Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Jack Broughton.

I never met the man, but after reading his book, I still wonder why he didn't
win the war single-handed, and probably faster if all those other people would
just get out of his way. It's been 10 years since I read it, so maybe I've
matured and can re-read it with a different attitude.

To tell the truth, I think I met a man just like him once, but by 1981 those kinds
of Colonels were dead meat in the modern USAF. Team players, not glory hogs
need only apply. There was war before him, war after him, and no one can be
as important as he claimed he was.

Just an observation from reading him.

ArtKramr wrote:

[quoting J. F. Kerry]
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....

The truth hurts. Not everyone can withstand it.

Do you consider this to be the truth of your own combat experience as
well? Care to tell us about the atrocities which you committed and which
we should, by extension, assume were common among US Soldiers, Sailors,
and Airmen in WW2?

We'd be very interested in hearing about the injuries you have sustained
from the truth, and how you have withstood them.

Or perhaps your war was somehow different for its participants. Since we
supposedly post here on the topic of military aviation, rather than the
exploits of plastic men in plastic boats, why not talk about strafing
women and children in the streets of the cities and towns of
Nazi-occupied Europe v air operations in free-fire zones in Vietnam?

Does it hurt to kill - sometimes, often, never? Is there a greater
purpose, which though it may not justify them, nevertheless renders
certain actions unavoidable?

How far will you go to justify the rhetoric of any particular member of
the politician class, whom most would agree are no less embodiments of
the principle of "necessary evil" than are Soldiers, but as politicians
can rarely claim the honor properly accorded to those who defend us in
battle?

John Kerry's military record is, shall we say, erratic. His political
record is strangely skewed to the left, his principles opaque, and his
biography a cliche of personal and political ambition comparable to that
of Bill Clinton, but without any vestige of personality to explain why
anyone would find him of interest -- as a candidate, nor even as a golf
partner.

Would you shoot skeet with John Kerry? I'd only do it if I could issue
him one round at a time, and then I'd sure never turn my back on him.


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Jack
Date: 7/16/2004 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time

o you consider this to be the truth of your own combat experience as
well? Care to tell us about the atrocities which you committed and which
we should, by extension, assume were common among US Soldiers, Sailors,
and Airmen in WW2?

Not a day goes by that I don't remember my bomb patterns falling in crowded
cities that I don't wonder how many children were down there at the time. I
never talk about that apect of the war. Kerry has a lot more courage than I do.


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

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Jack
Date: 7/16/2004 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time

o you consider this to be the truth of your own combat experience as
well? Care to tell us about the atrocities which you committed and which
we should, by extension, assume were common among US Soldiers, Sailors,
and Airmen in WW2?

Not a day goes by that I don't remember my bomb patterns falling in crowded
cities that I don't wonder how many children were down there at the time. I
never talk about that apect of the war. Kerry has a lot more courage than I
do.


Arthur Kramer


Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire, and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire, and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that
encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,
and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphed
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours. And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone, or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.

One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.
Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.



And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.

--

That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops were
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.

-snip-
Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that
encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,
and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphe
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours.

If you're speaking of "Hanoi Jane", it should be noted that Fonda's
North Vietnam visit came -after- the Kerry photo and, indeed, after
Kerry had broken with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

It would seem a bit much to expect him to make an accurate prediction
of her -future- actions.

And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone,

Is there any doubt at all that Americans were committing some
atrocities - or at least some pretty bad things - in the combat
zone?

What is the appropriate moral response when one has evidence of
such things? Indeed, what is the appropriate patriotic response
when one has evidence of such things?

Somehow, being a good German doesn't seem the correct response.

or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.

My goodness! Whoever claimed -other- than that it was "staged".

It was a demonstration and a photo-op for gawd sakes. Everything
was "staged" in the sense that it was organized and choreographed
in advance.

One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.

He was, as you correctly noted, speaking against "atrocities", not
folks "honorably following orders".

Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.

He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
choosen the WRONG conflict.

And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.

That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops wer
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south

Wasn't that just about the time Dewey Canyon II and Lam Son 719 were
ongoing? And the notorious Cambodian invasion was but nine or ten
months in the past?

US forces had been largely, though not entirely, withdrawn from aggressive
search and destroy ground missions by mid-71 but there were a lot of
aviation companies, artillery units, engineering battalions, and the
like still providing active combat support to the ARVN units. And lots
of PBI-types still taking significant casualties. Certainly to claim that
the "only major combat troops were air units" overstates the case by
quite a bit.

so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal
political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.

Well, perhaps. But certainly the more useful tact for a decorated
war hero to take were he concerned about politics would NOT have
been active opposition to the war. You can certainly raise more
campaign contributions at the local VFW hall than at any number of
VVAW rallies populated by folks in tie-dye and wearing beads.

Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message ...
Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-

Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphed
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours.

I am quite sure you know that the hanging out was done after Kerry had left VVAW.

--

FF

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message ...

Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire, and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

Absent the speeches made by Kerry and others like him how much longer
would American forces have remained in Vietnam? How many more would
have died, been wounded or captured. How many more Vietnamese would
have died? How much longer would the POWs have had to wait for
repatriation?

The current government of Vietnam has estimated that we killed 1.4
million of their soldiers. That does not include wounded soldiers
or civilians killed or wounded. The United Staes won every militarily
significant battle of the Vietnam war. And still the communists
did not give up. Kerry realized that the war in Vietnam could not
be won by military means. It could only have been prolonged.

We do not know the answers to the questions I posed above because
men like Kerry did speak out. We did pull out in 1973 and the
surviving POWs did come home. It has been argued that live POWS
were held back by the Vietnamese and others as hostages or slaves
but really, would fewer have been withheld had we remained in the
war longer?

What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
the lies of his government?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
the lies of his government?

Kerry was hardly a Canary in a coal mine by that time, but just another
silver spoon sucker with political ambitions looking for a bandwagon to
ride, with no regard for those he defamed.


Jack