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
  #451  
Old July 19th 04, 07:29 AM
Fred the Red Shirt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message ...
Edwards in 51 YO. That would put him in the 1971 HS class. The draft ended
in
1972.


1973


I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.

--

FF
Ads
  #455  
Old July 19th 04, 08:04 AM
Fred the Red Shirt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 15 Jul 2004 20:57:04 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

He went to Congress, stood before the
US Senate and said that you and he had been guilty of war crimes. That
you had all committed atrocities. That you were rapists, baby-killers
and violators of the Geneva convention. Would he be exhibiting
"honesty to admit it"?


What if everything he said was true? Would that not be honest and
courageous?


You create a straw man. If everything he said were true, it would have
been a failure at all levels of leadership to fulfill their
obligations as officers and NCOs. If we all had committed atrocities
at all levels of command and he was the single moral voice it would be
honest and courageous. Of course, that was not the case, either in my
metaphor or in the testimony of Lt. Kerry.


No. You created teh strawman yourself with your implication that he
was speaking literally. Everyone, including yourself, knows that he
was not speaking literally.


Can you show that Kerry, ever LITERALLY accused every soldier in Vietnam
of committing war crimes? Are you the only person allowed to use analogies.


Here's a quote:

"Statement of Mr. John Kerry

...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group
of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group
of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to
sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of
testimony....


WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION

I would like to talk, representing 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, not isolated
incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off
ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the
normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging
which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


Thank you. You have shown that he was speaking as a representative
of approx 1,000 veterans.

..

Abu Ghraib was reprehensible. It was clearly a failure of leadership
on site.


It was a failure of leadership from the top down. When the Secretary
of Defense re[peatedly and boldly decalres that the United States
will not honor the Geneva Conventions, when he publically scoffs
at accusations of abuse, he sends a clear message on down the line.

It was also an aberration. It is not and should not be
construed as representative of American behavior in combat.


Agreed. But it is an aberration that was fostered and encouraged
at the highers levels of our government.

Colin Powell read the ICRC reports from Iraq and complained about
them to the DOD befor Rumsfeld was even aware of them.



Consider the following letter written On 4 Aug 1863, From William
Tecumseh Sherman wrote, to John Rawlins, which read in part:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism. I have endeavored to repress this
class of crime, but you know how difficult it is to fix
the guilt among the great mass of all army. In this case I
caught the man in the act. He is acquitted because his
superior officer ordered it. The superior officer is acquitted
because, I suppose, he had not set the fire with his own hands
and thus you and I and every commander must go through the war
justly chargeable with crimes at which we blush.


Sherman said "war is hell." Lee, however, said "it is good that war is
so terrible, lest we come to love it too much." Aristotle said that
"war ennobles man." Putting service above self and recognizing that
there are some principles that are worth fighting and dying for is
basic.


I agree with that but disagree that is is apropos this discussion.


Now, after looking up to see what sorts of things Kerry REALLY said,
and the context in which he said them, would you not consider that
context to be much the same as General Sherman's remarks?


No, I would not. Sherman spoke of an incident and a failure of an
officer to perform.


No. I do have an advantage in that I already knew that Sherman wrote
the letter as part of the correspondence he sent with three officers
(not one) he sent back for court martial for (I think) three seperate
crimes. However I also redirect your attention to the first sentence:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism.

Sherman was writing about what was happening through out his army,
not an isolated incident. Kerry did what Sherman said he wished
to do. Kerry quit and then renounced the drift into vandalism that
was overtaking the military in Vietnam.

There were other differences of course. Sherman was fighting for
the survival of the nation, and he was fighting and winning a war
that clearly could be won, and was being won, by military means.

Kerry not only occupied a lower station in the military, but he
also saw that the survival of the US was not at stake and that
the war in Vietnam could not be won by military means. The US
had prevailed almost to the greatest extent possible in every
military endeavor in Vietnam and still the end of the war was
no where in sight.

Kerry spoke of a generic ignoring of the rules of
war, not only tolerated by leadership but condoned and even directed.
That was a lie.


