what you have termed
"non-combat" flying...I guess my brother was not in combat when he got
shot
down during a Dustoff mission in Vietnam? So you are again lying...which
seems to be about all you are capable of doing anymore. Sad.

Brooks



Arthur Kramer


And your combat experience was what oh pathetic one?

Combat experience is not required in order to properly define you as a
pathological liar. And are your veterans' benefits any different from
mine--no? Figures.

Brooks



Arthur Kramer