GWB and the Air Guard

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0500, Bob McKellar
wrote:

BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of
what Kerry said. ( See page 181 )


I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is
quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony
regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance
was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from
the mission.

If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators.

Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title
still to be determined.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Well, I thought I put in enough qualifiers in my statement, but I guess I didn't. I was not making any war crime
accusations, just commenting on the stupidity of the whole thing. Risking four expensive aircraft ( not to mention
four expensive pilots, who have other additional non monetary values, to say the least ) to attack a road grader?
( I guess it was a Weapon of Mud Destruction.)

I showed this passage to my pro military college kid. He was stunned. Then, of course, he had to read the whole
book and started in on some other VN references around the house.

Back to the original GWB topic, I don't blame him for using whatever tools he had available to deal with the draft
problem. The Gore's, Cheney's, Kerry's, Kerrey's, DeLay's, Dean's, Quayle's and even Clinton's all had to pick
their own solutions,

They all could have done worse.

Bob McKellar

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:20:29 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:

Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor
any
type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who
do
understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline
(custody)
which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army
equivalent
could explain.

I can't find anything official that being assigned to ARPC is some
type of mark against a persons record. Could you provide some official
source for that thought?

I did find this at the ARPC site, but nothing about it being some type
of punishment..
[... stuff deleted...]

I think what is happening is that folks are misinterpreting what was
meant by "assigned" to ARPC. Let's take a step back to look at this.

When you are in the military (Air Force, ANG, or AF Reserves in this
case), you have a local office that handles your personnel records, issues,
etc. Currently, that is referred to as a Military Personnel Flight (MPF --
for us old-timers, it used to be CBPO). When you leave the military, those
records are then transferred to another central location. You are
"assigned" (a.k.a handled by) a central office (in this case ARPC or AFPC)
as you no longer have a local MPF to work with. For folks in an inactive
reserve status, ARPC is the "assigned" MPF.

Mike

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:42:44 -0500, Bob McKellar
wrote:

Well, I thought I put in enough qualifiers in my statement, but I guess I didn't. I was not making any war crime
accusations, just commenting on the stupidity of the whole thing. Risking four expensive aircraft ( not to mention
four expensive pilots, who have other additional non monetary values, to say the least ) to attack a road grader?
( I guess it was a Weapon of Mud Destruction.)

Maintenance debriefing Ubon, Thailand 1967. Pilot with an amused look
said something along the lines of the footbridge over the small stream
is still there, but I'll bet there are fewer elephants in the
surrounding jungle. That is four f-4s and eight expensive crew
members. Targets were seldom mentioned in debriefing, but the elephant
remark has stayed with me after all these years..

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

It does not appear that you are very well informed at all, based upon
the
outright incorrect statements and dependence upon suggestions and
innuendo
that you base your argument upon.

You are so kind. Thanks. To repeat, all I want to have is clear answers.

Why? You won't accept the ones you have been getting, so why should anyone
bother?

Well... As the kids like to say...OWNED! Way to go, Lawrence, your
line of questioning has convinced me beyond a doubt that President
Bush's service was indeed valid and complete.

"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:07:18 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:
Snip

The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an
obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a
choice not an obligation.

The issue is not whether anyone managed an "honorable release", but
whether
GWB managed to actually physically serve his complete tour, or was paid
while not performing is reserve function.

Can you read my lips. During two full years of training, GWB was FULL
TIME active duty. During the next 18 months he pulled operational
alert in the TANG. During the last six months before release, he was
assigned to Montgomery at Dannelly Field which was in the process of
conversion from RF-84s to RF-4Cs. His assignment there was to
NON-FLYING duties (he wasn't qualified in the Phantom nor trained as a
reconnaisance pilot.) The unit in transition did not have aircraft
available at the time.

How, then, was this situation considered "equivalent training"?

ET is the term used to cover a memeber's attendance at drill outside of the
regularly scheduled drill, and possibly with another unit; it does not mean
that the training he/she conducts is "the same as" or "equal to" the unit's
training.

As for your
invitatin to read your lips: thank you but no, thank you. I am not yet
prepared to accept you as being some sort of oracle. To repeat, the issue
is
whether GWB received pay although he failed to carry out his Reserve
obvligations?

He has demonstrated a much better grasp of reality in this case than you
have, and his knowledge basein regard to the subject at hand is obviously
leaps and bounds beyond your own, but you continue to argue with him, even
to the point of grasping to that ridiculous "records center is a
disciplinary unit" crap well beyond the point of reasonable debate and after
a number of other folks had also clubbed you between the eyes with a 16-inch
clue wrench.

Brooks

snip further ranting from the clueless

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:08:45 GMT, Buzzer wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:42:44 -0500, Bob McKellar
wrote:

Well, I thought I put in enough qualifiers in my statement, but I guess I didn't. I was not making any war crime
accusations, just commenting on the stupidity of the whole thing. Risking four expensive aircraft ( not to mention
four expensive pilots, who have other additional non monetary values, to say the least ) to attack a road grader?
( I guess it was a Weapon of Mud Destruction.)

Maintenance debriefing Ubon, Thailand 1967. Pilot with an amused look
said something along the lines of the footbridge over the small stream
is still there, but I'll bet there are fewer elephants in the
surrounding jungle. That is four f-4s and eight expensive crew
members. Targets were seldom mentioned in debriefing, but the elephant
remark has stayed with me after all these years..

Elephants and buffaloes, euphemistically known as tactical military
supply conveyors.

But, to return to the original contention of Bob's--yes, there was an
incredible amount of equipment and highly trained (and occasionally
poorly trained) manpower place at risk for extremely small reward.

The entire operation remains an exercise demonstrating how not to
fight a war.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:

....working off a script of DNC "talking points."

As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
fulfillment of duty ?

I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
like the luck of the draw to me...



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

From: (John S. Shinal)
Date: 2/16/2004 2:45 PM Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

....working off a script of DNC "talking points."

As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
fulfillment of duty ?

I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
like the luck of the draw to me...

Well he was in a Guard unit. There is no dream sheet or assignment process.
If a guard unit accepts you for a pilot slot, you go to UPT, then RTU for that
particular aircraft.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"John S. Shinal" wrote in message
...
As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
fulfillment of duty ?

I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
like the luck of the draw to me...

You may not be aware of how the Air National Guard recruitment works. You
elect to join a specific unit which would allow platform shopping. Want to
fly fighters? Then don't join a tanker outfit. You do not enlist in the
Air National Guard and then be placed in an assignment pool. Doesn't work
that way. The Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard now fly pretty
much the same equipment as the active USAF do. For instance the 116th Air
Control Wing at Robins AFB flys the E-8C and serves in a 'blended wing' with
both ANG and active duty personnel as does the 124th Wing at Boise and the
175th Wing at Martin State Airport does with the A/OA-10. The Air Force
Reserve has a like plan where the Reserve Wing has an Associate relationship
and actually flies aircraft of an active duty wing.

Regards,

Tex Houston

"John S. Shinal" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

....working off a script of DNC "talking points."

As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
fulfillment of duty ?

I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
like the luck of the draw to me...

Seems to me that if I wanted to sign up for any state's ANG, all I'd have to do
to figure out what I'd be trained into would be to take a look at what they were
using, unless they were in the process of phasing in some new equipment that
hadn't shown up yet. Luck of the draw? In USAF, sure.....but in ANG units, a
good bet would be that it'd be in what the state was already using. If it
wasn't a sure thing, it had to be the next best thing to it.

George Z.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---