Honor to those who came forward

[ArtKramr]

On this 4th of July let us honor all who fought. But let us especialy never
forget the special few who came forward volunteering and said, "Take me. I'll
go" It was these men who formed American elite units; Marines, Airborne,
Seals, Submarine Service, Air Corps and Air Forces. We owe them all a special
thanks.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Chris Mark]

>From: r_s_schaafsma@eudora

>I've visit last week the American cemetry and memorial in the Netherlands
>(Margraten). Here rest 8300 heroes. It's a horrible reminder for anyone to
>intensify the close ties between Europe and the US.

Some vets visited the local high school yesterday to tell their stories. One
fellow had been a PT boat captain. He told stories that held the audience in
rapt attention. He had won the Navy Cross, although he didn't mention it.
This fellow was a Dutchman, a young kid at sea working on a fishing boat when
the nazis conquered Holland. He made his way to America, enlisted in the Navy
and served in New Guinea and the Philippines on his 80-foot wooden boat,
engaging in countless battles, what he called shootouts at the OK Corral and
twenties at twenty--20mm at 20 yards--against supply barges and gunboats,
landing Marine raiding parties, dueling shore batteries, rescuing downed
airmen, making torpedo runs on jap battleship lines. When he told how his
battle-scared PT boat ended---days after the war ended it was unceremoniously
towed out to sea, set afire and sunk--there was not a dry eye among the teens
in the audience. Then he ended saying, paraphrasing as i remember it: "I was
born a Dutchman and I love my native land forever, but I am also an American
and I would, even today, old man that I am, gladly die for this country...for
many reasons...but one of these reasons is that I know that you young people
listening to me today would, without the slightest hesitation, die to save
Holland. The Dutch know that when we need you--and the day will come again
when we do--you will come. We have not the slightest doubt."

In the Q&A after the presentations he talked a lot about the ties that bind
Europe and America and that the political spats that always cloud the
relationship are superficial and inconsequential, like relatives squabbling at
the dinner table.


Chris Mark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 7/4/03 10:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: r_s_schaafsma@eudora
>
>>I've visit last week the American cemetry and memorial in the Netherlands
>>(Margraten). Here rest 8300 heroes. It's a horrible reminder for anyone to
>>intensify the close ties between Europe and the US.
>
>Some vets visited the local high school yesterday to tell their stories. One
>fellow had been a PT boat captain. He told stories that held the audience in
>rapt attention. He had won the Navy Cross, although he didn't mention it.
>This fellow was a Dutchman, a young kid at sea working on a fishing boat when
>the nazis conquered Holland. He made his way to America, enlisted in the
>Navy
>and served in New Guinea and the Philippines on his 80-foot wooden boat,
>engaging in countless battles, what he called shootouts at the OK Corral and
>twenties at twenty--20mm at 20 yards--against supply barges and gunboats,
>landing Marine raiding parties, dueling shore batteries, rescuing downed
>airmen, making torpedo runs on jap battleship lines. When he told how his
>battle-scared PT boat ended---days after the war ended it was unceremoniously
>towed out to sea, set afire and sunk--there was not a dry eye among the teens
>in the audience. Then he ended saying, paraphrasing as i remember it: "I was
>born a Dutchman and I love my native land forever, but I am also an American
>and I would, even today, old man that I am, gladly die for this country...for
>many reasons...but one of these reasons is that I know that you young people
>listening to me today would, without the slightest hesitation, die to save
>Holland. The Dutch know that when we need you--and the day will come again
>when we do--you will come. We have not the slightest doubt."
>
>In the Q&A after the presentations he talked a lot about the ties that bind
>Europe and America and that the political spats that always cloud the
>relationship are superficial and inconsequential, like relatives squabbling
>at
>the dinner table.
>
>
>Chris Mark
>


Good story. Thank you.



Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> On this 4th of July let us honor all who fought. But let us especialy never
> forget the special few who came forward volunteering and said, "Take me. I'll
> go" It was these men who formed American elite units; Marines, Airborne,
> Seals, Submarine Service, Air Corps and Air Forces. We owe them all a special
> thanks.
>
> Arthur Kramer

Another self-serving platitude from Art; who'd have thunk it? If I
were to tell my Dad (a volunteer for the USAAF during WWII with
missions over japan in B-29's under his belt) or my late brother (who
volunteered for service during the Vietnam conflict and flew UH-1's as
a Dustoff pilot) that they were "elite", I'd be laughed out of the
house. Neither ever figured himself to be a bit better than any of the
other millions of servicemen who performed their service, no matter
how mundane, during those conflicts. Since when has service in the
USAAF, or USAF for that matter, made someone "elite" amongst their
other service peers?

Brooks

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: (Kevin Brooks)
>Date: 7/4/03 1:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> On this 4th of July let us honor all who fought. But let us especialy
>never
>> forget the special few who came forward volunteering and said, "Take me.
>I'll
>> go" It was these men who formed American elite units; Marines, Airborne,
>> Seals, Submarine Service, Air Corps and Air Forces. We owe them all a
>special
>> thanks.
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>Another self-serving platitude from Art; who'd have thunk it? If I
>were to tell my Dad (a volunteer for the USAAF during WWII with
>missions over japan in B-29's under his belt) or my late brother (who
>volunteered for service during the Vietnam conflict and flew UH-1's as
>a Dustoff pilot) that they were "elite", I'd be laughed out of the
>house. Neither ever figured himself to be a bit better than any of the
>other millions of servicemen who performed their service, no matter
>how mundane, during those conflicts. Since when has service in the
>USAAF, or USAF for that matter, made someone "elite" amongst their
>other service peers?
>
>Brooks
>

Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's hear what
you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?

..
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Sunny]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
>> Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's hear
what
> you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
> wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?

Have you always been so full of your own importance?
Haven't you realised yet, that most veterans don't talk about themselves,
but do talk about their mates.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: "Sunny"
>Date: 7/4/03 4:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
><snip>
>>> Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's hear
>what
>> you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
>> wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?
>
>Have you always been so full of your own importance?
>Haven't you realised yet, that most veterans don't talk about themselves,
>but do talk about their mates.

Right. Tell us about your mates.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Sunny]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
> >From: "Sunny"
> >Date: 7/4/03 4:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> ><snip>
> >>> Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's
hear
> >what
> >> you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
> >> wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?
> >
> >Have you always been so full of your own importance?
> >Haven't you realised yet, that most veterans don't talk about themselves,
> >but do talk about their mates.
>
> Right. Tell us about your mates.

Us? I was referring to your attitude, but you wouldn't be interested
because;
1. They didn't fly with you,
2. They fought on and under the ground, and
3. You weren't there.

[Cecil Turner]

Sunny wrote:
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
> >> Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's hear
> what
> > you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
> > wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?
>
> Have you always been so full of your own importance?
> Haven't you realised yet, that most veterans don't talk about themselves,
> but do talk about their mates.

Well, I was going to stay out of this, but since it appears it'll go on forever, might
as well throw two cents in.

First, ISTM Art has some points and deserves a fair reading. The stuff written about
the concept of combat vets vs first-timers fills libraries--the "seen the elephant"
thing. IMO it is a pertinent comment, and explaining it is difficult. As to ground
crews not having the same camaraderie, it certainly is the case today, and has nothing
to do with rank--it's the shared risk thing. Those who expose themselves to enemy fire
do not have the same regard for those who don't. (There is a peculiar derision in the
term "REMF"--and I've never met a front-line vet that doesn't get it, while almost no
non-vets do.) It's "for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother" . .
.. not "he who feeds the horses but stays behind."

On the "cowardice" thing: in my very limited experience, folks react differently. Some
can't take it. Some can take it but won't do anything. Some aren't scared. The latter
make me most nervous, but all are hazardous to your health. And once you have to make
allowances for someone, you never look at them the same . . . and you watch them. Guys
who refuse to perform and force someone else to greater risk in their place get
ostracized. As, to a lesser degree, do guys whose performance is suspect. The labels
don't matter all that much.

Second, if my limited understanding of this netiquette thing is right, the line is
generally drawn at ad hominems. It's perfectly okay to heap scorn on the statement,
personal remarks about the author are bad form. (The pithy little car sex thing was a
good example of the former, and witty, too.) I think we (and know I) would enjoy this
more if we could keep the personalities out of it.

rgds,
KTF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: Cecil Turner
>Date: 7/4/03 6:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Sunny wrote:
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> <snip>
>> >> Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's hear
>> what
>> > you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
>> > wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?
>>
>> Have you always been so full of your own importance?
>> Haven't you realised yet, that most veterans don't talk about themselves,
>> but do talk about their mates.
>
>Well, I was going to stay out of this, but since it appears it'll go on
>forever, might
>as well throw two cents in.
>
>First, ISTM Art has some points and deserves a fair reading. The stuff
>written about
>the concept of combat vets vs first-timers fills libraries--the "seen the
>elephant"
>thing. IMO it is a pertinent comment, and explaining it is difficult. As to
>ground
>crews not having the same camaraderie, it certainly is the case today, and
>has nothing
>to do with rank--it's the shared risk thing. Those who expose themselves to
>enemy fire
>do not have the same regard for those who don't. (There is a peculiar
>derision in the
>term "REMF"--and I've never met a front-line vet that doesn't get it, while
>almost no
>non-vets do.) It's "for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my
>brother" . .
>. not "he who feeds the horses but stays behind."
>
>On the "cowardice" thing: in my very limited experience, folks react
>differently. Some
>can't take it. Some can take it but won't do anything. Some aren't scared.
>The latter
>make me most nervous, but all are hazardous to your health. And once you
>have to make
>allowances for someone, you never look at them the same . . . and you watch
>them. Guys
>who refuse to perform and force someone else to greater risk in their place
>get
>ostracized. As, to a lesser degree, do guys whose performance is suspect.
>The labels
>don't matter all that much.
>
>Second, if my limited understanding of this netiquette thing is right, the
>line is
>generally drawn at ad hominems. It's perfectly okay to heap scorn on the
>statement,
>personal remarks about the author are bad form. (The pithy little car sex
>thing was a
>good example of the former, and witty, too.) I think we (and know I) would
>enjoy this
>more if we could keep the personalities out of it.
>
>rgds,
>KTF


This one is for you Cecil. (s)

Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges


Railroad bridges were brutally defended. Knock out a RR bridge and you have cut
transport for possibly hundreds of miles . And while repairing track took only
a few hours. rebulding a RR bridge over a river or chasm might take weeks. We
had some of our heaviest losses over these bridges. On the 13th of February
1945 we attacked the RR Bridge at Euskirchen. We lost two aircraft over the
target. We lost Yeager and his crew and Williams (one chute seen to open) and
his crew. The very next day we hit the Engers RR bridge and we lost 5 aircraft
over the target. Brennen,Holms, Jones, Nelson and Meppen and crews were lost
but three chutes were seen you open. Two bridges,two days, seven crews lost. A
lot of empty bunks at the 344th. And the war was almost over. What a time to
die.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
> >From: (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 7/4/03 1:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
> >...
> >> On this 4th of July let us honor all who fought. But let us especialy
> never
> >> forget the special few who came forward volunteering and said, "Take me.
> I'll
> >> go" It was these men who formed American elite units; Marines, Airborne,
> >> Seals, Submarine Service, Air Corps and Air Forces. We owe them all a
> special
> >> thanks.
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >
> >Another self-serving platitude from Art; who'd have thunk it? If I
> >were to tell my Dad (a volunteer for the USAAF during WWII with
> >missions over japan in B-29's under his belt) or my late brother (who
> >volunteered for service during the Vietnam conflict and flew UH-1's as
> >a Dustoff pilot) that they were "elite", I'd be laughed out of the
> >house. Neither ever figured himself to be a bit better than any of the
> >other millions of servicemen who performed their service, no matter
> >how mundane, during those conflicts. Since when has service in the
> >USAAF, or USAF for that matter, made someone "elite" amongst their
> >other service peers?
> >
> >Brooks
> >
>
> Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's hear what
> you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
> wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?

Wannabe? Heck, it is hard for me to argue with the date of my BIRTH,
which precluded me from serving in WWII (since I was not born yet), or
Vietnam (the Army frowned on allowing ten-year olds in the theater of
operations). Good enough for you? Or how about this--I volunteered and
served even without there being a major conflict ongoing at the time.
Does that somehow make me a *bigger* volunteer than you, who went into
the service at a time when there was darned little choice otherwise?
But I have served, probably many more years than you. And I have
volunteered--first for service in an era when *all* servicemembers
were volunteers, and second when my parent composite battalion HQ
shipped out for ODS (but that was turned down because my own company,
which I commanded at the time, was *scheduled* itself for later
mobilization, which did not come about because the war developed a bit
more quickly and cleanly than was originally thought--sorry if that
disappoints you, but that is just the facts). Is THAT good enough for
you? And guess what--unlike you, I never considered myself a damned
bit smarter, or better, than the guys who turned the wrenches to keep
our vehicles rolling, or the NCO's who shouldered the brunt of the
real work, or the poor sod who was serving and not in a position to
volunteer for further duty.

How many times did your maintenance guys, or some vet who had to spend
the war guarding shoeleather supplies at Camp Swampy because that is
what he was *ordered* to do, knock you on your ass for being such a
smartass? Or do you, as I suspect, sing a very different tune when you
face them from the one you preach here?

There were a lot of great men who did a lot of different things to
ensure victory in WWII, and did those duties to the best of their
ability and without feeling as if they had to tear down the efforts of
others; my hat is off to *every* one of them, not just those who *you*
have allegedly annointed. And, as is true for any endeavor that
entails the gathering of millions of men and women from various walks
of life and backgrounds, it is true that there were a few assholes and
smartasses who served during WWII--you are living proof of that.

Brooks

>
> .
> Arthur Kramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: (Kevin Brooks)
>Date: 7/4/03 7:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <1e6ea40d.0307041829.467f0108@p

>There were a lot of great men who did a lot of different things to
>ensure victory in WWII, and did those duties to the best of their
>ability and without feeling as if they had to tear down the efforts of
>others; my hat is off to *every* one of them, not just those who *you*
>have allegedly annointed. And, as is true for any endeavor that
>entails the gathering of millions of men and women from various walks
>of life and backgrounds, it is true that there were a few assholes and
>smartasses who served during WWII--you are living proof of that.
>
>Brooks
>
>>


So I assume you never volunteered for the 101st Airborne after all. Right?


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

> And, as is true for any endeavor that
>>entails the gathering of millions of men and women from various walks
>>of life and backgrounds, it is true that there were a few assholes and
>>smartasses who served during WWII--you are living proof of that.
>>
>>Brooks
>>
>
>So I assume you never volunteered for the 101st Airborne after all. Right?
>
>Arthur Kramer

My God Arthur...are you for real?...nah...can't be...
--

-Gord.

[Sunny]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
> >From: (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 7/4/03 7:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <1e6ea40d.0307041829.467f0108@p
>
> >There were a lot of great men who did a lot of different things to
> >ensure victory in WWII, and did those duties to the best of their
> >ability and without feeling as if they had to tear down the efforts of
> >others; my hat is off to *every* one of them, not just those who *you*
> >have allegedly annointed. And, as is true for any endeavor that
> >entails the gathering of millions of men and women from various walks
> >of life and backgrounds, it is true that there were a few assholes and
> >smartasses who served during WWII--you are living proof of that.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
>
>
> So I assume you never volunteered for the 101st Airborne after all. Right?

Art, are you actually aware that everything you used, from your
aircraft/ammo/, the food you stuffed into your mouth and the toilet paper
you used, was supplied by merchant marine, heroes every one of them, who
lived every waking and sleeping hour, in the knowledge and fear that the
next loud noise could be the torpedo that smashed their world apart.
Judging from what I have read so far, from you, I don't think so which is
sad. But I suppose in your words they were "non combatants".?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: "Sunny"
>Date: 7/4/03 10:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time

>Art, are you actually aware that everything you used, from your
>aircraft/ammo/, the food you stuffed into your mouth and the toilet paper
>you used, was supplied by merchant marine, heroes every one of them, who
>lived every waking and sleeping hour, in the knowledge and fear that the
>next loud noise could be the torpedo that smashed their world apart.
>Judging from what I have read so far, from you, I don't think so which is
>sad. But I suppose in your words they were "non combatants".?


You are right. Toilet paper is very important. I guess theree are hordes of
unsung toilet paper heroes. I respect and honor every one of them. But when
push comes to shove give some credit to those men who rode the tip of the spear
into the enemies black heart and left him bleeding and unable to fight on. That
is to take nothing away from those brave men who delivered our toilet paper.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
> >From: (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 7/4/03 7:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <1e6ea40d.0307041829.467f0108@p

Snippage of previous response to your direct inquiries duly noted, as
usual...

>
> >There were a lot of great men who did a lot of different things to
> >ensure victory in WWII, and did those duties to the best of their
> >ability and without feeling as if they had to tear down the efforts of
> >others; my hat is off to *every* one of them, not just those who *you*
> >have allegedly annointed. And, as is true for any endeavor that
> >entails the gathering of millions of men and women from various walks
> >of life and backgrounds, it is true that there were a few assholes and
> >smartasses who served during WWII--you are living proof of that.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
>
>
> So I assume you never volunteered for the 101st Airborne after all. Right?

LOL! Everytime you open your mouth in this kind of thread, you reveal
yourself as being that much more of an idiot. You don't *volunteer* to
serve in the 101st Airborne (which is no longer airborne,
anyway--except in name; it is an "air assault" division, and has been
for aboutthirty-plus years). Neither do you volunteer to serve in the
82nd Airborne Div--you might volunteer to be assigned to FT Bragg, but
getting into the 82nd is just the luck of the draw from the pool of
those folks who had a 5P (IIRC) suffix affixed to their DMOS. And yes,
I did volunteer for airborne *school*, you dim-witted ninny. Does that
now make me some kind of a big HERO in your myopic view? I have given
many years of *voluntary* service in both combat and construction
engineer units--why does that not suffice as proof of honorable
service? What a sad little man you are to have to resort to tearing
down all others in order to puff up your own pitiful sense of
self-worth.

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[Kevin Brooks]

Cecil Turner > wrote in message >...
> Sunny wrote:
> >
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > <snip>
> > >> Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's hear
> what
> > > you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
> > > wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?
> >
> > Have you always been so full of your own importance?
> > Haven't you realised yet, that most veterans don't talk about themselves,
> > but do talk about their mates.
>
> Well, I was going to stay out of this, but since it appears it'll go on forever, might
> as well throw two cents in.
>
> First, ISTM Art has some points and deserves a fair reading. The stuff written about
> the concept of combat vets vs first-timers fills libraries--the "seen the elephant"
> thing. IMO it is a pertinent comment, and explaining it is difficult. As to ground
> crews not having the same camaraderie, it certainly is the case today, and has nothing
> to do with rank--it's the shared risk thing. Those who expose themselves to enemy fire
> do not have the same regard for those who don't.

LOL! And I guess where that enemy fire occurs is critical, too..."No,
no, no, you don't qualify as a real he-man-hero, you were
killed/wounded to the rear of phaseline Dork..."

(There is a peculiar derision in the
> term "REMF"--and I've never met a front-line vet that doesn't get it, while almost no
> non-vets do.) It's "for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother" . .
> . not "he who feeds the horses but stays behind."

So you join Art in scorning the service of all of those who have
faithfully served in other roles, or theaters? I would have thought
better of you, Cecil. BTW, you are aware that the single worst enemy
inflicted casualty events in both ODS and OIF occured when those nasty
REMF's you mention were involved (the Scud that his the temporary
barracks/warehouse during ODS, killing a bunch of USAR CSS-types, and
the "rear area" ambush of that maintenance company during the latest
conflict)? Seems the term "REMF" has lost a lot of its meaning in more
modern conflict--how many "REMFs" were among those killed during the
bombing of the Beirut barracks in 83? How about those REMF's who died
in the Pentagon? I think you need to take your "he who feeds the hay"
bit and store it in an approriate oriface; the fact that you consider
yourself somehow superior to any other vet makes you as sad a case as
Art is.

>
> On the "cowardice" thing: in my very limited experience, folks react differently. Some
> can't take it. Some can take it but won't do anything. Some aren't scared. The latter
> make me most nervous, but all are hazardous to your health. And once you have to make
> allowances for someone, you never look at them the same . . . and you watch them. Guys
> who refuse to perform and force someone else to greater risk in their place get
> ostracized. As, to a lesser degree, do guys whose performance is suspect. The labels
> don't matter all that much.
>
> Second, if my limited understanding of this netiquette thing is right, the line is
> generally drawn at ad hominems. It's perfectly okay to heap scorn on the statement,
> personal remarks about the author are bad form. (The pithy little car sex thing was a
> good example of the former, and witty, too.) I think we (and know I) would enjoy this
> more if we could keep the personalities out of it.

Ask Art; he is the one who inevitably started all of this long ago by
directing offensive remarks at all veterans who he feels did not match
up to the level of service he has identified in his own strange
manner. You must have missed his recent bit about WWII starting only
at D-Day, and his ridiculous defense of that remark in the face of
those who (rightly) protested that plenty of other folks were fighting
and giving their lives in Italy, North Africa, etc., well before June
6 1944.

Brooks

>
> rgds,
> KTF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: Cecil Turner
>Date: 7/5/03 7:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>> It's "for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother" . .
>> > . not "he who feeds the horses but stays behind."
>>
>> So you join Art in scorning the service of all of those who have
>> faithfully served in other roles, or theaters? I would have thought
>> better of you, Cecil.
>
>Mr Brooks, I may be overly sensitive, but as a (retired) military officer I
>expect a
>certain amount of civility and courtesy, especially from fellow servicemen.
>Since you
>refuse to discuss issues without gratuitous personal comments, I decline to
>correspond
>with you further.
>
>goodbye,
>KTF


Well said. And we must never forget that the rule all officers follow, is to
never explain and never complain,. And never allow youself to be put on the
defensive. It is a sign of weakness. Besides, Brooks is a bold face liar not
worthy of too much time. I think we have already given him far more than he
ever deserved..He clearly has no place among any band of brothers.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Chris Mark]

FWIW:

"Battle is a watershed even in the lives of those who survive it without
visible scars. Military training, the forging of the bonds of comradeship, and
the traumatic events of the battlefield itself are never entirely forgotten. By
some they are frequently and freshly remembered, and by others they are locked
away like an album of unpleasant photographs, and are viewed only with pain and
reluctance.
"Most ex-soldiers remember war with mixed feelings, aware that it has altered
the way they look at the world, conscious that they have faced the greatest
challenge of their lives, grateful for some elements of the experience and
profoundly moved by others. Few regard war as anything other than an evil, yet
at the same time they do not regret their own participation in it. The
majority feel that their experience of war links them to others who share it,
as firmly as it separates them from those who do not. 'The war, mon vieux,'
wrote Jacques Meyer, 'was our buried secred youth.' 'In the 1920s,' admitted
Charles Carrington, 'I used to catch myself despising men of my own age who had
not been in the trenches.'
"The flood of military memoirs and myriad of wartime anecdoes are only one side
of the equation: on the other is reticence. Sometimes a reluctance to talk
about 'their' war reflects not only veterans' desire to avoid rummaging amongst
unpleasant memories, or their feeling that an outsider cannot possibly
understand what they have to say: they are also reluctant to let someone else
into a world which belongs to a special group from their own generation. It
was their war and remains their memory, and is a currency not to be cheapened
by inflation."

--Richard Holmes, "Acts of War"

"We thought we had managed all right, kept the awful things out of our minds,
but, now that I am an old man they come out from where I hid them. Every
night."

--Patsy Adam-Smith, "The Anzacs"


Chris Mark

[Ed Rasimus]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>>From: (Chris Mark)


>>--Patsy Adam-Smith, "The Anzacs"
>>
>>
>>Chris Mark
>>
>
>Excellant quotation. Outstanding.
>
>> The majority feel that their experience of war links them to others who share it,
>>as firmly as it separates them from those who do not.
>
>Now we are getting to the crux of it all.
>
>>their feeling that an outsider cannot possibly
>>understand what they have to say: they are also reluctant to let someone else
>>into a world which belongs to a special group from their own generation.
>>
>Marvellous. How true"
>>
>Arthur Kramer

Dare we seek the immortal words of Henry V as written by the Great
Bard himself:

"KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."


Couldn'ta said it better me own self....



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Ed Rasimus]

"Sunny" > wrote:

>Art, are you actually aware that everything you used, from your
>aircraft/ammo/, the food you stuffed into your mouth and the toilet paper
>you used, was supplied by merchant marine, heroes every one of them, who
>lived every waking and sleeping hour, in the knowledge and fear that the
>next loud noise could be the torpedo that smashed their world apart.
>Judging from what I have read so far, from you, I don't think so which is
>sad. But I suppose in your words they were "non combatants".?
>

About three years ago on Memorial Day I happened to be visiting a
retired O-5 Army friend in Capitan NM (burial place of Smokey Bear)
and just down the road from Lincoln NM (notorious home of Billy the
Kid)--we attended the services at Fort Stanton--a small frontier
period fort that served prior to WW II as a TB sanitarium and then
during the war was used to house German merchant marine POW's. It has
a small national cemetary attached--probably 1500 graves--all US and
Allied Merchant Marine that died during the war. It was a very moving
experience--rows of traditional white headstones, each decorated with
a small flag of their respective nation. A piper played Amazing Grace
and a small color guard presented the colors then wrestled with their
vintage and not very well maintained Garands to deliver a ragged but
sincere 21 gun salute. It was pure Western US with the wind coming
across the prairie and the mountains in the background.

I spotted a small group of separate headstones on the far corner of
the cemetary, totally isolated away from the American Merchant Marine
graves. Here were a dozen lonely, but marked and respected graves of
POWs who died during their captivity.

They were all combatants and all doing what they could best do for
their country, whichever side of the war they were on.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Cecil Turner]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> Well said. And we must never forget that the rule all officers follow, is to
> never explain and never complain,. And never allow youself to be put on the
> defensive. It is a sign of weakness. Besides, Brooks is a bold face liar not
> worthy of too much time. I think we have already given him far more than he
> ever deserved..He clearly has no place among any band of brothers.
>
Art, I can only say that I am tired of *all* the personal comments in these threads, and
will not participate further.

good day,
KTF

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>
>Well said. And we must never forget that the rule all officers follow, is to
>never explain and never complain,.

What do you mean by 'never explain', Art?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Kevin Brooks]

Cecil Turner > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > It's "for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother" . .
> > > . not "he who feeds the horses but stays behind."
> >
> > So you join Art in scorning the service of all of those who have
> > faithfully served in other roles, or theaters? I would have thought
> > better of you, Cecil.
>
> Mr Brooks, I may be overly sensitive, but as a (retired) military officer I expect a
> certain amount of civility and courtesy, especially from fellow servicemen. Since you
> refuse to discuss issues without gratuitous personal comments, I decline to correspond
> with you further.

I would expect more than that "he who feeds the horses" bit from a
good officer, retired or otherwise.

Brooks

>
> goodbye,
> KTF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: "M. J. Powell"
>Date: 7/5/03 1:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>
>>Well said. And we must never forget that the rule all officers follow, is
>to
>>never explain and never complain,.
>
>What do you mean by 'never explain', Art?
>
>Mike
>--
>M.J.Powell


Sorry. I refuse to explain what I mean by "never explain"

..
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>>From: "M. J. Powell"
>>Date: 7/5/03 1:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>>
>>>Well said. And we must never forget that the rule all officers follow, is
>>to
>>>never explain and never complain,.
>>
>>What do you mean by 'never explain', Art?
>>
>>Mike
>>--
>>M.J.Powell
>
>
>Sorry. I refuse to explain what I mean by "never explain"

Hehe! Sorry I asked!

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Cecil Turner]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> Cecil Turner > wrote in message >...
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > It's "for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother" . .
> > > > . not "he who feeds the horses but stays behind."
> > >
> > > So you join Art in scorning the service of all of those who have
> > > faithfully served in other roles, or theaters? I would have thought
> > > better of you, Cecil.
> >
> > Mr Brooks, I may be overly sensitive, but as a (retired) military officer I expect a
> > certain amount of civility and courtesy, especially from fellow servicemen. Since you
> > refuse to discuss issues without gratuitous personal comments, I decline to correspond
> > with you further.
>
> I would expect more than that "he who feeds the horses" bit from a
> good officer, retired or otherwise.
>
Well, let's talk about your expectations for a moment. Most references on the subject
claim it's a very personal phenomenon (and even more so for small groups). For example:
"The book highlights the importance of peer pressure in reinforcing courage. For the
ship’s company and a bomber crew, the shared risk is perhaps even more personal than it
is for a company of infantry." (Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden, reviewing _The Mystery
of Courage_ By William Ian Miller)

And various communities do not extend the same risk appreciation to others. Examples
include sailors deriding merchant mariners, or infantrymen and airmen (even though the
risks to the latter are statistically greater in most conflicts). Further, I find it
hard to believe even someone who hasn't been there hasn't noticed these things, and
believe you're being intentionally obtuse.

While we're on the personal comment stuff . . . IME the individual has considerable
control over his orders in today's volunteer military. And lately, those who wish to be
in combat don't have much trouble doing so. And there are those who are in each
conflict . . . and those who manage to miss them all. Among those who regularly don't
participate, they seem to just miss being assigned to a unit that goes. Often there are
sets of orders to second echelon commands just after the war ends, or similar excuses.
How much of a buildup would there have had to be before your unit would have been sent
to ODS? And if you're still in, you had the last couple of opportunities as well.
Perhaps in a training or similar non-deploying billet now? It all just seems a bit . .
.. convenient. (And might help to explain your apparent sensitivity on the subject.)

Hey, this ad-hominem game is fun! Let's play another round, shall we?

rgds,
KTF

[BUFDRVR]

>Those who expose themselves to enemy fire
>do not have the same regard for those who don't.

Hogwash! I've got several friends who have missed (just due to poor timing and
luck) DESERT STORM, ALLIED FORCE, ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM and I hold
them in the same regard as I do those that saw action. In fact, many of those
that have missed out I hold in higher regard then many of the crewmembers who
have logged combat time.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Richard Lamb]

Never explain youself.
Your friends don't need it
and your enemies won't believe it.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: Richard Lamb
>Date: 7/6/03 9:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>

>Never explain youself.
>Your friends don't need it
>and your enemies won't believe it.

Exactly. (ROFL)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Cecil Turner]

BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >Those who expose themselves to enemy fire
> >do not have the same regard for those who don't.
>
> Hogwash! I've got several friends who have missed (just due to poor timing and
> luck) DESERT STORM, ALLIED FORCE, ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM and I hold
> them in the same regard as I do those that saw action. In fact, many of those
> that have missed out I hold in higher regard then many of the crewmembers who
> have logged combat time.

You don't have a special affection for the crew(s) with which you flew in combat? If
not, I believe you are in the decided minority. And the historical and literary
references abound (e.g., "Scots who have with Wallace bled," "And gentlemen in England
now abed . . .") Keegan wrote an entire book on it (though I can't recall the title,
and frankly didn't care for it much). I wouldn't throw it into others' faces, but
denying the phenomenon exists is, IMO, unsupportable.

BTW, it's nice to see someone can strongly disagree without being disagreeable.

rgds,
KTF

[Gooneybird]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
>
> Never explain youself.
> Your friends don't need it
> and your enemies won't believe it.

Taken literally, newsgroups would disappear. Maybe it would be for the better.
(^-^)

George Z.

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Richard Lamb
> writes
>
>Never explain youself.
>Your friends don't need it
>and your enemies won't believe it.

Your friends may well need it, otherwise "Why the Hell did he do that"?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: "M. J. Powell"
>Date: 7/6/03 11:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, Richard Lamb
> writes
>>
>>Never explain youself.
>>Your friends don't need it
>>and your enemies won't believe it.
>
>Your friends may well need it, otherwise "Why the Hell did he do that"?
>
>Mike
>--
>M.J.Powell
>


Because he is the officer in charge. It is his decision to make and he made it.
He need onty be called to explain by a superior officer in the chain of
command. Everyone else is outside the loop.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Chris Mark]

>From: artkramr@

>
>Because he is the officer in charge. It is his decision to make and he made
>it.
>He need onty be called to explain by a superior officer in the chain of
>command. Everyone else is outside the loop.

During the Korean War some platoon leaders from the 3rd ID were being briefed
in the field on an imminent action while an Air Force Tactical Air Control
Party slumped against a jeep. The company commander, a grizzled vet of WW2
infantry fighting, was outlining an alarmingly risky operation that was just
too much for one recent ROTC graduate. He stood up and began to question why
the operation was necessary. The CO stared at him in icy fury. Everyone
thought this green pea was about to get the butt reaming of all time. But all
the CO said was, "Shut up. Sit down." Four words only, but said with such
quiet, rock solid force and authority that the ego of that 2LT ceased to exist.
He shut up. He sat down.
Then the CO continued on as if nothing had happened.
An Air Force TSgt leaning against the jeep turned to one of his buddies and
remarked, pointing a thumb at the 2LT, "He thought he had a vote."


Chris Mark

[Alan Minyard]

On 06 Jul 2003 16:26:49 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>Those who expose themselves to enemy fire
>>do not have the same regard for those who don't.
>
>Hogwash! I've got several friends who have missed (just due to poor timing and
>luck) DESERT STORM, ALLIED FORCE, ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM and I hold
>them in the same regard as I do those that saw action. In fact, many of those
>that have missed out I hold in higher regard then many of the crewmembers who
>have logged combat time.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Well said BUFDRVR, I agree completely. Not to mention that in today's
military some of the most dangerous missions do not make it to the
headlines (or any other place of publication).

Al Minyard

[Cecil Turner]

Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:27:02 -0400, Cecil Turner
> > wrote:
>
> >BUFDRVR wrote:
> >>
> >> >Those who expose themselves to enemy fire
> >> >do not have the same regard for those who don't.
> >>
> >> Hogwash! I've got several friends who have missed (just due to poor timing and
> >> luck) DESERT STORM, ALLIED FORCE, ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM and I hold
> >> them in the same regard as I do those that saw action. In fact, many of those
> >> that have missed out I hold in higher regard then many of the crewmembers who
> >> have logged combat time.
> >
> >You don't have a special affection for the crew(s) with which you flew in combat? If
> >not, I believe you are in the decided minority. And the historical and literary
> >references abound (e.g., "Scots who have with Wallace bled," "And gentlemen in England
> >now abed . . .") Keegan wrote an entire book on it (though I can't recall the title,
> >and frankly didn't care for it much). I wouldn't throw it into others' faces, but
> >denying the phenomenon exists is, IMO, unsupportable.
> >
> >BTW, it's nice to see someone can strongly disagree without being disagreeable.
> >
> >rgds,
> >KTF
>
> Many of the most dangerous missions occurred during the build up to
> ODS, by units which have never been and probably never will be
> acknowledged. I was there during Earnest Will, and I know of what I
> speak. What about the Scots who bled before/after the "battle"?
>
> Al Minyard

Don't know much about casualties in Earnest Will or the buildup to ODS, but I suspect
the front line combat units had comparable risk. But again, the point is that the
shared risk perception exists, not that it makes a lot of sense. In some of its least
sensible forms, infantrymen will claim pride of place over airmen, who historically have
much higher casualties (in most conflicts, obvious exceptions exist). USMC leadership
seminars belabor the point to death (and as a bonus you can usually find a couple of
guys who can quote the whole Agincourt speech by heart) while discussing how to use it
to build camaraderie. Or how personnel policies (e.g., individual rotation) can destroy
it.

rgds,
KTF

"Whether it was the oneness of man and acrobatic flying machine, whether it was the
equally shared risk of officer pilot and enlisted crew member, whatever the reason, the
men of the helicopters kept their discipline and their spirit. As the French
parachutists became the paladins of that earlier war, so the U.S. Army aviators became
the dark knights of this one."
From: A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>>From: "M. J. Powell"
>>Date: 7/6/03 11:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>In message >, Richard Lamb
> writes
>>>
>>>Never explain youself.
>>>Your friends don't need it
>>>and your enemies won't believe it.
>>
>>Your friends may well need it, otherwise "Why the Hell did he do that"?
>>
>>Mike
>>--
>>M.J.Powell
>>
>
>
>Because he is the officer in charge. It is his decision to make and he made it.
>He need onty be called to explain by a superior officer in the chain of
>command. Everyone else is outside the loop.

Oh, well. Different air force!

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[BUFDRVR]

>You don't have a special affection for the crew(s) with which you flew in
>combat?

Yes and no. Yes in that I'll always remember my ALLIED FORCE crew and some of
the things we saw and did. No, in that the co-pilot was a nightmare in the jet
(horrible Crew Resource Management case) and not a very good co-pilot to boot.
Just because he was sitting next to me over Belgrade doesn't mean I hold him in
higher regard then my very first co-pilot who was outstanding in every aspect.
Will I ever forget his name? No, probably not. Do I hold him in higher regard
then those with zero combat hours? Hell no, and I would do my best to avoid
flying with him again. As luck would have it, he left the B-52 shortly after
ALLIED FORCE. Since my first combat sortie I've flown with at least four other
crews, including two over Iraq. The majority of the crewmembers from these
crews were hard working stand-up guys and gals. A couple were lazy, no caring
idiots who just happened to be lucky enough to be in the right place (right
unit) at the right time (a conflict going on and they are not in the process of
upgrade training, PME or other issues which keep you at home). Just being in
the right place at the right time earns you no additional stature in my book,
you're conduct while deployed as well as before and after do.

>I wouldn't throw it into others' faces, but
>denying the phenomenon exists is, IMO, unsupportable.
>

I was not trying to throw anything in anyones face. Simply stating that I
disagreed with the notion that those with combat time hold others with combat
time in higher regards then those without based solely on combat time.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Cecil Turner]

BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >You don't have a special affection for the crew(s) with which you flew in
> >combat?
>
> Yes and no. Yes in that I'll always remember my ALLIED FORCE crew and some of
> the things we saw and did. No, in that the co-pilot was a nightmare in the jet
> (horrible Crew Resource Management case) and not a very good co-pilot to boot.
> Just because he was sitting next to me over Belgrade doesn't mean I hold him in
> higher regard then my very first co-pilot who was outstanding in every aspect.
> Will I ever forget his name? No, probably not. Do I hold him in higher regard
> then those with zero combat hours? Hell no, and I would do my best to avoid
> flying with him again. As luck would have it, he left the B-52 shortly after
> ALLIED FORCE. Since my first combat sortie I've flown with at least four other
> crews, including two over Iraq. The majority of the crewmembers from these
> crews were hard working stand-up guys and gals. A couple were lazy, no caring
> idiots who just happened to be lucky enough to be in the right place (right
> unit) at the right time (a conflict going on and they are not in the process of
> upgrade training, PME or other issues which keep you at home). Just being in
> the right place at the right time earns you no additional stature in my book,
> you're conduct while deployed as well as before and after do.
>
> >I wouldn't throw it into others' faces, but
> >denying the phenomenon exists is, IMO, unsupportable.
> >
>
> I was not trying to throw anything in anyones face. Simply stating that I
> disagreed with the notion that those with combat time hold others with combat
> time in higher regards then those without based solely on combat time.
>
> BUFDRVR
>
Well, that's not quite the same thing. The statement in question was:
"Those who expose themselves to enemy fire do not have the same regard for those who
don't." And the context was a unit in which the aircrews fought (with a particularly
high casualty rate) and the ground crews mostly didn't. I maintain that in any such
scenario there will be a dynamic between the two groups. And that it's not based on
rank, but on perceived risk.

Your experience may differ, but there is enough historical precedent to convince me my
own experience (in a different scenario in a ground unit--the interaction between
support troops and trigger-pullers) wasn't a one-off.

rgds,
KTF

[Kevin Brooks]

Cecil Turner > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > Cecil Turner > wrote in message >...
> > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > > > It's "for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother" . .
> > > > > . not "he who feeds the horses but stays behind."
> > > >
> > > > So you join Art in scorning the service of all of those who have
> > > > faithfully served in other roles, or theaters? I would have thought
> > > > better of you, Cecil.
> > >
> > > Mr Brooks, I may be overly sensitive, but as a (retired) military officer I expect a
> > > certain amount of civility and courtesy, especially from fellow servicemen. Since you
> > > refuse to discuss issues without gratuitous personal comments, I decline to correspond
> > > with you further.
> >
> > I would expect more than that "he who feeds the horses" bit from a
> > good officer, retired or otherwise.
> >
> Well, let's talk about your expectations for a moment. Most references on the subject
> claim it's a very personal phenomenon (and even more so for small groups). For example:
> "The book highlights the importance of peer pressure in reinforcing courage. For the
> ship?s company and a bomber crew, the shared risk is perhaps even more personal than it
> is for a company of infantry." (Air Marshal Sir Timothy Garden, reviewing _The Mystery
> of Courage_ By William Ian Miller)
>
> And various communities do not extend the same risk appreciation to others. Examples
> include sailors deriding merchant mariners, or infantrymen and airmen (even though the
> risks to the latter are statistically greater in most conflicts). Further, I find it
> hard to believe even someone who hasn't been there hasn't noticed these things, and
> believe you're being intentionally obtuse.

Not obtuse, I just find it hard to believe that a professional would
buy into the "those that feed the horses" bit as a manner of
denigrating others' honorable service (and that is what this was
about--Art having a decided tendency to ridicule the efforts of any
who did not see direct combat, regardless of their duty, orders, or
even other critical contribution, etc.). How far would *your* units
have gotten without maintainers, mess personnel, the logistics chain
that kept you in beans/bullets, the medical types who handled your
wounded from the battlefield all the way back to CONUS, etc.? And you
still can scoff at those "who feed the horses"? Even when some of
"them" are the ones who have been shown to be most at risk in terms of
catastrophic loss during both ODS and OIF?

>
> While we're on the personal comment stuff . . . IME the individual has considerable
> control over his orders in today's volunteer military. And lately, those who wish to be
> in combat don't have much trouble doing so. And there are those who are in each
> conflict . . . and those who manage to miss them all. Among those who regularly don't
> participate, they seem to just miss being assigned to a unit that goes. Often there are
> sets of orders to second echelon commands just after the war ends, or similar excuses.

Back up the bus, Gus. I commanded a company during the time of ODS,
and yet I still volunteered to go overseas with my parent BN HQ (a
composite unit) when they got their orders--I was told thanks, but
your unit is on the deployment list as well (a fact born out by the
fact that we all of a sudden received things like that new M916 with
lowboy trailer that had been on backorder stsus for a couple of
*years*, with "Operation Desert Storm" listed as a justification for
fill, not to mention the near-daily updates I received by phone from
our RG personnel as to our deployment status). But in the end there
was less need for fixed bridge companies than originally projected. If
you are insinuating any of this adds up to "excuses", then you can
kiss me where the sun don't shine. And that IS intended to be quite
personal, so you can take it that way.

> How much of a buildup would there have had to be before your unit would have been sent
> to ODS?

We were bumped from phase to phase of the TPFDL (which was apprently
being generated on the fly, according to our RG rep, who said they
were actually to the point of moving units on post-it notes around on
a wall). ISTR we were in something like phase 7B or something like
that when the ground war kicked into gear and all things quickly
stopped in terms of shipping more combat power overseas. Uhmmm...you
do remember what a TPFDL is, right?

>And if you're still in, you had the last couple of opportunities as
well.

Not anymore. But I did my share of years in service, both active and
reserve. All as a volunteer. I don't feel any burning need to drop my
current life in order to try to go back and prove anything to anyone;
I'll leave that kind of behavior to guys like you and Art, the folks
who have some strange need to reinforce their tender egos by tearing
down the contributions of the millions of others who did their duty
because you feel that is the route to making your own contributions
more worthwhile.


> Perhaps in a training or similar non-deploying billet now? It all just seems a bit . .
> . convenient. (And might help to explain your apparent sensitivity on the subject.)
>
> Hey, this ad-hominem game is fun! Let's play another round, shall we?

Sure. Based upon what you have indicated so far, did *all* of your
fellow servicemembers think you were a complete asshole who had little
regard for anyone's service other than his own, or did you keep your
mouth shut in this vein at the time? Ever tell a "horse feeder" he was
lacking in the old duty and service area, and have him tell you where
you could shove that feed? No, I imagine you didn't...you probably
would not have been willing to make such a facile statement to
anyone's face. Do you feel that the Marines who were occupied by
duties in the FSSG were "less of a man" because of their "REMF"
duties? How about those water purification troops from the USAR who
got pasted by that Scud during ODS--were they not up to your
standards? Or the folks killed at the center of all REMF-dom, the
Pentagon? Can you tell us how they were lacking?

Brooks

>
> rgds,
> KTF

[Kevin Brooks]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
> >From: (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 7/4/03 1:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
> >...
> >> On this 4th of July let us honor all who fought. But let us especialy
> never
> >> forget the special few who came forward volunteering and said, "Take me.
> I'll
> >> go" It was these men who formed American elite units; Marines, Airborne,
> >> Seals, Submarine Service, Air Corps and Air Forces. We owe them all a
> special
> >> thanks.
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >
> >Another self-serving platitude from Art; who'd have thunk it? If I
> >were to tell my Dad (a volunteer for the USAAF during WWII with
> >missions over japan in B-29's under his belt) or my late brother (who
> >volunteered for service during the Vietnam conflict and flew UH-1's as
> >a Dustoff pilot) that they were "elite", I'd be laughed out of the
> >house. Neither ever figured himself to be a bit better than any of the
> >other millions of servicemen who performed their service, no matter
> >how mundane, during those conflicts. Since when has service in the
> >USAAF, or USAF for that matter, made someone "elite" amongst their
> >other service peers?
> >
> >Brooks
> >
>
> Your dad? Your brother? What does that have to do with you? Let's hear what
> you did. It'll be the shortest post in this NG Why the hell do all you
> wannabees always talk about what others did, never what you did.?
>
> .
> Arthur Kramer

Because you keep denying that the service of those of us who happened
to be born after WWII and found our service periods did not include
some form of direct combat even occured. Chalk it up to a senior
moment or whatever, but FYI we have spent one heck of a lot longer in
periods of peace during the intervening years than we did at war. And
I was ten years old when my brother went to Vietnam--should I have
lied about my age and joined up? But don't worry, you don't have to
say anything about my Cold War service--or that which occured after
that period. On behalf of the millions who served alongside me, I'll
tell you "you're welcome" anyway.

Brooks

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>Because he is the officer in charge. It is his decision to make and he made it.
>He need onty be called to explain by a superior officer in the chain of
>command. Everyone else is outside the loop.
>
>Arthur Kramer

Oh, I see now..."Never explain" (except to a higher rank then?..)

Seems to take the 'snap' out of the phrase though doesn't it?.
Makes me wonder why anyone would ever use it somehow.
--

-Gord.

[Cecil Turner]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> > Hey, this ad-hominem game is fun! Let's play another round, shall we?
>
> Sure. Based upon what you have indicated so far, did *all* of your
> fellow servicemembers think you were a complete asshole <snip>

I'm sure many did. Including almost all who persisted in personal insults after being
asked to stop.

good day,
KTF

[Gooneybird]

"Cecil Turner" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > > Hey, this ad-hominem game is fun! Let's play another round, shall we?
> >
> > Sure. Based upon what you have indicated so far, did *all* of your
> > fellow servicemembers think you were a complete asshole <snip>
>
> I'm sure many did. Including almost all who persisted in personal insults
after being
> asked to stop.
>
> good day,
> KTF

If you think this is bad, scoot over to alt.military.retired or soc.veterans and
find out what the real world of flame and invective is like. (^-^)))

George Z.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Gooneybird wrote:
>
> If you think this is bad, scoot over to alt.military.retired or soc.veterans and
> find out what the real world of flame and invective is like. (^-^)))

Quite. I find soc.veterans, alt.military and alt.military.retired to
be intellectually vacant lots (filled with crabgrass and very
occasional wild flowers) alongside the information superhighway.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Gooneybird]

"Cecil Turner" > wrote in message
...
> Gooneybird wrote:
> >
> > If you think this is bad, scoot over to alt.military.retired or soc.veterans
and
> > find out what the real world of flame and invective is like. (^-^)))
> >
> > George Z.
>
> After skimming a few threads, I suppose you're right. (But at least they had
more
> entertaining sexual references.)

Hell, they're all over the hill and have trouble getting a bag of groceries up a
flight of stairs, much less getting anything else up. Any comments you pick up
over there about sex are an example of how one relives life after he gets to be
a certain age. If you can't do it any more, at least you can think about it and
brag to anybody who'll listen about how good you are (or were). If they're
smart, they won't believe you. (^-^)))

Everybody there accuses everybody else about lying about everything, including
the day of the week. And everything includes sex.

Back to flying things, where modesty sometimes even rears its ugly head.

George Z.

[Gooneybird]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> Gooneybird wrote:
> >
> > If you think this is bad, scoot over to alt.military.retired or soc.veterans
and
> > find out what the real world of flame and invective is like. (^-^)))
>
> Quite. I find soc.veterans, alt.military and alt.military.retired to
> be intellectually vacant lots (filled with crabgrass and very
> occasional wild flowers) alongside the information superhighway.

Beautiful! That kind of poetic prose shouldn't be wasted on the latrine diggers
of the world.

George Z.

PS - Is poetic prose an oxymoron? Even if it is, you know what I mean.

[Richard Lamb]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
> >From: Richard Lamb
> >Date: 7/6/03 9:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
>
> >Never explain youself.
> >Your friends don't need it
> >and your enemies won't believe it.
>
> Exactly. (ROFL)
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Liked that one, did you?

But you never replied to my other post in this thread.

The one about over 200 missions behind enemy lines in Viet Nam?

Shot down twice.

Awarded the DFC (as an enlisted puke!)

Art, your attitdue, or at least your presentation of it is very
self serving...

Richard

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Gooneybird
> writes
>
>"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
>> Gooneybird wrote:
>> >
>> > If you think this is bad, scoot over to alt.military.retired or
>> >soc.veterans
>and
>> > find out what the real world of flame and invective is like. (^-^)))
>>
>> Quite. I find soc.veterans, alt.military and alt.military.retired to
>> be intellectually vacant lots (filled with crabgrass and very
>> occasional wild flowers) alongside the information superhighway.
>
>Beautiful! That kind of poetic prose shouldn't be wasted on the
>latrine diggers
>of the world.

Hey! I dug latrines once. And filled them in afterwards.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Gooneybird]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> Gooneybird wrote:
> >
> > "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Gooneybird wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you think this is bad, scoot over to alt.military.retired or
soc.veterans
> > and
> > > > find out what the real world of flame and invective is like. (^-^)))
> > >
> > > Quite. I find soc.veterans, alt.military and alt.military.retired to
> > > be intellectually vacant lots (filled with crabgrass and very
> > > occasional wild flowers) alongside the information superhighway.
> >
> > Beautiful! That kind of poetic prose shouldn't be wasted on the latrine
diggers
> > of the world.
>
> Be nice now, I have dug the occasional latrine in my time. :^)

Part timers don't count.....my remarks were only directed to the pros. (^-^)))

George Z.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>From: Richard Lamb
>Date: 7/7/03 10:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Honor to those who came forward
>> >From: Richard Lamb
>> >Date: 7/6/03 9:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>>
>> >Never explain youself.
>> >Your friends don't need it
>> >and your enemies won't believe it.
>>
>> Exactly. (ROFL)
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>Liked that one, did you?
>
>But you never replied to my other post in this thread.
>
>The one about over 200 missions behind enemy lines in Viet Nam?
>
>Shot down twice.
>
>Awarded the DFC (as an enlisted puke!)
>
>Art, your attitdue, or at least your presentation of it is very
>self serving...
>
>Richard
>


Lots of us flew missions. What's your point?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer