Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 19 Jul 2004 00:04:17 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



No. You created teh strawman yourself with your implication that he
was speaking literally. Everyone, including yourself, knows that he
was not speaking literally.

One fervently hopes that testimony given under oath to the US Senate
is always literal. Speaking figuratively about issues, particularly
issues as important as allegations of war crimes should NEVER be done
figuratively. I take Kerry's testimony under oath as literal and I
take his statement on Face the Nation regarding his own commission of
war crimes as truth. Why would I doubt his veracity?

I never said he was speaking figuratively, that is your straw man
again.

I do not believe that you take all his statements as literal. No one
does.

Also, just to disabuse you of the concept in advance, I never said
that NONE of his remarks were literal either. I think it is obvious
to both of us and especially to the Senators in attendance, when he
was speaking generally and when he was speaking of specifics.

To claim that what he said was always one way or the other is
simply dishonest.



Abu Ghraib was reprehensible. It was clearly a failure of leadership
on site.

It was a failure of leadership from the top down. When the Secretary
of Defense re[peatedly and boldly decalres that the United States
will not honor the Geneva Conventions, when he publically scoffs
at accusations of abuse, he sends a clear message on down the line.

Once again we see the strawman. While the principle of responsibility
flowing from the top down is correct, the implication that the
President is responsible for every act of the the entire military
establishment down to the lowest enlisted individual in the field is
impossible to support.

Your straw man again.

In the absence of clear written directives to
act in the manner of the Abu Ghraib guards, one must assume that the
problem was localized.

Again, when the secretary of Defense publicly states that the United
States will not observe the Geneva Conventions, and when he publicly
scoffs at accusations of wrongdoing he sends a clear message on
down the line. And one must assume that message encourages the sort
of abuses as ocurred at Abu Graib.

What of the doctrine of command responsibility? What should we
conclude about the resonsibilites of the officer who received the
ICRC complaints? What about the officers above them?

There has been publication of the
legal opinion statement that suggested a level of detachment from
Geneva Convention rules, but the whole story is that the opinion did
NOT result in an acceptance of that policy. a Convention rules,
but the whole story is that the opinion did
NOT result in an acceptance of that policy.

I don't know what you're talking about here but it looks like your
strawman again.


Consider the following letter written On 4 Aug 1863, From William
Tecumseh Sherman wrote, to John Rawlins, which read in part:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism. I have endeavored to repress this
class of crime, but you know how difficult it is to fix
the guilt among the great mass of all army. In this case I
caught the man in the act. He is acquitted because his
superior officer ordered it. The superior officer is acquitted
because, I suppose, he had not set the fire with his own hands
and thus you and I and every commander must go through the war
justly chargeable with crimes at which we blush.

Sherman said "war is hell." Lee, however, said "it is good that war is
so terrible, lest we come to love it too much." Aristotle said that
"war ennobles man." Putting service above self and recognizing that
there are some principles that are worth fighting and dying for is
basic.

I agree with that but disagree that is is apropos this discussion.

Well, duh! If you introduced the Sherman letter, why should the topic
of war and the relationship of warriors be inappropriate. It isn't my
dog in this hunt, it's yours.

War and warriors are topics that broad beyond the bounds of the
current
discussion. You ran off on a tangent. I'll not follow your stray
dog.



Now, after looking up to see what sorts of things Kerry REALLY said,
and the context in which he said them, would you not consider that
context to be much the same as General Sherman's remarks?

No, I would not. Sherman spoke of an incident and a failure of an
officer to perform.

No. I do have an advantage in that I already knew that Sherman wrote
the letter as part of the correspondence he sent with three officers
(not one) he sent back for court martial for (I think) three seperate
crimes. However I also redirect your attention to the first sentence:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism.

So, Sherman had sent the officers back for court-martial, in the same
manner that the Abu Ghraib perps have been brought under
investigation.

I do not recall anyone in the present administartion saying or writing
that they felt any responsibility whatsover for the crimes at Abu
Ghraib.
So no, not at all in the same manner.

