Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
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.

--

Let me introduce you to John Kerry:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
http://www.pow-miafamilies.org/
http://www.jpac.pacom.mil/
http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssctest.html
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php


Brooks Gregory

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

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/16/2004 9:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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


Based on his testimony befiore congress he may be the most honest man ever to
run for public office. Note that he never accused the Viet Cong of using WMD.



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

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"

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"?

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.

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/16/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time

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


I was hoping you would have the common deceny not to remind me of it. I've
spent 60 years trying to forget 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