Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts

[Jack]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:32:04 -0500, Charlie Wolf
> wrote:


>Hey Tom - you little hypocritical piece of horse****..
>
>Did you feel the same way about Clinton? Or are you just a lying
>piece of liberal scum?
>
>I think - the latter.
>Regards,

Clinton at least had the balls to say what he believed at the time.
He wasn't like the cowardly Bush and Cheney... acting like they
supported the war while dodging it themselves. I have more respect
for those that had the balls to walk their talk than for the
chickenhawks who squawked and balked.

To know the neocon chickenhawks......... watch what they do ..... not
what they say....... Jack



>
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:39:37 GMT, (Tom Lacombe)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:08:34 +0100,
>>wrote:
>
>>Because he would have had to go to war for his country, something he
>>and Cheney were unwilling to do, but they don't mind sending our kids
>>off to war. Peace!
>>http://www.vietnow.com/artbc.htm

[Pete]

"Jack" > wrote

> Try to pay attention next time... only those who squawked and
> balked.... that means chickenhawks. Like George W. Bush.. who used
> his fathers connections to get him a safe slot in the ANG.....and Dick
> Cheney... who had "other priorities".

OK....we'll amend that.
"anyone who was in the military at the time, but not in Vietnam (and that
you don't like)"

Gotcha

Pete

[Tom Cervo]

>> Try to pay attention next time... only those who squawked and
>> balked.... that means chickenhawks. Like George W. Bush.. who used
>> his fathers connections to get him a safe slot in the ANG.....and Dick
>> Cheney... who had "other priorities".
>
>OK....we'll amend that.
>"anyone who was in the military at the time, but not in Vietnam (and that
>you don't like)"

What part of the military was Dick Cheney in?
There's at least one 4-star who had the experience of expressing caution at
Cheney's exuberant description of the Iraqi cakewalk, and got a lecture from
Cheney on McLellan's cautious ways, and later the gift of a set of tapes on the
Civil War. Apparently Dick likes only those wars at least a hundred years old,
or fought by others thousands of miles away.

[Jack]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:50:37 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:

>
>"Jack" > wrote
>
>> Try to pay attention next time... only those who squawked and
>> balked.... that means chickenhawks. Like George W. Bush.. who used
>> his fathers connections to get him a safe slot in the ANG.....and Dick
>> Cheney... who had "other priorities".
>
>OK....we'll amend that.
>"anyone who was in the military at the time, but not in Vietnam (and that
>you don't like)"
>
>Gotcha
>
>Pete

Wrong again Pete.... let me explain. During the Vietnam era very few
ANG units participated in the war...and certainly no interceptor units
of the type Bush was shuttled into. He was in that unit specifically
to avoid duty in Vietnam. That is why, among many other reasons, I
have no respect at all for the man.... and Dick Cheney, well, his
statement that he had "other priorities" speaks for itself and needs
no further explanation.

I spent 28 years in the military and have nothing but admiration and
respect for those who serve. However, during that time in our nations
history, I do not respect or admire those, like Bush, who used the
national guard as a safe haven to protect only themselves.

To know the neocon chickenhawks ........ watch what they do ..... not
what they say...... Jack

[B2431]

>From: Ed Rasimus

<SNIP>

>It's easy to get them. You've got to be relatively incompetent at your
>job. To get multiples indicates either incredible bravery (coupled
>with incompetence) or a high level of accident-proneness.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>

Come on, Ed, you know that's not true. I got my first purple heart for getting
burned while pulling somone out of a burning vehicle while under fire. That's
also where I got my bronze star. I got my second purple heart for getting shot
up while exiting a burning vehicle 2 weeks after the first one.

I was NOT incompetent nor accident prone.

How about the rescue teams that went in to get downed aircrews and came under
fire? Were the ones who got wounded or killed accident prone or incompetent?

If you were referring to fighter pilots say so, don't insult the kazillion of
us ground pounders who got them doing out jobs.

As an aside if the bad guys had dropped a rocket on your head while you were
asleep your next of kind would have been handed a puple heart. I wouldn't say
you were accident prone or incompetent in that example.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Jack > wrote:
>
> Wrong again Pete.... let me explain. During the Vietnam era very few
> ANG units participated in the war...and certainly no interceptor units
> of the type Bush was shuttled into. He was in that unit specifically
> to avoid duty in Vietnam.

Either do some actual homework, Jack, or get a better grade of sitter:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

"...pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at
the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam at the
very time Bush enlisted. In fact, F-102 squadrons had been stationed in
South Vietnam since March 1962."

" One of the primary ANG units to receive the F-102 was the 111th
Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) at Ellington Air National Guard
Station, which operated the aircraft from 1965 through 1974...he 111th
was and still is part of the 147th Fighter Wing in Houston, Texas. It
was here that George W. Bush was stationed following his enlistment in
May 1968."

"Pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to
Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968
to 1970."

If you're looking to "avoid duty in Vietnam", it seems sort of
counterproductive to enlist in a unit that was sending pilots there at
the time you joined.

This information is neither new nor obscure. There's not excuse for your
prattling on and on and on with your line.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Jay T. Beatty"
>Date: 8/14/2004 9:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: .net>
>
>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:08:34 +0100,
>> wrote:
>
>> It's easy to get them. You've got to be relatively incompetent at your
>> job. To get multiples indicates either incredible bravery (coupled
>> with incompetence) or a high level of accident-proneness.
>>
>
> Thats a bull**** statement, but since your an ex-fighter pilot, I can see
>how you would think that.


Bull**** is right. Casualtis are largley the resilt of statistical happenstance
and chaos theory. Men are often killed by wild bursts of gunfire that has
nothing to do with competance. The idea that " I survived because I'm smart and
the other guy died because he is stupid" is the ultimate height of arrogance.
Go to my website and click on "One went down" to see a B-26 turned into a
flaming coffin with my friends inside. Were they incompetant? What
bulll****. What total bull****.


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: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (Tom Lacombe)
>Date: 8/14/2004 10:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

> As a rifleman in Vietnam, I did receive a Purple Heart for a minor
>wound. I might have made it through that day without being wounded if
>I hadn't been ordered by an officer to move to an exposed position

Show me a man who was never in an exposed position, and I will show you a man
who has never been to combat. Or is a liar.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
> >From: "Jay T. Beatty"
> >Date: 8/14/2004 9:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: .net>
> >
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:08:34 +0100,
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> It's easy to get them. You've got to be relatively incompetent at your
> >> job. To get multiples indicates either incredible bravery (coupled
> >> with incompetence) or a high level of accident-proneness.
> >>
> >
> > Thats a bull**** statement, but since your an ex-fighter pilot, I can
see
> >how you would think that.
>
>
> Bull**** is right. Casualtis are largley the resilt of statistical
happenstance
> and chaos theory.

LOL! This crap is the product of the guy who has been telling us that all
that book larnin' ain't worth a plug nickel? "Statistical happinstance and
chaos theory"?! I guess the folks who write about statistics and those who
are developing chaos theory are believable, while those that have analyzed
combat operations are not...? One wonders if those *were* the primary
reasons, why then do the "new guys" experience a greater loss rate than the
expereinced hands? Especially in air combat?

Men are often killed by wild bursts of gunfire that has
> nothing to do with competance. The idea that " I survived because I'm
smart and
> the other guy died because he is stupid" is the ultimate height of
arrogance.

Substitute "competent and experienced" for "smart", and "often inexperienced
or incompetent" for "stupid" and you might be onto something there, Oh
Bookless Wonder.

> Go to my website and click on "One went down" to see a B-26 turned into a
> flaming coffin with my friends inside. Were they incompetant? What
> bulll****. What total bull****.

Why should we go to your website and read your account? You have just been
telling us that written accounts are worthless, right?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[BUFDRVR]

ArtKramr wrote:

> Casualtis are largley the resilt of statistical happenstance
>and chaos theory.

Using that theory, there's no reason to train aircrew beyond the basics of
operating their machine. I mean, if its all "statisical happenstance" then it
really doesn't matter who's good and who's not.


BUFDRVR

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> ArtKramr wrote:
>
> > Casualtis are largley the resilt of statistical happenstance
> >and chaos theory.
>
> Using that theory, there's no reason to train aircrew beyond the basics of
> operating their machine. I mean, if its all "statisical happenstance" then
it
> really doesn't matter who's good and who's not.
>

This is where the disconnect comes in I suspect.

For aircrew of Art's period where flak was the biggest killer
and there was bugger all you could to do about it
statistical happenstance was a biggie. A lot of very
experienced and competent aircrews were lost
attacking the target. Once the bombardier took
over the aircraft had to fly straight and level until
the bombs were gone. During that period the
worst crew in the world and the best crew in the
world have the same chances and this is probably
the most heavily defended piece of sky they'll
cross on the mission. I,ve spoken to a few WW2
aircrews and this was the part of the mission they
hated.

For the RAF on night operations it was in some ways worse,
they had to wait for the phtoflash to go off and get a picture
of the aiming point for BDA. If you didnt bring back
that picture the trip didnt count as a combat mission
towards the total for your trip.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 8/14/2004 3:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> Casualtis are largley the resilt of statistical happenstance
>>and chaos theory.
>
>Using that theory, there's no reason to train aircrew beyond the basics of
>operating their machine. I mean, if its all "statisical happenstance" then it
>really doesn't matter who's good and who's not.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

UYou are overlooking one point. The need to hit the target and that takes
training skill and experience. At least it did in my war. Your mileage may
vary.


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: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Keith Willshaw"

>asualtis are largley the resilt of statistical happenstance
>> >and chaos theory.
>>
>> Using that theory, there's no reason to train aircrew beyond the basics of
>> operating their machine. I mean,

>if its all "statisical happenstance" then
>it
>> really doesn't matter who's good and who's not.
>>
>
>This is where the disconnect comes in I suspect.
>
>For aircrew of Art's period where flak was the biggest killer
>and there was bugger all you could to do about it
>statistical happenstance was a biggie. A lot of very
>experienced and competent aircrews were lost
>attacking the target. Once the bombardier took
>over the aircraft had to fly straight and level until
>the bombs were gone. During that period the
>worst crew in the world and the best crew in the
>world have the same chances and this is probably
>the most heavily defended piece of sky they'll
>cross on the mission. I,ve spoken to a few WW2
>aircrews and this was the part of the mission they
>hated.
>
(snip good stuff)
>
>Keith


Exactly right Keith. .How come you are so smart? (grin)



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]

ArtKramr wrote:

>You are overlooking one point. The need to hit the target and that takes
>training skill and experience.

Which has exactly zero to do with survival...at least on that mission.

>At least it did in my war. Your mileage may
>vary.

Dropping unguided weapons accurately still requires a good OSO or RN.


