Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....

If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your assigned
bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who might
make the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a
war crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally
don't care to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that
some people might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel
that way.

"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
needs of the moment.

Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
proscribed.

A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.

Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians." But making the argument isn't
following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
a despicable level of hyperbole.

The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.

Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was trying to
make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are people who
don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong just because
they differ with you.

I could argue some of the points you make, as for example your referring to
"innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians", by asking how you would categorize
the three day or week or month old Vietnamese infant blown apart by one of your
jettisoned weapons in his or her own home, but I'll let others more qualified
than I deal with that.

George Z.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:00:09 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:

Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was trying to
make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are people who
don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong just because
they differ with you.

But sometimes they *are* necessarily wrong. People arguing that something
is a war crime when what they're arguing about doesn't meet that definition
means those people are wrong. Period.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Yeff wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:00:09 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:

Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was trying to
make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are people
who don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong just
because they differ with you.

But sometimes they *are* necessarily wrong. People arguing that something
is a war crime when what they're arguing about doesn't meet that definition
means those people are wrong. Period.

You might be right and you might be wrong, and putting "Period" at the end of
your comment doesn't mean that the matter's been decided. You might wish it'd
be that way, but that's not the way it works.

George Z.

Georgr:

By refusing to acknowledge that there is such a thing as "objective
truth," you are ceding much of what it means to be a rational human being-
and for that, I pity you. You will never know the joy of rational inquiry.

Much of what separates Man from the Animal Kingdom is the awareness of
Truth- and the joy in its pursuit.

Of course I will let you have the last word- your kind needs it so very
much; you have little else.

And besides, this whole thing is so far off topic I am beginning to
despair of ever getting the newsgroup back.

Steve Swartz



"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Yeff wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:00:09 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:

Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was
trying to
make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are
people
who don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong
just
because they differ with you.

But sometimes they *are* necessarily wrong. People arguing that
something
is a war crime when what they're arguing about doesn't meet that
definition
means those people are wrong. Period.

You might be right and you might be wrong, and putting "Period" at the end
of
your comment doesn't mean that the matter's been decided. You might wish
it'd
be that way, but that's not the way it works.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....

If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you
ever
jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your
assigned
bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who
might
make the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity
or a
war crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I
personally
don't care to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn
that
some people might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they
feel
that way.

"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
needs of the moment.

Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
proscribed.

A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.

Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians." But making the argument isn't
following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
a despicable level of hyperbole.

The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.

Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was trying
to
make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are
people who
don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong just
because
they differ with you.

I could argue some of the points you make, as for example your referring
to
"innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians", by asking how you would
categorize
the three day or week or month old Vietnamese infant blown apart by one of
your
jettisoned weapons in his or her own home, but I'll let others more
qualified
than I deal with that.

Did you really retire from the military? It is hard to believe that you did,
based upon the above drivel. War results in death, and sometimes the deaths
are of noncombatants. As Ed has already told you, however, intent matters.
Even you, with your obvious incapacity for handling reality, should be able
to get a grasp of that incontrovertable fact.

Brooks


George Z.