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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"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 =--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|