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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote: From one of Kerry's accused war criminals... "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals." "I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." John Kerry, April 1971 Yeah, ain't war a bitch. And, wasn't it amazing how many of those "honorably discharged and ...highly decorated..." assholes turned out to be wannabes and neverweres. Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame. One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you suppose that is? --Mike |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Wise wrote: In article , Ed Rasimus wrote: ... 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. Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training, and "advisors" has anything to do with it? nevermind the fact that the US didn't really have air superiority over vietnam, nor did they have the benefit of having waxed almost all the SAM batteries already, nor did they have AWACS aircraft to tell their fighters where the Migs were 200 or 300 miles out. Yeah...learned some lessons... learned how not to do it next time. And how not to do it is against someone as capable as themselves again. Go after the small enemies, then your president can look good on tv. ignore the big fish that'd kick yer arse again. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: He only gave it to the USO after unsuccessfully waiting for months for somebody to come forward with some credible evidence. When nobody did, he turned the money over to the USO even though there was no winner. But someone did come forward with some credible evidence. Did Trudeau make the donation in the name of John Calhoun or did he renege on his promise? http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22924488 Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama So a single person who boasts of being a "staunch Republican" and whose name was given to the press by "a Republican close to Bush" and who claims to have witnessed all these appearances which nobody else can recall constitutes credible evidence on your planet? --Mike |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:08:22 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik wrote: I got a 6 month "early out" in 1974 from the USAF.I jumped at the chance to get it,was the first one to apply on my base.(LG Hanscom Fld,Ma.) My advice is don't run for political office. Not unless its on the Republican ticket. ; ) --Mike |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
"Kristan Roberge" wrote in message ... Michael Wise wrote: In article , Ed Rasimus wrote: ... 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. Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training, and "advisors" has anything to do with it? nevermind the fact that the US didn't really have air superiority over vietnam, air superiority: That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/dod...a/a/00291.html It appears that by that definition (though maybe you are not using the definition agreed to by the US military branches) we did indeed have air superiority--can you identify any targets we wanted to strike that we were prevented from striking, whenever we so chose? nor did they have the benefit of having waxed almost all the SAM batteries already, An unfortunate political decision, but regardless, having ADA and SAM's does not by definition deny us 'air superiority". Though you are getting a bit warmer here--the US did learn a lesson in regards to taking down the IADS, instead of letting some politico back DC decide it was not a worthwhile target... nor did they have AWACS aircraft to tell their fighters where the Migs were 200 or 300 miles out. Maybe not to the degree that we have now, but we did have these nifty things called EC-121's... Yeah...learned some lessons... learned how not to do it next time. I don't know about that; yes, we did learn from the mistakes we made (which is why we are the best, right?), but everything we did was not a mistake. LBII seemed to be on the right track, and accomplished its goals. The first truly effective use of heavy bombers in support of tactical ground units on a widespread basis, the use of modern PGM's, effective use of helicopter gunships (to include use of reliable ATGM's from helos, during the 72 Easter Offensive IIRC), and the most effective use of heliborne airmobile assets up to that time, etc. And how not to do it is against someone as capable as themselves again. Well, after we get finished with round one, the opposition tends to not be very effective at all; witness ODS. Go after the small enemies, then your president can look good on tv. ignore the big fish that'd kick yer arse again. And which fish would that be? Brooks |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Wise wrote:
In article , Ed Rasimus wrote: From one of Kerry's accused war criminals... "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war criminals." "I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." John Kerry, April 1971 Yeah, ain't war a bitch. And, wasn't it amazing how many of those "honorably discharged and ...highly decorated..." assholes turned out to be wannabes and neverweres. Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame. One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe because they were fighting different kinds of wars. They each had their own peculiar and different kinds of hell, but generally speaking, the one aloft was a whole lot cleaner and smelled a whole lot better than the one on the ground. George Z. --Mike |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Regnirps wrote:
(WalterM140) wrote: Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims look on us with a clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as many others of our former friends and admirers. What happened to bring that about? The Bush 43 administration. If you are old enough to think back, you will recall that the US was declared a Great Satan under the Carter Administration, and ever since. (Apparently born yesterday -- Charlie Springer That was true, but in those days, it was mostly by Iran acting alone because of our involvement with the late Shah. Nowadays, just about the entire Muslim world has joined in, minus a handful of Islamic governments whose viability is tied to their relationships with our government. George Z. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 05:27:27 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:
One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you suppose that is? There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim "hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales. Of those who served on the ground, the proportion of career to draftee and officer to lower-rank enlisted could change the perception of events. Of ground vets from Vietnam, I have seldom encountered any that went so far as John Kerry in their condemnation of their fellow warriors. I know of none that have called their service traitorous, their actions and those of their comrades criminal, or their service dishonorable. Maybe I don't travel in the right circles. As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in comparison to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of POWs between the ground and air combatants. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 05:11:46 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:
In article , Ed Rasimus wrote: ... 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. Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training, and "advisors" has anything to do with it? You might want to check out the equippage, advising, training and doctrine in place at the start of Desert Storm before repeating that bit of revisionism. Some analysts even contend that the failure of Soviet militarysupport so clearly displayed contributed to the collapse of the SU. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |
"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 |