|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
February 15th 04, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: ... 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. ... How many did NOT go? How many Americans did NOT go? How many men did NOT go? How many members of Congress did NOT go? What has that got to do with anything? It is generally accepted by most folks who remember those years that men joined the NG to avoid service in Vietnam. Here and there some folks on this newsgroup argue that GWB in particular did not choose the Air National Gurad to avoid being sent to Vietnam. If he had WANTED to go to Vietnam as a pilot then it would ahve made sense for him to enlist in the USAF or USN. So I still stick to the notion that GWB chose the guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam. That's why those numbers are meaningful. If GWB did not want to go to Vietnam that's fine with me. My brother didn't want to go, but his birthday was drawn last in the lottery for his year. I didn't want to go, and they did not draft anyone from my year. Neither one of us volunteered. I see nothing wrong with avoiding service in Vietnam by whatever legal means. I see nothing wrong with terminating one's tour of duty in Vietnam by whatever legal means. That was how things were back then. It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status. If a man was 1-A with a low lottery number he didn't need to join the Guard. If a man were in college, he didn't go. If he were married, he didn't go. If he did drugs and admitted it, he didn't go. If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)? I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses. -- FF 
|
|
#3
February 15th 04, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ed Rasimus wrote: snip If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)? I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses. Nope. Deferments for college continued throughout the war. You extended your 2-S deferment if you went to graduate school. You remained deferred if you went into selected professions such as teaching--which may account for the pacifist left-wing bias found in so many educators today. I beg to differ with the gentleman. In my senior year (1968), routine graduate school deferments ended. I remember it well because of the widespread panic that little action caused among the sons of the well heeled I associated with. I had neither the grades or inclination for graduate school, so I went ahead and applied for Navy OCS. When I applied, before the change in policy, the recruiters told me, "Just let me know when you want to come take the tests". After the policy change, the AF and Navy recruiters were swamped with applications from college seniors. A six month waiting list JUST TO TAKE THE TESTS was very scary to a college senior less than four months from graduation. I was accepted, was sworn in on May 1, and opened my mailbox upon my return to school to find my notice to report for draft physical. I politely declined, but it wasn't much of a victory. 1966 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964. BTW, I applied to fly for the Navy (AVROC) during by sophomore year. The docs rejected me, so it's moot. However, I don't recall that the "issue" of VietNam even entered my thoughts at that time. Teenage stupidity and lack of situational awareness surely contributed to that omission, but I think I was pretty typical. Bob McKellar, who nonetheless thinks going into the Navy was the second best thing he ever did, although that realization took a long time to arrive. BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of what Kerry said. ( See page 181 )
|
|
#4
February 15th 04, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob McKellar wrote: 1966 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964. Oops! 1968 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964. Bob
|
|
#5
February 15th 04, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0500, Bob McKellar
wrote: BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of what Kerry said. ( See page 181 ) I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from the mission. If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators. Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title still to be determined. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8
|
|
#6
February 15th 04, 11:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from the mission. If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators. Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title still to be determined. Ed Rasimus No ordnance dropped and no ordinance violated? Tex
|
|
#7
February 16th 04, 12:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ed Rasimus wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0500, Bob McKellar wrote: BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of what Kerry said. ( See page 181 ) I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from the mission. If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators. Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title still to be determined. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 Well, I thought I put in enough qualifiers in my statement, but I guess I didn't. I was not making any war crime accusations, just commenting on the stupidity of the whole thing. Risking four expensive aircraft ( not to mention four expensive pilots, who have other additional non monetary values, to say the least ) to attack a road grader? ( I guess it was a Weapon of Mud Destruction.) I showed this passage to my pro military college kid. He was stunned. Then, of course, he had to read the whole book and started in on some other VN references around the house. Back to the original GWB topic, I don't blame him for using whatever tools he had available to deal with the draft problem. The Gore's, Cheney's, Kerry's, Kerrey's, DeLay's, Dean's, Quayle's and even Clinton's all had to pick their own solutions, They all could have done worse. Bob McKellar
|
|
#8
February 16th 04, 02:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:42:44 -0500, Bob McKellar
wrote: Well, I thought I put in enough qualifiers in my statement, but I guess I didn't. I was not making any war crime accusations, just commenting on the stupidity of the whole thing. Risking four expensive aircraft ( not to mention four expensive pilots, who have other additional non monetary values, to say the least ) to attack a road grader? ( I guess it was a Weapon of Mud Destruction.) Maintenance debriefing Ubon, Thailand 1967. Pilot with an amused look said something along the lines of the footbridge over the small stream is still there, but I'll bet there are fewer elephants in the surrounding jungle. That is four f-4s and eight expensive crew members. Targets were seldom mentioned in debriefing, but the elephant remark has stayed with me after all these years..
|
|
#9
February 16th 04, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:08:45 GMT, Buzzer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:42:44 -0500, Bob McKellar wrote: Well, I thought I put in enough qualifiers in my statement, but I guess I didn't. I was not making any war crime accusations, just commenting on the stupidity of the whole thing. Risking four expensive aircraft ( not to mention four expensive pilots, who have other additional non monetary values, to say the least ) to attack a road grader? ( I guess it was a Weapon of Mud Destruction.) Maintenance debriefing Ubon, Thailand 1967. Pilot with an amused look said something along the lines of the footbridge over the small stream is still there, but I'll bet there are fewer elephants in the surrounding jungle. That is four f-4s and eight expensive crew members. Targets were seldom mentioned in debriefing, but the elephant remark has stayed with me after all these years.. Elephants and buffaloes, euphemistically known as tactical military supply conveyors. But, to return to the original contention of Bob's--yes, there was an incredible amount of equipment and highly trained (and occasionally poorly trained) manpower place at risk for extremely small reward. The entire operation remains an exercise demonstrating how not to fight a war. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