Now, back to the discussion at hand, do you not see any parrallels
between what Sherman wrote about the collective guilt of himself,
Rawlins and every commander in the Union Army and what Kerry said
about all American soldiers in Vietnam?

Does that mean that Lincoln condoned war crimes?

Did Lincoln publicly declare that the Union should not abide by the
laws of war? (It wouldn't surprise me, he gave short shrift to
teh habeas protections in the Constitution.)


Sherman was writing about what was happening through out his army,
not an isolated incident. Kerry did what Sherman said he wished
to do. Kerry quit and then renounced the drift into vandalism that
was overtaking the military in Vietnam.

The big difference is that Kerry quit (good choice of words) and then
accused the ENTIRE US military establishment from the top down and
including every warrior in the field of advocating and executing a
policy of war crimes.

Sherman limited his accusation to ALL commanders. I suppose that is
a big difference. But do you see NO similarity?


There were other differences of course. Sherman was fighting for
the survival of the nation, and he was fighting and winning a war
that clearly could be won, and was being won, by military means.

Kerry not only occupied a lower station in the military, but he
also saw that the survival of the US was not at stake and that
the war in Vietnam could not be won by military means. The US
had prevailed almost to the greatest extent possible in every
military endeavor in Vietnam and still the end of the war was
no where in sight.

So, Kerry could occupy a "lower station in the military" but he could
view the global strategic picture and determine that the war could not
be won? How very prescient of him.

Do you not claim to have a view of the global strategic picture in
Vietnam and also in the world today? How prescient are you?



You state correctly that the US prevailed in every military endeavor
(the great Tet victory of the NVA for example was a huge military
defeat for them). And, the end of the war was in sight within two
weeks at any time that the likes of Kerry could be overcome and the
resolve to gain the victory could be mustered by the politicians.

How?

Witness the rapid end to hostilities, the signing of the treaty and
the release of the POWs in less than 90 days following December '72.

Yet the communists did not quit. Do you think that without political
pressure in the US we would have agreed to pull our troops out while
the NVA was still fighting?


Kerry spoke of a generic ignoring of the rules of
war, not only tolerated by leadership but condoned and even directed.
That was a lie.

I do not believe that it was a lie. Cite an example where an
allegattion of war crimes was promptly investigated without an
extensive, even illegal effort to cover-up or obstruct the
investigation.

Calley/Medina.

No. I asked for an example of a promt investigation without an
extensive, even illegal coverup or effort at obstruction.

Or, how about the Turkestan incident since this is an
aviation group?

OK, tell us about it.



My real issue with Kerry is his desire to have it both ways. He sought
public approval for protesting the war vigorously. That was well
within his right to do so. Now, he seeks approval for being a great
warrior. Those are mutually exclusive positions.

No they are not mutually exclusive positions. Moreover they represent
the truth of his experience. Impetuous, even egotistical (and what
politician is not?) he first believed the bull**** and lies about
the glory of war and the righteousness of the cause, and perhaps
there was at one time some truth to that. But once he saw with his
own eyes the reality of Vietnam, and had at his disposal knowledge
gained form his fellow soliders he learned differently, came home,
and tried to fix the problem he had contributed to befor.

You state elsewhere that you turned 18 in 1973. So, you didn't see
with your own eyes the "reality" that Kerry saw.

At 18 I met a man, his nickname ironically was 'Saint'. Saw him
a few times but then I went away to college. Saint said
that when he was in Vietnam he killed 56 people. Some of those
were civilians and some of those, women and children.

I do not doubt what you say about your experience. I do not doubt
what Saint said either. Why should I?

I was there in '66
and I was there again in '72-'73.

How much time did you spend on the ground in combat zones? How much
contact did you have with EPWs? How much contact did you have with
villagers in-country?

I continue to associate with
literally hundreds of warriors from the period--USAF/USA/USN/USMC. Not
one of them agrees with Kerry.

