Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: "D. Strang"
>Date: 7/12/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero.
>
>But he said he murdered innocent women and children.

So did I. I was a bombardier over Europe.So what? Kerry at least had a shred
of honesty to admit it..






Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you ever seen more than one?
>

Sure. I've seen the ribbons with oak leaf clusters. Each cluster
represents an additional award.

[B2431]

>From: Ed Rasimus

<snip>

>
>I initially learned to fly J-3 Cubs, PA-22 Colts and PA-18 Super Cubs
>at my own expense. I can't afford to fly at my own expense today
>because I married a nice women who wasn't the recipient of fortune.

"A nice women?" Ed, I smite thee with a tarver stick :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Bob Noel]

In article >, kontiki
> wrote:

> Kerry ... does a poor immitation of Bill Clinton.

which could be considered something in waffle's favor.

--
Bob Noel

[Ed Rasimus]

On 12 Jul 2004 22:09:50 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>From: "D. Strang"
>>Date: 7/12/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>>Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero.
>>
>>But he said he murdered innocent women and children.
>
>So did I. I was a bombardier over Europe.So what? Kerry at least had a shred
>of honesty to admit it..

Let me try to construct a parallel between your experiences and mine,
so that we can possibly find a common ground to understand the
animosity I might feel.

You were a bombardier in B-26s over Europe. You went and fought and
stayed the course. You completed fifty missions.

Now, let's take someone in B-26s. Let's make it an aircraft
commander--not simply a crew-member, but a commander of the vehicle.
Let's say he had some minor injuries. Nothing serious. No
hospitalization, no lost limbs, no surgery. Just injuries. He opted
out of completing his tour. Lemme see, four months out of a one year
tour, so let's say he flew 17 missions out of the 50. Then he went
home. The rest of you on his crew slogged on without him.

But, when he got home, he didn't wear his decorations proudly and
support his brothers in arms still fighting the war that their nation
asked them to fight. He abandoned his uniform and spoke out against
the war. He went still further. 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"?

The German propaganda machine embraced his statements. Publicized them
and called him courageous. Would you? Would the other members of your
crew? Would you call him a hero?

Do you see a parallel here?

Meanwhile, your father, who fought valiantly for his country in WW I
(or the Spanish-American War) or whatever, began to speak out against
FDR. Accusing him of being a wealthy child of privilege who never wore
the uniform and dragged his country into WW II for his own benefit and
under false pretenses. That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
reason. Way too many were dying in Europe for the benefit of the
French who never liked us anyway. Besides, the war had dragged on much
too long and we ought to get rid of him.

Do you see a parallel here?


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

[BUFDRVR]

NW_PILOT wrote:

>They have already taken away 45% of our
>arms

Who's "they"? Surely you're not claiming a Republican administration has
enacted laws to restrict gun ownership? I think you're confused.


BUFDRVR

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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 12 Jul 2004 22:14:01 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: Ed Rasimus
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>I initially learned to fly J-3 Cubs, PA-22 Colts and PA-18 Super Cubs
>>at my own expense. I can't afford to fly at my own expense today
>>because I married a nice women who wasn't the recipient of fortune.
>
>"A nice women?" Ed, I smite thee with a tarver stick :)
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Well, other than the garbled grammar, it's true. The first one was
nice, but the second one is exceptional. Neither came with a fortune.
J.F. Kerry seems to have gone for the gold twice.


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

[BUFDRVR]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>Let me try to construct a parallel between your experiences and mine,
>so that we can possibly find a common ground to understand the
>animosity I might feel.
>
>You were a bombardier in B-26s over Europe. You went and fought and
>stayed the course. You completed fifty missions.
>
>Now, let's take someone in B-26s. Let's make it an aircraft
>commander--not simply a crew-member, but a commander of the vehicle.
>Let's say he had some minor injuries. Nothing serious. No
>hospitalization, no lost limbs, no surgery. Just injuries. He opted
>out of completing his tour. Lemme see, four months out of a one year
>tour, so let's say he flew 17 missions out of the 50. Then he went
>home. The rest of you on his crew slogged on without him.
>
>But, when he got home, he didn't wear his decorations proudly and
>support his brothers in arms still fighting the war that their nation
>asked them to fight. He abandoned his uniform and spoke out against
>the war. He went still further. 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"?
>
>The German propaganda machine embraced his statements. Publicized them
>and called him courageous. Would you? Would the other members of your
>crew? Would you call him a hero?
>
>Do you see a parallel here?
>
>Meanwhile, your father, who fought valiantly for his country in WW I
>(or the Spanish-American War) or whatever, began to speak out against
>FDR. Accusing him of being a wealthy child of privilege who never wore
>the uniform and dragged his country into WW II for his own benefit and
>under false pretenses. That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
>no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
>reason. Way too many were dying in Europe for the benefit of the
>French who never liked us anyway. Besides, the war had dragged on much
>too long and we ought to get rid of him.
>
>Do you see a parallel here?


Ed, that was awsome, but Kramer will just ignore it, he has to.


BUFDRVR

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

[WalterM140]

>What there is no hard evidence of is Bush being AWOL.
>

This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for 16 months:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif


Walt

[Dave Holford]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> On 12 Jul 2004 22:09:50 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
> >>From: "D. Strang"
> >>Date: 7/12/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >
> >>Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero.
> >>
> >>But he said he murdered innocent women and children.
> >
> >So did I. I was a bombardier over Europe.So what? Kerry at least had a shred
> >of honesty to admit it..
>
> Let me try to construct a parallel between your experiences and mine,
> so that we can possibly find a common ground to understand the
> animosity I might feel.
>
> You were a bombardier in B-26s over Europe. You went and fought and
> stayed the course. You completed fifty missions.
>
> Now, let's take someone in B-26s. Let's make it an aircraft
> commander--not simply a crew-member, but a commander of the vehicle.
> Let's say he had some minor injuries. Nothing serious. No
> hospitalization, no lost limbs, no surgery. Just injuries. He opted
> out of completing his tour. Lemme see, four months out of a one year
> tour, so let's say he flew 17 missions out of the 50. Then he went
> home. The rest of you on his crew slogged on without him.
>
> But, when he got home, he didn't wear his decorations proudly and
> support his brothers in arms still fighting the war that their nation
> asked them to fight. He abandoned his uniform and spoke out against
> the war. He went still further. 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"?
>
> The German propaganda machine embraced his statements. Publicized them
> and called him courageous. Would you? Would the other members of your
> crew? Would you call him a hero?
>
> Do you see a parallel here?
>
> Meanwhile, your father, who fought valiantly for his country in WW I
> (or the Spanish-American War) or whatever, began to speak out against
> FDR. Accusing him of being a wealthy child of privilege who never wore
> the uniform and dragged his country into WW II for his own benefit and
> under false pretenses. That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
> no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
> reason. Way too many were dying in Europe for the benefit of the
> French who never liked us anyway. Besides, the war had dragged on much
> too long and we ought to get rid of him.
>
> Do you see a parallel here?
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8



Thank you Ed.
That puts it in perspective and, who knows, might make a few people
think.

Dave

[WalterM140]

>Have you ever seen more than one?

Senator Kerry has three.

http://awolbush.com/images/KerryDD214-box24.gif


Walt

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
kontiki > wrote:

> Very well stated Sir. I could distill it down to its simplest terms:
>
> The Demos (lead by Kerry) are running towards socialism while the
> Repubs (lead by Bush) are jogging towards the same ultimate destination.
>
>

Neal Boortz (boortz.com) put it succintly on one of his radio show one
day: Today's Democrats are where the Socialists were in 1960, while
today's Republicans are where the Democrats were in 1960. The
Libertatians are where the Republicans were in 1960.

[Sam Byrams]

>
> One, Bush learned to fly in the military at government expense, did
>not complete his assigned commitment, and flew, if I understand ,
>fourteen months after UPT and has not flown as PIC or SIC since.
>Neither military or elsewise. (Not counting the ride out to the boat
>of late.)

Well, your inclusion of the "if I understand" is the bailout clause
for spouting a lot of crap. Learning to fly in the military at
government expense is quite simply the best way to get the best
aviation training in the world. Qualifying after UPT in an operational
single-seat jet takes, on average another eight to ten months and then
becoming operationally ready takes another six months.

Whether one flies as PIC again after completion of military service is
totally irrelevant. I have not flown as PIC or in any level of control
of an aircraft since my retirement from active duty in 1987. Doesn't
mean crap.
>
>
He's certainly under no obligation to fly after his service
agreement, the point is _he didn't do that_. They got less than a year
and a half out of their half-million dollar investment (in 1972). And
tell me someone in his position with his quals would have got the deal
he got if his father hadn't been a war hero congressman. Apparently
his UPT performance should have put him in multi or helos: and
normally someone without specifically in demand attributes should have
had to go active duty to get UPT at that time anyway. Yes, that's as I
understand it and no, I wasn't there. I'm waiting for someone to prove
to me he could have got that commission and training slot with his
academics in the National Guard at that time if his name had been Joe
Bagodonuts. I was thirteen years old when he went to UPT, old enough
to remember public sentiment was rapidly turning against the war-and
bitterly so-even in Dogpatch USA.

As far as not being able to afford to fly-my neighbor drives a UPS
truck and he bought a Decathlon, cash, in February. He's trying to get
me to sign off on a top overhaul he wants to do, since I'm an A&P. I'm
not about to, and since I haven't used my ticket in fifteen years
(since I got it) it wouldn't be legal anyway. But in America the
middle class can fly if they want to.




>
> Now, mind you, I don't like Bush or Kerry as a candidate. Bush was
>born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Kerry is also
>apparently something of a rich kid, married Big Ketchup, Ivy League
>(yecch), and to top it off is closely associated with a family I
>detest and which makes my skin crawl for many reasons (not least of
>which the same reason a certain baseball player hated them for every
>day of the last 36 years of his life). I can tell you right now I'm
>voting third party.

>>Voting third party is your privilege. But, you should note that the
government will continue despite your effective lack of participation.
Doesn't mean crap.


My Presidential vote isn't going to count anyway since my state is
not remotely up for grabs and it's a winner-take-all state.

>
> But-be honest-is there any reason I should prefer Bush over Kerry
>from an aviation standpoint? Bush, a nonpilot as far as I'm
concerned,
>has done nothing for aviation in this country. Kerry isn't likely to
>either, but how much worse could he be?

>Voting from an "aviation standpoint" doesn't make any sense at all.
Voting from a principles, performance, and ideological standpoint
does. How much worse could he be? Gimme a break.
>
They both suck. If I voted on pure principle I couldn't even vote
Libertarian-although they're closer. Kerry might really screw things
up so bad people would have to pull their heads out and in the long
run, like a dope bust,it might be beneficial for an addict.



>>Dr. Joe Bagadonutz, the wealthy proctologist buys a Mustang or even
a
MiG-17 and successfully takes off and lands. He isn't, by any stretch
of the imagination, a fighter pilot. He isn't really, even that lesser
level, a pilot who flies fighters. He's simply an accident waiting to
happen.

He's equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter.


>And the civil warjet guys are killing
>themselves at a rate that would have embarrassed the Air Force during
>the glory days of "Every Man A Tiger".

>>Excuse me, but you obviously haven't read "Every Man A Tiger." It's
about Chuck Horner as the Air Component Commander of Desert Storm. The
lead-in chapters about Gen. Horner's early days flying F-105s in
Rolling Thunder are anything but glory days.

The phrase far predates that book. It was the grinder call in the 50s
era USAF and I can remember my uncle-who went through the air cadet
program in the 50s-talking about it. Hated the culture of USAF where
Fighter Pilots were gods-he was a C-133/C-130 pilot who dropped dead
six weeks after retiring from TWA at 60 as a four striper.(And a
Navion owner-I took my O&P on it,and he would have let me take my
instrument rating checkride in it too,but the glideslope died and he
left it that way.) Herbert Molloy Mason's book on early 70s era UPT
mentions it in passing, disparagingly, as having been replaced by
"Professionalism". Great T-38 photos. Made me really, really envy
Chuck Thornton (until I met the prick).

[Ian MacLure]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> > Of course if its discovered that any of those were self
>> > inflicted as it is alleged that Baby Killer Kerry did...
>>
>> Seriously now. Have you got even a shred of proof of that?
>>
>
> The following letter appeared in the USA Today "Letters" section on
> June 25th last, page 8A:

[snip]

Manna from heaven so to speak.
Wunnerful ain't it.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Ian MacLure]

(Regnirps) wrote in
:

[snip]

> sails when I joined the Navy, but I never knew Pershing.

But you may have known the grandson who was killed in Vietnam.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
> 16 months:
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif
>

It does not show that he was AWOL.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Senator Kerry has three.
>

Two of which he may have earned.

[Regnirps]

(B2431) wrote:

>The "embellishments" are REQUIRED. They are called "devices." If I were still
>active duty an was not wearing the V on my bronze star or oakleaves on my
>purple heart, good conduct, longevity etc, stars on my national defense and
SEA
>sevice medal I would have been out of uniform.

Yes, the devices embellish the medal.

My grandfather received his in the mail in 1935. I guess he was out of uniform
for a looong time.

-- Charlie Springer

[D. Strang]

"Regnirps" > wrote
>
> Yes, the devices embellish the medal.

Maybe, but the device (oak leaf, or star) represent an additional medal.

While it is true you only get one full size medal per customer, and the
rest are devices, you are only making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Bill Shatzer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" ) writes:

-snip-

> Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is just

> Retired U.S. army colonel David Hackworth defends presidential
> candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts. He correctly notes that they are
> awarded for a wound that necessitates treatment by a medical officer and
> that is received in action with an enemy ('The meaning of a Purple Heart,"
> The Forum, June 16).

> I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec.
> 3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that
> Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too
> close.

Basically crap, Steven. Army Regulations re the Purple Heart:

(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of
"friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be
awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly"
projectile or agent was released with the full
intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy
troops or equipment.

I'd assume the Navy regulations are essentially similar.

In any case, if I recall correctly, it was freakin' -impossible-
to wound oneself by firing an M-79 round "too close".

An M-79 round had to travel a certain distance before arming itself
and that distance was greater than the "kill radius" of the round.

If one fired an M-79 round "too close", it would simply impact with
a thud and no "boom".

Presenting a possible problem for the ordinance disposal folks who
came along later but no particular problem for the firer.

Sheesh.
--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[D. Strang]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote
>
> In any case, if I recall correctly, it was freakin' -impossible-
> to wound oneself by firing an M-79 round "too close".

According to his crew:

They were shooting at rocks along the shore, and he got hit by
a piece of shrapnel (a sliver). Lucky *******.

Pretty typical stuff, that killed a lot of troops who weren't so lucky.
I know four guys in two tours, who have their name on the wall, who
killed themselves doing stuff this stupid.

[Cub Driver]

>I've seen a lot of Westerns, and John Wayne war movies, and Platoon
>is near the top, mainly for the script, and for the acting. It probably
>has as much to do with Vietnam, as John Wayne's had to do about
>D-Day or the Pacific.

But at least John Wayne never thought of himself as the Messiah. The
only image I carried away from Platoon is the guy with his arms
outstretched: oooh, look, daddy! Jesus on the Cross! What clever
symbolism! This much be a very deep movie!

My own Viet picks: We Were Soldiers, Go Tell the Spartans, and Full
Metal Jacket. The first is one of the great war movies, the second was
based on a book I wrote, and the third is a classic bang! bang! film.
I enjoyed each of them as much the second time around.

Hamburger Hill had its moments, but I sometimes forgot what war it was
supposed to be. I probably won't see it the second time.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

> One, Bush learned to fly in the military at government expense, did
>not complete his assigned commitment, and flew, if I understand ,
>fourteen months after UPT

I'm glad you put in the qualification, because clearly you don't
understand. Bush learned to fly in a bit more than a year of full-time
service, 1968-69, was an active duty pilot until his unit transitioned
to a different aircraft in 1972, and fulfilled his military obligation
in every respect, serving six and one-half years in total, or somewhat
more than two years of active duty for training, as it is termed.
www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On 12 Jul 2004 12:12:07 -0700, (Sam Byrams)
wrote:

> One, Bush learned to fly in the military at government expense, did
>not complete his assigned commitment, and flew, if I understand ,

No, you don't understand.

You don't even understand well enough not to repeat your posts. See my
answer to the earlier one. And now you get the old Control K.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:45:07 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
wrote:

>If there is an election
>this year I will be very surprised.

Oh yes, I forgot. The black helicopters will swoop in and take over
Washington. Is that before or after the draft is reinstated?

Control K!

(I find, interestingly enough, that kill-filing these people almost
always results in 1 message being deleted. Evidently they are fakes.
Take a look at steven's email address, for example.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:56:53 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>Qualifying after UPT in an operational
>single-seat jet takes, on average another eight to ten months and then
>becoming operationally ready takes another six months.

That seems to be about right in prexy's case. Bush was on full-time
duty ("active duty for training") from November 1968 to November 1969.
Back at Ellington, he remained on full-time duty until June 1970, when
he graduated from Combat Crew Training School. Altogether, about 21
months full-time service, after which he became a weekend warrior.

It's a bit sad that the left has to smear his service, which of course
few of them would admit was worth doing in any event! (Most of my
friends wouldn't go within spitting distance of a military man until
in desperation they signed on with the Wesley Clark campaign.
Suddenly, getting a hero was the most important qualifcation for a
Democratic primary.) Even the redoubtable Michael Moore hasn't
bothered to retread this tired old lie.

More at www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[WalterM140]

>> Senator Kerry has three.
>>
>
>Two of which he may have earned.
>
>

Prove he didn't earn all three.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
>> 16 months:
>>
>> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif
>>
>
>It does not show that he was AWOL.
>

No, you have to draw that inference yourself.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero.
>
>Who by his own admission in sworn Senate testimony was personally
>guilty of committing war crimes and atrocities as well as personally
>observing them in his role as a commissioned officer yet not doing
>anything to stop them.
>

Can you source some back up of that statement?

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> Vice [sic] President Bush is the issue, and the only issue.
>>
>
>Why isn't Kerry the issue?

Kerry's military records are complete. Bush's are not.

Walt

[WalterM140]

> He seems to think that use of an M2 is
>a war crime.

It apparently is.

I can well remember hearing that use of the M2 against troops is not allowed.
However, use of the M2 against equipment -is- allowed. We were advised to
shoot at enemy troops' belt buckles, as that -was- equipment.

This was done in a Law of War brief prior to us deploying to Desert Storm.

Walt

[D. Strang]

"WalterM140" > wrote
> >> This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
> >> 16 months:
> >>
> >> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif
> >>
> >
> >It does not show that he was AWOL.
> >
>
> No, you have to draw that inference yourself.

AWOL is a violation of the UCMJ, you don't infer it, there are
records.

[D. Strang]

"WalterM140" > wrote
> >> Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero.
> >
> >Who by his own admission in sworn Senate testimony was personally
> >guilty of committing war crimes and atrocities as well as personally
> >observing them in his role as a commissioned officer yet not doing
> >anything to stop them.
>
> Can you source some back up of that statement?

Go read his congressional testimony. He is responsible for all Vietnam
war veterans being referred to as "baby killers." He coined the term, and
smeared all Veterans. He is a communist. Compare his dream of America
with that of Ho Chi Minh's dream for Vietnam. They are identical.

[D. Strang]

"WalterM140" > wrote
> >> Vice [sic] President Bush is the issue, and the only issue.
> >>
> >
> >Why isn't Kerry the issue?
>
> Kerry's military records are complete. Bush's are not.

Ancient history for either of them. Bush isn't a communist.

[D. Strang]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> This was done in a Law of War brief prior to us deploying to Desert Storm.

What unit were you in, and what city in Saudi did your unit go?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Basically crap, Steven. Army Regulations re the Purple Heart:
>
> (b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of
> "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be
> awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly"
> projectile or agent was released with the full
> intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy
> troops or equipment.
>
> I'd assume the Navy regulations are essentially similar.
>


There apparently was no battle to be in the heat of.


>
> In any case, if I recall correctly, it was freakin' -impossible-
> to wound oneself by firing an M-79 round "too close".
>

Kerry's experience suggests otherwise.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Prove he didn't earn all three.
>

The following letter appeared in the USA Today "Letters" section on June
25th last, page 8A:



Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is just

Retired U.S. army colonel David Hackworth defends presidential
candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts. He correctly notes that they are
awarded for a wound that necessitates treatment by a medical officer and
that is received in action with an enemy ('The meaning of a Purple Heart,"
The Forum, June 16).

I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec.
3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that
Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too
close. He wanted a Purple Heart, and I refused. Louis Letson, the base
physician, saw Kerry and used tweezers to remove the tiny piece of
shrapnel - about 1 centi*meter in length and 2 millimeters in di*ameter.
Letson also confirmed that the scratch was inflicted with our M-79.

We admire Col. Hackworth, but he, above all people, knows why it is
unac*ceptable to nominate yourself for an award. It compromises the basic
military principle that we survive together. To promote yourself is to
denigrate your team. I hope Col. Hackworth will rethink his characterization
of Kerry's swift-boat comrades as "grousers" passing on "secondhand bilge."
In our case, this is firsthand knowledge, and our integrity is unquestioned.

Kerry orchestrated his way out of Viet*nam and then testified, under
oath, be*fore Congress that we, his comrades, had committed horrible war
crimes. This tes*timony was a lie and slandered honor*able men. We, who were
actually there, believe he is unfit to command our sons and daughters.

Grant Hibbard, retired commander US. Navy, Gulf Breeze, Fla.

Louis Letson, M.D. Retired lieutenant commander Medical Corps, US. Navy
Reserve Scottsboro, Ala.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, you have to draw that inference yourself.
>

I wouldn't draw that inference. No rational person would.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Kerry's military records are complete. Bush's are not.
>

So what?

[Jay Honeck]

> (I find, interestingly enough, that kill-filing these people almost
> always results in 1 message being deleted. Evidently they are fakes.
> Take a look at steven's email address, for example.)

Propagandists have no interest in being identified.

Still, it *is* fun (and, usually, pathetically easy) to debunk them...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Masino]

In rec.aviation.owning Cub Driver > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:45:07 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
> wrote:
>>If there is an election
>>this year I will be very surprised.
>
> Oh yes, I forgot. The black helicopters will swoop in and take over
> Washington. Is that before or after the draft is reinstated?

Of course, NW_PILOT's assesment is a litte alarmist, however
(interestingly enough), we presently DO have black helicopters patrolling
the Washington airspace and harassing general aviation. So, you never
know.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jack]

WalterM140 wrote:

> ...Bush 41 stumbled into an unneccesary war in the Gulf....

That's even wider of the mark than the usual newsgroup drivel. The "Gulf
War" was more necessary than the great majority of the military actions
in which the US has engaged since 1953.


> ...we're bankrupting ourselves....

But not because of the Iraq war, that's for sure.


> ...the intellgence community is in a shambles....

The Intelligence Community has _been_ in a shambles for decades. It's a
well known fact, and the problems of entrenched influence and lack of
leadership on the issue are widely recognized. It takes a big, big push
to make such changes, and that historically happens only after some
major debacle.

We've simply gotten the "leadership" we deserve.



Jack

[Jack]

ArtKramr wrote:

> ...Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero.

So are you and any number of people on this newsgroup. It doesn't seem
to be a factor which produces a lack of bias, nor protects one against
an excess of narrow ambition.

A presidential candidate is only as good as the people who support him.
From what I've seen of the people who are rabid supporters of either of
the major candidates, this year's vote is going to be a difficult choice
for folks who are just trying to avoid the greater evil.



Jack

[Jack]

Steve Mellenthin wrote:

> I am not ready just yet to be
> called a paleocon.

Ur-Con?


Jack

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: Jack
>Date: 7/13/2004 7:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero.
>
>So are you and any number of people on this newsgroup. It

I was never a hero. I never did a single heroic thing.I was a 19 year old kid.
I flew my missions doing what I was trained to do. As we all did, And kept
flying those misssions until the war ended. Then I went home. Let's not make
more of it than it is.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 12 Jul 2004 20:09:25 -0700, (Sam Byrams)
wrote:


> He's certainly under no obligation to fly after his service
>agreement, the point is _he didn't do that_. They got less than a year
>and a half out of their half-million dollar investment (in 1972).

George Bush entered Texas ANG service in 1968. Went to UPT in '69,
qualified in the Deuce in '70 and stopped flying in '72 when his unit
was transitioning to F-101s and he did not have adequate retainability
to justify requal.

> And
>tell me someone in his position with his quals would have got the deal
>he got if his father hadn't been a war hero congressman. Apparently
>his UPT performance should have put him in multi or helos: and
>normally someone without specifically in demand attributes should have
>had to go active duty to get UPT at that time anyway. Yes, that's as I
>understand it and no, I wasn't there.

Glad you admit that it is as you understand it and you weren't there.
Now, listen carefully. Bush went to UPT as a TANG member. He would fly
the equipment of his unit if he completed the course. He was not in
competition for assignment USAF-wide. He was not in competition for
assignment with the other students in training. He was going to fly
the F-102 in the unit that he was a member of.


> I'm waiting for someone to prove
>to me he could have got that commission and training slot with his
>academics in the National Guard at that time if his name had been Joe
>Bagodonuts. I was thirteen years old when he went to UPT, old enough
>to remember public sentiment was rapidly turning against the war-and
>bitterly so-even in Dogpatch USA.

In '68 (not '72) public sentiment was divided. Bush got his training
slot when production for UPT was as high as it had been historically
since WW II. UPT was expanding from eight to eleven bases and capacity
at each site was increased. We were up to more than 5000 per year
input to UPT from all sources. (I was director of ATC Student Officer
Rated Assignments from 1970 to April 1972 and managing the program.)
>
> As far as not being able to afford to fly-my neighbor drives a UPS
>truck and he bought a Decathlon, cash, in February. He's trying to get
>me to sign off on a top overhaul he wants to do, since I'm an A&P. I'm
>not about to, and since I haven't used my ticket in fifteen years
>(since I got it) it wouldn't be legal anyway. But in America the
>middle class can fly if they want to.

My point was not that I can't fly, but that I'm under no obligation to
fly. Flying general aviation doesn't appeal to me. But, simply because
I haven't exercised my aeronautical rating in 15 years doesn't mean it
never existed. Sort of like your A&P.
>
> My Presidential vote isn't going to count anyway since my state is
>not remotely up for grabs and it's a winner-take-all state.

Since 48 out of 50 states are "winner-take-all" Electoral College
votes, your reasoning should get everyone to give up voting.

It would seem to this political scientist (BS, MPS, MSIR) that the
closeness of the last election in so many states would indicate that
the value of every citizen's vote is critically important.

>>
> They both suck. If I voted on pure principle I couldn't even vote
>Libertarian-although they're closer. Kerry might really screw things
>up so bad people would have to pull their heads out and in the long
>run, like a dope bust,it might be beneficial for an addict.

If you can't differentiate between the basic ideological positions of
the two parties, you shouldn't vote. Good choice.
>

>>>Dr. Joe Bagadonutz, the wealthy proctologist buys a Mustang or even
>a
>MiG-17 and successfully takes off and lands. He isn't, by any stretch
>of the imagination, a fighter pilot. He isn't really, even that lesser
>level, a pilot who flies fighters. He's simply an accident waiting to
>happen.
>
> He's equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter.

The initial post was about flying "fighters". Yes, Bonanzas are
notorious for applying the principles of Darwin to doctors.
>
>
>>And the civil warjet guys are killing
>>themselves at a rate that would have embarrassed the Air Force during
>>the glory days of "Every Man A Tiger".
>
>>>Excuse me, but you obviously haven't read "Every Man A Tiger." It's
>about Chuck Horner as the Air Component Commander of Desert Storm. The
>lead-in chapters about Gen. Horner's early days flying F-105s in
>Rolling Thunder are anything but glory days.
>
> The phrase far predates that book. It was the grinder call in the 50s
>era USAF and I can remember my uncle-who went through the air cadet
>program in the 50s-talking about it. Hated the culture of USAF where
>Fighter Pilots were gods-he was a C-133/C-130 pilot who dropped dead
>six weeks after retiring from TWA at 60 as a four striper.

With all due respect to your uncle, we never won a war by hauling more
trash than the enemy. Trash haulers help, but only because they
provide the warriors at the pointy end of the spear with the bombs,
beans and bullets to kill the enemy.

>(And a
>Navion owner-I took my O&P on it,and he would have let me take my
>instrument rating checkride in it too,but the glideslope died and he
>left it that way.) Herbert Molloy Mason's book on early 70s era UPT
>mentions it in passing, disparagingly, as having been replaced by
>"Professionalism". Great T-38 photos. Made me really, really envy
>Chuck Thornton (until I met the prick).

Haven't seen Mason't book, but if he thinks the "Tiger" attitude got
replaced by something less, he's sadly mistaken. Warriors are
professionals, but they'd better have a healthy dose of attitude.


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

[Jack]

Sam Byrams wrote:

> I know what the statistics are, and I don't
> care. I suspect Bush Jr's motives were the same
> booze, pussy and kerosene!

As a former fighter pilot (or "pilot who flew fighters", compared to
guys like Ed, et al) I wish to disassociate myself from that remark.

It was JP-4, Pussy, and booze -- in that order and with appropriate
nomenclature and capitalization, please.


Jack

[Jack]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

"No, asshole. The biggest ego blast in the world is walking away
from the jet, sweat-soaked and drained, looking back at the bird
and saying, '**** you. You could have killed me, but you didn't.'
And, knowing that you do something every day that most other humans
don't even begin to conceive of.

and:

"Those square-ass Gulfstream and Lear crews" aren't even
part of the equation.


And _that_ is the truth!



Jack

[Jack]

Sam Byrams wrote:


> But in America the middle class can fly if they want to.

It's just a matter of priorities.

I bought a 30-year old sailplane so I could afford to fly a little
cheaper. Not everybody wants to make that sharp a turn from
single-seat-jet fighter/big-airliner-left-seat to unobtrusive cheap
little go-nowhere, carry-nothing quiet little aircraft, of course.

I recommend Ed and others try it. It's the most actual flying you've
been called upon to do since you safed-up your last gun switch, or
taxied in and shut down after your last engine-out at-or-below minimums
instrument approach at night in a snowstorm.

You'll freakin' love it!


Jack

[Jack]

Sam Byrams wrote:

> [Dr. Joe Bagadonutz is] equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter.

Not quite.

Even most Dr.s aren't convinced they can fly a MIG or any real fighter
-- or at least aren't so willing to disprove it. The Bonanza isn't that
tough, after all -- so it's a damn' good thing they are leaving the
fighters, for the most part, alone.

Hell, my Dad owned and flew a Bonanza, and he was only a Major League
baseball player, with a high school education. ;)


Jack

[Bill Shatzer]

Regnirps ) writes:
> (B2431) wrote:

>>The "embellishments" are REQUIRED. They are called "devices." If I were still
>>active duty an was not wearing the V on my bronze star or oakleaves on my
>>purple heart, good conduct, longevity etc, stars on my national defense and
> SEA
>>sevice medal I would have been out of uniform.

> Yes, the devices embellish the medal.

> My grandfather received his in the mail in 1935. I guess he was out of uniform
> for a looong time.

Not at all. The medal was re-created in 1932 in honor of the 200th
anniversary of Washington's birth. Sometime there after, it was
decided to retroactively award the medal to all personnel who had
been awarded "wound stripes" in WW1.

1935 sounds about right for the retroactive award. Prior to
that, he'd only be out of uniform if he failed to wear the
wound stripe.

Cheers,

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Bill Shatzer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" ) writes:
> "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Basically crap, Steven. Army Regulations re the Purple Heart:

>> (b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of
>> "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be
>> awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly"
>> projectile or agent was released with the full
>> intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy
>> troops or equipment.

>> I'd assume the Navy regulations are essentially similar.

> There apparently was no battle to be in the heat of.

Assumed but not proven. In any case irrelevant if the folks
-thought- they were in a battle.

You think those folks in the Bradley who got zapped by a blue
on blue Maverick didn't get PHs? There was no -real- battle,
they were just motoring along when the A-10 mistook them for
a T-72 or whatever. The A-10 driver -thought- it was a battle.

>> In any case, if I recall correctly, it was freakin' -impossible-
>> to wound oneself by firing an M-79 round "too close".

> Kerry's experience suggests otherwise.

"Purported" experience. The things have to cover a minimum
distance before they arm themselves and that distance is
sufficient to place the shooter outside of the blast/shrapnel
radius.

I recall one story from the vietnam conflict where an army
surgeon got written up for removing an unexploded M-79 round
from an ARVN trooper. -He- got shot by friendly fire but the
round hadn't traveled far enough to arm itself.

Cheers,


--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Jack > wrote:

> Sam Byrams wrote:
>
> > [Dr. Joe Bagadonutz is] equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza
for that matter.
>
> Not quite.
>
> Even most Dr.s aren't convinced they can fly a MIG or any real fighter
> -- or at least aren't so willing to disprove it. The Bonanza isn't that
> tough, after all -- so it's a damn' good thing they are leaving the
> fighters, for the most part, alone.
>
> Hell, my Dad owned and flew a Bonanza, and he was only a Major League
> baseball player, with a high school education. ;)

Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
That has the rep as the unforgiving GA ship, probably due to lack of training.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 02:38:46 -0500, D. Strang wrote:

[snip]

> Pretty typical stuff, that killed a lot of troops who weren't so lucky.
> I know four guys in two tours, who have their name on the wall, who
> killed themselves doing stuff this stupid.

And willfully stupid at that.
You try telling them to stop before somebody gets killed
and see what thanks you get for it.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:07:11 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

>>> This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
>>> 16 months:
>>>
>>> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif
>>>
>>
>>It does not show that he was AWOL.
>>
>
> No, you have to draw that inference yourself.

No, thats not quite true.
Thats the inference YOU WANT folks to draw.
In fact you belabo(u)r the point into insensibility.
Trouble is your thory doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Tough noogies.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:10:05 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

>>> Vice [sic] President Bush is the issue, and the only issue.
>>>
>>
>>Why isn't Kerry the issue?
>
> Kerry's military records are complete. Bush's are not.

So, thousands of records have been lost in fires,
transit, during media conversion, etc.
The regular US Navy was evidently more careful about
its records than the ANG. So what?
And what credence can we palce in Kerry's records
when we know that at least some of the details are
not correct.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:13:25 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

>> He seems to think that use of an M2 is
>>a war crime.
>
> It apparently is.
>
> I can well remember hearing that use of the M2 against troops is not allowed.
> However, use of the M2 against equipment -is- allowed. We were advised to
> shoot at enemy troops' belt buckles, as that -was- equipment.

Smells like BS to me.
Its a distinction only a lawyer could love.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 7/12/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 12 Jul 2004 22:09:50 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>>From: "D. Strang"
>>>Date: 7/12/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>
>>>Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero.
>>>
>>>But he said he murdered innocent women and children.
>>
>>So did I. I was a bombardier over Europe.So what? Kerry at least had a
>shred
>>of honesty to admit it..
>
>Let me try to construct a parallel between your experiences and mine,
>so that we can possibly find a common ground to understand the
>animosity I might feel.
>
>You were a bombardier in B-26s over Europe. You went and fought and
>stayed the course. You completed fifty missions.
>
>Now, let's take someone in B-26s. Let's make it an aircraft
>commander--not simply a crew-member, but a commander of the vehicle.
>Let's say he had some minor injuries. Nothing serious. No
>hospitalization, no lost limbs, no surgery. Just injuries. He opted
>out of completing his tour. Lemme see, four months out of a one year
>tour, so let's say he flew 17 missions out of the 50. Then he went
>home. The rest of you on his crew slogged on without him.
>
>But, when he got home, he didn't wear his decorations proudly and
>support his brothers in arms still fighting the war that their nation
>asked them to fight. He abandoned his uniform and spoke out against
>the war. He went still further. 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"?
>
>The German propaganda machine embraced his statements. Publicized them
>and called him courageous. Would you? Would the other members of your
>crew? Would you call him a hero?
>
>Do you see a parallel here?
>
>Meanwhile, your father, who fought valiantly for his country in WW I
>(or the Spanish-American War) or whatever, began to speak out against
>FDR. Accusing him of being a wealthy child of privilege who never wore
>the uniform and dragged his country into WW II for his own benefit and
>under false pretenses. That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
>no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
>reason. Way too many were dying in Europe for the benefit of the
>French who never liked us anyway. Besides, the war had dragged on much
>too long and we ought to get rid of him.
>
>Do you see a parallel here?
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

Yes I see the paralell. And I can't disagree with anything you said. And I
understand your feelings in the matter and share many of them However there may
be some other issues worth considering When I flew my missions over western
Europe I bombed many cities And as I saw my bombs explode on the ground I
wondered how many children were down there.How many woman. I also strafed from
down on the deck and could plainly see woman and children in my line of fire.
That is not easy to forget. It still comes to me in the night even after 60
years. It comes to many of us that way. For example the bombardier on the Enola
Gay became a priest in Japan. But we all knew that WW II had tot be fought no
matter what the cost. And while the guilt lingers, we can live with it But Viet
Nam was another matter entirely. There were more quetions than answers. More
doubts that convictions and many doubted the war in every sense. Kerry did.
His guilt was something he had to taken action aginst. And while I would never
throw my medals away as he did, I can understand him but not agree with him.
And when it comes to the deaths of innocents I can understand his feelings in
the matter just as I can understand yours.
But you and I and Kerry know all too well what the elephant looks like. And we
are just a small breed apart vis-a-vis those who have never seen the beast.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:23:46 -0500, D. Strang wrote:

[snip]

> AWOL is a violation of the UCMJ, you don't infer it, there are
> records.

You'd think so wouldn't you.
Walty and his Dimmocreep buddies have however constructed
their castle in the air which while disturbing is OK I
suppose. Taking up residence therein is grounds to question
their mental integrity.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:51:55 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No, you have to draw that inference yourself.
>>
>
> I wouldn't draw that inference. No rational person would.

<HINT>
Walty isn't rationale. He's a broken record Dumbocreep.
</HINT>

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Jack]

Harry Andreas wrote:

> Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?

Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.

> That has the rep as the unforgiving GA ship, probably due to lack of training.

Oh please -- other than a little perceived yaw problem which may or may
not have been the fault of the forked tail -- it was and is just like
any other clean airplane.

Some airplanes are willing to ignore bad technique more than others --
just like some wives -- but none of them will ignore bad judgment.



Jack

[Chris Mark]

>The medal was re-created in 1932

As a bit of trivia, Douglas MacArthur got the first one. The backside is
engraved with a Number One. Mac also got the first Silver Star, which replaced
the citation star representing a mention in dispatches. He was big on medals
and reworked a lot of the old award system when he became Army CoS.


Chris Mark

[NW_PILOT]

hey, what's wrong with my e-mail address it is a valid e-mail & I am the
owner of the domain that I use when I post on UseNet and a few other places
ware spam originates and I can filter it.


"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:45:07 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
> wrote:
>
> >If there is an election
> >this year I will be very surprised.
>
> Oh yes, I forgot. The black helicopters will swoop in and take over
> Washington. Is that before or after the draft is reinstated?
>
> Control K!
>
> (I find, interestingly enough, that kill-filing these people almost
> always results in 1 message being deleted. Evidently they are fakes.
> Take a look at steven's email address, for example.)
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Brooks Gregory]

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:07:11 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:
>
> >>> This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
> >>> 16 months:
> >>>
> >>> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif


That document is a complete forgery!!! Hell, the forger didn't even know the
proper format for military dates.


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

[Guy Alcala]

Jack wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
>
> > Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
>
> Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.

I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
here, this being a military aviation newsgroup. Too bad. I used to go flying with
a buddy in a '61? Model 33 that his club owned, and he loved it, but compared to a
150/172 who wouldn't?

My personal favorite for transportation and sightseeing was another club's Cardinal
RG -- you had a great view downwards with no struts or wheels in the way, AND you
could see traffic above/in the turn direction because of the highly sloped
windscreen/aft-mounted wing. Possibly my opinion may be biased - AFAIR I could
never pry his hands off the Beech's controls so I could fly it, while I was usually
able to get some stick time in the RG;-) The Cardinal's great view seemed rather
important after one of my buddy's fellow club members (a CFI) and her student had a
head-on mid-air in a 172 as they climbed out of Oakland, with an inbound Cherokee
Six descending to enter the pattern -- they were presumably in each other's blind
spot. It may be that the Cardinal's better forward and upward view would have been
irrelevant in that particular case (if the Cessna was still climbing steeply), but
there was no doubt whatsoever how much easier it was in the Cardinal to look for
traffic you might be turning towards while in the pattern.

Guy

[Steve Mellenthin]

>But Viet
>Nam was another matter entirely. There were more quetions than answers. More
>doubts that convictions and many doubted the war in every sense. Kerry did.
>His guilt was something he had to taken action aginst. And while I would
>never
>throw my medals away as he did, I can understand him but not agree with him.
>And when it comes to the deaths of innocents I can understand his feelings in
>the matter just as I can understand yours.
>But you and I and Kerry know all too well what the elephant looks like. And
>we
>are just a small breed apart vis-a-vis those who have never seen the beast.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Art, I understand all that too as you would expect. On the other hand, that
sort of behavior as his and especially his association with Jane Fonda cost
lives by encouraging the enemy. My ass was on the line literally while she was
being photographed sitting in the chair of a 37 or 57mm AAA gun and I only
wished one of our bombs had reached her. There are far better ways to express
one's opposition to a war than to rub **** in the faces of the guys who had to
face those guns on a daily basis. I am absolutely certain you would react the
same way had an American done likewise on a German AAA peice in the ETO.

So I have some very serious misgivings about John Kerry, his judgement, and his
true reasons for his wartime and post wartime behavior. I've no doubt that his
behavior encouraged the enemy just as Fonda's did. Then to seemingly discard
his medals as he did regardless of whether he earned them, only to later
display them proudly and allow others to play off his herosim, devotion to duty
and loyalty to his men is totally unconscionable to me.

Regardless of whether GWB was AWOL or not, at least none of his actions
discredited the nation and its warriors. But then we elected Clintion so I
guess duty, honor and country only matter to a few of us.

Steve



Just as in Iraq the beheadings draw far more publicity because they are
plastered all over the front page of the world's newspapers.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> ...
> That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
> no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
> reason.

In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.

Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
within the context of historical reality.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message >...
> >>>If I got wounded twice and got two Purple Hearts and a Silver Star I would
> do
> >>>the same thing. Anyone with a brain in their head would do the same thing.
> >>
> >>We apparently had a lot of brainless people in Vietnam then. Ditto in WWII?
> >>
> >
> > The more missions you fly, the more times you get wounded the slimmer the
> >chances of survival are. But you know that, don't you?
> >
> >
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> Guess it is all a matter of how committed you are and how important you think
> the job is you have been assigned to do
>
> In the military we call it service above self.
> I get the feeling somehow that our friend JFkerry wasn't as committed to
> service as he was to self.

It appears that Kerry lost his comittment to winning the Vietnam
War once he got there and saw things first hand.

It appears that he then committed to getting Americans out of Vietnam,
starting with himself, but not stopping with himself.

--

FF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)

>The more missions you fly, the more times you get wounded the slimmer the
>> >chances of survival are. But you know that, don't you?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Arthur Kramer
>>
>> Guess it is all a matter of how committed you are and how important you
>think
>> the job is you have been assigned to do

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[BUFDRVR]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

<snip>

>Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
>within the context of historical reality.

Get a clue! Ed was making a fictitious example.


BUFDRVR

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

[Regnirps]

(Bill Shatzer) wrote:

>Not at all. The medal was re-created in 1932 in honor of the 200th
>anniversary of Washington's birth. Sometime there after, it was
>decided to retroactively award the medal to all personnel who had
>been awarded "wound stripes" in WW1.

>1935 sounds about right for the retroactive award. Prior to
>that, he'd only be out of uniform if he failed to wear the
>wound stripe.

Fascinating. Thanks Bill, that solves a little family mystery. My grandfather
didn't know why it arrived when it did. He thought they "just finally got
around to it". That explains perhaps why there are no devices or anything for
wounds during the Mexican campain, though there is a letter from Pershing
somehere around here. "Bah" was an Lt. in the NGW (National Guard, Washington)
at the time. When The Great War for Civilization came along, he was able to
appeal to Pershing to keep his commision when he found himself a private in an
artillery outfit but had lead infantry for ten years.

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(Bill Shatzer) wrote:

>Not at all. The medal was re-created in 1932 in honor of the 200th
>anniversary of Washington's birth. Sometime there after, it was
>decided to retroactively award the medal to all personnel who had
>been awarded "wound stripes" in WW1.

I just checked, it came in 1932. I can't find any pictures of a wound stripe.
Do you know where I can see one? There may be some among all the stuff. He also
mixed in a couple of items from the Spanish American War but we don't know
whose they are.

-- Charlie Springer

[Cub Driver]

>Since 48 out of 50 states are "winner-take-all" Electoral College
>votes, your reasoning should get everyone to give up voting.

I recall agonizing about this more than fifty years ago (when all
states were winner-take-all). It was a popular condundrum among
political science majors, along with whether or not the populace had a
right to repeal the constitution.

But not until 2000 did anyone in public life decide that it was a Bad
Thing. And then nobody attempted to do anything about it!

Actually, it serves a very good purpose: it transforms close elections
into clear mandates. If you look at returns over the past century, a
"landslide" in American terms is 60 percent of the vote, but even 55
or 52 percent usually is transformed into an overwhelming margin in
the electoral college.

2000 was the exception: Bush 271, Gore 266. (That's closer than it
looks. New Hampshire with 4 votes would have tipped the election to
Gore, and if I recall correctly Bush carried New Hampshire by 7,000
votes. So if a mere 3,501 Yankees had changed their minds, Gore would
have won, 270 to 267.)

I doubt very much that this election will be as close. History doesn't
often repeat itself. The popular vote may be a squeaker (that often
happens), but the rule is that the electoral college will turn it into
a mandate.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Ed Rasimus]

On 13 Jul 2004 17:15:57 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> ...
>> That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
>> no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
>> reason.
>
>In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
>Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.
>
>Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
>within the context of historical reality.

This is called "allegory"--I honestly don't believe that Art had a
father in the Spanish-American War who said any such thing regarding
the correctness of our entry into WW II. I was making a literary
comparision between the nay-sayers of 2004 and the similarity in the
past.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Jack wrote:
>
>> Harry Andreas wrote:
>>
>> > Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
>>
>> Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.
>
>I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
>here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.

You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun. I've got a
great pun built into "Phantom Flights" but you'll have to wait until
February to see who finds it first. I've been surprised that my editor
didn't figure it out, but they are much too literal.


>My personal favorite for transportation and sightseeing was another club's Cardinal
>RG -- you had a great view downwards with no struts or wheels in the way, AND you
>could see traffic above/in the turn direction because of the highly sloped
>windscreen/aft-mounted wing. Possibly my opinion may be biased - AFAIR I could
>never pry his hands off the Beech's controls so I could fly it, while I was usually
>able to get some stick time in the RG;-)

Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column
coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot
of potential for disaster midway through a control swap.



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

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> A British newscaster on BBC did it much simpler in trying to explain the
> differences in our political parties:
>
> The Republicans are very much like our...Conservatives.
> The Democrats are very much like our...Conservatives.

Funny thing is, the Conservative party in the UK are a bit
out in the cold now that Labour (or "New Labour") have
adopted all their policies...

Paul

[Steve Mellenthin]

>It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse
>the
>odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.
>
>Arthur Kramer

I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor. A shootdown went from a moderate statiistical
probability to a random event. In our first in-theater we were told repeatedly
that if we were going to get shot down, it most likely be on the the first 15
missions. I am reminded of guys like Paul Tibbets and Bob Montgomery who flew
multiple tours in multiple airplanes in WWII. I wou ld have to call the
committment.

[Jack]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column
> coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot
> of potential for disaster midway through a control swap.

Yes it did, with an option for control wheels on both sides. Later
models have the more common dual control setup seen in Piper, Cessna, et al.

Apparently it hasn't been found to be a problem as Found Aircraft of
Canada <http://www.foundair.com/Features> also has an aircraft recently
certified in Canada and the USA with a similar throw-over control setup,
though I'm sure that far less training is done in Bonanzas and Bush
Hawks than in Cessnas and Pipers, collectively.


Jack

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Steve Mellenthin)
>Date: 7/14/2004 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse
>>the
>>odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
>was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
>experience worked in your favor. A shootdown went from a moderate
>statiistical
>probability to a random event. In our first in-theater we were told
>repeatedly
>that if we were going to get shot down, it most likely be on the the first 15
>missions. I am reminded of guys like Paul Tibbets and Bob Montgomery who
>flew
>multiple tours in multiple airplanes in WWII. I wou ld have to call the
>committment.
>

Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
controlled the skies over Germany.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steve Mellenthin]

>Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
>controlled the skies over Germany.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Maybe for WWII. Are you saying that it took no commitment to fly over that
"statistical happenstance that controlled the skies over Germany"?.

You've totally lost me here. 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. Possibly Bush wasn't as committed to serve as some
in that era though I am not sure his actions prove it one way or another, given
that there were others in similar circumstances in the same role as his who
didn't serve in Vietnam either.

Are you saying Kerry told his "early out" because his concern over being
wounded overrode his sense of duty and committment?

Not that it really matters because what should matter is who would best lead
the country not so much as 35 year old history. I am sorry that I just see a
pattern with Kerry that tells me that he is more concerned for himself and his
own interests than the country's. You would probably argue the same thing
about Bush. That is what the election is all about, or should be, not who
stole the election. Gire lost according to the laws of the land and no amount
of grousing is going to change that.

Steve

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Steve Mellenthin)
>Date: 7/14/2004 10:13 AM Pacific

>>Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
>>controlled the skies over Germany.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer

>Maybe for WWII. Are you saying that it took no commitment to fly over that
>"statistical happenstance that controlled the skies over Germany"?.
>

Not at all. If you were highly commited (eager beaver) you had no better
chance of survival than someone who was less eager. The flak didn't care who it
killed. It was an equal opportunity executioner.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dude]

If he gets fooled by the Bush administration, should we let him represent us
in dealings with truly professional diplomats and world leaders?


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Foster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Or, think of it this way. Bush is an incompetent moron; Kerry isn't.
> > Bush's incompetence and ego got us into a war we shouldn't be in; Kerry
> > didn't.
>
> Actually, Kerry has not made any such claims and for good reason: he has
> gone on record too many times saying that Bush fooled him on various
issues.
> Kerry would probably just as soon his supporters did not make such a big
> argument that Bush is stupid; it makes Kerry look even dumber than Bush.
It
> makes his supporters look even dumber than that, but of course they are
too
> stupid to realize it. :-)
>
>

[Steve Mellenthin]

>Not at all. If you were highly commited (eager beaver) you had no better
>chance of survival than someone who was less eager. The flak didn't care who
>it
>killed. It was an equal opportunity executioner.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I don't relate being an eager beaver to being committed. That's not
committment, its stupidity ina combat environment..

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Steve Mellenthin)
>Date: 7/14/2004 10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Not at all. If you were highly commited (eager beaver) you had no better
>>chance of survival than someone who was less eager. The flak didn't care who
>>it
>>killed. It was an equal opportunity executioner.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>I don't relate being an eager beaver to being committed. That's not
>committment, its stupidity ina combat environment..
>


Well I was an eager beaver totally commited to the job to be done. So I guess I
was stupid.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Jack]

ArtKramr wrote:

> Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
> controlled the skies over Germany.

Given the difference in operating flotillas of bombers, unable to
deviate from their chosen path or altitude in order to avoid flak, and
operating smaller flights of more maneuverable jets with very different
weapons delivery parameters and limitations, Art's point is well made.

The fighters seem to have had similar stats in other wars, in that those
pilots who lived through the first dozen or so sorties tended to have
much better survival rates thereafter. For bomber pilots it's much more
a roll of the dice on any given mission, with survival rates changing
only slightly as the number of missions survived increases.

Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for
a statistically significant comparison?



Jack

[Sam Byrams]

>In '68 (not '72) public sentiment was divided.

Probably: by '72 it wasn't. You had a few hardasses and Birchers and
whatnot and everyone else was for getting out. I grew up in a
middle-sized town and one that was overwhelmingly 'AuH2064':yet even
the rednecks had serious questions by '72. Men in uniform-and even
then, although it was understood they were noncombatants, the
occasional female-were certainly not disrespectfully treated, but it
was expressed that we hoped the war would be over shortly -either way.


Bush got his training
slot when production for UPT was as high as it had been historically
since WW II. UPT was expanding from eight to eleven bases and capacity
at each site was increased. We were up to more than 5000 per year
input to UPT from all sources. (I was director of ATC Student Officer
Rated Assignments from 1970 to April 1972 and managing the program.)
>



>
> My Presidential vote isn't going to count anyway since my state is
>not remotely up for grabs and it's a winner-take-all state.

>>Since 48 out of 50 states are "winner-take-all" Electoral College
votes, your reasoning should get everyone to give up voting.

>>It would seem to this political scientist (BS, MPS, MSIR) that the
closeness of the last election in so many states would indicate that
the value of every citizen's vote is critically important.

Ours wasn't close. And this one will unquestionably be farther
apart-Kerry will do worse than Gore.

>>
> They both suck. If I voted on pure principle I couldn't even vote
>Libertarian-although they're closer. Kerry might really screw things
>up so bad people would have to pull their heads out and in the long
>run, like a dope bust,it might be beneficial for an addict.

>If you can't differentiate between the basic ideological positions of
the two parties, you shouldn't vote. Good choice.


I am aware of what their platforms say. I concede some may consider
them fundamentally different. I consider them basically similar in
that they both seek to encode their politicoreligious notions in the
law. In one case it's a recognized religion, the other is an implicit
one. In practice, they differ only by amount, not by real principle.

>
>>>Dr. Joe Bagadonutz, the wealthy proctologist buys a Mustang or even
>a
>MiG-17 and successfully takes off and lands. He isn't, by any stretch
>of the imagination, a fighter pilot. He isn't really, even that
lesser
>level, a pilot who flies fighters. He's simply an accident waiting to
>happen.
>
> He's equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter.

The initial post was about flying "fighters". Yes, Bonanzas are
notorious for applying the principles of Darwin to doctors.

Actually some doctors are pretty good, even excellent, aviators.
Several aerobatic champions have been doctors. Same with other
professions. It is possible to become an excellent stick and rudder
pilot through civilian training if you have the time, money, and
drive. About the only thing you won't be able to learn as a civilian
is weapons delivery.

>
> The phrase far predates that book. It was the grinder call in the 50s
>era USAF and I can remember my uncle-who went through the air cadet
>program in the 50s-talking about it. Hated the culture of USAF where
>Fighter Pilots were gods-he was a C-133/C-130 pilot who dropped dead
>six weeks after retiring from TWA at 60 as a four striper.

>>With all due respect to your uncle, we never won a war by hauling
more
trash than the enemy. Trash haulers help, but only because they
provide the warriors at the pointy end of the spear with the bombs,
beans and bullets to kill the enemy.

He was no fighter pilot, but he was a good guy and he's missed. He'd
planned to get involved in the EAA Young Eagles program and had signed
up for a soaring rating when he dropped dead-not a heart attack per se
but an electrochemical heart problem. The ambulance got there five
minutes too late but the doctors said he might have been
brain-impaired anyway, so "maybe it was for the best."


>>Haven't seen Mason't book, but if he thinks the "Tiger" attitude got
replaced by something less, he's sadly mistaken. Warriors are
professionals, but they'd better have a healthy dose of attitude.


Mason's book-wriitten for young adults (young male adults-it was
fifteen years before females wore USAF wings)-portrays the USAF air
cadet programs as basically unalloyed aggressiveness designed to crank
out winning fighter jocks-at the expense of a certain casualty rate,
and notwithstanding that most grads went to tankers, transports,
bombers, helos, or ocasionally directly to IP school. As I remember
the big change_according to Mason_ was that flight training "later on"
took in people who were already officers, not needing the boot camp
mentality, and was vastly less tolerant of accidents. Also the T-38
Talon was a big challenge for people whose total experience consisted
of under 200 hours in the T-37.

This agrees with accounts of flight training by many other writers,
including Richard Bach and several of the early astronauts, who went
through 50s era USAF flight training.

Bottom line as far as politics- I personally don't like Bush, right
or wrong, and I can't support a Kennedy, which Kerry as well may be,
nor would I vote for someone that liberal even if he is an active
pilot. (In general I tend to prefer Reps to Dems, provided they are
not so fundamentalist they can't separate church from state.) I don't
agreee with everything John McCain says but I'd work for his election
over Kerry. Voting third party expresses my dissatisfaction, and if it
clearly throws the election either way so much the better.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:36:09 -0500, Jack >
wrote:

>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
>> controlled the skies over Germany.
>
>Given the difference in operating flotillas of bombers, unable to
>deviate from their chosen path or altitude in order to avoid flak, and
>operating smaller flights of more maneuverable jets with very different
>weapons delivery parameters and limitations, Art's point is well made.
>
>The fighters seem to have had similar stats in other wars, in that those
>pilots who lived through the first dozen or so sorties tended to have
>much better survival rates thereafter. For bomber pilots it's much more
>a roll of the dice on any given mission, with survival rates changing
>only slightly as the number of missions survived increases.
>
>Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for
>a statistically significant comparison?

AAA fire comes in a lot of flavors and flak was not exclusively a WW
II Germany phenomenon. Heavy gun flak at altitude is a scary thing,
and as you mention, the ability to maneuver helps to defend against
it.

But, there's flak and there's flak. Some is aimed fire, some is
barrage. Some is optical and some is radar guided. Anti-aircraft fire
ranges from small .30 and .50 caliber automatic weapons up through
huge guns at 100 or 130MM.

Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.
Barrage flak simply fills a block of airspace and the best option is
to simply expedite your passage through the area.

Modern defense systems integrate multiple weapons, as Art can attest.
Guns and enemy aircraft are better than either one alone. Add some
SAM's in radar or IR flavors and you compound the issue further.

As Steve mentioned, the stats in SEA were that your first ten or
fifteen missions were your most vulnerable. It also turned out that
for a mission count tour, the last five or ten were equally dangerous.
The beginners were likely to make mistakes while the end-of-tour guys
often began to feel invulnerable and sought to win the war
single-handedly.

BUFFs only went into the heavily defended areas of North Vietnam
during Linebacker II. During the eleven days of Christmas they lost
fifteen (and a couple of others crashed on recovery outside of the
target area.) According to Michel in "Eleven Days of Christmas", the
B-52s flew 795 sorties of which 372 went to Hanoi. The loss rate was
1.89 %. All 15 of the losses were within a 13 mile radius of Hanoi and
the loss rate there was 4.3%


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

[Typhoon502]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
> >From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>
> >The more missions you fly, the more times you get wounded the slimmer the
> >> >chances of survival are. But you know that, don't you?
> >>
> >> Guess it is all a matter of how committed you are and how important you
> think
> >> the job is you have been assigned to do
>
> It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
> odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

I think this is patently, demonstrably false. The more missions you
fly, the more experience and maturity in the role you gain. And thus,
the more likely you are to avoid making the mistake or error that can
compromise your survival. That's why veteran fighter pilots would
regularly make mince out of rookies sent out to take them on. That's
why you take your experienced soldier, sailors, Marines, and pilots
and put them into training roles to impart some of that knowledge into
the empty heads of their trainees, so that maybe the learning curve
for the new ranks won't be as steep.

And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
survival of the unit, and therefore himself.

[Steve Mellenthin]

>The fighters seem to have had similar stats in other wars, in that those
>pilots who lived through the first dozen or so sorties tended to have
>much better survival rates thereafter. For bomber pilots it's much more
>a roll of the dice on any given mission, with survival rates changing
>only slightly as the number of missions survived increases.
>
>Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for
>a statistically significant comparison?
>


Proabably starting a new thread here.

The BUFFs in SEA in Linebacker II had some moderate losses at the startof the
campaign but I believe it is pretty well accepted that the tactics were wrong
and not all planes had the right equipment. Once that was changed the losses
dropped off.

[Steve Mellenthin]

>Well I was an eager beaver totally commited to the job to be done. So I guess
>I
>was stupid.
>
>
>
>Arthur Krame

You made it. You must have been a smart committed eager beaver rather than a
dumb one. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
> > NOT From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
[As anything I wrote had already been snipped]
>
> >The more missions you fly, the more times you get wounded the slimmer the
> >> >chances of survival are. But you know that, don't you?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Arthur Kramer
> >>
> >> Guess it is all a matter of how committed you are and how important you
> think
> >> the job is you have been assigned to do
>
> It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
> odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.
>

I think whoever wrote that meant that the decision to stay on or take
advantage of an opportunity for transfer while still alive depended
on the degree of one's commitment. Not that the odds of survival
depended on the degree of one's commmitment.

As someone who never faced combat I'll not criticize the decision or
commitment of anyone who did.

--

FF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac

>Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
>heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.

Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the way
in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:->)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Typhoon502
> writes
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the
>>worse the
>> odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.
>
>I think this is patently, demonstrably false. The more missions you
>fly, the more experience and maturity in the role you gain. And thus,
>the more likely you are to avoid making the mistake or error that can
>compromise your survival.

To a point, but it depends on mission, role and threat.

>That's why veteran fighter pilots would
>regularly make mince out of rookies sent out to take them on.

True, but how does an "experienced bomber pilot" holding formation in
the box avoid barrage AAA? Can't change course or speed - you're in
*formation*. What else can you do except hold on and hope?

Tactical fighters (and ground combat troops, interestingly) have a well
documented survivability curve, rising rapidly in the early stages as
they learn to recognise and honour the threats (and according to some,
dropping towards the end of fixed-length tours - combat fatigue or
overconfidence? Don't know, but it's at least claimed)

But those are combatants with - literally - a lot more room for
manoeuvre. Flying formation bombing raids was rather more like
Napoleonic infantry forming square under artillery fire: each roundshot
fired at the formation could kill or maim four or five men, and
individual skill made no difference at all to the enemy gunners' point
of aim and the flight of the shot.

Experience improved your chances of coming back after damage, fending
off fighter attack and avoiding loss by error (those weren't easy or
forgiving aircraft) but did nothing to reduce the odds of an AA shell
exploding within lethal distance of your aircraft.

> That's
>why you take your experienced soldier, sailors, Marines, and pilots
>and put them into training roles to impart some of that knowledge into
>the empty heads of their trainees, so that maybe the learning curve
>for the new ranks won't be as steep.

Worth doing just about everywhere.
>
>And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
>pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
>survival of the unit, and therefore himself.

Also no argument.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Jack wrote:
> >
> >> Harry Andreas wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
> >>
> >> Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.
> >
> >I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
> >here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.
>
> You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun.

I did qualify it with most ;-) I knew a few would get it, but the percentage will be a
lot lower than if it were posted to a general aviation group, where they'd presumably be
rolling in the aisles en masse.

> I've got a
> great pun built into "Phantom Flights" but you'll have to wait until
> February to see who finds it first. I've been surprised that my editor

> didn't figure it out, but they are much too literal.

I'll be looking for it.

> >My personal favorite for transportation and sightseeing was another club's Cardinal
> >RG -- you had a great view downwards with no struts or wheels in the way, AND you
> >could see traffic above/in the turn direction because of the highly sloped
> >windscreen/aft-mounted wing. Possibly my opinion may be biased - AFAIR I could
> >never pry his hands off the Beech's controls so I could fly it, while I was usually
> >able to get some stick time in the RG;-)
>
> Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column
> coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot
> of potential for disaster midway through a control swap.

It's been so long I don't remember, although that does ring a vague bell. No doubt I'd
remember better if I'd ever been able to get him to turn over control ;-) We used to
come up the coast low over the ocean from Half Moon Bay to the City, pulling up to avoid
the sailboats we didn't want to go around, before passing over the Golden Gate Bridge.
A great flight when the fog wasn't a problem.

Guy

[BUFDRVR]

Jack wrote:

>Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for
>a statistically significant comparison?

The guys at Utapo did. Because they were much closer (than Guam) and the wing
much smaller, most Utapo crews flew everyday and by the second week the guys at
Utapo had collected a pretty descent group of "lessons learned".

As far as a statistical comparison, its dificult to make because of several
varying factors, not the least of which was the G models ECM suite which was
much less capable than the D model. Additionally, because of their higher loss
rates, after Night #5, the G models never went "downtown" again. In the end,
out of the 15 aircraft lost during LBII, 7 were from Utapo and 8 from Andersen
for an even split.


BUFDRVR

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

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/13/2004 5:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>> Vice [sic] President Bush is the issue, and the only issue.
>>>
>>
>>Why isn't Kerry the issue?
>
>Kerry's military records are complete. Bush's are not.
>
>Walt

Gee, walt, portions of my records are missing. Guess I shouldn't run for public
office according to your standards.

Y'know, many of us have asked you if you were so concerned with clinton's draft
dodging and you have refused to answer. Are you that hypocritical? Dean
admitted to providing false information to his draft board to avoid the draft.
Did you ever say anything about that?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/13/2004 5:07 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>> This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
>>> 16 months:
>>>
>>> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif
>>>
>>
>>It does not show that he was AWOL.
>>
>
>No, you have to draw that inference yourself.
>
>Walt

Walt, for someone who claims to have been in the military you seem peculiarly
ignorant of what a determination of AWOL is. AWOL means absent without official
leave. Since AWOL is a crime under the UCMJ there would have to be
documentation of it somewhere in his or JAG's records. If no one ever charged
Bush with being AWOL he wasn't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 7/14/2004 3:59 PM

>And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
>>pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
>>survival of the unit, and therefore himself.

Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steve Mellenthin]

>Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
>opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and
>statistical
>probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.
>
>.
>Arthur Kramer

Art,

Again I respect your accomplishments and experiences 60 years ago but you need
to be speaking of them in the past tense. My dad flew B-17s so I understand
full well what you are saying. However, we stopped making bomb runs of which
you speak through barrage fire half a century ago. 35 years ago the threat was
more with missiles and fighters. With a certain amount of skill and cunning,
the right equipment, and luck one could defeat them. The skill and cunning
part generally only comes with a certain amount of commitment and dedication.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Steve Mellenthin)
>Date: 7/14/2004 7:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
>>opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and
>>statistical
>>probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.
>>
>>.
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Art,
>
>Again I respect your accomplishments and experiences 60 years ago but you
>need
>to be speaking of them in the past tense. My dad flew B-17s so I understand
>full well what you are saying. However, we stopped making bomb runs of which
>you speak through barrage fire half a century ago. 35 years ago the threat
>was
>more with missiles and fighters. With a certain amount of skill and cunning,
>the right equipment, and luck one could defeat them. The skill and cunning
>part generally only comes with a certain amount of commitment and dedication.
>
>
>

I only speak from personal experience. in WW II.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Assumed but not proven. In any case irrelevant if the folks
> -thought- they were in a battle.
>

Kerry's crew said there was no enemy fire, so the folks didn't think they
were in a battle.


>
> You think those folks in the Bradley who got zapped by a blue
> on blue Maverick didn't get PHs? There was no -real- battle,
> they were just motoring along when the A-10 mistook them for
> a T-72 or whatever. The A-10 driver -thought- it was a battle.
>

Irrelevant.


>
> "Purported" experience. The things have to cover a minimum
> distance before they arm themselves and that distance is
> sufficient to place the shooter outside of the blast/shrapnel
> radius.
>
> I recall one story from the vietnam conflict where an army
> surgeon got written up for removing an unexploded M-79 round
> from an ARVN trooper. -He- got shot by friendly fire but the
> round hadn't traveled far enough to arm itself.
>

Based on the best information, Kerry was not entitled to that award.

[Ian MacLure]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> But those are combatants with - literally - a lot more room for
> manoeuvre. Flying formation bombing raids was rather more like
> Napoleonic infantry forming square under artillery fire: each roundshot
> fired at the formation could kill or maim four or five men, and
> individual skill made no difference at all to the enemy gunners' point
> of aim and the flight of the shot.

Interesting analogy. In the age of linear tactics, infantry in
line were less vulnerable to artillery than in the square but
cavalry could make hash of them. And vice versa.
Had, for instance, the French cavalry at Waterloo had horse artillery
with them they might have been able to make an impression on the
British Squares. Cambronne and the Old(?) Guard weren't so lucky.
Had the clash of the Guards proceeded with the French column coming
in behind cavalry they might have been able to overrun a British
Guards square instead of being shot to pieces.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Ron]

>Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero. And it is driving the neocons nut
>especially when we look at the war records of president Cheney and vice
>president Bush..
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

So was Dole and Bush 41. Did you vote for them?


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Jack wrote:
>> >
>> >> Harry Andreas wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
>> >>
>> >> Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.
>> >
>> >I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
>> >here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.
>>
>> You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun.
>
> I did qualify it with most ;-) I knew a few would get it, but the percentage will be a
> lot lower than if it were posted to a general aviation group, where they'd presumably be
> rolling in the aisles en masse.

Oh, I dunno. If a Debonair exercized a bit & slimmed down a bit, it
would probably serve as a Mentor.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[C J Campbell]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> If he gets fooled by the Bush administration, should we let him represent
us
> in dealings with truly professional diplomats and world leaders?
>

Exactly the point. That is why you won't see Kerry going around saying that
Bush is stupid and why he probably wishes his 'supporters' would stop saying
it, too.

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jack wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Harry Andreas wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.
> >> >
> >> >I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
> >> >here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.
> >>
> >> You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun.
> >
> > I did qualify it with most ;-) I knew a few would get it, but the percentage will be a
> > lot lower than if it were posted to a general aviation group, where they'd presumably be
> > rolling in the aisles en masse.
>
> Oh, I dunno. If a Debonair exercized a bit & slimmed down a bit, it
> would probably serve as a Mentor.

Before we end up (s)punning in, I hereby declare a moratorium on all puns based on the names
of Beech (or any other company's: I can feel someone loading up with the Tutor even as I
write) a/c names. Sure, I know it's probably futile, but the effort has to be made. This is
_not_ s.m.n. ;-)

Guy

[Ron]

>> And
>>tell me someone in his position with his quals would have got the deal
>>he got if his father hadn't been a war hero congressman. Apparently
>>his UPT performance should have put him in multi or helos: and
>>normally someone without specifically in demand attributes should have
>>had to go active duty to get UPT at that time anyway. Yes, that's as I
>>understand it and no, I wasn't there.
>

Have any sources for that? Apparently he was quite good at UPT, from what IPs
said.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Ron]

>
>Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
>That has the rep as the unforgiving GA ship, probably due to lack of
>training.
>

Nothing wrong with a V-tail bonanza really, except that it is a pretty clean
airframe, and will build up speed quickly.

Same with the Malibus that had some mid air breakups in the early 80s.
Momentary inattention can cause airspeed to build quickly, and then if someone
just yanks back on the stick hard...well, the results are predictable.

Doctors are just famous for buying more plane than their abilties warrant.
Plus some who used them for work, had rather long days and were flying when
they were very fatigued. The joke about the Bonanza being the "Forked tail
doctor killer", in reality was more about the pilots than the plane.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Jack]

Sam Byrams wrote:

> [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
> whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.

In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.


Jack

[Regnirps]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
>odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over on
the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that certainly
isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how different?
Count the holes afterword?).

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote:

>I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
>was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
>experience worked in your favor.

When you view the P-47 films from the 78th FG you find that ground attacks
occure from ever greater altitudes or distances as the war goes on. Some of
this is because the guys who liked to bet very close didn't last, but others
are from experience with ground fire.

Art didn't have the discretion that the escorts had. I'm sure there were
assigned altitudes and headings and you stayed with the group.

Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?

-- Charlie Springer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Regnirps)
>Date: 7/15/2004 8:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse
>the
>>odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.
>
>I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
>more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over
>on
>the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
>increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
>independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that
>certainly
>isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how
>different?
>Count the holes afterword?).
>
>-- Charlie Springer
>


True. But if you roll the same number 5 times in row a crap table, note how
everyone is shocked and the house will change the dice.The difference between
a mission and a crap table is that at the crap table a bad roll doesn't result
in death. And a mixture of targets results in a mixture of odds depending on
defenses. So not all missions are equal like dice rolls. But other than
that......



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 14 Jul 2004 22:58:46 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac
>
>>Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
>>heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.
>
>Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the way
>in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:->)
>
>Arthur Kramer

There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
business but your own.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Regnirps)
>Date: 7/15/2004 8:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Steve Mellenthin) wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine
>it
>>was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
>>experience worked in your favor.
>
>When you view the P-47 films from the 78th FG you find that ground attacks
>occure from ever greater altitudes or distances as the war goes on. Some of
>this is because the guys who liked to bet very close didn't last, but others
>are from experience with ground fire.
>
>Art didn't have the discretion that the escorts had. I'm sure there were
>assigned altitudes and headings and you stayed with the group.
>
>Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?
>
>-- Charlie Springer
>


I don't know. Some General up at wing I guess.. But it was always straight and
level with bomb bay doors open and no evasive action on the bomb run. And down
at 10,000 feet. Besides evasive action was imposible on the bomb run, It would
tumble our Vertical Flight Gyros in the Norden, black out the sight, and we
would have to do a go-around, Bad stuff. A go-around could spoil your whole
day. And with all our vast experience flying missions we all knew that being
down at 10,000 feet was nuts. We wanted to be higher but no chance. So much
for doing what experiencve tells you to do.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 7/15/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 14 Jul 2004 22:58:46 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>>Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac
>>
>>>Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
>>>heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.
>>
>>Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the
>way
>>in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:->)
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
>men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
>business but your own.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

I guess you didn't have 55 other planes in tight formation behind you did you?
In that csse they (we) are all involved. Do it right or you'll hear about it
336 times.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:29 -0500, Jack >
wrote:

>Sam Byrams wrote:
>
> > [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
> > whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.
>
>In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
>Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.
>

You've got that right. I had 132 hours in Tweets before Talons. The
UPT syllabus dropped that to 120 with introduction of the T-41
screening. No problems. Later with better simulators the total UPT
syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming
prior to T-38 qualification.

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.

Easy to fly, no adverse characteristics. Reliable. I wound up with
about 1500 hours in Talons, more than 1200 accrued as an instructor in
Fighter Lead-In teaching new instructor candidates. (And taking the
occasional recreational trip to ski in CO/UT, visit the sea-food
paradises of FL or the sexpots of LSV.)


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

[Jeff Crowell]

Regnirps wrote:
> Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
> increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
> independent event.

I'll take issue with this, Charlie.

While each throw is statistically independent (assuming honest dice,
naturally), the fact that they are honest dice requires that the most
common throw be a seven. The more consecutive boxcars you
throw, the higher the probability that the next throw will NOT be
a 12. Boxcards is not a statistically likely event. Each throw **is**
an independent event, but the total population of throws is governed
by the overall statistical distribution.



Jeff

[Mike Marron]

> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>Ed Rasimus wrote:

>>There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
>>men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
>>business but your own.

>I guess you didn't have 55 other planes in tight formation behind you did you?
>In that csse they (we) are all involved. Do it right or you'll hear about it
>336 times.

Just more sour grapes because you weren't good enough to be
a pilot, much less a fighter pilot?

[OXMORON1]

Ed wrote:
>>There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
>>men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
>>business but your own.
>>

Art replied:
>I guess you didn't have 55 other planes in tight formation behind you did
>you?
>In that csse they (we) are all involved. Do it right or you'll hear about it
>336 times.

Differnt war, Different aircraft, Different Tactics, Different weapons,
Different politicians, Same intent..Kill that other poor SOB before he gets
you.

Rick Clark
MFE

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Guy Alcala > writes:
>> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jack wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Harry Andreas wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.

>> Oh, I dunno. If a Debonair exercized a bit & slimmed down a bit, it
>> would probably serve as a Mentor.
>
> Before we end up (s)punning in, I hereby declare a moratorium on all puns based on the names
> of Beech (or any other company's: I can feel someone loading up with the Tutor even as I
> write) a/c names. Sure, I know it's probably futile, but the effort has to be made. This is
> _not_ s.m.n. ;-)

Well, I do see your point. But now that you mention it, you did know
that the nickname at Canadair and in the CanForce for the Malay CL-41
COIM variant equivalant to teh A-37 was the "Shooter Tutor"

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Jack]

Jeff Crowell wrote:


> While each throw is statistically independent (assuming honest dice,
> naturally), the fact that they are honest dice requires that the most
> common throw be a seven. The more consecutive boxcars you
> throw, the higher the probability that the next throw will NOT be
> a 12. Boxcards is not a statistically likely event. Each throw **is**
> an independent event, but the total population of throws is governed
> by the overall statistical distribution.

The total distribution is not "governed" by anything you can name,
except in hindsight, and is therefor no governance at all.

You must make up your mind -- either each roll is an independent event
or it is not.

In aviation, designers refer to "a wing of infinite length" when
analyzing and describing airfoils. In a sample of "an infinite number of
rolls of the dice" it is perhaps easier for you to see that you have no
basis for your claim of governance according to "statistical
distribution", and each roll must have the same probabilities as the
previous roll and the following roll.

It is necessary for statisticians to understand before they can explain.
Unfortunately for many, circular argument is as much a fallacy in the
use of statistics as it is everywhere else.


Jack

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:29 -0500, Jack >
>wrote:
>
>>Sam Byrams wrote:
>>
>> > [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
>> > whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.
>>
>>In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
>>Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.
>>
>
>You've got that right. I had 132 hours in Tweets before Talons. The
>UPT syllabus dropped that to 120 with introduction of the T-41
>screening. No problems. Later with better simulators the total UPT
>syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming
>prior to T-38 qualification.
>
>The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
>the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
>another 20 years at least.
>
>Easy to fly, no adverse characteristics. Reliable. I wound up with
>about 1500 hours in Talons, more than 1200 accrued as an instructor in
>Fighter Lead-In teaching new instructor candidates. (And taking the
>occasional recreational trip to ski in CO/UT, visit the sea-food
>paradises of FL or the sexpots of LSV.)

Preceded you a little bit. Did the T-34, Tweet & T-bird. Old T-bird had
a lot of inertia with full tips and a lot of slack in the stick.

There was a noticeable drop in instrument skills and ability to handle
older aircraft when the all Tweet/Talon guys started coming out the end
of the pipeline. They were just TOO easy to fly.

Our T-34/Tweet instructors were "civilian" at least technically. Mine
was actually one of those much reviled in another tread TANG types, in
fact became GWB's commander in the Deuce.

My best friend, then and now was another instant airman to lieutenant
guardsmen. A second guard classmate went on to command his state guard
with 2 stars on his shoulders. None of us saw Vietnam. All 3 of us
managed 30+ years of airline.

Beats working for a living.

--
Ron Parsons

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 13 Jul 2004 17:15:57 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> >> ...
> >> That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
> >> no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
> >> reason.
> >
> >In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
> >Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.
> >
> >Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
> >within the context of historical reality.
>
> This is called "allegory"--I honestly don't believe that Art had a
> father in the Spanish-American War ...

Of course not.

But your choice of allegory furthered the myth that the US declared
war on Germany first in WWII. It is a persistant myth that needs
debunking whenever it is implied.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
> >within the context of historical reality.
>
> ... Ed was making a fictitious example.
>

Unless I am mistaken the part I corrected was not INTENTIONALLY
ficticious.

--

FF

[Brooks Gregory]

John Kerry, he flew an Evinrude and John Edwards, well, he just got high.


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

[Ed Rasimus]

On 15 Jul 2004 12:50:02 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> On 13 Jul 2004 17:15:57 -0700, (Fred the Red
>> Shirt) wrote:
>>
>> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> >> ...
>> >> That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
>> >> no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
>> >> reason.
>> >
>> >In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
>> >Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.
>> >
>> >Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
>> >within the context of historical reality.
>>
>> This is called "allegory"--I honestly don't believe that Art had a
>> father in the Spanish-American War ...
>
>Of course not.
>
>But your choice of allegory furthered the myth that the US declared
>war on Germany first in WWII. It is a persistant myth that needs
>debunking whenever it is implied.

Ahhh, hoist on my own petard. As a chronic debunker of persistent
myths, I must accede to your demands. My parallelism of FDR going to
war against Germany when it was the Japanese who attacked us was much
too obtuse in the relationship of the current argument that we went to
war in Afghanistan & Iraq when the attackers of 9/11 were Saudi.

Please debunk me whenever I imply. And, I will reciprocate. Hopefully
in understandable metaphor.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:08:57 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>Well, I do see your point. But now that you mention it, you did know
>that the nickname at Canadair and in the CanForce for the Malay CL-41
>COIM variant equivalant to teh A-37 was the "Shooter Tutor"

And a two-seat A-4 with guns would be a Scooter Shooter Tutor?


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

[Brett]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in message
>...
> > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
> > >within the context of historical reality.
> >
> > ... Ed was making a fictitious example.
> >
>
> Unless I am mistaken the part I corrected was not INTENTIONALLY
> ficticious.

The information you provided as a "correction" was historical incorrect.

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:08:57 -0400, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
> >Well, I do see your point. But now that you mention it, you did know
> >that the nickname at Canadair and in the CanForce for the Malay CL-41
> >COIM variant equivalant to teh A-37 was the "Shooter Tutor"
>
> And a two-seat A-4 with guns would be a Scooter Shooter Tutor?

A pox on both your houses! ;-)

Guy

[BUFDRVR]

>Sam Byrams wrote:
>
> > [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
> > whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.

I found the T-38 easier to fly than the Tweet. It was a bit "tricky" landing,
but it was also easy to learn how to land it well.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>Later with better simulators the total UPT
>syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming
>prior to T-38 qualification.

I got a bit over 200 total with a little over half that in the T-38.


BUFDRVR

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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" >,

without bothering to do even a simple reality check,

wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
> > (BUFDRVR) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > >
> > > >In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
> > > >Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.
> > >
> > > >Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
> > > >within the context of historical reality.
> > >
> > > ... Ed was making a fictitious example.
> > >
> >
> > Unless I am mistaken the part I corrected was not INTENTIONALLY
> > ficticious.
>
> The information you provided as a "correction" was historical incorrect.

http://members.aol.com/POESGIRL/Hitlerdow.htm

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html

Congressional Declaration of War on Germany December 11, 1941

The President's Message

To the Congress of the United States:

On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany,
pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against
the United States...

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state
of war between the United States and Germany, and between the
United States and Italy.

...

--

FF

[Brett]

"Fred the peabrain" > wrote:
> "Brett" >,
>
> without bothering to do even a simple reality check,

peabrain your claim was:

"In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them."

The claim "Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them." is
invalid.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

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?

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.

Or are you misrepresenting general statements and statements of
general moral responsibility?

In my opinon we Americans are collectively responsible, whether for
good or ill, for the invasion of Iraq. Would you take that to be
an accusation that you LITERALLY commited the crimes at Abu Ghraib?

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.

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?

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.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>
>
> Please debunk me whenever I imply. And, I will reciprocate. Hopefully
> in understandable metaphor.
>

Being confident that I shall afford you the opportunity, I now
thank you in advance.

--

FF

[Regnirps]

"Jeff Crowell" wrote:

>I'll take issue with this, Charlie.

>While each throw is statistically independent (assuming honest dice,
>naturally), the fact that they are honest dice requires that the most
>common throw be a seven. The more consecutive boxcars you
>throw, the higher the probability that the next throw will NOT be
>a 12. Boxcards is not a statistically likely event. Each throw **is**
>an independent event, but the total population of throws is governed
>by the overall statistical distribution.

You are trying to apply probability to a single event, which isn't valid. It
only covers ensembles, or groups of events. I should have used a single die in
my example or labeled them a and b so that all combinations are unique.

Take coin flipping instead. No mater how many times in a row you get heads, the
chances on the next toss are still 50/50. There is no reason not to get 100
heads in a row. The house plays the odds on thousands of players. It doesn't
work very well for the individual.

-- Charlie Springer

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
m...

> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Or are you misrepresenting general statements and statements of
> general moral responsibility?
>
> In my opinon we Americans are collectively responsible, whether for
> good or ill, for the invasion of Iraq. Would you take that to be
> an accusation that you LITERALLY commited the crimes at Abu Ghraib?
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.

Good analogy, Fred.

George Z.

[Ed Rasimus]

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.
>
>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.

>Or are you misrepresenting general statements and statements of
>general moral responsibility?
>
>In my opinon we Americans are collectively responsible, whether for
>good or ill, for the invasion of Iraq. Would you take that to be
>an accusation that you LITERALLY commited the crimes at Abu Ghraib?

You start with "in my opinion" which acknowledges that you are not
stating a fact but rather an interpretation. I'll accept that America
is responsible for GOOD or ill for the outcome of the invasion. I tend
to think removal of Saddam and initiation of the process of
democratization of Iraq and hence the Middle East is a good thing.

Abu Ghraib was reprehensible. It was clearly a failure of leadership
on site. It was also an aberration. It is not and should not be
construed as representative of American behavior in combat.
>
>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.
>
>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. 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.
>
>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.

It's sort of like voting FOR the $87 billion before he voted AGAINST
it.



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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 15 Jul 2004 20:57:04 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>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.
>
>Or are you misrepresenting general statements and statements of
>general moral responsibility?

This stuff is way too easy to find. Here's the generic accusation:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 7/16/2004 8:07 AM Pa

>There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
>yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
>soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
>zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
>machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
>only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
>missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
>laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
>all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
>the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
>that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
>zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
>strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
>letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."
>
>-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"


The truth hurts. Not everyone can withstand it.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Brooks Gregory]

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

--

Let me introduce you to John Kerry:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
http://www.pow-miafamilies.org/
http://www.jpac.pacom.mil/
http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssctest.html
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php


Brooks Gregory

[Ed Rasimus]

On 16 Jul 2004 15:10:08 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 7/16/2004 8:07 AM Pa
>
>>There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
>>yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
>>soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
>>zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
>>machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
>>only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
>>missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
>>laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
>>all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
>>the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
>>that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
>>zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
>>strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
>>letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."
>>
>>-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971
>>
>>
>>Ed Rasimus
>>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>"When Thunder Rolled"
>
>
>The truth hurts. Not everyone can withstand it.
>
I'm sorry, Art, but that is not the truth. The designation of free
fire zones is not a violation of the Geneva Convention. It is an
acknowledgement of a division between friendly and enemy territory. It
is not, as insinuated, an area of authorized total destruction and
wanton killing. Harrassment and interdiction fire is not, in any way,
contrary to the Geneva Convention. The whole purpose of military fire
is to harrass the enemy and interdict is supply.

There is no prohibition by the Geneva Convention of the employment of
..50 cal automatic weapons. Nothing at all. There is nothing in
international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
personnel. Nothing.

Search and destroy is a viable tactic. It means you search for the
enemy. You might have called it "patrol" in WW II. If you find the
enemy, you engage him and you destroy the enemy and any war material.
That's not prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

And, certainly the authorization of "air raid strike areas" is not
prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

And, the comparison of all of us who fought in the war to Lt. Calley
is despicable.

Can you withstand that truth?


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 7/16/2004 8:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>There is nothing in
>international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
>personnel. Nothing.

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 16 Jul 2004 16:01:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 7/16/2004 8:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id:
>
>>There is nothing in
>>international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
>>personnel. Nothing.
>
>I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy machine
>guns used against civilians is wrong.
>

Has old age dimmed your eyes so that you cannot read plain English?

Here's the quote again, "I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were
our only weapon against people."

It doesn't say "ordered to use against civilians." It says "people".
If he were "only following orders" and they said kill civilians with
..50 cal, then he was one very sorry excuse for an officer and a
leader.

You may have read some of the twaddle of your old buddy Walt that
recounted Kerry with his M-16, which jammed. So he reached into the
boat for another M-16....does that mean he lied in the quote when he
says "which were our only weapon." Do you believe he was really
leading a Swift boat crew and they only had .50 cal?

Which is the truth and which is the lie? If he tells the truth (under
oath) in his Senate testimony, then he lies when he claims the heroism
for his actions under fire and he lies when he expounds on his
honorable service. If his service and courage under fire where
honorable, then he lied to the Senate under oath. Can't be both ways.

Can I expect another one-liner assertion of the glory of the
candidate? Or will you explain what is going on here?



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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 7/16/2004 9:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 16 Jul 2004 16:01:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>>Date: 7/16/2004 8:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id:
>>
>>>There is nothing in
>>>international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
>>>personnel. Nothing.
>>
>>I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy
>machine
>>guns used against civilians is wrong.
>>
>
>Has old age dimmed your eyes so that you cannot read plain English?
>
>Here's the quote again, "I used 50 calibre
> machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were
>our only weapon against people."
>
>It doesn't say "ordered to use against civilians." It says "people".
>If he were "only following orders" and they said kill civilians with
>.50 cal, then he was one very sorry excuse for an officer and a
>leader.
>
>You may have read some of the twaddle of your old buddy Walt that
>recounted Kerry with his M-16, which jammed. So he reached into the
>boat for another M-16....does that mean he lied in the quote when he
>says "which were our only weapon." Do you believe he was really
>leading a Swift boat crew and they only had .50 cal?
>
>Which is the truth and which is the lie? If he tells the truth (under
>oath) in his Senate testimony, then he lies when he claims the heroism
>for his actions under fire and he lies when he expounds on his
>honorable service. If his service and courage under fire where
>honorable, then he lied to the Senate under oath. Can't be both ways.
>
>Can I expect another one-liner assertion of the glory of the
>candidate? Or will you explain what is going on here?
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

Based on his testimony befiore congress he may be the most honest man ever to
run for public office. Note that he never accused the Viet Cong of using WMD.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Jack]

ArtKramr wrote:

[quoting J. F. Kerry]
>>There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
>>yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
>>soldiers have committed....

> The truth hurts. Not everyone can withstand it.

Do you consider this to be the truth of your own combat experience as
well? Care to tell us about the atrocities which you committed and which
we should, by extension, assume were common among US Soldiers, Sailors,
and Airmen in WW2?

We'd be very interested in hearing about the injuries you have sustained
from the truth, and how you have withstood them.

Or perhaps your war was somehow different for its participants. Since we
supposedly post here on the topic of military aviation, rather than the
exploits of plastic men in plastic boats, why not talk about strafing
women and children in the streets of the cities and towns of
Nazi-occupied Europe v air operations in free-fire zones in Vietnam?

Does it hurt to kill - sometimes, often, never? Is there a greater
purpose, which though it may not justify them, nevertheless renders
certain actions unavoidable?

How far will you go to justify the rhetoric of any particular member of
the politician class, whom most would agree are no less embodiments of
the principle of "necessary evil" than are Soldiers, but as politicians
can rarely claim the honor properly accorded to those who defend us in
battle?

John Kerry's military record is, shall we say, erratic. His political
record is strangely skewed to the left, his principles opaque, and his
biography a cliche of personal and political ambition comparable to that
of Bill Clinton, but without any vestige of personality to explain why
anyone would find him of interest -- as a candidate, nor even as a golf
partner.

Would you shoot skeet with John Kerry? I'd only do it if I could issue
him one round at a time, and then I'd sure never turn my back on him.


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Steve Mellenthin]

>I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy
>machine
>guns used against civilians is wrong.
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Whoa big fella! Dropping incendiaries and high explosives on populatuon
centers in the ETO isn't just as "wrong"?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: Jack
>Date: 7/16/2004 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time

>o you consider this to be the truth of your own combat experience as
>well? Care to tell us about the atrocities which you committed and which
>we should, by extension, assume were common among US Soldiers, Sailors,
>and Airmen in WW2?

Not a day goes by that I don't remember my bomb patterns falling in crowded
cities that I don't wonder how many children were down there at the time. I
never talk about that apect of the war. Kerry has a lot more courage than I do.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steve Mellenthin]

>
>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>From: Jack
>>Date: 7/16/2004 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
>
>>o you consider this to be the truth of your own combat experience as
>>well? Care to tell us about the atrocities which you committed and which
>>we should, by extension, assume were common among US Soldiers, Sailors,
>>and Airmen in WW2?
>
>Not a day goes by that I don't remember my bomb patterns falling in crowded
>cities that I don't wonder how many children were down there at the time. I
>never talk about that apect of the war. Kerry has a lot more courage than I
>do.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer


Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that encourages
the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire, and
denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Steve Mellenthin)
>Date: 7/16/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time

>Whoa big fella! Dropping incendiaries and high explosives on populatuon
>centers in the ETO isn't just as "wrong"?
>

I was hoping you would have the common deceny not to remind me of it. I've
spent 60 years trying to forget it.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steve Mellenthin]

>I was hoping you would have the common deceny not to remind me of it. I've
>spent 60 years trying to forget it.
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Fact of life in war. I am not sure anyone could or should forget that, even
when one relate ones experiences with putting bombs on target, dodging enemy
fighters, and flying through flak. There is always another side to war besides
the glory and I think we all should keep that in balance.

[BUFDRVR]

ArtKramr wrote:

>Based on his testimony befiore congress he may be the most honest man ever to
>run for public office.

You're a sad, sad man. Ed points out several bold faced lies Kerry told and you
still ignore it.


BUFDRVR

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Steve Mellenthin)
>Date: 7/16/2004 11:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>I was hoping you would have the common deceny not to remind me of it. I've
>>spent 60 years trying to forget it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Fact of life in war. I am not sure anyone could or should forget that, even
>when one relate ones experiences with putting bombs on target, dodging enemy
>fighters, and flying through flak. There is always another side to war
>besides
>the glory and I think we all should keep that in balance.

What glory????


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: "ian maclure"
>Date: 7/16/2004 1:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:33:48 +0000, ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>>From: Jack
>>>Date: 7/16/2004 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>
>>>o you consider this to be the truth of your own combat experience as
>>>well? Care to tell us about the atrocities which you committed and which
>>>we should, by extension, assume were common among US Soldiers, Sailors,
>>>and Airmen in WW2?
>>
>> Not a day goes by that I don't remember my bomb patterns falling in
>crowded
>> cities that I don't wonder how many children were down there at the time.
>I
>> never talk about that apect of the war. Kerry has a lot more courage than I
>do.
>
> The industrial paradigm of the day had the plants and living areas
> interpersed within the cities. Kind of made what happened inevit-
> able. Regrettable of course but given the non-precision technology
> of the day unavoidable. The level of skill required to carry out
> some of the pinpoint raids ( Shell House for one ) wasn't something
> you could get in mass quantities. That would have reduced civilian
> deaths but not eliminated them entirely.
> Its not something you should dismiss lightly and if at times it
> bothers you thats only to be expected. You need not however
> chastise yourself for the results.

I don't think I chastise myself. It is just the persistance of memory. I did
what had to be done at the time. And I did it without reservation or regret.
But I raised three children. When they were young I would play with them, read
them stories give them hugs and kisses as a daddy does. But every now and again
as I was doing this I would think of the bomb patterns over Cologne and the
smoke and flames rising to 5,000 feet and wonder. And I am still wondering. I
guess it is the occupational hazard of all bombardiers. The bombardier on the
Enola Gay became a priest in Japan.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't think I chastise myself. It is just the persistance of memory. I
did
> what had to be done at the time. And I did it without reservation or
regret.
> But I raised three children. When they were young I would play with them,
read
> them stories give them hugs and kisses as a daddy does. But every now and
again
> as I was doing this I would think of the bomb patterns over Cologne and
the
> smoke and flames rising to 5,000 feet and wonder. And I am still
wondering. I
> guess it is the occupational hazard of all bombardiers. The bombardier on
the
> Enola Gay became a priest in Japan.
>

The bombardier on the Enola Gay, Thomas W. Ferebee, retired from the USAF as
a Colonel in 1970. After leaving the Air Force, he worked in real estate in
and around Orlando, Florida. He and his wife had four sons.

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 7/16/2004 11:19 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 7/16/2004 9:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On 16 Jul 2004 16:01:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>>>Date: 7/16/2004 8:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id:
>>>
>>>>There is nothing in
>>>>international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
>>>>personnel. Nothing.
>>>
>>>I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy
>>machine
>>>guns used against civilians is wrong.
>>>
>>
>>Has old age dimmed your eyes so that you cannot read plain English?
>>
>>Here's the quote again, "I used 50 calibre
>> machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were
>>our only weapon against people."
>>
>>It doesn't say "ordered to use against civilians." It says "people".
>>If he were "only following orders" and they said kill civilians with
>>.50 cal, then he was one very sorry excuse for an officer and a
>>leader.
>>
>>You may have read some of the twaddle of your old buddy Walt that
>>recounted Kerry with his M-16, which jammed. So he reached into the
>>boat for another M-16....does that mean he lied in the quote when he
>>says "which were our only weapon." Do you believe he was really
>>leading a Swift boat crew and they only had .50 cal?
>>
>>Which is the truth and which is the lie? If he tells the truth (under
>>oath) in his Senate testimony, then he lies when he claims the heroism
>>for his actions under fire and he lies when he expounds on his
>>honorable service. If his service and courage under fire where
>>honorable, then he lied to the Senate under oath. Can't be both ways.
>>
>>Can I expect another one-liner assertion of the glory of the
>>candidate? Or will you explain what is going on here?
>>
>>
>>
>>Ed Rasimus
>>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>"When Thunder Rolled"
>>Smithsonian Institution Press
>>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>>
>
>Based on his testimony befiore congress he may be the most honest man ever to
>run for public office. Note that he never accused the Viet Cong of using WMD.
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Art, give it a rest. In another thread someone made a case that many of the
"150 honourably discharged Viet Nam vets" were frauds. For the sake of
discussion let's say they aren't. That's 150 out of how many men who saw
combat? I put them in the same category as George Lincoln Rockwell who
apologized to the Nazis for having fought against them.

I was in the Army in Viet Nam and saw nohing approaching the level of approval
kerry says the chains of command presented. Did U.S. servicemen commit war
crimes without being charged? Yes. Did I see it? No. Did it occur in my AO?
Probably not. These things get around. Most of the servicemen in Viet Nam knew
something had happened in My Lai before charges were filed. They just didn't
know the specifics.

The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
of war crimes. I know many GIs who told war stories that simply weren't true
but were good stories nonetheless. Want to hear the one about the Huey with a
broken main rotor blade so they nailed a girl to it for balance and flew home?

Art, you are supporting a man who stabbed all of us who served in Viet Nam in
the back. If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.

How would you as a veteran feel if Bob Dole started saying all WW2 vets were
either war criminals or did nothing to stope war crimes?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 7/16/2004 3:49 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: . net>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I don't think I chastise myself. It is just the persistance of memory. I
>did
>> what had to be done at the time. And I did it without reservation or
>regret.
>> But I raised three children. When they were young I would play with them,
>read
>> them stories give them hugs and kisses as a daddy does. But every now and
>again
>> as I was doing this I would think of the bomb patterns over Cologne and
>the
>> smoke and flames rising to 5,000 feet and wonder. And I am still
>wondering. I
>> guess it is the occupational hazard of all bombardiers. The bombardier on
>the
>> Enola Gay became a priest in Japan.
>>
>
>The bombardier on the Enola Gay, Thomas W. Ferebee, retired from the USAF as
>a Colonel in 1970. After leaving the Air Force, he worked in real estate in
>and around Orlando, Florida. He and his wife had four sons.

One of the men from Doolittle's raid who survived Japanese captivity went back
to Japan as a missionary.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Sam Byrams]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >Sam Byrams wrote:
> >
> > > [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
> > > whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.
>
> I found the T-38 easier to fly than the Tweet. It was a bit "tricky" landing,
> but it was also easy to learn how to land it well.
>

Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
dollar check. What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?
Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
attention handle this airplane?

[Steve Mellenthin]

>
>What glory????

The stuff you glamorize in your writings. Maybe that isn't your intent but
your writing style sometimes says otherwise.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 16 Jul 2004 14:24:16 -0700, (Sam Byrams)
wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
>> >Sam Byrams wrote:
>> >
>> > > [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
>> > > whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.
>>
>> I found the T-38 easier to fly than the Tweet. It was a bit "tricky" landing,
>> but it was also easy to learn how to land it well.
>>
>
> Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
>American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
>dollar check.

?????? What is that about? Who is Chuckie?

What we have here is "failure to communicate."

>What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?

It isn't a "beast". It's a military high performance trainer. It makes
things happen fast, but it is fairly docile.

>Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
>aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
>attention handle this airplane?

If you're comfortable at 4G, can handle being upside down, can deal
with basic instrument procedures, and don't get complacent, you can
probably learn to fly the airplane. If you've got some talent, you
could probably be trained to fly it near max performance. It ain't
rocket science.

But it also isn't flying fighters.



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

[Jack]

Sam Byrams wrote:


> Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
> American would, i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
> dollar check. What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?
> Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums, some decent
> aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
> attention handle this airplane?

If you've got the attitude you can get the altitude. Thousands have. But
remember not to exceed 50,000' without a pressure suit. Thousands have.

Ooops, I wasn't supposed to say that.


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Steve Mellenthin)
>Date: 7/16/2004 2:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>

>>What glory????
>
>The stuff you glamorize in your writings. Maybe that isn't your intent but
>your writing style sometimes says otherwise.
>

I never glamorised anyything. You just read glamour into it where in fact
there was none. The glamour is here on the ground with you. Not in the air with
me.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 7/16/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time

>How would you as a veteran feel if Bob Dole started saying all WW2 vets were
>either war criminals or did nothing to stope war crimes?
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dole has that right under the 1st. amendment. I am secure and comfortable with
my experiences no matter what anyone says. But millions of Americans agreed
with Kerry, were against the war and still are to this day. Kerry was not alone
in his thoughts or statements. And for someone who has been stabbed in the back
you seem in very good health.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Sam
Byrams > wrote:

> Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
> American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
> dollar check. What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?
> Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
> aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
> attention handle this airplane?

You can take lessons in an L-39. It will cost some bucks, but
you don't have to hit the powerball to do it.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[BUFDRVR]

> Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
>American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
>dollar check.

I'm not sure who Chuckie is, but there are a few civilian owned T-38s. I'm not
sure how much you would have to throw down to pry it away from the current
owners though? Additionaly, you better hit the lottery for much more than the
cost of the Talon because its going to cost quite a bit to fly and maintain it.

>What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?

To fly it VFR all you need is a multi-engine (centerline thrust) rating....I
think?

>Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
>aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
>attention handle this airplane?

I'd get lessons from Ed or some other former IP. While I found the aircraft
easy to fly, it could kill you if you don't have "UPT quality" training,
particularly in the landing phase.


BUFDRVR

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

[MLenoch]

Lately the Feds are really frowning on the T-38.......dunno why, as they are
not bothering the Mig-21 crowd too much. Something to do with ex-US military
possibly.
VL

[Regnirps]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy
machine
>guns used against civilians is wrong.

Depends on what they are doing at the time. What about a lynch mob after you?

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(Sam Byrams) wrote:

>Okay, just supposing I hit the Powerball and do what any red-blooded
>American would,i.e. kiss up to Chuckie and cut him a three million
>dollar check. What do I have to do to get checked out in this beast?
>Can the average guy with the FAA required minimums,some decent
>aerobatic experience (not competition) and a willingness to pay
>attention handle this airplane?

There was one in TAP for about a year for one million, and with hot ejection
seats. I wonder what that does to your insurance? I think you have to be on the
ball though since IIRC it only flys for about an hour between fuelings and you
can make with the sonic booms pretty easy.

They had an automatic landing system.

They sure are good lookin.

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

Jack wrote:

>If you've got the attitude you can get the altitude. Thousands have. But
>remember not to exceed 50,000' without a pressure suit. Thousands have.

>Ooops, I wasn't supposed to say that.

Did you ever see anyone come back with a glove caught in the canopy?

-- Charlie Springer

[Bill Shatzer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" ) writes:
> "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Assumed but not proven. In any case irrelevant if the folks
>> -thought- they were in a battle.

> Kerry's crew said there was no enemy fire, so the folks didn't think they
> were in a battle.

No, that's not correct at all.

His former commander (one echelon removed) now claims that's
what they said. The crew currently claim no such thing.

With one exception, -everyone- who served under Kerry on the
Swift boats speaks most highly of him and NONE claim it was
anything but a battle. Or, at least an assumed battle.

>> You think those folks in the Bradley who got zapped by a blue
>> on blue Maverick didn't get PHs? There was no -real- battle,
>> they were just motoring along when the A-10 mistook them for
>> a T-72 or whatever. The A-10 driver -thought- it was a battle.

> Irrelevant.

Quite relevant.

>> "Purported" experience. The things have to cover a minimum
>> distance before they arm themselves and that distance is
>> sufficient to place the shooter outside of the blast/shrapnel
>> radius.

>> I recall one story from the vietnam conflict where an army
>> surgeon got written up for removing an unexploded M-79 round
>> from an ARVN trooper. -He- got shot by friendly fire but the
>> round hadn't traveled far enough to arm itself.

> Based on the best information, Kerry was not entitled to that award.

Based on the best information, there is no way he could put
shrapnel into himself from his own M-79 round. The damn things
just don't work that way.

Based upon the best information, he was fully entitled to his
Purple Heart.
--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Ian MacLure]

(B2431) wrote in
:

[snip]

> One of the men from Doolittle's raid who survived Japanese captivity
> went back to Japan as a missionary.

Which comes from an entirely different point of view than the
Enola gay crew.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Bill Shatzer]

Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
-snip-
> Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that encourages
> the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire, and
> denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
> courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
sense.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Jack]

Regnirps wrote:

> Did you ever see anyone come back with a glove caught in the canopy?

Nope.

Especially not from >50,000'. ;>

4 PSI isn't much, but it's all you've got.



Jack

[Jack]

Regnirps wrote:

> They had an automatic landing system.

They had ILS, if that's what you mean, but no autopilot.


Jack

[Ron]

>There was one in TAP for about a year for one million, and with hot ejection
>seats.

I think that was the one I used to see in the hangar in Wichita Falls (SPS).
It was blue, and I think one of the ENJJPT IPs was instructing the owner it it.

Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Ron]

>One of the men from Doolittle's raid who survived Japanese captivity went
>back
>to Japan as a missionary.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

And one of the Japanese participants in Pearl Harbor later became a protestant
minister in the US.



Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Regnirps)
>Date: 7/16/2004 10:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy
>machine
>>guns used against civilians is wrong.
>
>Depends on what they are doing at the time. What about a lynch mob after you?
>
>-- Charlie Springer
>

Excellant point. 50's for everybody.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steve Mellenthin]

>Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
>-snip-
>> Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that
>encourages
>> the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,
>and
>> denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
>> courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.
>
>How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
>against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
>but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphed
sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
hours. And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
atrocities in the combat zone, or hurling ones medals at the government only to
claim later it was staged.

One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
still serving and honorably following orders.
Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.


>
>And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
>of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
>Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
>sense.
>
>--

That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops were
air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south so it is hard
for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal political
gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.

[Regnirps]

Jack wrote:

>Regnirps wrote:

>> They had an automatic landing system.

>They had ILS, if that's what you mean, but no autopilot.

I'm pretty sure there was a system in the T-38's where you could throw the
panic switch on approah and it did the rest -- provided you met certain
constraints about being lined up right.

-- Charlie Springer

[Dave Kearton]

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| I'm pretty sure there was a system in the T-38's where you could throw the
| panic switch on approah and it did the rest -- provided you met certain
| constraints about being lined up right.
|
| -- Charlie Springer
|



....and it's got a convenient yellow handle between the pilot's knees. ;-)







Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Regnirps]

Jack wrote:

>Regnirps wrote:

>> Did you ever see anyone come back with a glove caught in the canopy?

>Nope.

I recall a persistant rumor that you could go vertical and if you were fast
enough you could open the canopy a little and slam the thin glove in the seal
as you topped out. They called it the Clam Shell Club and said getting caught
was an automatic washout. I didn't believe it becuase the canopy blows off way
too easy and I didn't hear of any "canopy free" landings.

-- Charlie Springer

[BUFDRVR]

Regnirps wrote:

>I'm pretty sure there was a system in the T-38's where you could throw the
>panic switch on approah and it did the rest -- provided you met certain
>constraints about being lined up right.

There is no such system on any T-38, including the new C models with glass
cockpit.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

Dave Kearton wrote:

>...and it's got a convenient yellow handle between the pilot's knees. ;-)
>

Actually, the handles are outside your legs.


BUFDRVR

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

[Bill Shatzer]

>>-snip-
>>> Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that
>>encourages
>>> the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire,
>>and
>>> denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
>>> courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

>>How would you suggest that might be done? Just how would one speak out
>>against the war while simultaneously not encouraging the enemy? Speaking,
>>but doing so so quietly that no one hears?

> Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphe
> sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
> hours.

If you're speaking of "Hanoi Jane", it should be noted that Fonda's
North Vietnam visit came -after- the Kerry photo and, indeed, after
Kerry had broken with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

It would seem a bit much to expect him to make an accurate prediction
of her -future- actions.

> And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
> atrocities in the combat zone,

Is there any doubt at all that Americans were committing some
atrocities - or at least some pretty bad things - in the combat
zone?

What is the appropriate moral response when one has evidence of
such things? Indeed, what is the appropriate patriotic response
when one has evidence of such things?

Somehow, being a good German doesn't seem the correct response.

> or hurling ones medals at the government only to
> claim later it was staged.

My goodness! Whoever claimed -other- than that it was "staged".

It was a demonstration and a photo-op for gawd sakes. Everything
was "staged" in the sense that it was organized and choreographed
in advance.

> One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
> still serving and honorably following orders.

He was, as you correctly noted, speaking against "atrocities", not
folks "honorably following orders".

> Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or follow
> the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.

He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
choosen the WRONG conflict.

>>And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
>>of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
>>Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
>>sense.

> That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops wer
> air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south

Wasn't that just about the time Dewey Canyon II and Lam Son 719 were
ongoing? And the notorious Cambodian invasion was but nine or ten
months in the past?

US forces had been largely, though not entirely, withdrawn from aggressive
search and destroy ground missions by mid-71 but there were a lot of
aviation companies, artillery units, engineering battalions, and the
like still providing active combat support to the ARVN units. And lots
of PBI-types still taking significant casualties. Certainly to claim that
the "only major combat troops were air units" overstates the case by
quite a bit.

> so it is hard
> for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal
> political
> gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.

Well, perhaps. But certainly the more useful tact for a decorated
war hero to take were he concerned about politics would NOT have
been active opposition to the war. You can certainly raise more
campaign contributions at the local VFW hall than at any number of
VVAW rallies populated by folks in tie-dye and wearing beads.

Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Steve Mellenthin]

>If you're speaking of "Hanoi Jane", it should be noted that Fonda's
>North Vietnam visit came -after- the Kerry photo and, indeed, after
>Kerry had broken with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
>
>It would seem a bit much to expect him to make an accurate prediction
>of her -future- actions.


You are reinforcing an oft held belief of at least half the holds, judging by
the polls, that he feels strongly both ways on most every issue.


>
>> And not by making comments about how Americans are committing
>> atrocities in the combat zone,
>
>Is there any doubt at all that Americans were committing some
>atrocities - or at least some pretty bad things - in the combat
>zone?

That is an awfully strange remark. War is a pretty bad thing. Just as many
atrocities are committed on the streets of the US every day. I don't see the
relevance of your comment. My point was that Kerry was way off base accusing
everyone who ever served in Vietnam of committing them. As one of those who
served honorably in combat, I take major offense at his remark.




>
>What is the appropriate moral response when one has evidence of
>such things? Indeed, what is the appropriate patriotic response
>when one has evidence of such things?
>
>Somehow, being a good German doesn't seem the correct response.
>
>> or hurling ones medals at the government only to
>> claim later it was staged.
>
>My goodness! Whoever claimed -other- than that it was "staged"

He did. He, or one of his aides later said those weren't his when asked why
those medals he through over the White House fence were back on his office
wall.

..
>
>It was a demonstration and a photo-op for gawd sakes. Everything
>was "staged" in the sense that it was organized and choreographed
>in advance.

Call it what you want, it was bad judgement for someone in his position,
especially, as you say, he later dissociated himslef with the VVAW.


>
>> One can disagree or speak out without speaking badly of the people who are
>> still serving and honorably following orders.
>
>He was, as you correctly noted, speaking against "atrocities", not
>folks "honorably following orders".


That sure isn't what he said. He didn't differentiate between those committing
atrocities and those who followed orders.




>
>> Would you rather have the military pick and choose their conflicts or
>follow
>> the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.
>
>He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
>amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
>choosen the WRONG conflict.


I don't debate that point and I support his right to do so. The movement at
the time was as much agains the people following orders as it was their
leadership and people like Fonda and Kerry were inciting acts of abuse against
those who served honorably. Talk to anyone in uniform who passed through San
Francison International in uniform in the late 60s and early 70s..



>
>>>And the best way to reduce the danger level to those still in the line
>>>of fire was to get them out of the line of fire as quickly as possible.
>>>Especially as the VN conflict was not going to be "won" in any meaningful
>>>sense.
>
>> That had been happening since 1971 and by 72 the only major combat troops
>wer
>> air units blunting the North Vietnamese offensive into the south
>
>Wasn't that just about the time Dewey Canyon II and Lam Son 719 were
>ongoing? And the notorious Cambodian invasion was but nine or ten
>months in the past?

The only thing notorious about the Cambodian invasion was the way the press
handled it. We invaded an unihabited area of Cambodia to try to cut supply
lines to the south. The press played it up like it was equal to the Soviet
invasiopn of Hungary in the 50s. At that stage in the war we were winding down
our efforts and attempting to put the SVN government where it could defend
itself. The Viet Cong was essentially defeated as a fighting force and and the
NVN forces were building up prepatory to an invasion of the south.


>
>US forces had been largely, though not entirely, withdrawn from aggressive
>search and destroy ground missions by mid-71 but there were a lot of
>aviation companies, artillery units, engineering battalions, and the
>like still providing active combat support to the ARVN units. And lots
>of PBI-types still taking significant casualties. Certainly to claim that
>the "only major combat troops were air units" overstates the case by
>quite a bit.


I don't disagree at all. We were withdrawing in a manner so as to allow the
SVN a menas to defend itself agains NVN agression. A year later most had
departed except for support and liaison forces.


>
>> so it is hard
>> for me personally to see that JFK's actions weren't more for personal
>> political
>> gain than opposition to the was. Just my opinion.
>
>Well, perhaps. But certainly the more useful tact for a decorated
>war hero to take were he concerned about politics would NOT have
>been active opposition to the war. You can certainly raise more
>campaign contributions at the local VFW hall than at any number of
>VVAW rallies populated by folks in tie-dye and wearing beads.
>
>Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
>seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
>indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.
>
>

I accept that as a possibilitybut is is hard for me to escape the sense that he
used his position in the anti war effort as a springboard for his fledgling
political career. And it is hard for me to understand how one could be ashamed
enough of his service and his heriosm to call his actions atrocities and return
his medals only to later give them a place of honor on his I love me wall. To
change one's mind like that is impossible for me to understand. I speak as one
who served 24 months in combat.

Steve

[Billy Preston]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote
>
> Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
> seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
> indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.

He didn't even write the "baby killer" speech before Congress.

Nice try Fluffy...

[Billy Preston]

"Steve Mellenthin" > wrote
>
> I accept that as a possibilitybut is is hard for me to escape the sense that he
> used his position in the anti war effort as a springboard for his fledgling
> political career.

No **** Sherlock. He didn't even write the speech before Congress.

[Buzzer]

On 18 Jul 2004 21:58:24 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:

>He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
>amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
>choosen the WRONG conflict.

Wasn't he still a commissioned officer and out of uniform besides when
he testified?
Seems a few officers are not happy campers after being recalled for
Iraq after "they were no longer in the military."

Sorry I just noticed this from

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brooks Gregory" > wrote in message >...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 15 Jul 2004 20:57:04 -0700, (Fred the Red
> > Shirt) wrote:
> >
> > >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.
>
> --
>
> Let me introduce you to John Kerry:

Thank you.

>
> http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

Actually, that site appears to be run by an opposition group. They
seem to be both anti-Kerry and anti-McCain. The rest of the site has
a lot of accusations against both but evidence to support those ac-
cusations is conspicuous by its absence.

> http://www.pow-miafamilies.org/

Nothing about Kerry on that page.

> http://www.jpac.pacom.mil/

Nothing about Kerry on that page.

> http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssctest.html

Nothing about Kerry on that page.

> http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php

That link seems to mostly be about Vietnam Veterans Against the
War (VVAW). Here and there one finds soem rather wild accusations
against Kerry, but no evidence to support them.

The do have a link to some exerps from the winter soldier campaign
'testimony' (quotes becasue it was not a legal proceding) upon which
much of Kerry's famous speach to the US Congress was based. There
is a link called _debunking_ that leads to a page with sowmwhat
disorganized claims that some of the 'testimony' of the winter soldier
campaign had been debunked. But the person's whos testimony was
supposedly disproved are not named. Dewey Canyon III is named but
for what purpose is a mystery.

The (anonymous) author(s) of that page claim that the VVAW used fake
witnesses, but do not name a single example.

If we follow the link 'key points' we find thirteen paragraphs:

First:

In his April 1971 speech to the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, John Kerry claimed that war crimes committed by
the American military against Vietnamese civilians were "not
isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis..."
War crimes in Vietnam were actually quite rare.

Yet the author(s) of that page offer no evidence in support of this
'key point'.

Second:

Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact,
military personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules
of engagement, you can be tried and punished." War crimes were
never a matter of policy, and were prosecuted when discovered

Yet the author(s) of that page offer no evidence in support of this
'key point'.

And so on. Wherea Kerry had the 'testimony' of the Winter Soldier
project to support his own testimony befor Congress the author(s)
of this page present no evidence at all to support their 'key point'.

But don't trust me. See for yourself.

See also:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_entry.html

--

FF

[Bill Shatzer]

Buzzer ) writes:
> On 18 Jul 2004 21:58:24 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
> wrote:

>>He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
>>amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
>>choosen the WRONG conflict.

> Wasn't he still a commissioned officer and out of uniform besides when
> he testified?

Not so far as I know. He may have still been a name on a list in
the inactive reserve or whatever they called it then but he was no
longer in an active duty or in the ready reserve. It would have been
inappropriate and probably illegal for him to have appeared in uniform.

> Seems a few officers are not happy campers after being recalled for
> Iraq after "they were no longer in the military."

Rules change if one is activated - assuming he was still eligible of
activation. Until that happens however, one is essentially a civilian.

Certainly he was not subject to the UCMJ.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Bill Shatzer]

"Billy Preston" ) writes:
> "Bill Shatzer" > wrote

>> Kerry's views may have been mistaken - though, in retrospect, it
>> seems he was more correct than not about the war - but I see no
>> indication that they were anything other than honestly held beliefs.

> He didn't even write the "baby killer" speech before Congress.

The phrase "baby killer" nor any approximation there of was not
used in his senate testimony. The text is available on line and
that can be readily confirmed.

www.pbs.org/greatspeeches/timeline/j_kerry_s.html

Kerry obtained most of his "evidence" of supposed atrocities from
the Winter Soldier project which collected the testimony of a number
of veterans. It later turned out that many of the incidents testified
to were exaggerated or could not be confirmed. In some cases, it turned
out that the veterans had not even been in Vietnam.

OTOH, some of the testimony was essentially accurate.

If Kerry was guilty of any thing, it was being overly naive and trusting.
Perhaps the stories related during the Winter Soldier project should have
be subject to greater scepticism and better investigation and cross-
checks.

But, I can understand why that did not occur. VVAW had limited resources
for conducting any investigation and it seems unlikely the US military
would have cooperated with any information request from them in any event.
And, I would think, there would have been an inherent bias to -believe-
the word of fellow veterans - both because the basic bias of folks who
have served is to -want- to believe our "comrades in arms" and because
their stories conformed to Kerry's "mind-set" about the war.

Perhaps he was overly credulous but then that is not an uncommon vice
of the young. I find it difficult to find anything more sinister than
that in his activities and testimony.



--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> >
> I'm sorry, Art, but that is not the truth. The designation of free
> fire zones is not a violation of the Geneva Convention. It is an
> acknowledgement of a division between friendly and enemy territory. It
> is not, as insinuated, an area of authorized total destruction and
> wanton killing.

What Ketty learned through his experience and what his fellow soldiers
had told him that in practive free fire zones were treated by many
(and I'm sure not by all) as areas of authorized total destruction and
wanton killing. The paperwork on file at the Pentagon might not have
said that.

> Harrassment and interdiction fire is not, in any way,
> contrary to the Geneva Convention. The whole purpose of military fire
> is to harrass the enemy and interdict is supply.

In many specific areas of eh Geneva conventions, and as a general
rule there is a prohibition of tactics that endanger civilians
without military necessity or which endageer civiains disprotionately
to the military necessity (my paraphrasal). As an example I
specifically recall that it is prohibited to target dams if breaching
the damse
would cause excessive civilian casualties. The COnventions are v
ague on the issue of how much would be 'excessive' or
disproportionate.

Clearly that decision would be made by the party conducting the trial,
if any.

It is clear to me that Kerry was sayign that harrassment and
interdiction
fire was routinely used in Vietnam in a manner that subjected the
civilians to risk that was disporportionate to military necessity.
An example might be the (possible) reconnaisance by fire incident
in which Kerry wounded himself.


>
> There is no prohibition by the Geneva Convention of the employment of
> .50 cal automatic weapons. Nothing at all. There is nothing in
> international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
> personnel. Nothing.

Over in sci.mil a while ago a fellow who said he was a vegteran of
the Swedish army (don;t know if he was as they say, 'on the net
no one knows you're a dog and that doesn;t jsut apply to
alt.personals)
who said in his basic training he was taught to not fire their
heavy machine gun (equivalent to .50 cal) ar individual personell.
He was taught that to do so was a violation of the Geneva Conventions,
that the heavy machine gun was to be used against equipment only.
The only support anyone found for that argument was a general
prohibition
agains weapons that cause excessive suffering. It was pointed out
that
shooting a man with .50 caliber does not cause excessive suffering,
it reduces his suffering because he is more likely to be killed
outright
than if he is shot with a smaller caliber. I tend to agree but the
point is that in some countries, one presumes those without combat
experience in living memory, the use of a .5o caliber machine gun
against peiople is considered to be a war crime.

>
> Search and destroy is a viable tactic. It means you search for the
> enemy. You might have called it "patrol" in WW II. If you find the
> enemy, you engage him and you destroy the enemy and any war material.
> That's not prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

That also depends on what is being searched for and destroyed. If
memeory serves me correctly, there was a program of 'resettlement'
in VIetnam in which villiagers were rounded up and moved to
ostensibly safer parts of the country and their homes were destroyed
to deny the support of that civilian infrastructure to the enemy.
That program was a clear violation of the Geneva conventions, the
excuse being that it was supposedly condoned by the South Vietnamese
government and the GCs do not prohibit nations from abusing their
own people. One wonders if the the government of South Vietnam was
coercved into accepting that program.

>
> And, certainly the authorization of "air raid strike areas" is not
> prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

Again, it depends on what is reasonably expected to be in the target
area in addition to the enemy. The cornerstone of Kerry's arguments,
if I understand them correctly, is that the war itself was inflicting
more suffering on the Vietnamese people that he would expect to be
inflicted on them if 'their side' lost the war. The idiology of
one's government means little to a subsistance former.

>
> And, the comparison of all of us who fought in the war to Lt. Calley
> is despicable.
>

I missed that comparison. I'll go back and look for it now.
Meanwhile, would you object to being compared to Hugh Thompson?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >Based on his testimony befiore congress he may be the most honest man ever to
> >run for public office.
>
> You're a sad, sad man. Ed points out several bold faced lies Kerry told and you
> still ignore it.
>
>

Uh, he said most honest, not completely honest.

With most politicians it is easy to tell when they are lying.
You can see their lips move.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
>
> I was in the Army in Viet Nam and saw nohing approaching the level of approval
> kerry says the chains of command presented. Did U.S. servicemen commit war
> crimes without being charged? Yes. Did I see it? No. Did it occur in my AO?
> Probably not. These things get around. Most of the servicemen in Viet Nam knew
> something had happened in My Lai before charges were filed. They just didn't
> know the specifics.

Thank you.

>
> The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
> of war crimes.

I disagree. That is a gross distortion of the facts, just like the
way neocons used Sherman's words form a protion of one of his letters
to 'prove' that he had confessed to war crimes.

> ... If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
> not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.

Perhaps someone should point that out to him and het him to address that.

Somehow I don't think it would satisfy you if he did, even if he had
done so back then.

What Kerry said was clearly figurative speech, just like when I say
we Americans are responsible for the wrongdoing that America does
anywhere in the world today?

Did I just stab you in the back?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message >...
> >I was hoping you would have the common deceny not to remind me of it. I've
> >spent 60 years trying to forget it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> Fact of life in war. I am not sure anyone could or should forget that, even
> when one relate ones experiences with putting bombs on target, dodging enemy
> fighters, and flying through flak. There is always another side to war besides
> the glory and I think we all should keep that in balance.


"War is at best barbarism... it's glory is all moonshine. It is only those
who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the
wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is
hell" -- William Techumseh Sherman


Having never fired a shot I trust and respect those who did.

--

FF

[Jack]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> ...would you object to being compared to Hugh Thompson?

Trying to assume that mantle is what Kerry was doing with the VVAW.


Jack

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message >...
>>
> Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that encourages
> the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire, and
> denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
> courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.

Absent the speeches made by Kerry and others like him how much longer
would American forces have remained in Vietnam? How many more would
have died, been wounded or captured. How many more Vietnamese would
have died? How much longer would the POWs have had to wait for
repatriation?

The current government of Vietnam has estimated that we killed 1.4
million of their soldiers. That does not include wounded soldiers
or civilians killed or wounded. The United Staes won every militarily
significant battle of the Vietnam war. And still the communists
did not give up. Kerry realized that the war in Vietnam could not
be won by military means. It could only have been prolonged.

We do not know the answers to the questions I posed above because
men like Kerry did speak out. We did pull out in 1973 and the
surviving POWs did come home. It has been argued that live POWS
were held back by the Vietnamese and others as hostages or slaves
but really, would fewer have been withheld had we remained in the
war longer?

What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
the lies of his government?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message >...
> >Steve Mellenthin ) writes:
> >-snip-
> >>>
> Certainly not by hanging out with peple who allow themselves to be photgraphed
> sitting in a piece of AAA that was probably used agaist our forces within 12
> hours.

I am quite sure you know that the hanging out was done after Kerry had left VVAW.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Jack > wrote in message >...
>
> A presidential candidate is only as good as the people who support him.

Good grief! I hope that's not true.

> From what I've seen of the people who are rabid supporters of either of
> the major candidates, this year's vote is going to be a difficult choice
> for folks who are just trying to avoid the greater evil.
>

Reminds me of a bumper sticker:

"Cthulu for President! The cadidate for voters who are tired
of choosing the leser of two evils."

--

FF

[Jack]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
> the lies of his government?

Kerry was hardly a Canary in a coal mine by that time, but just another
silver spoon sucker with political ambitions looking for a bandwagon to
ride, with no regard for those he defamed.


Jack

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"D. Strang" > wrote in message news:<o%gIc.22605$r3.21196@okepread03>...
> "Ian MacLure" > wrote
> > (WalterM140) wrote
> > >> Whence he graduated in circa 1970.
> > >> And the draft ended when exactly? Hmmm?
> > >
> > > Edwards in 51 YO. That would put him in the 1971 HS class. The draft
> > > ended in 1972.
> >
> > So explain how he graduated from a 4 yr college in 1974.
> > Did he have a time machine?
>
> Summer School? CLEP?

Bernie Kozar, former QB of the Cleveland Browns graduated from a
4-year college after two years. He did it because he was smart
enough to complete a four-year program in two years. I also knew
a girl in college who got her microbilogy degree in three years.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
> >From: Ian MacLure
> >Date: 7/10/2004 11:32 PM Pa
>
> >
> > We won the 2000 election.
> > We are going to win the 2004 election.
> > So who's bitter?
> >
> > IBM
>
> 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.

--

FF

[Regnirps]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>I'm pretty sure there was a system in the T-38's where you could throw the
>>panic switch on approah and it did the rest -- provided you met certain
>>constraints about being lined up right.

>There is no such system on any T-38, including the new C models with glass
>cockpit.

Well, I'll be dipped. I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that I had know
people who experienced such a thing. Also would have sworn there was a lengthy
flight test and review in Private Pilot about 35 years ago that described the
whole thing. Well, I have been wrong before, and now it's twice this year and
it isn't even August.

-- Charlie Springer

[Fred the Red Shirt]

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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Bill Shatzer) wrote in message >...
> >
> If one fired an M-79 round "too close", it would simply impact with
> a thud and no "boom".
>
> Presenting a possible problem for the ordinance disposal folks who
> came along later but no particular problem for the firer.
>

In a similar incident described to me by a cow-orker the firer
simply put a rock on top of the grenade and theywent on their
way.

--

FF

[WalterM140]

>> 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

[WalterM140]

>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

[WalterM140]

>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

[WalterM140]

>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

[WalterM140]

>Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?

Doolittle, I would think.


Walt

[Billy Preston]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> In "F-911" you can hear Congresswoman Corrine Brown say that 16,000 of her
> constituents had been illegally disinfranchised in Duvall County.

Yes they were. The county has no voting plan, the congresswoman has never
demanded a plan, and basically, there are no educated people in the county past
the 8th grade. It's a county not up to even third-world standards. I would say
16,000 is too low. I think the people who can't read are about double that number.

This county shouldn't even be allowed to vote, as most of their votes are bought
with cigarettes, booze, and in some cases cash. Then they go to the polls and can't
even drive a nail through a piece of paper correctly. They can't read.

Brown says they all voted for Gore. She should know, she paid them. Alas, they
were too stupid to execute the crime.

If this is Moore shooting his wad to prove a point, he is sorely scrapping bottom.

[Billy Preston]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register and he
> said not to worry about it.

That's just the most ignorant thing I've heard from you yet. Registering for
selective service was never an option for men in 1973. If the recruiter told
you to jump in a lake, would you do it?

[Billy Preston]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> The more I hear about Kerry, the more I like him.

Good for you. We all need to know what you think, because you
are a special person.

[Billy Preston]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> Those ******* Republicans have got to go.

Yea! The two party system is a travesty to good Communists.

[Billy Preston]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> >Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?
>
> Doolittle, I would think.

Are you from Duval County?

[John S. Shinal]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
>I'm not sure who Chuckie is, but there are a few civilian owned T-38s.

Chuck Thornton owned one that was assembled from three wrecked
T-38 airframes purchased surplus. He allegedly really torqued some
people off over that since he had tried to buy one several times and
been rebuffed. It was painted like an Agressor from Nellis, in a
blue/white/gray scheme that would be hard to spot in the air.

The gossip is that MiG 17s are more of a fun flyer, with fewer
maintenance hours per flight hour, and an easy engine to deal with. I
think spins in the MiG 17 are unrecoverable, though.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/19/2004 4:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?
>
>Doolittle, I would think.
>
>
>Walt
>

I have no idea. I just flew he missions.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/19/2004 4:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>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
>


They will. The American public has all they can take of Neocon crap.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steve Mellenthin]

>They will. The American public has all they can take of Neocon crap.
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Sorry guys, check the polls. More than half the public disagrees with you
including the military, not exactly your neocon type. However all thes "crap"
as you put it will get lots of people to the polls. Then either the "neocons"
win or people find out the truth about Kerry, whatever it turns out to be
and/or if any.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 7/18/2004 10:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message
>...
>> >I was hoping you would have the common deceny not to remind me of it. I've
>> >spent 60 years trying to forget it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Arthur Kramer
>>
>> Fact of life in war. I am not sure anyone could or should forget that,
>even
>> when one relate ones experiences with putting bombs on target, dodging
>enemy
>> fighters, and flying through flak. There is always another side to war
>besides
>> the glory and I think we all should keep that in balance.
>
>
>"War is at best barbarism... it's glory is all moonshine. It is only those
>who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the
>wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is
>hell" -- William Techumseh Sherman
>
>
>Having never fired a shot I trust and respect those who did.
>
>--
>
>FF
>
>

Except of course for the self appointed "Warrior Class" who revel in all that
crap. Save us all from the war lovers.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Buzzer]

On 19 Jul 2004 04:32:11 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:

>Buzzer ) writes:
>> On 18 Jul 2004 21:58:24 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
>> wrote:
>
>>>He was no longer in the military and was free to exercise his first
>>>amendment priveleges. And, clearly, he felt that the CinC had
>>>choosen the WRONG conflict.
>
>> Wasn't he still a commissioned officer and out of uniform besides when
>> he testified?
>
>Not so far as I know. He may have still been a name on a list in
>the inactive reserve or whatever they called it then but he was no
>longer in an active duty or in the ready reserve. It would have been
>inappropriate and probably illegal for him to have appeared in uniform.

There are some interesting dates and such in his records and timelines
on the internet. Rather confusing actually.

Appears he was discharged to run for congress and within days or weeks
of getting his official discharge on Mar 1 dropped out of the race.

Then transfer to (Ready?) Naval Reserve 3 Jan 70 and Standby Reserve -
Inactive on 1 July 72.
April 23, 1971: Kerry testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.

>> Seems a few officers are not happy campers after being recalled for
>> Iraq after "they were no longer in the military."
>
>Rules change if one is activated - assuming he was still eligible of
>activation. Until that happens however, one is essentially a civilian.
>
>Certainly he was not subject to the UCMJ.

Appears he was an ID card carrying member of the Naval Reserve at the
time. Don't know if they are subject to the UCMJ?

[Ed Rasimus]

On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>>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

You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
clearer with each posting why think the way you do.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Jul 2004 23:34:06 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
>> >Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>> >From: Ian MacLure
>> >Date: 7/10/2004 11:32 PM Pa
>>
>> >
>> > We won the 2000 election.
>> > We are going to win the 2004 election.
>> > So who's bitter?
>> >
>> > IBM
>>
>> 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.

Sorry, Fred, but unless you are referring to the certification of the
vote of the EC, you are wrong. The President is elected by majority
vote of the Electoral College which, although it has the same number
as Representatives and Senators of the states, is NOT synonymous with
the Congress.

The EC votes in December of presidential election years, but does so
remotely and does not convene in a single location. They, by law, are
NOT the members of the Congress.

The winner must win by a majority vote, not a plurality. If no
majority, then the Presidential race goes to the house where each
Representative gets a vote and the VP race goes to the Senate where
each State gets one vote.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 19 Jul 2004 00:04:17 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>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.

One fervently hopes that testimony given under oath to the US Senate
is always literal. Speaking figuratively about issues, particularly
issues as important as allegations of war crimes should NEVER be done
figuratively. I take Kerry's testimony under oath as literal and I
take his statement on Face the Nation regarding his own commission of
war crimes as truth. Why would I doubt his veracity?
>
>>
>> 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.

Once again we see the strawman. While the principle of responsibility
flowing from the top down is correct, the implication that the
President is responsible for every act of the the entire military
establishment down to the lowest enlisted individual in the field is
impossible to support. In the absence of clear written directives to
act in the manner of the Abu Ghraib guards, one must assume that the
problem was localized.
>
>> 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.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion. There has been publication of the
legal opinion statement that suggested a level of detachment from
Geneva Convention rules, but the whole story is that the opinion did
NOT result in an acceptance of that policy.

>> >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.

Well, duh! If you introduced the Sherman letter, why should the topic
of war and the relationship of warriors be inappropriate. It isn't my
dog in this hunt, it's yours.
>
>> >
>> >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.

So, Sherman had sent the officers back for court-martial, in the same
manner that the Abu Ghraib perps have been brought under
investigation. Does that mean that Lincoln condoned war crimes?
>
>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.

The big difference is that Kerry quit (good choice of words) and then
accused the ENTIRE US military establishment from the top down and
including every warrior in the field of advocating and executing a
policy of war crimes.
>
>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.

So, Kerry could occupy a "lower station in the military" but he could
view the global strategic picture and determine that the war could not
be won? How very prescient of him.

You state correctly that the US prevailed in every military endeavor
(the great Tet victory of the NVA for example was a huge military
defeat for them). And, the end of the war was in sight within two
weeks at any time that the likes of Kerry could be overcome and the
resolve to gain the victory could be mustered by the politicians.
Witness the rapid end to hostilities, the signing of the treaty and
the release of the POWs in less than 90 days following December '72.
>
>> 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.

Calley/Medina. Or, how about the Turkestan incident since this is an
aviation group?
>

>> 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.

You state elsewhere that you turned 18 in 1973. So, you didn't see
with your own eyes the "reality" that Kerry saw. I was there in '66
and I was there again in '72-'73. I continue to associate with
literally hundreds of warriors from the period--USAF/USA/USN/USMC. Not
one of them agrees with Kerry. His view of the total corruption of the
military is his alone. Kerry's "fellow soldiers" from the Winter
Soldier testimony--the 150 accusers of war crimes--have been largely
discredited. Many have been found to be outright liars, some did not
serve at all!
>
>Are not all great warriors anti-war in their hearts.

Actually no. I'm fortunate enough to know many warriors. They are
patriots in their hearts and they take great pride in the profession
of arms.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Jul 2004 22:40:58 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message >...
>>
>> The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
>> of war crimes.
>
>I disagree. That is a gross distortion of the facts, just like the
>way neocons used Sherman's words form a protion of one of his letters
>to 'prove' that he had confessed to war crimes.
>
>> ... If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
>> not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.
>
>Perhaps someone should point that out to him and het him to address that.
>
>Somehow I don't think it would satisfy you if he did, even if he had
>done so back then.
>
>What Kerry said was clearly figurative speech, just like when I say
>we Americans are responsible for the wrongdoing that America does
>anywhere in the world today?

Here's what Kerry said (again!) on Meet the Press:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

Does that sound allegorical or less than a literal admission of war
crimes?

I've once gone through the litany and challenged that free fire zones,
harrassment, interdiction, .50 cal, search-and-destroy, air raids, etc
are NOT in any way violations of the Geneva Convention.

I challenged Kerry's assertion regarding .50 cal as "our only weapon
against people" comparing it to his narrative of one of his BS awards
indicating he had an M-16 which jammed so he picked up another M-16 in
the boat.
>
>Did I just stab you in the back?

And here's from Kerry's Senate testimony (under oath):

"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that
several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over
150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans
testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible
to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions
in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their
experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this
country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that 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
Ghengis 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."

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, April 22, 1971

It certainly sounds like LITERAL testimony. Of course, the fact that
his "150 honorably discharged....etc" veterans turned out to not be so
makes it questionable, but let's give John the benefit of the doubt
that he didn't know it at the time.

Ghengis Khan? Poisoned food? Wires to the genitals? Gimme a break!



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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Jul 2004 22:50:00 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:


>Having never fired a shot I trust and respect those who did.


Ahh, we have a break through in communication.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 19 Jul 2004 14:44:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Except of course for the self appointed "Warrior Class" who revel in all that
>crap. Save us all from the war lovers.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Lacking warriors you might find yourself today speaking German,
Japanese or Russian. Next year you might be doing some Quran study and
waiting for the call of muezzin.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Jul 2004 22:30:57 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:


>I missed that comparison. I'll go back and look for it now.
>Meanwhile, would you object to being compared to Hugh Thompson?

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I'd like to think that I'd have
done the same thing in those circumstances.

Similarly I'd prefer to be compared to Robin Olds rather than Jack
Broughton.

None of those are likely to occur.


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

[Steve Mellenthin]

>Except of course for the self appointed "Warrior Class" who revel in all that
>crap. Save us all from the war lovers.
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I'll be damned Art! Everyone whom I have passed your website URL to and has
looked at it sees you as squarely in the middle of those war lovers.

You appear to revel in your wartime experiences and can't even send an response
to this board without a signature block that is a mini resume of your wartime
exploits. Most of us here with combat experience rarely do anything close to
that - ever. I respectfully suggest to you that you are speaking out of both
sides of your mouth. You can't have it both ways, my friend.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 18 Jul 2004 23:06:39 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote in message >...
>>>
>> Speaking out against a war takes courage but doing so in a way that encourages
>> the enemy, raises the level of danger to the men still in the line of fire, and
>> denigrates the service record of those who have served is not an act of
>> courage, it is an act of self serving political gratuity.
>
>Absent the speeches made by Kerry and others like him how much longer
>would American forces have remained in Vietnam? How many more would
>have died, been wounded or captured. How many more Vietnamese would
>have died? How much longer would the POWs have had to wait for
>repatriation?

You need to read some good history of the war and stop reading Terry
McAullife dispatches.

Kerry was testifying before the Senate in 1971. Nixon had been elected
in 1968 and initiated his "Vietnamization" policy to draw down US
troop strength and turn over the war to the ARVN. By April of '71, the
US force had been reduced by half, bombing of NVN had been in hiatus
since 1968.

Arguably the testimony of Kerry encouraged the aggressiveness of the
NVA and led to the increased infiltration that led to the commencement
of Linebacker in May of '72, the siege of An Loch, the intensification
of the siege of Khe Sanh and the final destruction of Hue. The
encouragement of the NV probably increased the destruction rather than
reducing it.
>
>The current government of Vietnam has estimated that we killed 1.4
>million of their soldiers. That does not include wounded soldiers
>or civilians killed or wounded. The United Staes won every militarily
>significant battle of the Vietnam war. And still the communists
>did not give up. Kerry realized that the war in Vietnam could not
>be won by military means. It could only have been prolonged.

Once again the attribution of such a strategic view to a Lt(j.g.)
aboard a boat in MR IV is incredible.

Of course the "current goverment of Vietnam" would have a high
estimate--they are in Hanoi. They were the enemy. That was who we were
trying to kill!
>
>We do not know the answers to the questions I posed above because
>men like Kerry did speak out. We did pull out in 1973 and the
>surviving POWs did come home. It has been argued that live POWS
>were held back by the Vietnamese and others as hostages or slaves
>but really, would fewer have been withheld had we remained in the
>war longer?

GMAFB! We started our pullout in '68. Despite Kerry's best efforts to
encourage capitulation which wouldn't have resulted in a return of the
POWs we continued negotiation, brought military pressure to bear in
Linebacker I/II and succeeded in getting an incredibly rapid return of
the POWs. It wasn't BECAUSE of Kerry, it was IN SPITE OF him.
>
>What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
>the lies of his government?

He might now be accepted in his newly desired role of American hero.

And, your acceptance of the concept of "the lies of his government"
should be carefully examined.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:04:34 GMT,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

>(BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>I'm not sure who Chuckie is, but there are a few civilian owned T-38s.
>
> Chuck Thornton owned one that was assembled from three wrecked
>T-38 airframes purchased surplus. He allegedly really torqued some
>people off over that since he had tried to buy one several times and
>been rebuffed. It was painted like an Agressor from Nellis, in a
>blue/white/gray scheme that would be hard to spot in the air.

Hard to imagine enough salvageable from three wrecks to put together a
flyable T-38. The magnesium under body and the honeycomb wing
structure would be hard to repair. The seats and the engines would be
the hardest parts to get.

As for the paint job, if his is the one that's been seen on several TV
commercials, it's done in gloss while the Aggressor T-38s were all
flat. The Nellis T-38 Aggressors came in all colors including the
basic white as well as blues, grays, browns and "lizard."

We got them all at Holloman while I was there. Over the NM desert, the
most effective was the brown.

In '83 we got the entire AT-38 fleet painted in a standard
blue-blue-gray gloss camo. That's still what is used by the 435th
doing the fighter lead-in portion of the SUPT syllabus.
>
> The gossip is that MiG 17s are more of a fun flyer, with fewer
>maintenance hours per flight hour, and an easy engine to deal with. I
>think spins in the MiG 17 are unrecoverable, though.

Dunno. Never got a -17 flight, but it would be hard to pack more
performance into a little airplane than a T-38. Spins in a T-38 are
unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable. The airplane
will spin, but it is a decidedly unnatural act and AFAIK only been
accomplished in very abusive flight testing at Edwards.

>

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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 19 Jul 2004 06:45:19 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
>>>I'm pretty sure there was a system in the T-38's where you could throw the
>>>panic switch on approah and it did the rest -- provided you met certain
>>>constraints about being lined up right.
>
>>There is no such system on any T-38, including the new C models with glass
>>cockpit.
>
>Well, I'll be dipped. I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that I had know
>people who experienced such a thing. Also would have sworn there was a lengthy
>flight test and review in Private Pilot about 35 years ago that described the
>whole thing. Well, I have been wrong before, and now it's twice this year and
>it isn't even August.
>
>-- Charlie Springer

No autopilot of any kind in the Talon. It does have stab-aug and it
does have an ILS.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 7/19/04 8:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 19 Jul 2004 14:44:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>Except of course for the self appointed "Warrior Class" who revel in all
>that
>>crap. Save us all from the war lovers.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Lacking warriors you might find yourself today speaking German,
>Japanese or Russian. Next year you might be doing some Quran study and
>waiting for the call of muezzin.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
..

Wars are not won by warriors. They are won by kids barely out of their teens
who do what they were trained to dp. The "Warriors" just take credit for it
all.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 19 Jul 2004 16:23:04 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Wars are not won by warriors. They are won by kids barely out of their teens
>who do what they were trained to dp. The "Warriors" just take credit for it
>all.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

You might consider picking up Stolen Valor by Burkitt at the local
library. He very effectively debunks the "nineteen" myth regarding the
average age of Vietnam combatants.

Give me an army of "kids barely out of their teens" and I'll give you
an effective war-fighting force in about four years, provided I've got
a cadre of senior NCOs and Officers with the mettle to do the job.

Norm Schwartzkopf, Chuck Horner, Tommy Franks, Colin Powell, Joe
Ralston, Ron Fogleman, and a litany of others fill the warrior
definition much better than the teen-ager one.

But, if wishing will make it so in your mind, it will be.


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

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:13:17 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

>>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.

Sez you.

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

How soon you forget Klintoon's musings about how everyone was
too concerned about their rights.
More than once it had to be pointed out to him that the
Constitution wasn't a list of suggestions.
And that was without a war on.

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

No, we aren't aren't going to listen to the French, Germans, and
Russians.

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

Hello, the gang who started the whole ball rolling don't give
a rats ass. Remember, much of the planning got 9/11 occurred
before 2001.

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

Sez the Dumbocreeps. If you're so concerned about your safety,
convert to Islam and move to Saudi Arabia. Than at least, Al-Qaeda
might leave you alone ( as long as your beard is the correct length
and you do nothing but eat, ****, and pray ).

> 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.

The rich and super-rich sounds like Fratman and Bobbin to
me.

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

"maladroit"? OK, now I know you're channeling somebody.

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

As I've explained before, it'll be Bush 44, Bush 45 (Mrs W),
Bush 46 ( Mizz Jeb ), Bush 47/49, Bush 48/50 ( the twins
alternating terms as Prez & VP )

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

Hey Hey!
Ho Ho!
What kind of drugs are you on.
Or is the problem you aren't on your meds?

IBM



__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:56:11 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

>>> 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.

Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?
Raises some interesting questions don't you think?

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

They were correct.

> 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.

When State Courts exceed their authority, the USSC can and will spank
them.

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

And what would you expect a sore loser to say.
I imagine she was fine with things as they were as long as she
liked the result.

> 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.

You seem to have your facts mixed up. It was the Democraps who recruited
a family dynasty of elctoral thieves ( the Daley boys ) to go in and
fix the results. Seems the Daleys don't do too well out of their own
ecosystem.

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

This from a partisan of those who brought us Tammany Hall, and Dumbocrip
wardheelers.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:34:06 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

[snip]

> 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.

Not quite.
The size of the electoral college is approximately the same
as Congress ( both houses ).
Congress only gets a direct vote if the Electoral College is
a dead heat.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:31:24 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

[snip]

> Bernie Kozar, former QB of the Cleveland Browns graduated from a
> 4-year college after two years. He did it because he was smart
> enough to complete a four-year program in two years. I also knew
> a girl in college who got her microbilogy degree in three years.

Which oddly enough is the sort of thing that gets mentioned
in biographies.
Don't recall seeing that in Bobbin's bio.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:14:56 -0500, Jack wrote:

> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>> What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
>> the lies of his government?
>
> Kerry was hardly a Canary in a coal mine by that time, but just another
> silver spoon sucker with political ambitions looking for a bandwagon to
> ride, with no regard for those he defamed.

In short, Fratman was a Kape Kod Kommunist.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
> >>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
>
> You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
> clearer with each posting why think the way you do.

Unless they changed the law back in the 70s, in my day the law didn't require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting date.
I may be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.

George Z.

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/19/2004 3:57 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>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

Good thing you didn't say you decided not to register. We can't have you
admitting you committed a felony, can we?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mark Cook]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >> 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.

Yes, they could have challenged, but would have lost. With the make up of
Congress, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, only the candidate who held
state certification would win this type of challenge. Of course, Bush held
state certification as a result of the remedy crafted by the Democrat
majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
vs. Harris). Instead of ordering a full recount, the court decided that
state certification would be awarded to the winner of 4 Democrat majority
county recount.

"Rougher translation: We're giving you a chance to explain your way out of
the federal law trap into which you stumbled on Nov. 21. But we don't see
how you can do it. And by the way, it isn't only us that you have to
convince. Under another provision of that 1887 act (3 U.S.C. section 15),
the Bush electors that Gov. Jeb Bush has already certified and sent to
Congress, via the archivist of the United States, will be the ones counted,
unless any Gore electors approved by the Florida courts can pass muster with
both the Republican-controlled House and the Senate. Not much chance of
that."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2000-12-13.htm

While Democrats will argue that is was Gore's right to only protest counties
that he wanted, his short-sighted decision cost him the election.

> 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.

That is the problem. The US Constitution gives the state legislature the
right to enact election law. The Florida Supreme Court CANNOT use the state
constitution to change those codes. See the article above.

> But here, they took the issue away from the state court
> and basically declared Bush the winner.

No, Bush was already the winner by that time, see above.

> 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
>
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 7/19/2004 11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>>
>> >>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
>>
>> You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
>> clearer with each posting why think the way you do.
>
>Unless they changed the law back in the 70s, in my day the law didn't
>require
>you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting
>date.
>I may be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.
>
>George Z.


Me too.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: "ian maclure"
>Date: 7/19/2004 10:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:11:03 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
> So Trotskerry sez. The doctor who treated at least one of those
> booboos and his CO at the time would beg to differ.
>
>> 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.
>
> Bet he thought he'd spend his time swanning around the TOnkin
> Gulf Yacht Club. Bet he was surprised.
>
>> 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.
>
> Hmmm, does the chronology match with Johnson realizing he'd
> well and truly screwed the pooch and deciding to skidaddle?
>
>> He had an honorable out and he took it.
>
> Nah, he chickened and ran.
>

And you of course stayed in after your three Purple Hearts and a SIlver star.
Right?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Bill Shatzer]

Buzzer ) writes:
> On 19 Jul 2004 04:32:11 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
> wrote:

-snip-

>>Rules change if one is activated - assuming he was still eligible of
>>activation. Until that happens however, one is essentially a civilian.

>>Certainly he was not subject to the UCMJ.

> Appears he was an ID card carrying member of the Naval Reserve at the
> time. Don't know if they are subject to the UCMJ?

See article 2 of the UCMJ. Reserves are only subject to the UCMJ
while on inactive duty training.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Bill Shatzer]

Ed Rasimus ) writes:

> Sorry, Fred, but unless you are referring to the certification of the
> vote of the EC, you are wrong. The President is elected by majority
> vote of the Electoral College which, although it has the same number
> as Representatives and Senators of the states, is NOT synonymous with
> the Congress.

> The EC votes in December of presidential election years, but does so
> remotely and does not convene in a single location. They, by law, are
> NOT the members of the Congress.

Actually, it is the -constitution- (and not a mere law) which
makes senators and representatives - as well as anyone else
holding an "office or profit or trust under the federal government
- ineligible to be an elector.

> The winner must win by a majority vote, not a plurality. If no
> majority, then the Presidential race goes to the house where each
> Representative gets a vote and the VP race goes to the Senate where
> each State gets one vote.

Actually, that's backwards. The election for president in the house
has the representatives voting by states with each state getting
one vote regardless of the number of representatives and the votes
of a majority of the states required for election. The VP election
in the Senate has the senators voting individually with the votes of
a majority of the senators being required.

Whether the current VP gets a vote in the senate to break a tie-vote
deadlock is not exactly clear.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Brett]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
> >
> > >>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
> >
> > You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
> > clearer with each posting why think the way you do.
>
> Unless they changed the law back in the 70s, in my day the law didn't
require
> you to register

It did, you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>Give me an army of "kids barely out of their teens" and I'll give you
>an effective war-fighting force in about four years, provided I've got
>a cadre of senior NCOs and Officers with the mettle to do the job.

I wasn't much of a soldier, though I wore the uniform and took the
Queen's shilling while I worked at learning the trade (and enjoyed most
of it; the rest I'll call 'character building'. *I* wasn't medevacked
with hypothermia even if other members of my platoon were! :) [Mostly, I
was in my basha when the rain hit so I was drier than they were in the
winds that followed... but why spoil a good story?]).


But with hindsight, one of the reasons the units I served in worked so
well was that each year's incoming cadre of 18 and 19-year old 'officer
cadets' ran head-on into some skilled, experienced and devious SNCOs
with good senior officers to back them up (definition of a good
adjutant... like God, you know He's there but you're glad you never get
proof of His existence :) ) and junior officers being given the chance
to sink or swim as leaders with a platoon of officer-cadets to lead. (If
we managed nothing else, we were a tough audience)

Even in peacetime, sorting "those who can lead" from "those who should
follow" and sifting out "arrogant buggers with too much technical
knowledge who think they *should* lead but lack the necessary skills[1]"
is not a simple task. My respects to those who tried to do so in
wartime.



[1] Yes, with hindsight, that was me. Still, better to try and fail...
and my current 'acting rank' is higher than anything I'd have achieved
in uniform, if you believe the published equivalencies.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> The American public has all they can take of Neocon crap.

Welfare is a tough choice, but I guess you have to live it to appreciate it eh?