I do not believe that it was a lie. Cite an example where an
allegattion of war crimes was promptly investigated without an
extensive, even illegal effort to cover-up or obstruct the
investigation.


It is noteworthy that certain neocons (in this context, neo-confederates)
have taken the last sentence of that paragraph out of its proper
context, and misatributed it to a a letter from Sherman to Grant,
to prove that Sherman was an admitted war-criminal.


My real issue with Kerry is his desire to have it both ways. He sought
public approval for protesting the war vigorously. That was well
within his right to do so. Now, he seeks approval for being a great
warrior. Those are mutually exclusive positions.


No they are not mutually exclusive positions. Moreover they represent
the truth of his experience. Impetuous, even egotistical (and what
politician is not?) he first believed the bull**** and lies about
the glory of war and the righteousness of the cause, and perhaps
there was at one time some truth to that. But once he saw with his
own eyes the reality of Vietnam, and had at his disposal knowledge
gained form his fellow soliders he learned differently, came home,
and tried to fix the problem he had contributed to befor.

Are not all great warriors anti-war in their hearts.

--

FF
  #457  
Old July 19th 04, 09:56 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bush was not elected. He was appointed. We'll fix that in November.



Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.


Michael Moore uses some footage in "Fahrenheit 911" from the 2000 certification
of Florida's elctoral votes in the Senate. They could have been challenged if
any one senator had agreed to co-sign the documentation provided by black
members of Congress.

Since you seem pretty familiar with this, what do you think about the rationale
the Supreme Court used to close out the Florida recount?

My understanding is that the Court has usually deferred to state courts in
interpreting state constitutions. But here, they took the issue away from the
state court and basically declared Bush the winner.

In "F-911" you can hear Congresswoman Corrine Brown say that 16,000 of her
constituents had been illegally disinfranchised in Duvall County.

Bush is already gearing up to steal this election. Karl Rove, his
communication director worked with Donald Segretti, who served time in prison
for his activities in the 1972 campaign. Bush actually has Nixon
adminstration officals working for him. These include Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The Republican Party dirty tricks organization is hard at work and has been
since Nixon's time.

Walt


  #458  
Old July 19th 04, 09:57 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.


I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register and he
said not to worry about it.

Walt
  #459  
Old July 19th 04, 12:11 PM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Was I said was that Kerry didn't seem
particularly committed to his crew and his oath to serve since he took an
"early out" from Vietnam.


That early out took being wounded three times.

Kerry had to volunteer three times to get that early out. He had to volunteer
for the Navy. He had to volunteer for Viet Nam. And he had to volunteer for
the Swift Boats.

I wonder if his experience in the Swift Boats didn't sour him on the war. If
he opted out of being killed for a mistake, I'd say it would be hard to gainsay
him.

He had an honorable out and he took it.

Then, even more to his credit, he protested the war and helped expose some of
the abuses. The more I hear about Kerry, the more I like him.

He's done everything right in his campaign so far. Some of the pundits on TV
yesterday were saying it was Kerry's election to lose. God willing, Bush will
be ejected from the seat he stole.

What you are doing is parroting the Republican Party attack machine. They've
had the gall to attack Senator Kerry when their candidate cannot or will not
account for two years of his own service.

Walt

  #460  
Old July 19th 04, 12:13 PM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Not that it really matters because what should matter is who would best lead
the country not so much as 35 year old history.


Bush has been a disastrous failure as president.

If Bush wins in November, this country will become even more of a police state.

If Bush wins in November our national flag and national honor will continue to
trail in the dust.

If Bush wins in November we will still be hated and mistrusted around the
world.

If Bush wins in November, we will be less safe than we are now.

If Bush wins in November, he'll still be sucking money out of the middle class
to save the bank rolls of the rich and super rich.

If Bush wins in November our grotesquesly maladroit foreign policies will
continue.

If Bush wins in November, Jeb will be right behind him.

Those ******* Republicans have got to go.



Walt
 




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 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.