Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve

On 11 Jun 2004 15:13:35 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry was
at war?

Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?


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

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/11/2004 11:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 11 Jun 2004 15:13:35 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry
was
at war?

Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"

How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who lost his
war?

On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"

How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who lost his
war?

I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
"making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."

I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
other warriors.


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

From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/11/2004 12:08 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"

How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who lost
his
war?

I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
"making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."

I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
other warriors.


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

Ed, please make that hundreds of thousands.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"

How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who lost his
war?

I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
"making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."

I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
other warriors.


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? We must have won something
since you claim that you didn't lose any wars. What was it?
Territory? Reparations? An indigenous Vietnamese government to our political
liking? What did we get out of it as "victors"?

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"

How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who
lost his
war?

I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
"making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."

I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
other warriors.


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? We must have won
something
since you claim that you didn't lose any wars. What was it?
Territory? Reparations? An indigenous Vietnamese government to our
political
liking? What did we get out of it as "victors"?

George Z.



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. 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.

Jarg

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" 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

"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

"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.