A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #392  
Old July 16th 04, 04:53 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #394  
Old July 16th 04, 05:15 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #395  
Old July 16th 04, 05:19 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #396  
Old July 16th 04, 05:22 PM
Jack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"
  #397  
Old July 16th 04, 05:28 PM
Steve Mellenthin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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
Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve WalterM140 Military Aviation 196 June 14th 04 11:33 PM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 04:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.