You asked each and every one of them this? I don't believe that you
did. Or is it wrong for me to assume that you must have literally
polled each and every one?

His view of the total corruption of the
military is his alone. Kerry's "fellow soldiers" from the Winter
Soldier testimony--the 150 accusers of war crimes--have been largely
discredited. Many have been found to be outright liars, some did not
serve at all!


I'd like ot see your evidence. Here you can find lists of the
'alleged' veterans, along with other participants:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/1st_Marine_roster.html#Robert%20S.%20Craig
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/1st_Air_Cav_roster.html#John%20Mallory
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/3d_Marine_roster.html#Allen%20Akers
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/POW_roster.html#Jon%20Floyd
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/Misc_roster.html#Moderators
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/3d_World_roster.html#Evan%20Haney
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/25th_Infantry_roster.html#Ron%20Podlaski
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/82d_Airborne.html#Charles%20Leffler
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/1st_Infantry_roster.html#Robert%20McConnachie
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/Americal_roster.html#William%20Bezanson


Are not all great warriors anti-war in their hearts?

Actually no. I'm fortunate enough to know many warriors. They are
patriots in their hearts and they take great pride in the profession
of arms.


But have they no objection to war?

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

But have they no objection to war?

As a veteran, I have no objection to wars that serve the oppressed,
but I object to wars of conquest.

On 15 Jul 2004 20:57:04 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Can you show that Kerry, ever LITERALLY accused every soldier in Vietnam
of committing war crimes? Are you the only person allowed to use analogies.

Or are you misrepresenting general statements and statements of
general moral responsibility?

This stuff is way too easy to find. Here's the generic accusation:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971


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

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/16/2004 8:07 AM Pa

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971


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


The truth hurts. Not everyone can withstand it.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 16 Jul 2004 15:10:08 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/16/2004 8:07 AM Pa

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971


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


The truth hurts. Not everyone can withstand it.

I'm sorry, Art, but that is not the truth. The designation of free
fire zones is not a violation of the Geneva Convention. It is an
acknowledgement of a division between friendly and enemy territory. It
is not, as insinuated, an area of authorized total destruction and
wanton killing. Harrassment and interdiction fire is not, in any way,
contrary to the Geneva Convention. The whole purpose of military fire
is to harrass the enemy and interdict is supply.

There is no prohibition by the Geneva Convention of the employment of
..50 cal automatic weapons. Nothing at all. There is nothing in
international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
personnel. Nothing.

Search and destroy is a viable tactic. It means you search for the
enemy. You might have called it "patrol" in WW II. If you find the
enemy, you engage him and you destroy the enemy and any war material.
That's not prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

And, certainly the authorization of "air raid strike areas" is not
prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

And, the comparison of all of us who fought in the war to Lt. Calley
is despicable.

Can you withstand that truth?


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

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/16/2004 8:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

There is nothing in
international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
personnel. Nothing.

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 16 Jul 2004 16:01:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/16/2004 8:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

There is nothing in
international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
personnel. Nothing.

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.


Has old age dimmed your eyes so that you cannot read plain English?

Here's the quote again, "I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were
our only weapon against people."

It doesn't say "ordered to use against civilians." It says "people".
If he were "only following orders" and they said kill civilians with
..50 cal, then he was one very sorry excuse for an officer and a
leader.

You may have read some of the twaddle of your old buddy Walt that
recounted Kerry with his M-16, which jammed. So he reached into the
boat for another M-16....does that mean he lied in the quote when he
says "which were our only weapon." Do you believe he was really
leading a Swift boat crew and they only had .50 cal?

Which is the truth and which is the lie? If he tells the truth (under
oath) in his Senate testimony, then he lies when he claims the heroism
for his actions under fire and he lies when he expounds on his
honorable service. If his service and courage under fire where
honorable, then he lied to the Senate under oath. Can't be both ways.

Can I expect another one-liner assertion of the glory of the
candidate? Or will you explain what is going on here?



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

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy
machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Whoa big fella! Dropping incendiaries and high explosives on populatuon
centers in the ETO isn't just as "wrong"?

(ArtKramr) wrote:

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy
machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.

Depends on what they are doing at the time. What about a lynch mob after you?

-- Charlie Springer

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

I'm sorry, Art, but that is not the truth. The designation of free
fire zones is not a violation of the Geneva Convention. It is an
acknowledgement of a division between friendly and enemy territory. It
is not, as insinuated, an area of authorized total destruction and
wanton killing.

What Ketty learned through his experience and what his fellow soldiers
had told him that in practive free fire zones were treated by many
(and I'm sure not by all) as areas of authorized total destruction and
wanton killing. The paperwork on file at the Pentagon might not have
said that.

Harrassment and interdiction fire is not, in any way,
contrary to the Geneva Convention. The whole purpose of military fire
is to harrass the enemy and interdict is supply.

In many specific areas of eh Geneva conventions, and as a general
rule there is a prohibition of tactics that endanger civilians
without military necessity or which endageer civiains disprotionately
to the military necessity (my paraphrasal). As an example I
specifically recall that it is prohibited to target dams if breaching
the damse
would cause excessive civilian casualties. The COnventions are v
ague on the issue of how much would be 'excessive' or
disproportionate.

Clearly that decision would be made by the party conducting the trial,
if any.

It is clear to me that Kerry was sayign that harrassment and
interdiction
fire was routinely used in Vietnam in a manner that subjected the
civilians to risk that was disporportionate to military necessity.
An example might be the (possible) reconnaisance by fire incident
in which Kerry wounded himself.



There is no prohibition by the Geneva Convention of the employment of
.50 cal automatic weapons. Nothing at all. There is nothing in
international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
personnel. Nothing.

Over in sci.mil a while ago a fellow who said he was a vegteran of
the Swedish army (don;t know if he was as they say, 'on the net
no one knows you're a dog and that doesn;t jsut apply to
alt.personals)
who said in his basic training he was taught to not fire their
heavy machine gun (equivalent to .50 cal) ar individual personell.
He was taught that to do so was a violation of the Geneva Conventions,
that the heavy machine gun was to be used against equipment only.
The only support anyone found for that argument was a general
prohibition
agains weapons that cause excessive suffering. It was pointed out
that
shooting a man with .50 caliber does not cause excessive suffering,
it reduces his suffering because he is more likely to be killed
outright
than if he is shot with a smaller caliber. I tend to agree but the
point is that in some countries, one presumes those without combat
experience in living memory, the use of a .5o caliber machine gun
against peiople is considered to be a war crime.


Search and destroy is a viable tactic. It means you search for the
enemy. You might have called it "patrol" in WW II. If you find the
enemy, you engage him and you destroy the enemy and any war material.
That's not prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

That also depends on what is being searched for and destroyed. If
memeory serves me correctly, there was a program of 'resettlement'
in VIetnam in which villiagers were rounded up and moved to
ostensibly safer parts of the country and their homes were destroyed
to deny the support of that civilian infrastructure to the enemy.
That program was a clear violation of the Geneva conventions, the
excuse being that it was supposedly condoned by the South Vietnamese
government and the GCs do not prohibit nations from abusing their
own people. One wonders if the the government of South Vietnam was
coercved into accepting that program.


And, certainly the authorization of "air raid strike areas" is not
prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

Again, it depends on what is reasonably expected to be in the target
area in addition to the enemy. The cornerstone of Kerry's arguments,
if I understand them correctly, is that the war itself was inflicting
more suffering on the Vietnamese people that he would expect to be
inflicted on them if 'their side' lost the war. The idiology of
one's government means little to a subsistance former.


And, the comparison of all of us who fought in the war to Lt. Calley
is despicable.


I missed that comparison. I'll go back and look for it now.
Meanwhile, would you object to being compared to Hugh Thompson?

--

FF