![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message ... Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry was at war? ANSWER THE QUESTION The answer is NO. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
(Lisakbernacchia) wrote: 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 Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry was at war? ANSWER THE QUESTION Why should he bother? You're not interested in the answer, much less anything resembling truth. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: "George Z. Bush" am Date: 6/11/2004 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: 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. They kicked our ass. Rasimus hasn't tthe guts to admit it. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:13:08 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote: 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. I didn't lose. My country lost a lot, but it wasn't the war. It was pride in being an American and a fundamental belief in democracy. It was a belief that we were morally anchored and the communists (and now the jihadist fundamentalist muslims) were wrong. It was the firm conviction that we were not the reason for injustice and poverty in this world, but rather the source of a better way. Take a look, if you choose at Vietnam today. If you see a communist victory there, you aren't looking very closely. They are a flourishing capitalist society. They are trading globally, entertaining tourists from around the world, and the new version of the Hanoi Hilton--the real hotel chain--advertises an "American breakfast" as included with the room rate. What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons. Stop feeling guilty, George. We're Americans and have a right to be proud. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message
... Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve From: "George Z. Bush" am Date: 6/11/2004 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: 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. They kicked our ass. Rasimus hasn't tthe guts to admit it. You have a very different notion of ass kicking than I do! Do a comparison between the US and Vietnam, both during the war and today, and I think it will be pretty clear who is on top! Jarg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
"W" is JFK's son and Bush revenge killed Kennedy in 1963 | Ross C. Bubba Nicholson | Aerobatics | 0 | August 28th 04 11:28 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |