Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

[Billy Preston]

"Steve Mellenthin" > 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
>
> 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.

Besides becoming eligible for welfare, it's the only other thing he's done in
his life.

[Billy Preston]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
>
> 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.

I think you are correct. If you entered delayed enlistment you were basically
in the reserves at that point, and selective service only applied to civilians.

[Billy Preston]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> Jack Broughton.

I never met the man, but after reading his book, I still wonder why he didn't
win the war single-handed, and probably faster if all those other people would
just get out of his way. It's been 10 years since I read it, so maybe I've
matured and can re-read it with a different attitude.

To tell the truth, I think I met a man just like him once, but by 1981 those kinds
of Colonels were dead meat in the modern USAF. Team players, not glory hogs
need only apply. There was war before him, war after him, and no one can be
as important as he claimed he was.

Just an observation from reading him.

[WalterM140]

>"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?
>

I would if my Drill Instructor had said to.

I joined the Marine Corps the same day I turned 18. Why register for the draft
then?

I'm sure Master Gunnery Sergeant Beatty didn't know whether or not I should
register for the draft. He just wanted my skinny ass to wind up on Parris
Island.

Which it did.

Walt

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:48:03 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>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.

Well said. Puts the esoterica of discussion into the perspective of
reality.



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

[WalterM140]

>>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.
>


Well, I was 18. If Top Beatty said not to worry about it, that was fine with
me.

Why register for the draft when you have orders for recruit training?

I keep my DD-214 handy in case someone asks. :)

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>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?


Wow! All these notes.

I joined the Marine Corps the day I turned 18 because my mother would have no
part of it.

Why register for the draft when you already have orders to recruit training?

If I ever get busted, I'll show them my DD-214 and Honorable Discharge.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
> Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?

Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator sign.


Walt

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:

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

Around here "Chucky" is the nickname of the Tampa Bay Bucanneers
head football coach Jon Gruden (formerly the Oakland Raiders head
coach). The fans nicknamed him that because (for example) in 3rd and
long situations deep in his own territory with time running down, a
stressed-out Gruden kinda resembles the "Chucky" doll in the 1990
R-rated horror flick, "Child's Play." :-E <--- fangs

(Even if I could afford a T-38, having to pay for my own JP-4 would
take all the fun out of those full-burner takeoffs!!)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: "Billy Preston"
>Date: 7/19/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <eaYKc.6481$Zr.85@okepread01>
>
>"Steve Mellenthin" > 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
>>
>> 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.
>
>Besides becoming eligible for welfare, it's the only other thing he's done in
>his life.
>


How about a Senior Vice President Creative Supervisor with a major American
corporation with operations worldwide? How about you? Ever done anything?.


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

[Regnirps]

(WalterM140) wrote:

>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.

The NYT and all the other news orgs who investigayed over the last two years
concluded that Bush would have won recounts in the areas Gore wanted recounted.
This issue is so sooo dead that anyone still carying on about it is just trying
to poison the well!

-- Charlie Springer

[Steve Mellenthin]

>How about a Senior Vice President Creative Supervisor with a major American
>corporation with operations worldwide? How about you? Ever done anything?.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

VP level program manager in AF Aeronautical Systems Division. Worked B-1, B-2,
KC-135R, F-15, F-16, F-22, amomg others. Executive support for 3 Star
commander. Otherwise nothing at all.

[WalterM140]

>The NYT and all the other news orgs who investigayed over the last two years
>concluded that Bush would have won recounts in the areas Gore wanted
>recounted.
>This issue is so sooo dead that anyone still carying on about it is just
>trying
>to poison the well!

Can you source that?

Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
to vote at all, mooting recounts.

But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.

Walt

[Regnirps]

(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.
>

An M406? I assume he wasn't throwing the launcher ;-) Anyway, why wouldn't a
high loft do it? Besides, they armed as close as 14 meters and the wound was a
small cut from a fragment of steel or stone. I wouldn't want to be standing up
ogling 50 feet from one of those!

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(WalterM140) wrote:

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

Yes. Democratic Socialism is the natural evolution of politics! Now we only
have to kill half the population. Then the right wing half of whats left, then
.....


-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>>Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?
>>
>>Doolittle, I would think.

>I have no idea. I just flew he missions.

Jusy wondered. I have home movies of LeMay visiting Duxford. Curious about the
evolution of his tight formation strategies and all that.

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(John S. Shinal) wrote:


> 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.

I can tell you first hand from filming takeoffs that the MiG is REALLY LOUD!

But not as loud as when the Blue Angels took off and the two trailing planes
split right and left as soon as they were off the ground. "Here, set up right
here. You'll get a great shot. Chuckle chuckle". The left one went right over
my head - way too close to fit in the camera frame at wide angle. Ever have the
experience of actually turning into jello? I was wearing my best hearing
protectors, but it was my insides that went all rubbery :-) I remember watching
Phantom engine tests just for fu. It was nothing like this. But then this time
there were five FA-18s at once.

Poor guy's left gear was stuck down and he had to skip the show and fly to a
nearby Air Force base for a landing.

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
>
> 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.

They called it "Inactive Reserve". My disharge shows 6 months if inactive
reserve and 18 days of active duty (I got a medal :0). Later on I got into much
more interesting "civilian" activities. But I can't tell you, you'd just laugh.

-- Charlie Springer

[BUFDRVR]

>How much longer would the POWs have had to wait for
>repatriation?

Recent interviews with former NVN government and military officers and the
publication of certain NVN documents reveal the U.S. anti-war effort actually
encouraged NVN to continue the conflict in hopes of getting the U.S. out of the
war entirely, including support for SVN. There is no doubt that had several
congressmen (most, but not all, democrats) not openly called for congress to
cut off *all* funding for the war in SE Asia, that the NVN would not have
walked out of Paris in December 1972.


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: (Regnirps)
>Date: 7/19/2004 6:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>>Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?
>>>
>>>Doolittle, I would think.
>
>>I have no idea. I just flew he missions.
>
>Jusy wondered. I have home movies of LeMay visiting Duxford. Curious about
>the
>evolution of his tight formation strategies and all that.
>
>-- Charlie Springer
>

We were just a bunch ot 19 year olds who had the following priorities:

1. Perform well on the mission.

2. Get home alive

3. Get a three day pass to London or Paris.

4. Get a lot of wild wild woman to play with.

Who invented the tight formation? Never gave it a thought. We had higher
piorities. We had all of Europe at our feet. All we had to do was to figure out
what to do with 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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (Steve Mellenthin)
>Date: 7/19/2004 5:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>How about a Senior Vice President Creative Supervisor with a major American
>>corporation with operations worldwide? How about you? Ever done anything?.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>VP level program manager in AF Aeronautical Systems Division. Worked B-1,
>B-2,
>KC-135R, F-15, F-16, F-22, amomg others. Executive support for 3 Star
>commander. Otherwise nothing at all.

Good work. Now stay in there and fight to put a SR in front of that VP. I know
you can do 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

[BUFDRVR]

Ed Rasimus wrote;

>In '83 we got the entire AT-38 fleet painted in a standard
>blue-blue-gray gloss camo.

Affectionately known as "Smurf Jets".

>Spins in a T-38 are
>unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable.

Not sure if they did this while you were at UPT Ed, but early on in the T-38
syllabus they take you out and demo how resistant the T-38 is to spin. The
instructor flys because if they let a student try, you know they'de get it into
a spin ;)


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]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 18 Jul 2004 23:06:39 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
>
>
> You need to read some good history of the war and stop reading Terry
> McAullife dispatches.

I am not familiar with Mr McAullife.

>
> 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.
>

Yes, that is as I recall.

> 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.

I find it very hard to beleive that you blame all that on Kerry's
testimony.

> >
> >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.

Why? It was the same view that was help by a great many ordinary
Americans at that time.

>
> 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!

If we killed that many and they didn't give up, or we killed fewer
and they didn't give up, isn't the essential fact that they
didn't give up?

> >
> >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.

Do you really think that absent domestic protests the US would
ever have pulled our ground forces out of Vietnam while the war
continued?

> >
> >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.

I find it odd that you think that would be a good thing.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> 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.

Yes I am referring to the certification of the vote of the EC and yes,
I am correct. The USSC has held (in 1877) the the Congress is the
sole judge of the validity of the electoral votes. Thus the Congress
can reject perfectly valid electoral votes cast befor the safe harbot
deadline, as was done in 1877 and can also accept electoral votes submitted
after the safe harbor deadline as was done in 1877 and 1961.

There would be considerable furor, to say the least, if the Congress
were to reverse an election by rejecting perfectly valid elecoral
votes. But that does not mean that they cannot.

So, in a very real sense, it is always the newly elected Congress
that elects the President and Vice President though almost always
they simply applyt their impimatuer to the vote of the Electoral College.



> 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

No, each state gets one vote.


> and the VP race goes to the Senate where
> each State gets one vote.

No, each Senator gets one vote.

--

FF

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> 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.

I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
so think of what it does for a real pilot.

Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.

The USAF has been turning every cockpit into a glass cockpit. They
did the KC-135s that the ANG flies a couple of years ago, even.
That's real dedication to glass cockpits, I'd say.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> How about a Senior Vice President Creative Supervisor with a major American
> corporation with operations worldwide? How about you? Ever done anything?.

A Vice President who supervises? Must be a rinky-dink outfit. Did you have to
start the boilers and make the coffee coming on shift, as well?

I've done a lot more then that, I'm a capitalist. I gather capital to expand our
business, so that we can hire more people to increase production. We actually
produce widgets in our company. When I look at the Bush tax cuts, and the
alternatives to fighting recession, I don't really like that we didn't pay down the
debt, but there was no other choice. To fight inflation you need to put money in
the hands of capitalists. The democrats in Washington, just don't get it.

I'm not happy with Bush signing every spending bill he gets, to get the programs
he wants, but I think he's the guy that got us out of the recession in only four
years! That's a hell of an accomplishment. All I see out of the Kerry dreams, is
more money for everyone out of a central planning committee in DC. His wife
is a heir, not a capitalist. His idea of economy, is you send all your money to
Washington, and Congress will distribute it. The Soviets and LBJ already tried that.

[Billy Preston]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
> to vote at all, mooting recounts.

Her county has major voting problems. Her county has zero leadership at the local
level to facilitate the vote in any election, and no one there to this day knows who is
eligible to vote. Hers is the only county that still uses typewriters and 3x5 cards to
produce the rolls for each precinct.

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:01:07 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:


> 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.

The F-5 model with the long pointy nose (the F, maybe) spun more
easily and was extremely hard to recover. It took jettisoning the
canopy to break the spin, in fact. The T-38 and the other F-5s
weren't nearly so difficult to recover, but they weren't really easy,
either. The gouge about "easy to spin, easy to recover; hard to spin,
hard to recover" has a certain amount of truth to it.

We, Dryden, were spinning (intentionally) a 3/8ths model of the F-15
when that F-5 got into trouble. Ken had given a briefing on spins,
including the vulnerability of long pointy noses, to a group that
included the AFFTC commander about two days before the F-5 spin. The
commander called our director and asked if anyone else had any
predictions he should know about.

Did you ever run into the inverted pitch hang up on the T-38? It's
well-known in the Flying Qualities community but I haven't heard that
many pilots talk about it. I think the F-5s had it, too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Bill Shatzer]

"ian maclure" ) writes:
> 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.

'Tis the House of Representives, not congress as a whole, which can
select a president. And that duty falls on the HoR when no one
receives a majority of the votes in the electoral college. A dead
heat is not required.

The HoR selected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson in 1825 even
though Jackson received more electoral votes - Henry Clay finished
3rd but secured enough electoral votes to deny either Jackson or
Adams a majority.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 19 Jul 2004 00:04:17 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >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?

I never said he was speaking figuratively, that is your straw man
again.

I do not believe that you take all his statements as literal. No one
does.

Also, just to disabuse you of the concept in advance, I never said
that NONE of his remarks were literal either. I think it is obvious
to both of us and especially to the Senators in attendance, when he
was speaking generally and when he was speaking of specifics.

To claim that what he said was always one way or the other is
simply dishonest.

> >
> >>
> >> 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.

Your straw man again.

> 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.

Again, when the secretary of Defense publicly states that the United
States will not observe the Geneva Conventions, and when he publicly
scoffs at accusations of wrongdoing he sends a clear message on
down the line. And one must assume that message encourages the sort
of abuses as ocurred at Abu Graib.

What of the doctrine of command responsibility? What should we
conclude about the resonsibilites of the officer who received the
ICRC complaints? What about the officers above them?

> 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. a Convention rules,
> but the whole story is that the opinion did
> NOT result in an acceptance of that policy.

I don't know what you're talking about here but it looks like your
strawman again.

>
> >> >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.

War and warriors are topics that broad beyond the bounds of the
current
discussion. You ran off on a tangent. I'll not follow your stray
dog.

> >
> >> >
> >> >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.

I do not recall anyone in the present administartion saying or writing
that they felt any responsibility whatsover for the crimes at Abu
Ghraib.
So no, not at all in the same manner.

Now, back to the discussion at hand, do you not see any parrallels
between what Sherman wrote about the collective guilt of himself,
Rawlins and every commander in the Union Army and what Kerry said
about all American soldiers in Vietnam?

> Does that mean that Lincoln condoned war crimes?

Did Lincoln publicly declare that the Union should not abide by the
laws of war? (It wouldn't surprise me, he gave short shrift to
teh habeas protections in the Constitution.)

> >
> >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.

Sherman limited his accusation to ALL commanders. I suppose that is
a big difference. But do you see NO similarity?

> >
> >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.

Do you not claim to have a view of the global strategic picture in
Vietnam and also in the world today? How prescient are you?


>
> 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.

How?

> 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.

Yet the communists did not quit. Do you think that without political
pressure in the US we would have agreed to pull our troops out while
the NVA was still fighting?

> >
> >> 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.

No. I asked for an example of a promt investigation without an
extensive, even illegal coverup or effort at obstruction.

> Or, how about the Turkestan incident since this is an
> aviation group?

OK, tell us about it.

> >
>
> >> 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.

At 18 I met a man, his nickname ironically was 'Saint'. Saw him
a few times but then I went away to college. Saint said
that when he was in Vietnam he killed 56 people. Some of those
were civilians and some of those, women and children.

I do not doubt what you say about your experience. I do not doubt
what Saint said either. Why should I?

> I was there in '66
> and I was there again in '72-'73.

How much time did you spend on the ground in combat zones? How much
contact did you have with EPWs? How much contact did you have with
villagers in-country?

> I continue to associate with
> literally hundreds of warriors from the period--USAF/USA/USN/USMC. Not
> one of them agrees with Kerry.

You asked each and every one of them this? I don't believe that you
did. Or is it wrong for me to assume that you must have literally
polled each and every one?

> 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!
> >

I'd like ot see your evidence. Here you can find lists of the
'alleged' veterans, along with other participants:

<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/1st_Marine_roster.html#Robert%20S.%20Craig>
<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/1st_Air_Cav_roster.html#John%20Mallory>
<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/3d_Marine_roster.html#Allen%20Akers>
<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/POW_roster.html#Jon%20Floyd>
<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/Misc_roster.html#Moderators>
<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/3d_World_roster.html#Evan%20Haney>
<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/25th_Infantry_roster.html#Ron%20Podlaski>
<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/82d_Airborne.html#Charles%20Leffler>
<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/1st_Infantry_roster.html#Robert%20McConnachie>
<http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/Americal_roster.html#William%20Bezanson>
<>

> >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.
>

But have they no objection to war?

--

FF

[Bill Shatzer]

BUFDRVR ) writes:
>>How much longer would the POWs have had to wait for
>>repatriation?
>
> Recent interviews with former NVN government and military officers and the
> publication of certain NVN documents reveal the U.S. anti-war effort actually
> encouraged NVN to continue the conflict in hopes of getting the U.S. out of the
> war entirely, including support for SVN.

There was never any possibility that they were going to -not- continue
the conflict - with or without the anti-war movement. They had, after all,
been fighting that conflict for more than two decades - since 1946 - and
were willing to invest indefinite lives and treasure.

There was simply no question that they were going to continue the conflict -
with or without a brief "pause" to let US troops withdraw "with honor".

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Tom Cervo]

>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.
>

Not hard, if you don't party.

[Billy Preston]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
>
> But have they no objection to war?

As a veteran, I have no objection to wars that serve the oppressed,
but I object to wars of conquest.

[Regnirps]

(WalterM140) wrote:

>>The NYT and all the other news orgs who investigayed over the last two years
>>concluded that Bush would have won recounts in the areas Gore wanted
>>recounted.
>>This issue is so sooo dead that anyone still carying on about it is just
>>trying to poison the well!

>Can you source that?

I read the paper. I don't see why you shouldn't.

>Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
>to vote at all, mooting recounts.

And how did she determine this? Was this in a district Gore contested? Did he
contest the counts in the panhandle or the military votes?

>But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.

"The NYT said what I suggest."

-- Charlie Springer

[WalterM140]

>>But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.
>
>"The NYT said what I suggest."
>
>-- Charlie Springer
>

So you don't have a source.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>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.

Very interesting. Thanks.

Saw Howard Fineman of Newsweek on 'Hardball' last night. He said the Dems were
ouy-lawyered in 2000 and they had admitted as much. Kerry is working to be
better prepared this year.



Walt

[R Haskin]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:04:34 GMT,

> 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.

IFF AT-38Cs are actually now painted in the 2-tone light gray paint scheme
used by the F-16.

Back circa '99 the decision was made by AETC to repaint both SUPT and IFF
T-38s a strange 2-tone gray color which we called the "cow" or "Gateway"
paint job. The idea was that all T-38s would be T-38Cs, and theoretically
interchangeable between missions and units.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/501-600/walk532_T-38C_Horn/02.jpg

The IFF guys were able to convince AETC to allow a new, different paint
scheme on IFF jets to reflect their "fighter" status, and thus this new
paintjob was born. They started getting this F-16 style paintjob in 2003
and the fleet is getting repainted as they go through depot.

http://www.flybyaviation.com/T-38C%20-%20KDH%2012-15-2003%20copy.jpg

[Jeff Crowell]

Mary Shafer wrote:
> The F-5 model with the long pointy nose (the F, maybe) spun more
> easily and was extremely hard to recover. It took jettisoning the
> canopy to break the spin, in fact. The T-38 and the other F-5s
> weren't nearly so difficult to recover, but they weren't really easy,
> either. The gouge about "easy to spin, easy to recover; hard to spin,
> hard to recover" has a certain amount of truth to it.

The E's and F's we had at Top Gun in '81 had the shark nose mod
and leading edge extension. That they were spinnable was proven
(along with difficulty of recovery) when the skipper (MiG killer
Roy Cash) had to return one to the taxpayers.

We all talked about jettisoning the canopy and, in the case of the
2-seaters F's, directing the backseater to eject, in attempts to get
some nosedown pitch (the backseaters used to point out that
having the frontseater leave, instead, was more likely to work--
particularly since HE was the hamburger who had gotten you into
that fix anyway--given the realtive positions of the seats). Nobody
ever had to test the backseater idea, and I am skeptical about the
canopy idea. If you've got no airflow anyway, what good to throw
away the window? Then again, what do you have to lose?



Jeff

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...

> >Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
> > Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?
>
> Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator sign.
>
>
> Walt

What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.

George Z.

[Typhoon502]

(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.

Yeah, you just had to push the "autoland" button, right? ;)

[SteveM8597]

>Good work. Now stay in there and fight to put a SR in front of that VP. I
>know
>you can do it.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Sorry but I am a retired, retired triple dipper 35 years with the AF but too
young for social security. So I think I will just continue to watch the kids
throw sand on one another in this here sandbox, and sell stuff on Ebay.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)

That doesn't track. Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.

>with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
>think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
>told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
>so think of what it does for a real pilot.

Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
window.
>
>Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
>the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.

The glass mod does include a HUD.
>


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: (SteveM8597)
>Date: 7/20/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Good work. Now stay in there and fight to put a SR in front of that VP. I
>>know
>>you can do it.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Sorry but I am a retired, retired triple dipper 35 years with the AF but too
>young for social security. So I think I will just continue to watch the kids
>throw sand on one another in this here sandbox, and sell stuff on Ebay.
>

Yup. Ebay is fun.



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 20 Jul 2004 02:31:02 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote;
>
>>In '83 we got the entire AT-38 fleet painted in a standard
>>blue-blue-gray gloss camo.
>
>Affectionately known as "Smurf Jets".
>
>>Spins in a T-38 are
>>unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable.
>
>Not sure if they did this while you were at UPT Ed, but early on in the T-38
>syllabus they take you out and demo how resistant the T-38 is to spin. The
>instructor flys because if they let a student try, you know they'de get it into
>a spin ;)

Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38. In Lead-in we
regularly put the stick in every corner of the cockpit and abused the
airplane in ways that used to dazzle the FAIPs we had come through the
program with 1500-2000 hours already in the jet. No spins.

The procedure which MIGHT get a spin was full aft stick at max rate.
But, it had to be done after a nose down unload excursion at nearly
max rate as well. So, pump the nose down hard then quickly reverse and
bang the pole back into your lap. Most folks can't begin to get the
stick rate required and unless the bird is rigged poorly, even then
won't get a departure.

It used to be a common Aggressor trick with the Talon to "nose
pump"--get trapped in lag near to a gun shot, so pump the stick fore
and aft trying to get an couple of extra degrees of lead for a film
shot. Even then, no spins.

We taught rudder rolls, over/under, loaded/unloaded, with or without
full aileron deflection. No spins. We taught gun defense jinking as:
1.) check airspeed to be sure you're below corner velocity, 2.) now
plant the stick in random corners of the cockpit at full speed. 3.)
lather, rinse, repeat. No spins.

It just won't spin. Run it straight up to zero airspeed, put in full
rudder and max aileron--no spins. It simply swaps ends.


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

[WalterM140]

>> >Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
>> > Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?
>>
>> Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator
>sign.
>>
>>
>> Walt
>
>What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
>been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.
>
>George Z.
>

Sorry. the subject was the certification of Florida electors in 2000.

Walt

[Jack]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> The procedure which MIGHT get a spin was full aft stick at max rate.
> But, it had to be done after a nose down unload excursion at nearly
> max rate as well. So, pump the nose down hard then quickly reverse and
> bang the pole back into your lap.

This had to be done in an inverted position, as I remember it, in order
to get that last bit of pitch excursion -- from full nose up (inverted)
to max rate nose down in order to get the Talon to spin.

I never wanted to walk home, so I wouldn't know from personal experience.


Jack

[Howard Austin]

(long Snip)
>
>We taught rudder rolls, over/under, loaded/unloaded, with or without
>full aileron deflection. No spins. We taught gun defense jinking as:
>1.) check airspeed to be sure you're below corner velocity, 2.) now
>plant the stick in random corners of the cockpit at full speed. 3.)
>lather, rinse, repeat. No spins.
>
>It just won't spin. Run it straight up to zero airspeed, put in full
>rudder and max aileron--no spins. It simply swaps ends.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


The T-38 dash one used to read "If the aircraft is allowed to enter a
stabilized spin loss of the aircraft and crew is probable."

If I remember correctly it took the Northrup test pilots several weeks
to learn how to make it spin. Fortunately their aircraft were equiped
with recovery chutes.

Howard Austin

--
--
Howard Austin >
none

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >>But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.
> >
> >"The NYT said what I suggest."
> >
> >-- Charlie Springer
> >
>
> So you don't have a source.
>
> Walt

I can't believe you missed the multiple reports by every legitimate media
source confirming that Bush won legitimately, but here is the requested link
anyway:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/

Jarg

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >> >Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
> >> > Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?
> >>
> >> Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator
> >sign.
> >>
> >>
> >> Walt
> >
> >What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
> >been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.
> >
> >George Z.
> >
>
> Sorry. the subject was the certification of Florida electors in 2000.
>
> Walt

So, the comment about Daschle would have referred to something like what Denny
Hastert did with the discharge petition for the vote on concurrent receipt which
got only ONE Republican vote from the entire House? Or doesn't one size fit all
when it comes to politics.....nasty when the Dems do it in the Senate, but OK
when the Repubs do it in the House? Sounds like a case of the whines to me.

George Z.

[John S. Shinal]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>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.

This was on a cover for Plane & Pilot or something similar
around 1990. You are right it was gloss, I thought it was
blue/gray/white but it may have been just blue& white. Medium sized
N-number on the side. It may well have been sold & repainted since
then. I do recall that Thornton was the first private T-38, though.


> The Nellis T-38 Aggressors came in all colors including the
>basic white as well as blues, grays, browns and "lizard."

I have an older book about Red Flag that shows a bunch of
different Agressor color schemes - some are Rooskie knockoffs, and
some appear to be improvised. Most look pretty effective.

>We got them all at Holloman while I was there. Over the NM desert, the
>most effective was the brown.

I heard the worst was painted like a bruised banana for a
while - it was supposed to be a modified Snake scheme that went awry.
Eventually they repainted it so people wouldn't tally it from so far
away.

[Ron]

Guess the "Shamu" paint job will be a thing of the past..

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

[Ron]

> Was he flying "company"
>SR-71?

I didnt think there was such a thing, other than the A-11, which were well
before F-18.


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

[Billy Preston]

"George Z. Bush" wrote
>
> What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
> been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.

The thread died a month ago bud. Gotta know when it's over, and not just
keep blabbing like you do.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

First of all I apologise for the poor quality of the earlier article.
I was tired and let it go without proofreading. You all have been
kind in avoiding criticism.

"ian maclure" > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:30:57 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > 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.
>
> Do they use the .50M2? I don't think they do or didn't in
> years past. Some of their vehicle mount as 20mm cannon
> though.

I haven't been able to find the discussion but recall that he was
refering to their 'heavy' machine gun which if they had one I
would guess to have been 12.7 mm or equivalent. Like most Swedes,
he seemed to have a better grasp of English than most Americans
but might have faltered on some of the technical lingo.

>
> > He was taught that to do so was a violation of the Geneva Conventions,
>
> Incorrect.
>

Ambiguous.

Historically, (and on-topic for re.aviation.military) some .50
caliber ammunition has been incinidiery or explosive. It is
probably a violation of the GCs the Hague, or other treaties
to use these directly against persons.

Possibly there were objections voiced by other nations about the
use of .50 caliber machine guns in Vietnam predicated on the
presumption that explosive or incindiery (or tracer) rounds
were the norm.

I agree that the statement by Kerry appears on its face to be wrong,
absent elaboration.

My point is that I've heard other folks say that using a .50 cal
machine gun against people is a war crime, though I didn't agree
with them.

Digressing, were there not objections to the effect that the US
used napalm in Vietnam in a manner that violated the GCs?

--

FF

[Brett]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
>
> That doesn't track.

Mary was at NASA, F/A-18's, SR-71's and T-38's have been and are in their
inventory.

> Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
> SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
> either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
> AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
> NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.
>
> >with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
> >think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
> >told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
> >so think of what it does for a real pilot.
>
> Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
> window.
> >
> >Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
> >the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.
>
> The glass mod does include a HUD.
> >
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:33:39 -0400, "Brett" >
wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
>>
>> That doesn't track.
>
>Mary was at NASA, F/A-18's, SR-71's and T-38's have been and are in their
>inventory.
>
All the more reason to say it wasn't "B" models.


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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"ian maclure" > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:30:57 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
....
>
> Do they use the .50M2? I don't think they do or didn't in
> years past. Some of their vehicle mount as 20mm cannon
> though.
>
> > He was taught that to do so was a violation of the Geneva Conventions,
>
> Incorrect.
>

Oh, here's someone else you can argue with:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Cuy36B.1DJ%40ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com&output=gplain>

Though his comment may be based on something more recent that the 1949
GCs.

--

FF

[BUFDRVR]

Mary wrote:

>Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD?

Hmm, good question, I know the T-38Cs headed for IFF do, but I'm not sure about
the SUPT T-38s?


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

Bill Shatzer wrote:

>There was never any possibility that they were going to -not- continue
>the conflict - with or without the anti-war movement.

Of course, perhaps instead of "continue the war", I should have typed "the U.S.
anti-war effort actually encouraged NVN to resist peace inititives".


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

Typhoon502 wrote:

>> 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.
>
>Yeah, you just had to push the "autoland" button, right? ;)
>

Yep, and tell the instuctor; "no sir, I swear I landed it by myself..."


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:

>Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38.

I guess the IP demo was done so they could accurately perform the demo?

Got a book review brief on your book today Ed (yes,yes I'm going to get it!).
Only critique was that you used too much jargon. The review was done by a Comm
officer.


BUFDRVR

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

[Michael Kelly]

They do. My next door neighbor flew T-38Cs in SUPT and absolutely loved
the glass cockpit.

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer

BUFDRVR wrote:
> Mary wrote:
>
>
>>Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD?
>
>
> Hmm, good question, I know the T-38Cs headed for IFF do, but I'm not sure about
> the SUPT T-38s?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Regnirps]

Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam wrote:

>>>But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.

>>"The NYT said what I suggest."

>>-- Charlie Springer

>So you don't have a source.

You asked for quote so I quoted myself. It happens to be true.

-- Charlie Springer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 21 Jul 2004 00:19:04 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38.
>
>I guess the IP demo was done so they could accurately perform the demo?
>
>Got a book review brief on your book today Ed (yes,yes I'm going to get it!).
>Only critique was that you used too much jargon. The review was done by a Comm
>officer.
>
>
>BUFDRVR

Dunno about your comm officer. The "jargon" is the language of the
business. IOW, I didn't popularize or "dumb-down" the language ala
"Top Gun". But, I spell out all acronyms and there is a
glossary--adequate so that even my wife could understand it and my
editor would accept it.

If you don't hurry, you'll be way behind when the new book comes out
in February.

I've been very fortunate to get cover blurbs for the new one from
Walter Boyne, Dan Ford, Tom Wilson, Mark Berent and Robin Olds. Makes
me blush--but I'll get over it.



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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Regnirps) wrote in message >...
> (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?).

Mr Kramer was speaking (correctly) about cumulative probablity whereas
the other argument was correct about the probability per event.

If you throw the dice twenty times the probability that you'll throw
snake eyes is higher than if you only threw them 10 times BECAUSE
the probability of throwing snake eyes is the same on each roll.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote:
>> >
> > ... in my day the law didn't
> require
> > you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting date.

>
> It did,


You sure about htat?

> you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
> Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.


I believe that is true also.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(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.

My recollection from 2001 (which could be wrong) was that every Democratic
Congressman from FL got up and voiced an objection.

The reason no Senator signed on to the objection was becuase Al Gore
did not want any Senator to do so. As you know, Joe Lieberman, his
vice presidential cadidate, was a Senator.

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

IMHO, the USSC ruled correctly that the differences in voting
technology and variation standards for acceptance of a ballot
from one county to the next in FL violated the equal protection
clause of the 14th amendment.

In view of that, it made no sense to enjoin FL from attempting to
remedy the error.

>
> 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.

The 14th amendment quit eclearly trumps state constitutions. It is one
area where the USSC clearly can and should, if necessary, overule
the state courts.

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

I don't know her basis for that statement. The post-election examination
of the undervoted and overvoted ballots found that few of them had
anything that could be reasonably interpreted as the clear intent of
the voter by any objective standard. Fewer than 1500 throughout the
entire state where there were perhaps 100,000 under and/or overvoted
ballots in total.

If the objective standard used to determine the clear intent of the
voter required at least one of the four corners of the chad to
be broken then the post election showed that Bush won the vote by
approximately (just a tiny bit less IIRC) the same as the margin
at the time the USSC closed the show down. However, if 'dimpled'
chads were interpreted as indicating the clear intent of the voter
then Gore would have won by a very small margin. One should consider
how a chad gets to be dimpled. If the ejection port under the chad
on a votamatic becomes clogged with accumulated chads then it may
become impossible to press the chad down far enough to seperate the
corners resulting in a dimpled chad. It seems reasonable to suppose
that the ejection ports under those chads that are being punched out
most often will be most likely to become plugged. So it may be
that the votomatics discriminate slightly against whoever is
getting the most votes.

This is from an article in the Washington Post published about
6 months into 2001.

One Republican dominated county used a two-page ballot for the
Presidential candidates and that county had the highest rate of
rejected ballots due ot overvotes. Up to 15% of the voters
had voted for President on page 1, and voted for president again
on page 2.

As in the country at large there is no clear answer to the question
who won the popular vote in Florida, let alone who would have won
absent mechanical malfunctions and voter error.

The person the Congress says is the winner becomes President on
inaguration day.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> >Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
> > >> > Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator
> sign.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Walt
> > >
> > >What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
> > >been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.
> > >
> > >George Z.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry. the subject was the certification of Florida electors in 2000.
> >
> > Walt
>
> So, the comment about Daschle would have referred to something like what Denny
> Hastert did with the discharge petition for the vote on concurrent receipt which
> got only ONE Republican vote from the entire House? Or doesn't one size fit all
> when it comes to politics.....nasty when the Dems do it in the Senate, but OK
> when the Repubs do it in the House? Sounds like a case of the whines to me.
>


What are you talking about?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Mark Cook" > wrote in message >...
>
> 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.
>

As I recall, the second FLSC decision that was appealed to the USSC
required that all undervoted ballots through out the state of FL
be recounted by hand using the standard for interpretation established
in FL election law: 'the clear intent of the voter'.

This was the decision that was first stayed, and later overturned
by the USSC.

> "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

This article concerns the first ruling of the FLSC which was appealed
to the USSC, not the second, which I think is the one Walt was writing
about.

--

FF

[Ed Rasimus]

On 21 Jul 2004 13:30:09 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>"Brett" > wrote in message >...
>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote:
>>> >
>> > ... in my day the law didn't
>> require
>> > you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting date.
>
>>
>> It did,
>
>
>You sure about htat?
>
>> you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
>> Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.
>
>
>I believe that is true also.

The law has always required males to register (since the original
establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
birthday.

The registration requirement was suspended from 1975 to 1980, but
that's the only time. Lots of info at http://www.sss.gov/Default.htm


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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...
> >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.
>
> Very interesting. Thanks.
>
> Saw Howard Fineman of Newsweek on 'Hardball' last night. He said the Dems were
> ouy-lawyered in 2000 and they had admitted as much. Kerry is working to be
> better prepared this year.
>

Many states use different voting technologies in different precints and
probably most will have different defacto standards for how they handle
the ballots. We will probably see a lot of court cases arising pursuant
to the precedent set by Bush v Gore.

--

FF

[Brett]

"Fred the peabrained moron" > wrote
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> >> >
> > > ... in my day the law didn't
> > require
> > > you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your
reporting date.
>
> >
> > It did,
>
>
> You sure about htat?

Well since you eliminated what the response was given to I'm sure my
response to the comment originally presented that you cut away was correct.

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:06:33 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> On 18 Jul 2004 23:06:39 -0700, (Fred the Red
>> Shirt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You need to read some good history of the war and stop reading Terry
>> McAullife dispatches.
>
> I am not familiar with Mr McAullife.

Chairman of Dumbocrapic Nazi Comintern or DNC.

[snip]

> I find it very hard to beleive that you blame all that on Kerry's
> testimony.

No, he had help. But it was still TREASON.

[snip]

> Why? It was the same view that was help by a great many ordinary
> Americans at that time.

Kennedy and Johnson's legacy to the body politic.

[snip]

> If we killed that many and they didn't give up, or we killed fewer
> and they didn't give up, isn't the essential fact that they
> didn't give up?

Having the ability to indecriminately execute anybody who says
you nay helps a great deal.
Wonder how docile the North Vietnamese population would have been
had they known just how bad the losses actually were.

[snip]

> Do you really think that absent domestic protests the US would
> ever have pulled our ground forces out of Vietnam while the war
> continued?

Wouldn't have been any need to absent the RVN capitulating.

[snip]

> I find it odd that you think that would be a good thing.

Who says it is?
Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE.

IBM

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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Bill Shatzer) wrote in message >...
> "ian maclure" ) writes:
> > 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.
>
> 'Tis the House of Representives, not congress as a whole, which can
> select a president. And that duty falls on the HoR when no one
> receives a majority of the votes in the electoral college. A dead
> heat is not required.
>
> The HoR selected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson in 1825 even
> though Jackson received more electoral votes - Henry Clay finished
> 3rd but secured enough electoral votes to deny either Jackson or
> Adams a majority.

What you and Mr McClure and others are not considering is that it
is the Congress, meeting in joint session, that decides which
Elecotral votes to accept and which to reject. The USSC held in
1877 that the decision of the Congress in doing so is not
subject to judicial review.

So the Congress can see to it that no candidate recceives a
majority in the EC by selective rejecting electoral votes.

Not as silly as it sounds. Consider:

State laws dictating to electors how they should vote have been
ruled unconstitutional. So in a close election a small number
of maverick or corrupt electors could swing the vote in the
EC for a candidate who would otherwise have lost, and the Congress
can reject their votes.

--

FF

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:57:14 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

[snip]

> Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
> to vote at all, mooting recounts.

Congresswoman Brown is a barking moonbat.
She gives lunatics a bad name.

IBM

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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Fred the
Red Shirt > writes
>My point is that I've heard other folks say that using a .50 cal
>machine gun against people is a war crime, though I didn't agree
>with them.

Urban myth, I think, growing out of it being both technically illegal
and practically pointless to fire the .50" spotting rifles for 106mm
recoilless rifles at people (it fired explosive rounds designed to make
an obvious flash when they hit the tank you were aiming for, hence
violating Hague rules).

I've heard stories about how you had to claim you were shooting a .50"
Browning at the enemy's web gear or helmets or rifles and it was just
too bad their bodies got in the way. However, I've got the UK tactical
guidance for the .50" heavy machine gun at work, and it's almost
enthusiastic in its description of the effects on personnel as well as
light armoured vehicles, soft-skinned transport, patrol boats and even
helicopters and aircraft if you manage a hit. Doesn't sound like there
are legal worries about firing .50" machineguns at people in the UK.

(*Please* don't shoot one at me. They sound like very effective weapons.
I would hate to have to go through the trouble of cowering and appeasing
you at the time to persuade you to stop, and then hunting you down and
killing you later :) )

>Digressing, were there not objections to the effect that the US
>used napalm in Vietnam in a manner that violated the GCs?

I daresay a lawyer could take the case, and even that there were
instances of illegality (where a pilot didn't land pre-strike and get
signed declarations from everyone who might be hit that 'I agree that I
am (delete as applicable) (a) an active armed member of the Viet Cong
who will be carrying my weapon when this airstrike hits, (b) a uniformed
soldier of the North Vietnamese Army, (c) so strongly sympathetic to
those groups that I directly supply aid and comfort to them'.

Technically, without those signed declarations from every single person
you might possibly injure with your strike, you're potentially a war
criminal for not taking all possible precautions to protect
noncombatants. However, I don't think you'd get a case out of it. The
GCs require you to try to avoid noncombatant casualties where they would
be disproportionate to the military results, not to eschew them
completely. (As a data point, notice how few civilians were killed per
ton of bombs dropped when the B-52s hit Hanoi in late 1972)


Bear in mind that the US and UK were attacked for "illegally" using
cluster munitions in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. While there have
been cries that assorted Presidents, secretaries of states and senior
air marshalls will be prosecuted and sentenced to life at hard labour
for their wickedness, none of these claims have amounted to much more
than hot air.

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

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

[BUFDRVR]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>If you don't hurry, you'll be way behind when the new book comes out
>in February.
>

I actually grab the copy that the comm guy used and read up to page 20 while
half paying attention to the other book reviews. I was hooked by page 20 so I'm
resolved to buy it this weekend.


BUFDRVR

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

[WalterM140]

>The law has always required males to register (since the original
>establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
>awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
>immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
>birthday.
>

ON the 18th birthday?

Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
not to worry about it.

Walt

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)

>
>>The law has always required males to register (since the original
>>establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
>>awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
>>immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
>>birthday.
>>
>
>ON the 18th birthday?

Actually I believe there was a grace period. Thirty days?
>
>Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
>not to worry about it.
>
>Walt

Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he was
not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law? If you went
straight to active duty you would have been classified 1-C. If you went DEP you
would have been classified 1-D. If the draft had stayed in effect and you had
completed the mininum total service, 6 years then (8 years now) IIRC, you would
have been classified 4-A

Based on many of your posts I seriously doubt you served a day in any branch of
the military.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[George Shirley]

B2431 wrote:
>>From: (WalterM140)
>
>
>>>The law has always required males to register (since the original
>>>establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
>>>awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
>>>immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
>>>birthday.
>>>
>>
>>ON the 18th birthday?
>
>
> Actually I believe there was a grace period. Thirty days?
>
>>Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
>>not to worry about it.
>>
>>Walt
>
>
> Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he was
> not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law? If you went
> straight to active duty you would have been classified 1-C. If you went DEP you
> would have been classified 1-D. If the draft had stayed in effect and you had
> completed the mininum total service, 6 years then (8 years now) IIRC, you would
> have been classified 4-A

I registered for the draft in November 1960 and I was 21 years and two
months old. I had enlisted at 17 and wasn't required to register at that
time. I was classified as 4A, still got my draft card, and I had only
served about 3 and a half years. Didn't get my discharge until July 1963
after completion of my six-year obligation. Minor nit pick but you're
otherwise right. Shocked the hell out of the draft board ladies when I
walked in to register at 21 though. I don't think either of them had
ever registered a kiddie cruiser.

George

> Based on many of your posts I seriously doubt you served a day in any branch of
> the military.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: "ian maclure"
>

>Who says it is?
> Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE.
>
> IBM

Takes one to know one.


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

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >> >Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
> > > >> > Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no
senator
> > sign.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Walt
> > > >
> > > >What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic
had
> > > >been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.
> > > >
> > > >George Z.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry. the subject was the certification of Florida electors in 2000.
> > >
> > > Walt
> >
> > So, the comment about Daschle would have referred to something like what
Denny
> > Hastert did with the discharge petition for the vote on concurrent receipt
which
> > got only ONE Republican vote from the entire House? Or doesn't one size fit
all
> > when it comes to politics.....nasty when the Dems do it in the Senate, but
OK
> > when the Repubs do it in the House? Sounds like a case of the whines to me.
> >
>
>
> What are you talking about?

Nothing....I'm too tired to bother trying to restate my views. Next case.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Jul 2004 13:30:09 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >"Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> >> "George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> >>> >
> >> > ... in my day the law didn't
> >> require
> >> > you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your
reporting date.
> >
> >>
> >> It did,
> >
> >
> >You sure about htat?
> >
> >> you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
> >> Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.
> >
> >
> >I believe that is true also.
>
> The law has always required males to register (since the original
> establishment of selective service.) If you were in the DEP or
> awaiting a training date you reported that as well and were
> immediately recategorized. Males still have to register on their 18th
> birthday.
>
> The registration requirement was suspended from 1975 to 1980, but
> that's the only time. Lots of info at http://www.sss.gov/Default.htm

I stand corrected. Thanks.

George Z.

[Billy Preston]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told me
> not to worry about it.

That's not the same as you claimed originally. What Marine unit were you in?

[Ian MacLure]

"Billy Preston" > wrote in
news:U0FLc.15239$Zr.12000@okepread01:

> "WalterM140" > wrote
>>
>> Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter
>> told me not to worry about it.
>
> That's not the same as you claimed originally. What Marine unit were
> you in?

At a guess FMF, REMF Supply Battalion. And of course a rifleman
by courtesy at least.

IBM

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

[Ian MacLure]

(ArtKramr) wrote in news:20040721211156.19192.00001997@mb-
m06.aol.com:

>>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>>From: "ian maclure"
>>
>
>>Who says it is?
>> Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE.
>>
>> IBM
>
> Takes one to know one.

I can recognise lots of things.
Paying attention does that.
I've seen Trotskerry's type before.
Usually glad to see the back of them.
Kerry is a User. He takes something, uses
it for his own ends and buggers off leaving
somebody else ( a Builder ) to clean up the mess.
He's also a TREASONOUS SWINE but we knew that.

IBM

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

[WalterM140]

>> Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told
>me
>> not to worry about it.
>
>That's not the same as you claimed originally. What Marine unit were you in?

My claims have been consistent.

I was at Parris Island from 11/12/73 to 2/11/74. I had ten days leave and
seven days transit time before I had to report to Intantry Training School at
Camp San Onofre -- Camp Pendleton.

Here's a picture I took from San Onofre of Mount Mother****er in 1974:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/mountmother****er.jpg

I graduated from ITS on 4/12/74. I had a follow on school at Portsmouth --
the Sea Duty Indoctrination Course. That was a 4 week course. From McGuire
AFB I flew to Rota, Spain and joined the Marine Detachment of the U.S.S. Simon
Lake.

Here's a picture of the Lake:

http://www.beachrealty.com/simonlake/as336.jpg

Here's a picture I took in the Marine Detachment in 1975. That's Tye Wright
and FiFi King in the foreground. In the left background is Gunnery Sergeant
Carlos Hathcock. Gunny Hathcock killed 93 men in Viet Nam. Some of his real
accomplishments were fictionalized in the movie "Sniper."

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/mardet75.jpg

Here's a picture I took on a CAX at 29 Palms in 1983:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/cax84.jpg

Here I am at the Marine Corps Ball in 1983:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/oki83.jpg

Oh. Here's a picture of my Porsche 928:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/porsche928.jpg

Is that enough?

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he
>was
>not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law?

Nope.

Walt

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the peabrained moron" > wrote
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> > >> >
> > > > ... in my day the law didn't
> require
> > > > you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your
> reporting date.
>
> > >
> > > It did,
> >
> >
> > You sure about htat?
>
> Well since you eliminated what the response was given to I'm sure my
> response to the comment originally presented that you cut away was correct.

Easily corrected:

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 registerin my day the law didn't require
> you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your
> reporting date.


It did, you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.

*******

Now, are you sure that the law did require Walt to register for the draft
after he had volunteered and was waiting for his reporting date?

--

FF

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/21/2004 11:16 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Let's asume you actually talked to a recruiter did it ever occur to you he
>>was
>>not in a position where he could tell you to violate the law?
>
>Nope.
>
>Walt

I guess that explains why you try to pass off half baked political theories and
accusations on us.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> 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 ask 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?

No, this time you picked out a quote wherein Kerry referred to
specific
activities. Read again:

"I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers"

NOWHERE in the paragraph you just quoted doe he accuse you of all
being involved with or have knowledge of war crimes.


I'm not sure if I should question your competency or your honesty
but something is not right.


>
> 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.

And I addressed those issue in this thread where you or someone
else discussed them. So could you pick it up there, if you wish
to continue?

>
> 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.

The sentence is pretty awkward. I think one could honestly parse
it as 'there were times when conducting harrassment and interdiction
fire that the 50 cal was the only weapon we used.'

'were our only weapon' by itself is of course literally as well as
gramatically incorrect. 'We' (America) literally had tanks and
aircraft and all sorts of other weapons. Heck, we had nuclear
weapons too, just not in Vietnam.

Do you suppose that, given the sentence is both ungrammatical and
blindingly obviously literally incorrect he might have mispoken?

Just because he doesn't talk like Bush doesn't mean he never screws
up.

> >
> >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.
>

And here where he does use 'all' he is clearly speaking generally.

> 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 here, of course, he is clearly referring to specific anecdotes.


> 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."
>

And here of course, he is speaking generally again.


Now Mr Rasimus, I gather from your writing that you are a literate
man of at least moderate intelligence. You have indicated that
you are older than myself, that you work for the Smithsonian and
you read the Washington Times. Few people outside of the DC
area (and not a whole lot there either) read the Times so I figure
you live in the DC area.

I would guess that over the years you have heard at least as much
Senate 'testimony' as I have. You must have listened on one or
more occasion when people 'testified' by reading prepared speeches
and were then 'questioned' by Senators whose questions were themselves
also speeches.

So please, don't expect me to believe that you hope that when
someone testifies befor the Senate they are speaking literally.
You know better. Don't expect me to believe that you cannot tell
when a speaker shifts between general statements to specific
anecdotes and back again.

You're smart enough, and you're experienced enough. It is odd that
you do not seem to have expected others in the newsgroup to be
similarly endowed with those attributes.


>
> 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.
>

I appreciate that last sentence was written in an effort to be fair.
But I still ask you to show some evidence that the 'testimony' of
the 'Winter Soldiers' was debunked.

Lots of people make that claim.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

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

It would be nice i you could point us to a source because I may
sometime want to say that too. And if I do, respectfully,
I'd like to have a source closer the to story than yourself.

Also, I thought all the Free-nets were long gone. I used to have
a Cleveland Free-net account.

--

FF

[Brett]

"Fred the peabrained moron" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the peabrained moron" > wrote
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > > > ... in my day the law didn't
> > require
> > > > > you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your
> > reporting date.
> >
> > > >
> > > > It did,
> > >
> > >
> > > You sure about htat?
> >
> > Well since you eliminated what the response was given to I'm sure my
> > response to the comment originally presented that you cut away was
correct.
>
> Easily corrected:
>
> 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 registerin my day the law didn't require
> > you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your
> > reporting date.
>
>
> It did, you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
> Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.
>
> *******
>
> Now, are you sure that the law did require Walt to register for the draft
> after he had volunteered and was waiting for his reporting date?

Now peabrain since he was over 18 and he was under 27 and he wasn't on
ACTIVE DUTY at the time, the law did require him to register and they did
change the law during the 1970's.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 7/21/2004 9:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>> Well, I joined the Marine Corps on my 18th birthday and my recruiter told
>>me
>>> not to worry about it.
>>
>>That's not the same as you claimed originally. What Marine unit were you
>in?
>
>My claims have been consistent.
>
>I was at Parris Island from 11/12/73 to 2/11/74. I had ten days leave and
>seven days transit time before I had to report to Intantry Training School at
>Camp San Onofre -- Camp Pendleton.
>
>Here's a picture I took from San Onofre of Mount Mother****er in 1974:
>
>http://members.aol.com/walterm140/mountmother****er.jpg
>
> I graduated from ITS on 4/12/74. I had a follow on school at Portsmouth --
>the Sea Duty Indoctrination Course. That was a 4 week course. From McGuire
>AFB I flew to Rota, Spain and joined the Marine Detachment of the U.S.S.
>Simon
>Lake.
>
>Here's a picture of the Lake:
>
>http://www.beachrealty.com/simonlake/as336.jpg
>
>Here's a picture I took in the Marine Detachment in 1975. That's Tye Wright
>and FiFi King in the foreground. In the left background is Gunnery Sergeant
>Carlos Hathcock. Gunny Hathcock killed 93 men in Viet Nam. Some of his real
>accomplishments were fictionalized in the movie "Sniper."
>
>http://members.aol.com/walterm140/mardet75.jpg
>
>Here's a picture I took on a CAX at 29 Palms in 1983:
>
>http://members.aol.com/walterm140/cax84.jpg
>
>Here I am at the Marine Corps Ball in 1983:
>
>http://members.aol.com/walterm140/oki83.jpg
>
>Oh. Here's a picture of my Porsche 928:
>
>http://members.aol.com/walterm140/porsche928.jpg
>
>Is that enough?
>
>Walt
>


What percentage of those on this NG who challenge your service ever volunteered
for anything, much less the Marines?


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 22 Jul 2004 00:57:58 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:
>
>Now Mr Rasimus, I gather from your writing that you are a literate
>man of at least moderate intelligence. You have indicated that
>you are older than myself, that you work for the Smithsonian and
>you read the Washington Times. Few people outside of the DC
>area (and not a whole lot there either) read the Times so I figure
>you live in the DC area.

Now Fred (I hesitate to use first names after you have been so
courteous, but also feel uncomfortable with whether or not "the Red
Shirt" is your entire last name or should be hyphenated. So, I'll use
the familiar.)

You aren't doing your homework, and that seems exceptional because in
other posts you've clearly demonstrated an ability to use Google and
maybe even Nexis.

Thank you for the compliment to my literacy and the moderation of my
intellect. I am, indeed probably older than you. Nearly as old as
dirt, having grown up shortly after the invention of fire.

But, you haven't paid attention at all regarding the remainder. I
don't work for Smithsonian. My books are published by Smithsonian
Institution Press. I'm a retired military tactical aviator and have
done freelance writing for computer magazines and teaching of
political science at my local college. I've got no employment
relationship with the Smithsonian.

Further I don't live in the DC area and I don't read the Washington
Times. I read the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Denver Post and the
Wall Street Journal.
>
>I would guess that over the years you have heard at least as much
>Senate 'testimony' as I have. You must have listened on one or
>more occasion when people 'testified' by reading prepared speeches
>and were then 'questioned' by Senators whose questions were themselves
>also speeches.
>
>So please, don't expect me to believe that you hope that when
>someone testifies befor the Senate they are speaking literally.
>You know better. Don't expect me to believe that you cannot tell
>when a speaker shifts between general statements to specific
>anecdotes and back again.

"Literal" testimony is fact. The opposite of literal is figurative.
General statements or specific statements of fact are literal.
Anecdotes are literal as are statistical data.
>
>You're smart enough, and you're experienced enough. It is odd that
>you do not seem to have expected others in the newsgroup to be
>similarly endowed with those attributes.

I only observe the evidence. Many in the newsgroup are more amply
endowed than I. Some, regretably, regularly emphasize the contrary.

I might suggest that you Google my name and find out a bit about me.
Or query my name on Amazon.com and see what the books are about.



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

[oh boy]

Paying attention to what?

You dodge any debate where you are asked to back up statments with
anything but "spin"
You make up things as you go along....
You quote out of context to create lies.....
You dismiss public military records or GWB because you don't like what
they say
You use a "fact" the unfounded opinions of other rabid usenet posters
who agree with you
etc, etc, etc

Ian MacLure > wrote in message >...
> (ArtKramr) wrote in news:20040721211156.19192.00001997@mb-
> m06.aol.com:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
> >>From: "ian maclure"
> >>
>
> >>Who says it is?
> >> Trotskerry is a cowardly TREASONOUS SWINE.
> >>
> >> IBM
> >
> > Takes one to know one.
>
> I can recognise lots of things.
> Paying attention does that.
> I've seen Trotskerry's type before.
> Usually glad to see the back of them.
> Kerry is a User. He takes something, uses
> it for his own ends and buggers off leaving
> somebody else ( a Builder ) to clean up the mess.
> He's also a TREASONOUS SWINE but we knew that.
>
> IBM
>
> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Buzzer]

On 22 Jul 2004 04:09:14 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>Oh. Here's a picture of my Porsche 928:
>
>http://members.aol.com/walterm140/porsche928.jpg

Is that a Bondo patch down low on the right rear and looks like rust
just under the door?

[WalterM140]

>> He is dead wrong in his support of Bush for reelection, IMHO. Bush
>> has cost our nation dearly with his unacknowledged mistakes and gaffes,
>> and if we are to believe the saying that "when you're in the hole, the
>first
>> thing you've got to do is to stop digging" then it's clearly time for a
>change.
>>
>
>What mistakes and gaffes are you referring to? What hole are we in?
>
>

Well, last night on MSNBC, Chris Mathews quoted Pres. Mubarak of Egypt as
saying invading Iraq had created 1,000 Bin Ladens.

Bush is a disastrous failure as president.

And:

"But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now,
in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are
guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll.
Correspondent Steve Kroft reports. “There has been poor strategic thinking in
this,” says Zinni.

“There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to
think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over
Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least
hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a
failure.”

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat,
rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a
reputation for candor.

Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle
Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its
conduct of the war in Iraq.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground
and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was
dereliction in lack of planning,” says Zinni. “The president is owed the
finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is
owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He
didn’t get the first two.”

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy.
And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the
war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress:
“This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it
needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war
the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.

“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al
Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60
countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and
intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this
one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”


More:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you another excerpt from your {senator Byrd] book:
"We keep hearing the refrain, `Stay the course.' What is the course? Is it
that we continue sending American troops to be used as sitting ducks in an
Iraqi shooting gallery? How long are we going to be fed the pap that fighting
the terrorists on the streets of Baghdad saves us from fighting terrorists on
the streets of New York City or Washington, D.C.?"

More:

4-Star Marine General
Says Time To Get
Rid Of Neocons
`The Neo-Cons Have Had Their Day -
Now It's Time for a Clean Sweep'
Executive Intelligence Review
Interview With Gen. Joseph P. Hoar
By Jeffrey Steinberg
EIR
5-31-4

Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), a four-star general, was Commander in
Chief, U.S. Central Command (1991-94), commanding the U.S. forces in the
Persian Gulf after the 1991 war. He also served in the Vietnam War, as a
battalion and brigade advisor with the Vietnamese Marines. He was
interviewed by Jeffrey Steinberg on May 6, 2004.

EIR: You were one of the people who had been critical before the
outbreak of fighting, over whether or not the situation warranted going
to war. I believe you also had some rather accurate warnings about what
might happen, as the war unfolded, especially after the hot phase.
What's your thinking on these issues now, in hindsight, as we're over a
year past the formal fighting phase?

Hoar: There's small comfort in realizing that perhaps you were closer to
reality than the elected and appointed figures in the civilian
government. Those of us that have had some experience in the region over
the years, and don't necessarily have ulterior motivations, particularly
people that know very much about Iraq?and I don't necessarily put myself
in that category; specifically, I know a fair amount about the
political-military situation in the region, but know enough about Iraq
to know that any military operation and any subsequent reconstruction
efforts, to include the interjection of democracy, were going to be
extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible.

But, my major concern, Jeff, really was, that while I was in favor of
regime change, I was not in favor of it a year and a half or two years
ago, and certainly not these means."

KIA count in Iraq: 915

For nothng.



Walt

[WalterM140]

>> >I can think of no action more despicable than false public
>> >condemnation of warriors on the field of battle, as John Kerry made
>> >under oath.
>
>> I don't think anyone has shown that Senator Kerry made any untruthful
>> statements in his 1971 testimony.
>
><snip clueless reference>
>
>But what does a news story about former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska have
>to do
>with that?
>

Can you show that Kerry made false statements back in 1971?


Walt

[Billy Preston]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote
> >
> >Each of those you listed, is our sworn enemy. They are free to point their
> >swords at us, or their leadership, and they have chosen us.
>
> And this differs to Iraq - how?

Kurds, Shiite's, Marsh Arabs, and Exiles.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
news:yHzQc.6611$ML1.4639@okepread01...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote
> >
> > So quit the quasi-religious bull**** and explain why saving Iraqis is
> > sacred duty while saving Iranians, Sudanians, Zimbabweans, North Koreans
> > et al is "not official policy".
>
> Each of those you listed, is our sworn enemy. They are free to point
their
> swords at us, or their leadership, and they have chosen us.
>
>

Really ?

When precisely did Zimbabwe threaten the United States ?

Keith

[Peter Kemp]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 21:47:39 -0500, "Billy Preston"
> wrote:

>"Peter Kemp" > wrote
>> >
>> >Each of those you listed, is our sworn enemy. They are free to point their
>> >swords at us, or their leadership, and they have chosen us.
>>
>> And this differs to Iraq - how?
>
>Kurds, Shiite's, Marsh Arabs, and Exiles.

KUrds are ****ed becasue they won't get autonomy, though they are
still not taking up arms about it.

Shiites are busy with an insurgency (have you seen the news over the
last few months) in Najaf, Sadr City and so on.

Marsh Arabs are shiites and were virtually wiped out 10 years ago (and
the marshes were drained), some of the survivors are joining the
shiite revolt in the south.

Exiles hardly count do they, or would you like such stauch allies as
Chalabi included amongst those in favour of the US (any more word on
his Iranian connections?).

Peter Kemp

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Dying old in captivity, was Re: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During
>Vietnam
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 8/6/2004 1:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
>news:yHzQc.6611$ML1.4639@okepread01...
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote
>> >
>> > So quit the quasi-religious bull**** and explain why saving Iraqis is
>> > sacred duty while saving Iranians, Sudanians, Zimbabweans, North Koreans
>> > et al is "not official policy".
>>
>> Each of those you listed, is our sworn enemy. They are free to point
>their
>> swords at us, or their leadership, and they have chosen us.
>>
>>
>
>Really ?
>
>When precisely did Zimbabwe threaten the United States ?
>
>Keith
>
Haven't you heard about the great Zimbabwe plot to invade the US and take
Cheney hostage while taking over Hallliburton? (sheesh)


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

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:24:07 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
>
> That doesn't track. Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
> SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
> either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
> AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
> NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.

Actually, he started flying helos in the USN, converted to F-4s, and
was sent to Dryden as Navy Liaison Officer. He left the USN and hired
on at Dryden, where he flew the F-8 DFBW, the B-52, the F-104, the
F-18, the F-18 HARV, and the SR-71. He was flying the last three
before he transferred to JSC to be a support pilot flying T-38s.

I don't know what model the JSC T-38s are. I thought they were Bs,
but I'm apparently wrong. We had one for a while, but we had to give
it back or I could have checked.

> >with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
> >think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
> >told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
> >so think of what it does for a real pilot.
>
> Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
> window.

No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
and landing. The RSOs don't even do that.

I was referring to the F-18s and their HUDs. We have both research
F-18s and support F-18s, so the test pilots get most of their time in
them.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[john smith]

Welcome back, Mary!

Mary Shafer wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:24:07 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
>>
>>That doesn't track. Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
>>SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
>>either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
>>AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
>>NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.
>
>
> Actually, he started flying helos in the USN, converted to F-4s, and
> was sent to Dryden as Navy Liaison Officer. He left the USN and hired
> on at Dryden, where he flew the F-8 DFBW, the B-52, the F-104, the
> F-18, the F-18 HARV, and the SR-71. He was flying the last three
> before he transferred to JSC to be a support pilot flying T-38s.
>
> I don't know what model the JSC T-38s are. I thought they were Bs,
> but I'm apparently wrong. We had one for a while, but we had to give
> it back or I could have checked.
>
>
>>>with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
>>>think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
>>>told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
>>>so think of what it does for a real pilot.
>>
>>Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
>>window.
>
>
> No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
> crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
> and landing. The RSOs don't even do that.
>
> I was referring to the F-18s and their HUDs. We have both research
> F-18s and support F-18s, so the test pilots get most of their time in
> them.
>
> Mary
>

[Murphy]

> I don't know what model the JSC T-38s are. I thought they were Bs,
> but I'm apparently wrong. We had one for a while, but we had to give
> it back or I could have checked.
>

T-38N, modified version of the A model.

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:29:03 GMT, "Murphy" > wrote:

> > I don't know what model the JSC T-38s are. I thought they were Bs,
> > but I'm apparently wrong. We had one for a while, but we had to give
> > it back or I could have checked.
> >
>
> T-38N, modified version of the A model.

And some of them were modified to chase the Shuttle back in the late
'70s, but not enough to make them into NT-38Ns, fortunately. We
didn't have to modify the F-104Ns and F-104Gs.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:13:20 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
>crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
>and landing.

How sad!


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

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Mike Dargan]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:13:20 -0700, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
>
>>No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
>>crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
>>and landing.
>
>
> How sad!

Aside from the curvature of the earth, what sort of sight seeing can you
do at 80,000'+?

Cheers

--mike
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Bob Coe]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote
> Cub Driver wrote:
>> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
>>>crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
>>>and landing.
>>
>>
>> How sad!
>
> Aside from the curvature of the earth, what sort of sight seeing can you do at 80,000'+?

I'd probably put-up the EMP shields on the windows to block the
cosmic and ionizing radiation.

http://www.healthycrew.org/crewexp.shtml