BUFDRVR

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

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 8/14/2004 7:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>You are overlooking one point. The need to hit the target and that takes
>>training skill and experience.
>
>Which has exactly zero to do with survival...at least on that mission.
>
>>At least it did in my war. Your mileage may
>>vary.
>
>Dropping unguided weapons accurately still requires a good OSO or RN.
>
>
>BUFDRVR


But whether a stray shot kills you or not has nothing to do with how good an
OSO you are.


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

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>

>
>
> Exactly right Keith. .How come you are so smart? (grin)
>

I'm not but the Lancaster tailgunner who told me this
survived 2 tours and he reckoned that was a
statistical fluke akin to winning the lottery

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 8/15/2004 4:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Exactly right Keith. .How come you are so smart? (grin)
>>
>
>I'm not but the Lancaster tailgunner who told me this
>survived 2 tours and he reckoned that was a
>statistical fluke akin to winning the lottery
>
>Keith
>


Yup. That's exactly what it is.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 8/15/2004 4:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Exactly right Keith. .How come you are so smart? (grin)
>>
>
>I'm not but the Lancaster tailgunner who told me this
>survived 2 tours and he reckoned that was a
>statistical fluke akin to winning the lottery
>
>Keith
>


That's a great way to phrase it. Coming back from a mission is like just
having won a lottery. As one of my squadron mates used to say, " I'd rather be
lucky than be smart". A good example of that is found in " Thoughts at the
Funeral for a Stranger" in my website. The entire group came back without a
scratch except for a single gunner struck dead by a single piece of flack. We
were all lucky except for him. Read that combat account of you get a chance.



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

[Tom Cervo]

>> As for the ground combatant, there's been a huge change since
>> Pickett's charge. You might want to examine the two Iraq wars. Both
>> demonstrate an ability to apply technology for great effect while
>> experiencing very limited casualties. No casualty is a good thing, but
>> if you must fight the war, then the goal is for the absolute minimum
>> and we've gotten pretty darn good at that.

You might want to look at the story in the Philadelphia Inquirer about Echo
Company.
A patrol is still a patrol--you have to get out there to assert control over an
area--and a ambush is still an ambush. All that high tech can't prevent a
modified 1940's panzerfaust/rocket launcher from hitting a truck, or a 1950's
AK-47 from ambushing a patrol, and those are the things filling up the amputee
ward at Walter Reed. The only thing high tech is doing now is keeping people
alive who would have died just a few years ago.
I suppose if they were more competant they'd have found a way to finagle
themselves into a non-combat classification, or not even volunteered. The men
who end up on patrol are ones who win wars; the ones in this war who are
wounded happen to be predominantly the ones who are fighting at rifle range or
closer. They may want to say that they are incompetant, but I think that
judgement belongs to them alone.

[Tom Cervo]

>I'm not but the Lancaster tailgunner who told me this survived 2 tours and he
reckoned that was a statistical fluke akin to winning the lottery
>

That was one of the things I liked about the series "Piece of Cake". Some of
the pilots are obsessed with preparation and skill, and they are the ones who
last the longest, but by the end you realize that the odds are neutral, and
that even the best are killed if they keep going up. There is no luck, only the
hope of being ignored by chance.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 8/15/2004 9:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:25:07 -0400, Sharky > wrote:
>
>>In >, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>This:
>>"Getting wounded repeatedly indicates a serious lack of
>>judgement."
>>
>>Is not the same as:
>>"Certainly some wounds are unavoidable and many folks are
>>wounded in situations well beyond their control. But, if you get
>>wounded early and often, it might indicate a failure in your training,
>>your skills or your common sense."
>>
>>As you say "it might indicate", but then it might indicate great heroism in
>>the face of danger. I don't believe John Kerry's PH's make him anything
>>close to being a hero, but to say that a soldier wounded in battle
>>"indicates a serious lack of judgement" is not true. I believe that is the
>>problem with your overall remarks - inconsistency.
>
>"indicates a serious lack of judgement" and "indicate a failure in
>your training, your skills or your common sense." don't seem to be
>particularly inconsistent.
>
>How about, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread"?
>
>Getting repeatedly wounded is not commendable. Getting wounded
>(singular) is often unavoidable, but even then can be your own damn
>fault.
>
>Heroism, in general, is being in the right place at the wrong time and
>then doing something stupid and getting away with it. I have the
>greatest respect for the Silver Star, the DSC/AFC/NC, and the MOH.
>Many of those awards come with an ancillary Purple Heart. Folks who
>put themselves in harm's way for the defense of their nation deserve
>respect even if they haven't succeeded in getting themselves wounded.
>
>Conversely, you must understand that those of us who were then accused
>of being rapists, murderers, war criminals and baby-killers might hold
>a bit of a grudge against the accusers.


Men who don't have Purple Hearts are now trashing men who do. Could you
vommit?


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]

I think those with the purple heart have paid a higher price for their
>> service than those without. That said, those with purple hearts are no
>> more brave than those without.

Then on an individual case there are those with PH's that are a good deal
braver than many without. Audie Murphy for example.Trashing those who have the
PH is discusting


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]

>I think John Kerry needs to be held fully accountable for his actions in
>association with the VVAW. He disgraced himself, and brought false and
>maliciously subversive charges against all those who served their country
>honorably in Viet Nam. Dwelling on his less_than_stellar four month
>self-serving performance as a Ltjg is not going to give us the BIG picture
>on this guy. And the big picture of Citizen John Kerry is not pretty.
>

Purely politically motivated bull****.
How many PH's and Silver Stars do you have?


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: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From:
>Date: 8/15/2004 12:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>It hardly matters. It must one be of the most stupid statements
>made from an educated person yet on this NG.
>


It is the bitter jealousy that someone who doesn't have that award feels for
someone who does. I came through WW II without a scratch. I don't have a Purple
Heart but many of the men I flew with do. And to suggest that these men were
somehow deficient in thier abilities or profesionalism is both idiotic and
outragious.


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]

ArtKramr wrote:

>It is the bitter jealousy that someone who doesn't have that award feels
>for
>someone who does.

You're either a masochist or an idiot to be envious of a PH winner.


BUFDRVR

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

[Yeff]

On 16 Aug 2004 01:45:42 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

> ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>It is the bitter jealousy that someone who doesn't have that award feels
>>for
>>someone who does.
>
> You're either a masochist or an idiot to be envious of a PH winner.

Are Purple Hearts won? I didn't know it was a competition! <g>

--

-Jeff B. (making light of one of his pet peeves)
yeff at erols dot com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: Yeff
>Date: 8/15/2004 7:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 16 Aug 2004 01:45:42 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:
>
>> ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>>>It is the bitter jealousy that someone who doesn't have that award feels
>>>for
>>>someone who does.
>>
>> You're either a masochist or an idiot to be envious of a PH winner.
>
>Are Purple Hearts won? I didn't know it was a competition! <g>
>


It's not. The competition is not to get one then be jealous of those who have
one. It is a badge of courage that is why PH liscence plates are issued. it is
a status symbol.awarded to those who havr seen the elephant. No desk jockeys
needed.


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]

Jeff B wrote:

>> You're either a masochist or an idiot to be envious of a PH winner.
>
>Are Purple Hearts won?

No, not really they're awarded, but "recipient" or "awardee" were too long and
awkward.

>I didn't know it was a competition!

It is; to kill or injure "them" before they can do the same to you.

>Jeff B. (making light of one of his pet peeves)

I'm not crazy about the term "winner" being used as well, but it was easier...


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

ArtKramr wrote:

>It is a badge of courage that is why PH liscence plates are issued. it is
>a status symbol.awarded to those who have seen the elephant.

And been kicked or bitten by him....


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: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 8/15/2004 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>It is a badge of courage that is why PH liscence plates are issued. it is
>>a status symbol.awarded to those who have seen the elephant.
>
>And been kicked or bitten by him....
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>


War is hell.


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

[Billy Preston]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> Jeff B wrote:
>
> >> You're either a masochist or an idiot to be envious of a PH winner.
> >
> >Are Purple Hearts won?
>
> No, not really they're awarded, but "recipient" or "awardee" were too long and
> awkward.
>
> >I didn't know it was a competition!
>
> It is; to kill or injure "them" before they can do the same to you.
>
> >Jeff B. (making light of one of his pet peeves)
>
> I'm not crazy about the term "winner" being used as well, but it was easier...

There's two medals (and two license plates) I wouldn't want to advertise:

1) A purple heart medal
2) A POW medal

America has a fascination with people who were taken out of the war, and
people who have Air Medals, DFC, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, etc, are
seen as baby killers, and not something you want them to put on their cars,
or résumé's...

If I was a POW, I sure wouldn't want anyone to know about it! Same with
being shot in the ass (General Patton, etc)...

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> War is hell.

But very profitable! Our company stock sharing plan is bursting
at the seams! I just got another 150 shares last week. I hope the
Sadr guy keeps it up for another couple of weeks, as I just about
have my farm paid off.

[Tom Cervo]

>America has a fascination with people who were taken out of the war, and
>people who have Air Medals, DFC, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, etc, are
>seen as baby killers, and not something you want them to put on their cars,
>or résumé's...

What country do you live in?

[Billy Preston]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote
> >America has a fascination with people who were taken out of the war, and
> >people who have Air Medals, DFC, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, etc, are
> >seen as baby killers, and not something you want them to put on their cars,
> >or résumé's...
>
> What country do you live in?

Republic of Texas

[Michael Mcneil]

"Tom Lacombe" > wrote in message


> Charlie, Attacking me isn't going to make Bush and Cheney look any
> better. I didn't support Clinton as he was a draft dodger, just like
> alot of the guys in the present administration. Now tell me what I
> lied about. Peace!

At the time Clinton wasn't involved in politics so had no reason to tell
fibs to anyone but himself. Clearly he was unwilling to join the ranks
of those ready to kill for his country or for whatever other reason
people who get trained to kill kill for.

That makes him seem a lot more honest than dubya. Which is saying a lot
if not much.

So why is it so important that a man served in such a capacity as would
make him one of the most eligible for suicide in the history of great
military scandals?

How many Japanese soldiers killed themselves after WWII I wonder. The
statistics are that more US Vietnam Vets topped themselves after the war
than the total number of troops that were died in Vietnam.

Why is that statistic less interesting than what politicians did when
they were young and stupid?


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Michael Mcneil]

"Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message


> Ed. with all due respect why would a combat injury be necessarily
> related to "incompetance" ? People are injured on ships all the itme in
> circmstances over which they have no control.

How much respect is due I wonder to a man who thinks becoming the target
of quite a number of well trained gunmen is incompetence?

Or to put it another way. They only send children to war. Older and
wiser people won't go.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Billy Preston]

"Michael Mcneil" > wrote
>
> Or to put it another way. They only send children to war. Older and
> wiser people won't go.

Not true. The US Military won't take them.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article
gate.org>, "Michael
Mcneil" > wrote:

> "Tom Lacombe" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Charlie, Attacking me isn't going to make Bush and Cheney look any
> > better. I didn't support Clinton as he was a draft dodger, just like
> > alot of the guys in the present administration. Now tell me what I
> > lied about. Peace!
>
> At the time Clinton wasn't involved in politics so had no reason to tell
> fibs to anyone but himself. Clearly he was unwilling to join the ranks
> of those ready to kill for his country or for whatever other reason
> people who get trained to kill kill for.
>
> That makes him seem a lot more honest than dubya. Which is saying a lot
> if not much.
>
> So why is it so important that a man served in such a capacity as would
> make him one of the most eligible for suicide in the history of great
> military scandals?
>
> How many Japanese soldiers killed themselves after WWII I wonder. The
> statistics are that more US Vietnam Vets topped themselves after the war
> than the total number of troops that were died in Vietnam.

The cultural differences make it hard to draw a direct comparison. A
good many mid-level Army GHQ officers planned to commit suicide, but
Army Minister GEN Anami ordered them not to do so, because they were
needed for reconstruction. He told them his seppuku was the responsible
apology to the Throne.

>
> Why is that statistic less interesting than what politicians did when
> they were young and stupid?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: Psalm 110
>Date: 8/15/2004 10:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:55:36 GMT, "Jay T. Beatty"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thats true as well. But I also think that the war effected everyone in
>>some way, we all paid a price of one kind or another.
>
>The Story the SwiftLiars tell is there is a man in the water, Kerry
>bugs out and all these boats with SwiftLiars stay but not one of them
>helps the man in the water under fire, so Kerry comes back, and still
>under fire Kerry saves the guys life. That's the story the SwiftLiars
>tell. What they don't tell is why none of them got the guy under fire
>out of the water themselves. I think the story falls apart at that
>point.
>
>

Cowards always attack heroesespecially is it serves a political purpose.
Depend on 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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 16 Aug 2004 04:00:45 GMT, (Tom Cervo) wrote:

>>America has a fascination with people who were taken out of the war, and
>>people who have Air Medals, DFC, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, etc, are
>>seen as baby killers, and not something you want them to put on their cars,
>>or résumé's...
>
>What country do you live in?

Colorado USA. Here we have license plates dedicated to Purple Heart
recipients, POWs (free!), and "Honorably Discharged Veteran" (as if
that is some sort of rare achievement. We don't have recognition
plates for Silver Star, DFC, etc. We do, however, have a special plate
encouraging folks to adopt a greyhound.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[George Shirley]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2004 04:00:45 GMT, (Tom Cervo) wrote:
>
>
>>>America has a fascination with people who were taken out of the war, and
>>>people who have Air Medals, DFC, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, etc, are
>>>seen as baby killers, and not something you want them to put on their cars,
>>>or résumé's...
>>
>>What country do you live in?
>
>
> Colorado USA. Here we have license plates dedicated to Purple Heart
> recipients, POWs (free!), and "Honorably Discharged Veteran" (as if
> that is some sort of rare achievement. We don't have recognition
> plates for Silver Star, DFC, etc. We do, however, have a special plate
> encouraging folks to adopt a greyhound.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org

We have about 50 or more "specialty" plates in Louisiana Ed, including
one for the PH recipients (free, as long as you belong to the state
version of the Purple Heart Legion or whatever it's called nowadays,
that costs at least 20 bux), and you can get a "Veteran" or "Retired"
plate, for a goodly price in the service of your choice. I think they
have them for every college and university in the state too. Some of
them are almost as ridiculous as adopt a greyhound. Our politicians are
always interested in making a buck or two and keeping the folks at the
state prison busy. <VBG>

George

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 8/16/2004 8:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:55:42 -0700, "la n."
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Let me try again. It takes no great competence to get wounded.
>>> Certainly you can be very competent and still get wounded, but it
>>> doesn't take skill or talent or even courage to take a hit. It is,
>>> essentially a mission failure. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but a lot
>>> of times it isn't. Getting hit a lot of times isn't a measure of
>>> competence either--when it occurs regularly, it begins to indicate a
>>> failure to properly judge the situation or maybe an excessive
>>> flamboyence.
>>>
>>
>>So, what is the point in even getting a PH then??!!
>>
>
>Ahhh, a communication breakthrough! There is no point at all in
>getting a Purple Heart. No point at all. The nation recognizes the
>sacrifice, but there's no glory in it and no point at all.
>
>

There's a lot of glory in invading the enemy and standing up to his fire.
Separates soldiers from wannabees and desk jockeys from men who have seen
combat. You remember combat. It is what war is all about.


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: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "la n."
>Date: 8/16/2004 9:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:55:42 -0700, "la n."
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> Let me try again. It takes no great competence to get wounded.
>> >> Certainly you can be very competent and still get wounded, but it
>> >> doesn't take skill or talent or even courage to take a hit. It is,
>> >> essentially a mission failure. Sometimes it is unavoidable, but a lot
>> >> of times it isn't. Getting hit a lot of times isn't a measure of
>> >> competence either--when it occurs regularly, it begins to indicate a
>> >> failure to properly judge the situation or maybe an excessive
>> >> flamboyence.
>> >>
>> >
>> >So, what is the point in even getting a PH then??!!
>> >
>>
>> Ahhh, a communication breakthrough! There is no point at all in
>> getting a Purple Heart. No point at all. The nation recognizes the
>> sacrifice, but there's no glory in it and no point at all.
>>
>
>Hmmm .... well, as a Canadian who in the meantime looked
>up Purple Heart, I saw that there is actually a national
>organization for combat wounded veterans:
>http://www.purpleheart.org/
>
>I imagine that the PH means a lot to *them*.
>
>- nilita


We are suddenly running into guys who are against any award they didn't get.
Disgusting.



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

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
>
> There's a lot of glory in invading the enemy and standing up to his fire.
> Separates soldiers from wannabees and desk jockeys from men who have seen
> combat. You remember combat. It is what war is all about.
>
> Arthur Kramer


So the cook, who got hit by a sniper round is a combat hero? Just wanted
to clarify that point for my uncle, who was the cook, and died last
month.


Dave

[Billy Preston]

"Dave Holford" > wrote
>
> So the cook, who got hit by a sniper round is a combat hero? Just wanted
> to clarify that point for my uncle, who was the cook, and died last
> month.

Yep, he's a genuine war hero. The PH means nothing compared to his
sacrifice.

[Billy Preston]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> We do, however, have a special plate
> encouraging folks to adopt a greyhound.

I want one for supporting testicle cancer! People should have
the balls to sign up for that...

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Jay T. Beatty"
>Date: 8/16/2004 3:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: .net>
>
>
>"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
>news:67aUc.5619$ni.1528@okepread01...
>> "la n." > wrote
>> >
>> > Hmmm .... well, as a Canadian who in the meantime looked
>> > up Purple Heart, I saw that there is actually a national
>> > organization for combat wounded veterans:
>> >
>> > http://www.purpleheart.org/
>> >
>> > I imagine that the PH means a lot to *them*.
>>
>> Just as much as beer lovers do at www.beer.com it means
>> something to them!
>>
>> In America, we call them Paper Hangers. That's anyone who
>> makes more out of something than is required.
>>
>> An enlisted man got 1 promotion point for a PH, and 3 points
>> for an Air Medal, or Commendation Medal. Which one is more
>> valuable?
>>
> It's not the actual award that means so much to me, it's what it denotes.
>The moment I "qualified" for mine changed my life forever. BTW where are
>they called Paper Hangers? I've never heard the term before (not trying to
>flame anyone, just curious).
>

Of course it means a lot to you. It only means nothing to those who have none.


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

[Vygg]

ArtKramr wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>>From: "Jay T. Beatty"
>>Date: 8/16/2004 3:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: .net>
>>
>>
>>"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
>>news:67aUc.5619$ni.1528@okepread01...
>>
>>>"la n." > wrote
>>>
>>>>Hmmm .... well, as a Canadian who in the meantime looked
>>>>up Purple Heart, I saw that there is actually a national
>>>>organization for combat wounded veterans:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.purpleheart.org/
>>>>
>>>>I imagine that the PH means a lot to *them*.
>>>
>>>Just as much as beer lovers do at www.beer.com it means
>>>something to them!
>>>
>>>In America, we call them Paper Hangers. That's anyone who
>>>makes more out of something than is required.
>>>
>>>An enlisted man got 1 promotion point for a PH, and 3 points
>>>for an Air Medal, or Commendation Medal. Which one is more
>>>valuable?
>>>
>>
>> It's not the actual award that means so much to me, it's what it denotes.
>>The moment I "qualified" for mine changed my life forever. BTW where are
>>they called Paper Hangers? I've never heard the term before (not trying to
>>flame anyone, just curious).
>>
>
>
> Of course it means a lot to you. It only means nothing to those who have none.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
I have to disagree, Art. My Dad was a 7ID rifleman and fought in both
battles at Pork Chop Hill. When I was a boy I begged him to let me see
his Korean War uniform and stupidly asked him why he didn't have a
Purple Heart. He said, "I came back home to your Mother in one piece.
That's better than any medal." He locked his uniform back in the cedar
chest and no one has seen it since. That was forty years ago. He doesn't
have a Purple Heart, but to say that the medal means nothing to him
because of that fact would be foolish.

Vygg

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From:
>Date: 8/16/2004 3:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>Don't any attention to some idiot arrogant fool non combatant
>trying to start a flame war. He's exactly the kind no one wants
>around them in time of conflict.
>

I'll second that.


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

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Tom Cervo) wrote:

> >America has a fascination with people who were taken out of the war, and
> >people who have Air Medals, DFC, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, etc, are
> >seen as baby killers, and not something you want them to put on their cars,
> >or résumé's...
>
> What country do you live in?

Berkeley?

[Steve Hix]

In article
gate.org>,
"Michael Mcneil" > wrote:

> "Tom Lacombe" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Charlie, Attacking me isn't going to make Bush and Cheney look any
> > better. I didn't support Clinton as he was a draft dodger, just like
> > alot of the guys in the present administration. Now tell me what I
> > lied about. Peace!
>
> At the time Clinton wasn't involved in politics

?? He was focused on a life in politics by the time he finished high
school.
>
> How many Japanese soldiers killed themselves after WWII I wonder. The
> statistics are that more US Vietnam Vets topped themselves after the war
> than the total number of troops that were died in Vietnam.

Cite?

<crickets chirping>

[Steve Hix]

In article
gate.org>,
"Michael Mcneil" > wrote:

> "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Ed. with all due respect why would a combat injury be necessarily
> > related to "incompetance" ? People are injured on ships all the itme in
> > circmstances over which they have no control.
>
> How much respect is due I wonder to a man who thinks becoming the target
> of quite a number of well trained gunmen is incompetence?
>
> Or to put it another way. They only send children to war. Older and
> wiser people won't go.

You have an interesting definition of "child".

And you're wrong, to boot.

[ZZBunker]

"Michael Mcneil" > wrote in message gate.org>...
> "Vince Brannigan" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Ed. with all due respect why would a combat injury be necessarily
> > related to "incompetance" ? People are injured on ships all the itme in
> > circmstances over which they have no control.
>
> How much respect is due I wonder to a man who thinks becoming the target
> of quite a number of well trained gunmen is incompetence?
>
> Or to put it another way. They only send children to war. Older and
> wiser people won't go.

That true's but, it's also why the Middle East
and Europe are still run by 2000 year Olde Dead Romans,
so it's not like under 30 has ever cared
what the hell Europe and the Middle East do
with their "wisdom".

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (Tom Lacombe)
>Date: 8/18/2004 2:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:36:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tom Lacombe" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:06:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
>>> >news:0mIUc.7481$ni.6629@okepread01...
>>> >> "Jim Thomas" > wrote
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I don't know how Kerry's bravery or lack of it, or his Purple Heart,
>>> >> > Silver Star, or whatever, have anything to do with what kind of
>>> >> > president he might be.
>>> >>
>>> >> That's right. It was in his youth. What really counts is his record
>>in
>>> >> the legislature. When you look at his voting record, and his
>>> >> absenteeism, then that alone should tell you everything you need to
>>> >> know about the kind of administration he would put together.
>>> >>
>>> >> Look at the people around him. Do you want them to lead this
>>> >> country? Could they lead?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Kerry has made Vietnam the central issue of his campaign in order to hide
>>> >his record.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> I think Kerry is using his Vietnam service as a central issue, because
>>> Bush and Cheney didn't serve in Vietnam. Peace!
>>>
>>
>>No, it's to hide his record.
>>
>>
>How does using Vietnam as a central issue hide his record? People are
>going to hit him with whatever they've got regardless of his service,
>and as we have been seeing, people are trying to use his service
>against him. Peace!
>
>

It's not working. The lies are easy to see through. Nobody is buying that
neocon crap. Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their failure
to serve their country as he did. The polls now tell us that Kerry will take
the Electorial College if the election were held today.Please neocons. don't
snap back with your usual Clinton evasions. It's just too boring.


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

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their failure
> to serve their country as he did.

He only served for 4 months. Not enough to measure a mans worth.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's not working. The lies are easy to see through. Nobody is buying that
> neocon crap. Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their
> failure to serve their country as he did.
>

Bush and Cheney have served their country and are still serving it.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Billy Preston"
>Date: 8/18/2004 6:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <kPTUc.7908$ni.869@okepread01>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their failure
>> to serve their country as he did.
>
>He only served for 4 months. Not enough to measure a mans worth.
>

A man who landed om Omaha and fought his way through and only spent a week in
combat has proven himselfvery well. A man who fought the battle of the Hurtgen
Forest for only a month has proven himself very well. A man who fought in the
defence of Bastogne for only a month has proven himself very well. Bush has
proven nothing except his ability to disppear. Cheney has proven himself not
just a coward, buit a dirty mouthed coward.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
> >From: "Billy Preston"
> >Date: 8/18/2004 6:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <kPTUc.7908$ni.869@okepread01>
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >>
> >> Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their failure
> >> to serve their country as he did.
> >
> >He only served for 4 months. Not enough to measure a mans worth.
> >
>
> A man who landed om Omaha and fought his way through and only spent a week
in
> combat has proven himselfvery well. A man who fought the battle of the
Hurtgen
> Forest for only a month has proven himself very well. A man who fought in
the
> defence of Bastogne for only a month has proven himself very well.

Odd that you should mention those three battles--each and every one of them
had Guardsmen contributing directly and bloodily to the outcome. You know,
those same Guardsmen who *you* said were sitting back at their armories at
the time?

<snip further unsubstantiated ranting>

Brooks

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >>
> >> Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their failure
> >> to serve their country as he did.
> >
> >He only served for 4 months. Not enough to measure a mans worth.
>
> A man who landed on Omaha and fought his way through and only spent a week in
> combat has proven himself very well. A man who fought the battle of the Hurtgen
> Forest for only a month has proven himself very well. A man who fought in the
> defence of Bastogne for only a month has proven himself very well.

You've almost got an analogy there, except the guy in Hurtgen, Omaha Beach,
and Bastogne didn't volunteer to return home. They stood and fought.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Billy Preston"
>Date: 8/18/2004 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <zaVUc.7915$ni.7854@okepread01>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their failure
>> >> to serve their country as he did.
>> >
>> >He only served for 4 months. Not enough to measure a mans worth.
>>
>> A man who landed on Omaha and fought his way through and only spent a week
>in
>> combat has proven himself very well. A man who fought the battle of the
>Hurtgen
>> Forest for only a month has proven himself very well. A man who fought in
>the
>> defence of Bastogne for only a month has proven himself very well.
>
>You've almost got an analogy there, except the guy in Hurtgen, Omaha Beach,
>and Bastogne didn't volunteer to return home. They stood and fought.


Many came home as a result of their wounds. I suggest you visit your local VA
hospital for an education in combat. If you have the stomach for it. At
Bastogne the defensae was led by the mighty 101st Airborne, at Omaha Beach the
powerful big red one led the charge. In the Hurtgen forest it was a
combination of:
22nd Infantry,· 4th Division,· VII Corps· XV Corps and 5th Armored Division

Some of these units at Hurgten were not too well trained ( National Guard,
Reserve) causing large casualties, But they did prevail in the end.So Kerry's
4 months was a lot more combat time than many of those above ever were in
combat.



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

[Tom Cervo]

>Bush and Cheney have served their country and are still serving it.
>

Indeed--to the Saudis, on a silver platter.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (Tom Cervo)
>Date: 8/18/2004 9:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Bush and Cheney have served their country and are still serving it.
>>
>
>Indeed--to the Saudis, on a silver platter.
>
>
>

With a chunk going to Halliburton.


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

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
> >You've almost got an analogy there, except the guy in Hurtgen, Omaha Beach,
> >and Bastogne didn't volunteer to return home. They stood and fought.
>
> Many came home as a result of their wounds.

Kerry didn't. He used his medals as an exit pass. He was still fit to fight.
I understand his commander asked him to leave, and gave him the idea
about the 3 medal and you can go home idea, and he took it.

> I suggest you visit your local VA hospital for an education in combat.

I spent 8 months in one in 1991. Been there done that. Didn't get any
medal though (friendly fire).

> If you have the stomach for it.

I love the human body, and the spirit of survivors. I can't stomach much
of what you admire in Kerry.

> At Bastogne the defensae was led by the mighty 101st Airborne, at Omaha
> Beach the powerful big red one led the charge. In the Hurtgen forest it was a
> combination of: 22nd Infantry,· 4th Division,· VII Corps· XV Corps and
> 5th Armored Division

I bet you read that in a book professor...

> Kerry's 4 months was a lot more combat time than many of those above ever
> were in combat.

So you're comparing Kerry's 4 months of service to the soldiers fighting the
Germans mechanized army in the battle of the Bulge? Interesting.

[Billy Preston]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote
> >Bush and Cheney have served their country and are still serving it.
>
> Indeed--to the Saudis, on a silver platter.

"In the end, It's all about SUV's and cheap gas" -- General Wesley Clark

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >>Bush and Cheney have served their country and are still serving it.
> >
> >Indeed--to the Saudis, on a silver platter.
>
> With a chunk going to Halliburton.

and the rest to Ford, GM, and Chrysler, Honda, and Nissan...

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Billy Preston"
>Date: 8/18/2004 9:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <2SVUc.7917$ni.2571@okepread01>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>> >
>> >You've almost got an analogy there, except the guy in Hurtgen, Omaha
>Beach,
>> >and Bastogne didn't volunteer to return home. They stood and fought.
>>
>> Many came home as a result of their wounds.
>
>Kerry didn't. He used his medals as an exit pass. He was still fit to
>fight.
>I understand his commander asked him to leave, and gave him the idea
>about the 3 medal and you can go home idea, and he took it.
>
>> I suggest you visit your local VA hospital for an education in combat.
>
>I spent 8 months in one in 1991. Been there done that. Didn't get any
>medal though (friendly fire).
>
>> If you have the stomach for it.
>
>I love the human body, and the spirit of survivors. I can't stomach much
>of what you admire in Kerry.
>
>> At Bastogne the defensae was led by the mighty 101st Airborne, at Omaha
>> Beach the powerful big red one led the charge. In the Hurtgen forest it
>was a
>> combination of: 22nd Infantry,· 4th Division,· VII Corps· XV Corps and
>> 5th Armored Division
>
>I bet you read that in a book professor...
>

I was over Bastogne on the first day the weather cleared attacking panzers
that had Bastogne surrounded. And you are not smart enough to be a professor.

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

[Billy Preston]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
> >I bet you read that in a book professor...
>
> you are not smart enough to be a professor.

I bow before you, master.

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
> >From: "Billy Preston"
> >Date: 8/18/2004 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <zaVUc.7915$ni.7854@okepread01>
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >> >"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their failure
> >> >> to serve their country as he did.
> >> >
> >> >He only served for 4 months. Not enough to measure a mans worth.
> >>
> >> A man who landed on Omaha and fought his way through and only spent a
week
> >in
> >> combat has proven himself very well. A man who fought the battle of the
> >Hurtgen
> >> Forest for only a month has proven himself very well. A man who fought
in
> >the
> >> defence of Bastogne for only a month has proven himself very well.
> >
> >You've almost got an analogy there, except the guy in Hurtgen, Omaha
Beach,
> >and Bastogne didn't volunteer to return home. They stood and fought.
>
>
> Many came home as a result of their wounds. I suggest you visit your local
VA
> hospital for an education in combat. If you have the stomach for it. At
> Bastogne the defensae was led by the mighty 101st Airborne,

Bastogne would have been a speed bump had it not been for the troops of the
28th ID (a NG unit) who slowed the German thrust long enough for the 101st
guys to get to the town.

at Omaha Beach the
> powerful big red one led the charge.

Uhmmm--you are forgetting that the actual assault wave was made up of one
rgiment from the 1st ID and one regiment (116th RCT) from the 29th ID
(another NG unit--you remember, the guys you said were still at home in
their armories?).


In the Hurtgen forest it was a
> combination of:
> 22nd Infantry,· 4th Division,· VII Corps· XV Corps and 5th Armored
Division

What? The 28th ID was the unit that was bled white in the Heurtgen, and you
do not even mention them?

>
> Some of these units at Hurgten were not too well trained ( National Guard,
> Reserve) causing large casualties,

Nope. By that time their training was every bit as complete as that of the
RA divisions (the division had after all been mobilized in 1940, and by this
time a lot of its key slots were taken up by RA officers, including that of
commanding general). It was more of a leadership problem, at multiple
echelons, that caused the 28th ID to get mauled, along with facing a
tenacious enemy in very difficult terrain.

You still need to brush up on your WWII history, Art. Three claims you made,
and they all suffered serious factual errors--unfortunately, that is about
par for the course with you.

Brooks

But they did prevail in the end.So Kerry's
> 4 months was a lot more combat time than many of those above ever were
in
> combat.


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

[Tom Cervo]

Well, someone's lying:

"Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal
critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about
his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a
Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim
that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet
Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his
actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to
The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several
references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all
units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and
the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat
"despite enemy bullets flying about him."

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
...
> Well, someone's lying:

Has Thurlow ever claimed his own citation (which he indicates he lost over
20 years ago), which wasafterall written by others, was correct in these
details? Kerry has.

Brooks

>
> "Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal
> critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying
about
> his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
>
> In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who
commanded a
> Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's
claim
> that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in
Viet
> Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for
his
> actions that day.
>
> But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday
to
> The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several
> references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at
"all
> units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that
day, and
> the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat
> "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
...
> Well, someone's lying:
>

Not necessarily Thurlow. It is odd that this was published by the Post,
which has thus far refused to even mention the issue of Kerry making his
strange claim about being in Afghanistan, or his recent conflicting
"explanations" of that gaff? You don't think there might be a bit of bias at
work here, do ya?

Brooks

<snip>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Sharky > wrote in message >...
> In >, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>
> I think John Kerry needs to be held fully accountable for his actions in
> association with the VVAW. He disgraced himself, and brought false and
> maliciously subversive charges against all those who served their country
> honorably in Viet Nam.

That is a false and malicious misrepresentation of his words and actions.

> Dwelling on his less_than_stellar four month
> self-serving performance as a Ltjg is not going to give us the BIG picture
> on this guy.

Agreed regardless of how stellar or not his service was.

--

FF

[Ed Rasimus]

On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Sharky > wrote in message >...
>> In >, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think John Kerry needs to be held fully accountable for his actions in
>> association with the VVAW. He disgraced himself, and brought false and
>> maliciously subversive charges against all those who served their country
>> honorably in Viet Nam.
>
>That is a false and malicious misrepresentation of his words and actions.

Similar to the misrepresentation of attributing someone else's remarks
to me?

The recent "talking points" of the DNC that continue to attempt to
discredit the more than sixty Swifties because they "weren't on the
boat with him" is ludicrous. As someone who flew an entire combat tour
in single-seat fighters, I'll quickly attest to the ability to observe
the performance of others in your formation, your unit or your chain
of command even though you weren't in the airplane with them.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Tom Lacombe]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:16:07 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
>Shirt) wrote:
>
>>Sharky > wrote in message >...
>>> In >, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think John Kerry needs to be held fully accountable for his actions in
>>> association with the VVAW. He disgraced himself, and brought false and
>>> maliciously subversive charges against all those who served their country
>>> honorably in Viet Nam.
>>
>>That is a false and malicious misrepresentation of his words and actions.
>
>Similar to the misrepresentation of attributing someone else's remarks
>to me?
>
>The recent "talking points" of the DNC that continue to attempt to
>discredit the more than sixty Swifties because they "weren't on the
>boat with him" is ludicrous. As someone who flew an entire combat tour
>in single-seat fighters, I'll quickly attest to the ability to observe
>the performance of others in your formation, your unit or your chain
>of command even though you weren't in the airplane with them.
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
>Both from Smithsonian Books
>***www.thunderchief.org
Ed, I agree that the fellows on other boats would know something about
Kerry's actions, but I would think the guys on Kerry's boat would have
a clearer picture. They may also have some inside info, for example,
why he might have done something that seemed odd to guys on other
boats, that was perfectly rational if you knew the situation on
Kerry's deck. Peace!

[Billy Preston]

Most people don't care about Kerry and the boat. By spending
so much time on this non-event, the public misses the more important
issue, of why he collects Senators pay, but never shows up for work?

His absentee rate is criminal.

[[email protected]]

In <mvavc.7969$ni.2060@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
at 06:14 PM, "Billy Preston" > said:

>Most people don't care about Kerry and the boat. By spending so much
>time on this non-event, the public misses the more important issue, of
>why he collects Senators pay, but never shows up for work?

>His absentee rate is criminal.

bush's vacation rate is criminal. -- As a matter of fact if he had been
on the job instead of vacation -- 9-11 might have been stopped.

[sanjian]

Tom Lacombe wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:16:07 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:

> Ed, I agree that the fellows on other boats would know something about
> Kerry's actions, but I would think the guys on Kerry's boat would have
> a clearer picture. They may also have some inside info, for example,
> why he might have done something that seemed odd to guys on other
> boats, that was perfectly rational if you knew the situation on
> Kerry's deck. Peace!

Then Kerry's crew is certainly entitled to say their piece. However, there
is no justification in the Kerry camp's blanket attack on these vets. If
we're not to question Kerry because he's a vet, then the left should extend
the same courtesy to these guys.

[sanjian]

Billy Preston wrote:
> Most people don't care about Kerry and the boat. By spending
> so much time on this non-event, the public misses the more important
> issue, of why he collects Senators pay, but never shows up for work?
>
> His absentee rate is criminal.

I happen to support his attendence rate. If more elected officials spent
less time at work, we'd have more of our freedom left.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message news:4IaVc.11540$k63.8388@trndny03...
>
> bush's vacation rate is criminal. -- As a matter of fact if he had been
> on the job instead of vacation -- 9-11 might have been stopped.
>

Bush has been on the job continuously since 1/20/01.

[Freedom Fighter]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:HycVc.7985$ni.3886@okepread01...
> Billy Preston wrote:
> > Most people don't care about Kerry and the boat. By spending
> > so much time on this non-event, the public misses the more important
> > issue, of why he collects Senators pay, but never shows up for work?
> >
> > His absentee rate is criminal.
>
> I happen to support his attendence rate. If more elected officials spent
> less time at work, we'd have more of our freedom left.
>
>

You have my big AMEN on that.


--
I don't need no social working government
taking my property to divy up with anybody.
If I see someone needing help, I'll decide if
I want to pitch in or not.

The Freedom Fighter

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Sharky > wrote in message >...
> >> In >, Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I think John Kerry needs to be held fully accountable for his actions in
> >> association with the VVAW. He disgraced himself, and brought false and
> >> maliciously subversive charges against all those who served their country
> >> honorably in Viet Nam.
> >
> >That is a false and malicious misrepresentation of his words and actions.
>
> Similar to the misrepresentation of attributing someone else's remarks
> to me?
>

Nah, that was a simple screwup. Keep reading, I'll make more.

> The recent "talking points" of the DNC that continue to attempt to
> discredit the more than sixty Swifties because they "weren't on the
> boat with him" is ludicrous. As someone who flew an entire combat tour
> in single-seat fighters, I'll quickly attest to the ability to observe
> the performance of others in your formation, your unit or your chain
> of command even though you weren't in the airplane with them.

Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?

I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

--

FF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 8/20/2004 11:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
>...
>> On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
>> Shirt) wrote:
>>
>> >Sharky > wrote in message
>...
>> >> In >, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think John Kerry needs to be held fully accountable for his actions in
>> >> association with the VVAW. He disgraced himself, and brought false and
>> >> maliciously subversive charges against all those who served their
>country
>> >> honorably in Viet Nam.
>> >
>> >That is a false and malicious misrepresentation of his words and actions.
>>
>> Similar to the misrepresentation of attributing someone else's remarks
>> to me?
>>
>
>Nah, that was a simple screwup. Keep reading, I'll make more.
>
>> The recent "talking points" of the DNC that continue to attempt to
>> discredit the more than sixty Swifties because they "weren't on the
>> boat with him" is ludicrous. As someone who flew an entire combat tour
>> in single-seat fighters, I'll quickly attest to the ability to observe
>> the performance of others in your formation, your unit or your chain
>> of command even though you weren't in the airplane with them.
>
>Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
>happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?
>
>I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
>Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
>is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.
>
>--
>
>FF
>
>

If there were any otter boats or Karl Rove just made them up.


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 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>
>> The recent "talking points" of the DNC that continue to attempt to
>> discredit the more than sixty Swifties because they "weren't on the
>> boat with him" is ludicrous. As someone who flew an entire combat tour
>> in single-seat fighters, I'll quickly attest to the ability to observe
>> the performance of others in your formation, your unit or your chain
>> of command even though you weren't in the airplane with them.
>
>Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
>happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?
>
>I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
>Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
>is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

My comment on single-seat was to highlight the mistaken emphasis and
"spin" that says if you weren't on the boat you weren't there and
can't comment. The point being that military units operate in concert
with multiple players and it is possible to know very much about
performance even if not a rider in the same vehicle.

Let's make it two-seat aircraft like F-4s, for example. Now, you could
take the evidence of the WSO commenting on the capability of the
nose-gunner and say that is the only source of valid information. But,
you would be getting an interpretation of events from someone not
trained in the other crew-member's job and with a decidedly vested
self-interest in making that individual look good.

I will state unequivocally that YES, I could BETTER observe and
comment on the capabilities of the others in formation which I led. I
could definitely tell you more about individuals that were under my
authority as a fighter squadron operations officer, and I know for
sure that the folks who were in my chain of command, even though they
weren't flying in the same airplane with me, could tell you plenty
about my capabilities, leadership, and shortcomings.

If you give "more stock" to the subordinates on the boat with him
(that would be 13 or so out of 24 that served in that capacity) than
you give to the 60 out of 240 that were in the Swift boat operation
during the period and have come forward to counter the "band of
brothers" comments, then you don't really understand the concept.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[sanjian]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> news:4IaVc.11540$k63.8388@trndny03...
>>
>> bush's vacation rate is criminal. -- As a matter of fact if he had
>> been on the job instead of vacation -- 9-11 might have been stopped.
>>
>
> Bush has been on the job continuously since 1/20/01.

Evidently Leo missed the fact that a room at Bush's house in Crawford was
converted so that he could work and conference (when did that become a verb,
anyways???) from Texas. Bush doens't -have- vacations, as you allude to,
above. Hell, neither did Clinton, or Bush Sr., and possibly even further
back than that. The PotUS is always available.

[sanjian]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
> happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?
>
> I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
> Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
> is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

There's a pretty large gulf between saying that Kerry's crew was in a better
position to know and understand the facts, and saying that the
two-hundred-some other vets (and we know from Kerry's campaign that all vets
are honorable, even when they admit to committing atrocities) lied.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> >Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
> >happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?
> >
> >I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
> >Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
> >is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.
>
> ... it is possible to know very much about
> performance even if not a rider in the same vehicle.
>
> ...
>
> I will state unequivocally that YES, I could BETTER observe and
> comment on the capabilities of the others in formation which I led. I
> could definitely tell you more about individuals that were under my
> authority as a fighter squadron operations officer, and I know for
> sure that the folks who were in my chain of command, even though they
> weren't flying in the same airplane with me, could tell you plenty
> about my capabilities, leadership, and shortcomings.
>
> If you give "more stock" to the subordinates on the boat with him
> (that would be 13 or so out of 24 that served in that capacity) than
> you give to the 60 out of 240 that were in the Swift boat operation
> during the period and have come forward to counter the "band of
> brothers" comments, then you don't really understand the concept.
>

I am confident that those 13 or so who say they served under him
actually did so because Kery himself would remeber them and they
would remember each other. I am not confident that those 60 or so
others ot whom you allude ever saw him or his boat.

At least one of those 60 or so received a Bronze Star in the same
engagement for which Kerry recieved the Silver Star and yet today
denies that there was enemy fire in that engagement. Does he argue
that he did not deserve his own award?

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

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

> At least one of those 60 or so received a Bronze Star in the same
> engagement for which Kerry recieved the Silver Star and yet today
> denies that there was enemy fire in that engagement. Does he argue
> that he did not deserve his own award?

Apparently.....and being a slow starter, it took him 35 years to get his "he
doth protesteth too much" act together. Oh, well......

George Z.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
> >Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
> >is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

Note 'what we are told', and 'whom we are told'.
....
>
> If you give "more stock" to the subordinates on the boat with him
> (that would be 13 or so out of 24 that served in that capacity) than
> you give to the 60 out of 240 that were in the Swift boat operation
> during the period and have come forward to counter the "band of
> brothers" comments, then you don't really understand the concept.
>

Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
conclusion.

Has anyone named more than a handful of these men, or asked them
to comment on the book?

This sounds rather much like Senator Islen's '57 communists' in the
Pentagon.

--

FF

[Ed Rasimus]

On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
>> Shirt) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
>> >Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
>> >is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.
>
>Note 'what we are told', and 'whom we are told'.

Once again you've edited to put someone else's words into my mouth.
Personally, I'm putting very little stock into the words of the "band
of brothers" who seem to be getting a lot of travel, perks and
"face-time" by being loyal to Senator Kerry. They don't seem to be
bothered by his subsequent slander of his "brothers" when he completed
his 4 months of duty.
>...
>>
>> If you give "more stock" to the subordinates on the boat with him
>> (that would be 13 or so out of 24 that served in that capacity) than
>> you give to the 60 out of 240 that were in the Swift boat operation
>> during the period and have come forward to counter the "band of
>> brothers" comments, then you don't really understand the concept.
>>
>
>Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
>that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
>'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
>60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
>conclusion.

I understand your parsing here, and while it might be quite good in a
courtroom, it doesn't pass the (un)-common sense test of daily
discourse in usenet. Consider this, I'm going to write a book. I'm
planning to call it "Unfit for Command". I'm planning to entire a
political firefight challenging a major presidential candidate's
credentials. I ask you to contribute. What do you do if you don't
agree with the thesis of my book?
>
>Has anyone named more than a handful of these men, or asked them
>to comment on the book?

You may recall several weeks ago there was a fairly extensive document
with photos of Swifties at all levels of the chain of command who had
come forward in May of this year in a press conference in Washington
DC at the National Press Club. More than a handful have come forward
and many more still have not yet been heard.

Having known Ken Cordier and Paul Galanti for many years, I've got the
utmost confidence in their honor, honesty and integrity. I know many
other of the Nam-POWs and know that they have a strong front on the
issue as well.

Clearly there are a number of things going on here. One is the focus
of the Kerry campaign on the Vietnam service and not the Vietnam
resistance. That's a recognition of the fact that America IS at war
and we face a serious threat that requires sacrifice and leadership.
It is also a repudiation of the actions of the Senator after his brief
combat service.

Another is the tendency of the Kerry campaign to focus on that brief
period while ignoring as much as possible the voting record of the
Senator during his extensive tenure. It would be much better for the
electorate to focus on those positions regarding taxes, welfare,
defense, education, jobs, foreign policy, etc.

Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527 loophole
by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing when
his own ox takes a goring. If you want to play one way on offense,
you've got to expect the same back when you're on defense. Soros'
millions don't shrink when compared to a couple of $100K spent by the
Swifties supporters.

The language of Kerry in '71 used in his Senate testimony and much
more explicitly in his Meet the Press interview is deeply offensive
and won't go away quickly if ever. His attempt to mitigate the damage
recently by suggesting he might use less offensive terminology doesn't
get the job done by a long shot.
>
>This sounds rather much like Senator Islen's '57 communists' in the
>Pentagon.

A very poor parallel.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Bob McKellar]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

<snip>

>
> Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527 loophole
> by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing when
> his own ox takes a goring.

moveon.org is not a 527, it predates the legislation, having been started during the Clinton impeachment furor.
It is a PAC, with full disclosure of donors.

Bob McKellar, proud owner of a very bad fitness report signed by a SBVT member

[Brett]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote:
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527 loophole
> > by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing when
> > his own ox takes a goring.
>
> moveon.org is not a 527, it predates the legislation, having been started
during the Clinton impeachment furor.
> It is a PAC, with full disclosure of donors.

"moveon.org" operates under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code 26
U.S.C. Section 527.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=527

[Bob McKellar]

Brett wrote:

> "Bob McKellar" > wrote:
> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527 loophole
> > > by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing when
> > > his own ox takes a goring.
> >
> > moveon.org is not a 527, it predates the legislation, having been started
> during the Clinton impeachment furor.
> > It is a PAC, with full disclosure of donors.
>
> "moveon.org" operates under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code 26
> U.S.C. Section 527.
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=527

Partially correct:

From www.moveon.org/about

The MoveOn family of organizations consists of three entities. MoveOn.org, a
501(c)(4) organization, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on
important national issues. MoveOn PAC, a federal PAC, primarily helps members
elect candidates who reflect our values. And MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527
organization, primarily educates voters on the positions, records, views, and
qualifications of candidates for public office.

Bob

[Brett]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote:
> Brett wrote:
>
> > "Bob McKellar" > wrote:
> > > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527
loophole
> > > > by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing when
> > > > his own ox takes a goring.
> > >
> > > moveon.org is not a 527, it predates the legislation, having been
started
> > during the Clinton impeachment furor.
> > > It is a PAC, with full disclosure of donors.
> >
> > "moveon.org" operates under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code 26
> > U.S.C. Section 527.
> >
> > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=527
>
> Partially correct:

Which is a change in your previous position where you told Ed Rasimus that
it was only a PAC. It's "primary operations" since Bush was elected have
been the supported by the bottomless pit "voter fund" sponsors Soros, Lewis,
Bing..... that group of "three" are also the primary sponsors of several
other questionable 527's, "Joint Victory Campaign", "Media Fund", "America
Coming Together".....

> From www.moveon.org/about
>
> The MoveOn family of organizations consists of three entities. MoveOn.org,
a
> 501(c)(4) organization, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on
> important national issues. MoveOn PAC, a federal PAC, primarily helps
members
> elect candidates who reflect our values. And MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527
> organization, primarily educates voters on the positions, records, views,
and
> qualifications of candidates for public office.
>
> Bob
>

[sanjian]

Bob McKellar wrote:
> Brett wrote:

>>> moveon.org is not a 527, it predates the legislation, having been
>>> started
>> during the Clinton impeachment furor.
>>> It is a PAC, with full disclosure of donors.
>>
>> "moveon.org" operates under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code
>> 26 U.S.C. Section 527.
>>
>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=527
>
> Partially correct:
>
> From www.moveon.org/about
>
> The MoveOn family of organizations consists of three entities.
> MoveOn.org, a 501(c)(4) organization, primarily focuses on education
> and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn PAC, a federal PAC,
> primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values. And
> MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 organization, primarily educates voters
> on the positions, records, views, and qualifications of candidates
> for public office.

Anyone think we should get rid of every last drop of this campaign finance
mumbo jumbo and just say "look, you can't have money from foriegners, and
you have to show where it all came from"?

[Bob McKellar]

Brett wrote:

> "Bob McKellar" > wrote:
> > Brett wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob McKellar" > wrote:
> > > > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527
> loophole
> > > > > by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing when
> > > > > his own ox takes a goring.
> > > >
> > > > moveon.org is not a 527, it predates the legislation, having been
> started
> > > during the Clinton impeachment furor.
> > > > It is a PAC, with full disclosure of donors.
> > >
> > > "moveon.org" operates under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code 26
> > > U.S.C. Section 527.
> > >
> > > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=527
> >
> > Partially correct:
>
> Which is a change in your previous position where you told Ed Rasimus that
> it was only a PAC. It's "primary operations" since Bush was elected have
> been the supported by the bottomless pit "voter fund" sponsors Soros, Lewis,
> Bing..... that group of "three" are also the primary sponsors of several
> other questionable 527's, "Joint Victory Campaign", "Media Fund", "America
> Coming Together".....
>

Yes, I knew that moveon.org was an earlier manifestation, but I had never been
to their web site until after your clever post quoting the IRS code.

When I went there, I discovered a new activity of moveon.org, which was indeed a
527, as I stated. I learn new things all the time.

Is it your position that most 527's are left leaning, using the Democrats'
superior finances to battle the impoverished Republicans?

Are you interested in Republican leaning 527's such as the one founded to
finance the Bush recount efforts in Florida/2000?

Bob

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:wNxWc.99388$Lj.5353@fed1read03...
>
> Anyone think we should get rid of every last drop of this campaign finance
> mumbo jumbo and just say "look, you can't have money from foriegners, and
> you have to show where it all came from"?
>

Absolutely! Hell, I don't even care if a candidate takes money from
foreigners, as long as there's full disclosure.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> >> On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
> >> Shirt) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
> >> >Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
> >> >is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.
> >
> >Note 'what we are told', and 'whom we are told'.
>
> Once again you've edited to put someone else's words into my mouth.

Please help me to avoid making the same mistake thrice by pointing
out the statements I misattributed to you.

> Personally, I'm putting very little stock into the words of the "band
> of brothers" who seem to be getting a lot of travel, perks and
> "face-time" by being loyal to Senator Kerry.

That sounds remarkably close to slander.

> They don't seem to be
> bothered by his subsequent slander of his "brothers" when he completed
> his 4 months of duty.


As we have previously discussed, Kerry did not slander them though
arguably
it is slander to claim that he did.

> >...
> >>
> >> If you give "more stock" to the subordinates on the boat with him
> >> (that would be 13 or so out of 24 that served in that capacity) than
> >> you give to the 60 out of 240 that were in the Swift boat operation
> >> during the period and have come forward to counter the "band of
> >> brothers" comments, then you don't really understand the concept.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
> >that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
> >'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
> >60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
> >conclusion.
>
> I understand your parsing here, and while it might be quite good in a
> courtroom, it doesn't pass the (un)-common sense test of daily
> discourse in usenet. Consider this, I'm going to write a book. I'm
> planning to call it "Unfit for Command". I'm planning to entire a
> political firefight challenging a major presidential candidate's
> credentials. I ask you to contribute. What do you do if you don't
> agree with the thesis of my book?

To directly address your question, I would make honest and truthful
statements to the authors. Why, what would you do?

But your hypothetical presumes over much. First, you assume 60
persons really did contribute, and really know that they contributed.
Perhaps you base that on faith in the authors. I don't know the
authors myself, and am not willing to make that presumption.

Second you presume that the authors informed the persons they
interviewed
of their intent befor even interviewing them. How could that be
unless
the authors reached their conclusions befor doing their research?

Third, you assume that the authors informed those they interviewed
of that conclusion, or that they read the book. Otherwise, how would
they know what conclusion the authors had reached?

I'm not willing to make any of those presumptions, so much for
hypotheticals, back to reality.

> >
> >Has anyone named more than a handful of these men, or asked them
> >to comment on the book?
>
> You may recall several weeks ago there was a fairly extensive document
> with photos of Swifties at all levels of the chain of command who had
> come forward in May of this year in a press conference in Washington
> DC at the National Press Club.

No, I missed that. Can you direct me to a copy of that document?

>
> Clearly there are a number of things going on here. One is the focus
> of the Kerry campaign on the Vietnam service and not the Vietnam
> resistance. That's a recognition of the fact that America IS at war
> and we face a serious threat that requires sacrifice and leadership.

Yes and I agree that it is a tactical mistake. The campaign should
emphacise what they plan to do differently in the next four years,
not what was done thirty-odd years ago by either candidate.

Now that he has started down that path *I* personally would like
to see him continue and explain his actions after his return to the
US.

> It is also a repudiation of the actions of the Senator after his brief
> combat service.

No.

>
> Another is the tendency of the Kerry campaign to focus on that brief
> period while ignoring as much as possible the voting record of the
> Senator during his extensive tenure. It would be much better for the
> electorate to focus on those positions regarding taxes, welfare,
> defense, education, jobs, foreign policy, etc.
>

It is more important to focus on future plans.

> Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527 loophole
> by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing when
> his own ox takes a goring. If you want to play one way on offense,
> you've got to expect the same back when you're on defense. Soros'
> millions don't shrink when compared to a couple of $100K spent by the
> Swifties supporters.

Agreed.

>
> The language of Kerry in '71 used in his Senate testimony and much
> more explicitly in his Meet the Press interview is deeply offensive
> and won't go away quickly if ever. His attempt to mitigate the damage
> recently by suggesting he might use less offensive terminology doesn't
> get the job done by a long shot.
> >
> >This sounds rather much like Senator Islen's '57 communists' in the
> >Pentagon.
>
> A very poor parallel.
>

Apropos so long as the '60 contributors' to the book remain unamed.

--

FF

[Brett]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote:
> Brett wrote:
>
> > "Bob McKellar" > wrote:
> > > Brett wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bob McKellar" > wrote:
> > > > > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527
> > loophole
> > > > > > by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing
when
> > > > > > his own ox takes a goring.
> > > > >
> > > > > moveon.org is not a 527, it predates the legislation, having been
> > started
> > > > during the Clinton impeachment furor.
> > > > > It is a PAC, with full disclosure of donors.
> > > >
> > > > "moveon.org" operates under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code
26
> > > > U.S.C. Section 527.
> > > >
> > > > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=527
> > >
> > > Partially correct:
> >
> > Which is a change in your previous position where you told Ed Rasimus
that
> > it was only a PAC. It's "primary operations" since Bush was elected have
> > been the supported by the bottomless pit "voter fund" sponsors Soros,
Lewis,
> > Bing..... that group of "three" are also the primary sponsors of several
> > other questionable 527's, "Joint Victory Campaign", "Media Fund",
"America
> > Coming Together".....
> >
>
> Yes, I knew that moveon.org was an earlier manifestation, but I had never
been
> to their web site until after your clever post quoting the IRS code.
>
> When I went there, I discovered a new activity of moveon.org, which was
indeed a
> 527, as I stated. I learn new things all the time.
>
> Is it your position that most 527's are left leaning, using the Democrats'
> superior finances to battle the impoverished Republicans?

No my position is that what you had originally posted was garbage.

[sanjian]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> news:wNxWc.99388$Lj.5353@fed1read03...
>>
>> Anyone think we should get rid of every last drop of this campaign
>> finance mumbo jumbo and just say "look, you can't have money from
>> foriegners, and you have to show where it all came from"?
>>
>
> Absolutely! Hell, I don't even care if a candidate takes money from
> foreigners, as long as there's full disclosure.

Dunno... not sure I'd want North Korea, or China, or worse - France trying
to influence our elections... at least any more than usual.

(BTW, did you notice that Kim Jong is cheering for VietKerry?)

[LawsonE]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:wpEWc.99865$Lj.83312@fed1read03...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "sanjian" > wrote in message
> > news:wNxWc.99388$Lj.5353@fed1read03...
> >>
> >> Anyone think we should get rid of every last drop of this campaign
> >> finance mumbo jumbo and just say "look, you can't have money from
> >> foriegners, and you have to show where it all came from"?
> >>
> >
> > Absolutely! Hell, I don't even care if a candidate takes money from
> > foreigners, as long as there's full disclosure.
>
> Dunno... not sure I'd want North Korea, or China, or worse - France trying
> to influence our elections... at least any more than usual.
>
> (BTW, did you notice that Kim Jong is cheering for VietKerry?)
>
>

And Emporer (or is it king?) Moon is cheering for Bush.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
>> Shirt) wrote:
>>
>> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> >> On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
>> >> Shirt) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
>> >> >Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
>> >> >is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.
>> >
>> >Note 'what we are told', and 'whom we are told'.
>>
>> Once again you've edited to put someone else's words into my mouth.
>
>Please help me to avoid making the same mistake thrice by pointing
>out the statements I misattributed to you.

The statement is the one directly under the attribution line, exactly
as I replied to your post. (And exactly as it still is shown above.) I
didn't ever say "I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on
the boat". In fact, I said exactly the opposite. I said I'd value the
opinions of his peers--other Swift boat officers; his
supervisors--others in his chain of command who were qualified to
observe and evaluate his service. And, I paralleled it to the issue of
who could comment on my performance as a single-seat fighter driver
since no one is "on the boat" with me? Or, who would better describe
my performance as an F-4 driver in combat--my WSO (who isn't a pilot)
or the leaders and wing-men I flew with?
>
>> Personally, I'm putting very little stock into the words of the "band
>> of brothers" who seem to be getting a lot of travel, perks and
>> "face-time" by being loyal to Senator Kerry.
>
>That sounds remarkably close to slander.

How is it slander to claim that I put little stock into their words?
Or, is it slander to point out that they are traveling the country
with the candidate and not at their own expense? I've not come close
to slander in the slightest.
>
>> They don't seem to be
>> bothered by his subsequent slander of his "brothers" when he completed
>> his 4 months of duty.
>
>
>As we have previously discussed, Kerry did not slander them though
>arguably it is slander to claim that he did.

Lemme see now, if you quote "Viet vets" and your own experience in the
Senate testimony under oath that accuses the military in Vietnam of
atrocities, war crimes, violations of the Geneva Convention, etc.
knowing (or at least you should have known before becoming the
organization's front-man) that they are lying, often not combat vets
and often not vets at all are you not slandering me? (See Burkett's
"Stolen Valor" for evidence on the veracity and qualifications of the
Winter Soldier testimony. --Burkett's work has been thoroughly
peer-reviewed and examined for accuracy.)

If you go on "Meet the Press" and state that the command structure
from the top down to the field officer was complicit in ordering,
prescribing, tolerating war crimes are you not slandering me?

If you say that abiding by the ROE is a war crime are you not
slandering me? If you say that using a .50 cal against personnel is a
war crime (it isn't!) and I've used 20MM Vulcan against troops in the
open are you not slandering me? If you say that employing ordinance in
a free-fire zone is a war crime--knowing that free fire zones are
militarily controlled areas held by the enemy, are you not slandering
me? If you say that bombing campaigns are war crimes and I've
dutifully engaged in 250 combat missions are you not slandering me?

It isn't slander for me to apply what he clearly said in the Senate
and to Tim Russert on Meet the Press and call it lies.
>
>> >
>> >Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
>> >that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
>> >'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
>> >60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
>> >conclusion.
>>
>> I understand your parsing here, and while it might be quite good in a
>> courtroom, it doesn't pass the (un)-common sense test of daily
>> discourse in usenet. Consider this, I'm going to write a book. I'm
>> planning to call it "Unfit for Command". I'm planning to entire a
>> political firefight challenging a major presidential candidate's
>> credentials. I ask you to contribute. What do you do if you don't
>> agree with the thesis of my book?
>
>To directly address your question, I would make honest and truthful
>statements to the authors. Why, what would you do?
>
>But your hypothetical presumes over much. First, you assume 60
>persons really did contribute, and really know that they contributed.
>Perhaps you base that on faith in the authors. I don't know the
>authors myself, and am not willing to make that presumption.

My point is that if I'm writing a book in which I'm seeking your
testimony about the actions of someone in combat with the intent to
disprove that individual's assertions about his own action, you won't
contribute your name to the effort if you don't agree with the book's
thesis. You're more intelligent than that.
>
>Second you presume that the authors informed the persons they
>interviewed of their intent befor even interviewing them. How could that be
>unless the authors reached their conclusions befor doing their research?

This isn't academic research. It is historic recounting of the
experiences of the authors. It is collection of supporting information
to validate what they already know and to bolster their thesis. Don't
confuse it with science in which you postulate and then conduct
experiments to substantiate your hypothesis. You don't need to do a
"double-blind" on your own experiences.
>
>Third, you assume that the authors informed those they interviewed
>of that conclusion, or that they read the book. Otherwise, how would
>they know what conclusion the authors had reached?

Few publishers will allow authors to quote individuals without
questioning the author regarding the accuracy and authorizations for
those quotes. The rigor does not reach the same level as reference
citations for scientific work, but the editor will be asking where you
got this stuff and you'll have to explain how you acquired the
statements. Been there, done that on two books now.
>
>> You may recall several weeks ago there was a fairly extensive document
>> with photos of Swifties at all levels of the chain of command who had
>> come forward in May of this year in a press conference in Washington
>> DC at the National Press Club.
>
>No, I missed that. Can you direct me to a copy of that document?

At your service:
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes


>> Clearly there are a number of things going on here. One is the focus
>> of the Kerry campaign on the Vietnam service and not the Vietnam
>> resistance. That's a recognition of the fact that America IS at war
>> and we face a serious threat that requires sacrifice and leadership.
>
>Yes and I agree that it is a tactical mistake. The campaign should
>emphacise what they plan to do differently in the next four years,
>not what was done thirty-odd years ago by either candidate.

At last, substance! So far, the candidate has indicated that he is
going to get the French and the Germans to come on board along with a
"coalition of the corrupt" forged from the cooperative and eager to
please third-world nations of the UN. Probably dangling another "food
for oil" program to insure that the administrators are properly
compensated for their cooperation. Unlikely!
>
>Now that he has started down that path *I* personally would like
>to see him continue and explain his actions after his return to the
>US.
>
>> It is also a repudiation of the actions of the Senator after his brief
>> combat service.
>
>No.

He doesn't appear to be running on his war resistance. That position
served him for an earlier election. Now he's running on his war
participation and running away from his record (much more substantial)
as a resister.
>
>Apropos so long as the '60 contributors' to the book remain unamed.

Have you read the book?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> >> On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
> >> Shirt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> >> >> On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
> >> >> Shirt) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
> >> >> >Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
> >> >> >is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.
> >> >
> >> >Note 'what we are told', and 'whom we are told'.
> >>
> >> Once again you've edited to put someone else's words into my mouth.
> >
> >Please help me to avoid making the same mistake thrice by pointing
> >out the statements I misattributed to you.
>
> The statement is the one directly under the attribution line, exactly
> as I replied to your post. (And exactly as it still is shown above.) I
> didn't ever say "I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on
> the boat".

As shown above, the statement is and was correctly attributed to myself.

The rest requires more time for a reply, manwhile thanks for the
reference to Burkett's book.

--

FF

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: Matt Osborn
>Date: 8/24/2004 3:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
>Shirt) wrote:
>
>>As we have previously discussed, Kerry did not slander them though
>>arguably
>>it is slander to claim that he did.
>
>I'm not sure where you previously discussed this, but when Kerry
>claimed that I cut off heads, raped women, shot civilians, etc., I was
>slandered.
>
>You may wish to argue that Kerry didn't say that I committed war
>crimes, but in his own words he said that war crimes were 'not
>isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
>full awareness of officers at all levels of command.'
>


New pollsnow that even after the boat stuff Kerry holds a light edge over Bush.


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

[Tom Cervo]

>At last, substance! So far, the candidate has indicated that he is
>going to get the French and the Germans to come on board along with a
>"coalition of the corrupt" forged from the cooperative and eager to
>please third-world nations of the UN. Probably dangling another "food
>for oil" program to insure that the administrators are properly
>compensated for their cooperation. Unlikely!

Unlikely that you are the first--or the last--to be taken in by one of
Chalabi's swindles.

[sanjian]

LawsonE wrote:
> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> news:wpEWc.99865$Lj.83312@fed1read03...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "sanjian" > wrote in message
>>> news:wNxWc.99388$Lj.5353@fed1read03...
>>>>
>>>> Anyone think we should get rid of every last drop of this campaign
>>>> finance mumbo jumbo and just say "look, you can't have money from
>>>> foriegners, and you have to show where it all came from"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely! Hell, I don't even care if a candidate takes money from
>>> foreigners, as long as there's full disclosure.
>>
>> Dunno... not sure I'd want North Korea, or China, or worse - France
>> trying to influence our elections... at least any more than usual.
>>
>> (BTW, did you notice that Kim Jong is cheering for VietKerry?)
>>
>>
>
> And Emporer (or is it king?) Moon is cheering for Bush.

Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy by any
administration, including Clinton's.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article <NRRWc.102826$Lj.19277@fed1read03>, "sanjian"
> wrote:

> LawsonE wrote:
> > "sanjian" > wrote in message
> > news:wpEWc.99865$Lj.83312@fed1read03...
> >> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> >>> news:wNxWc.99388$Lj.5353@fed1read03...
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone think we should get rid of every last drop of this campaign
> >>>> finance mumbo jumbo and just say "look, you can't have money from
> >>>> foriegners, and you have to show where it all came from"?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely! Hell, I don't even care if a candidate takes money from
> >>> foreigners, as long as there's full disclosure.
> >>
> >> Dunno... not sure I'd want North Korea, or China, or worse - France
> >> trying to influence our elections... at least any more than usual.
> >>
> >> (BTW, did you notice that Kim Jong is cheering for VietKerry?)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > And Emporer (or is it king?) Moon is cheering for Bush.
>
> Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy by
> any
> administration, including Clinton's.
>
>

But the Kennedy Administration named Moon a target, and the actual
invasion was under Nixon.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>
> But the Kennedy Administration named Moon a target, and the actual
> invasion was under Nixon.
>

Tee hee hee.

[Tom Cervo]

>All he needs to do is authorize the release of his attendance records for
>those meetings and then we might get a bigger picture of his record.
>

All you need to know about his record there is contained in the story of his
BCCI investigation.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

[Tom Cervo]

>Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy by any
>administration, including Clinton's.

It's only in the last few years that he started selling submarines to NK.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Billy Preston" > wrote in message news:<kPTUc.7908$ni.869@okepread01>...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
> > Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their failure
> > to serve their country as he did.
>
> He only served for 4 months. Not enough to measure a mans worth.

That's four month MORE in combat than Bush or Cheney.

Offhand, I think Bush and Cheney took the smarter approach and
Kerry was foolish and naive but learned what Sherman had said
about glory being moonshine and nonsense, what we would call
today, bull**** and lies.

I am quite confident that they are all three quite different
men today than they were then, in part because of their experiences
then. Kerry learned what it was like for those sent into combat
while Cheney and Bush learned what it was like for those who
were not.

Not that it matters. I hope that most people do not need to
experience combat themselves to understand the consequences of
war.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Billy Preston" > wrote in message news:<2SVUc.7917$ni.2571@okepread01>...
>
>
> I spent 8 months in one [VA Hospital]in 1991. Been there done
> that. Didn't get any medal though (friendly fire).
>

If you really want one, (and I'm not about to complain one way or
the other) have you looked into this:

http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm

(6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the
requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of
hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to
deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration, the
circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the
criteria. Note the following examples:
....

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

....

Though there were some changes to the criteria made in 1995 and 1996
(it is not clear exactly what) they were retroactive, in some cases
all the way back to WWI. (Yes, One).

--

FF

[sanjian]

Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <NRRWc.102826$Lj.19277@fed1read03>, "sanjian"
> > wrote:

>>> And Emporer (or is it king?) Moon is cheering for Bush.
>>
>> Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy
>> by any
>> administration, including Clinton's.
>>
>>
>
> But the Kennedy Administration named Moon a target, and the actual
> invasion was under Nixon.

Ouch.

Maybe that's where Kerry was, instead of Cambodia?

[LawsonE]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:NRRWc.102826$Lj.19277@fed1read03...
> LawsonE wrote:
> > "sanjian" > wrote in message
> > news:wpEWc.99865$Lj.83312@fed1read03...
> >> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> >>> news:wNxWc.99388$Lj.5353@fed1read03...
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone think we should get rid of every last drop of this campaign
> >>>> finance mumbo jumbo and just say "look, you can't have money from
> >>>> foriegners, and you have to show where it all came from"?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely! Hell, I don't even care if a candidate takes money from
> >>> foreigners, as long as there's full disclosure.
> >>
> >> Dunno... not sure I'd want North Korea, or China, or worse - France
> >> trying to influence our elections... at least any more than usual.
> >>
> >> (BTW, did you notice that Kim Jong is cheering for VietKerry?)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > And Emporer (or is it king?) Moon is cheering for Bush.
>
> Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy by
any
> administration, including Clinton's.
>
>

Interesting, that. I guess being able to fund lots of neo-con (and likely
mainstream Democratic and Republican) endeavors gives you a LOT of political
immunity in this country. The Washington Times has lost about $1 billion
since it was founded. Since it primarily (or exclusively) touts a Republican
point of view, we could call it a $1 billion advertising subsidy to the RNC.

Kim Jong doesn't funnel a billion plus to support American interests, so he
doesn't get the same lack of close scrutiny as Moon does, in fact American
Congressmen are willing to participate in his crowning in US gov buildings.

[LawsonE]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:CNbXc.14348$ni.1055@okepread01...
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> > In article <NRRWc.102826$Lj.19277@fed1read03>, "sanjian"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>> And Emporer (or is it king?) Moon is cheering for Bush.
> >>
> >> Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy
> >> by any
> >> administration, including Clinton's.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > But the Kennedy Administration named Moon a target, and the actual
> > invasion was under Nixon.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Maybe that's where Kerry was, instead of Cambodia?
>
>

Allegedly he WAS in Cambodia in Jan/Feb 1969, but not during Christmas 68.
Which is worse, that he wasn't there during Chritmas, or that he COULD
remember the then current President talking about Cambodia?

[LawsonE]

<Matt Osborn> wrote in message
...
> On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >As we have previously discussed, Kerry did not slander them though
> >arguably
> >it is slander to claim that he did.
>
> I'm not sure where you previously discussed this, but when Kerry
> claimed that I cut off heads, raped women, shot civilians, etc., I was
> slandered.
>
> You may wish to argue that Kerry didn't say that I committed war
> crimes, but in his own words he said that war crimes were 'not
> isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
> full awareness of officers at all levels of command.'

So were you *an* officer who was aware of these things (didn't see "all
officers"), or were you one of the Winter Soldiers testifiers?

Can't claim slander unless you were targetted, and the language was
sufficiently vague that it didn't target everyone, by any means.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"sanjian" > wrote in message news:<CNbXc.14348$ni.1055@okepread01>...
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> > In article <NRRWc.102826$Lj.19277@fed1read03>, "sanjian"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>> And Emporer (or is it king?) Moon is cheering for Bush.
> >>
> >> Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy
> >> by any
> >> administration, including Clinton's.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > But the Kennedy Administration named Moon a target, and the actual
> > invasion was under Nixon.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Maybe that's where Kerry was, instead of Cambodia?


"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill
is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the
former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored
at the National Archives in College Park, Md.

See: <http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040826/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_critic_swift_boats_3>

--

FF

[Tom Cervo]

> "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill
>is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the
>former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored
>at the National Archives in College Park, Md.

He may have been lying to Nixon--which sounds like one of those M C Escher
prints.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Tom Cervo
> writes
>>Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy by any
>>administration, including Clinton's.
>
>It's only in the last few years that he started selling submarines to NK.

1994, if memory serves, and the submarines were more in the "liability"
than the "lethal military asset" class. Old Foxtrot and Golf-class
diesels.

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

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

[Tom Cervo]

>In message >, Tom Cervo
> writes
>>>Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy by any
>>>administration, including Clinton's.
>>
>>It's only in the last few years that he started selling submarines to NK.
>
>1994, if memory serves, and the submarines were more in the "liability"
>than the "lethal military asset" class. Old Foxtrot and Golf-class
>diesels.
>

Considering what Bush made out of old aluminum tubes and a helium van, I'm
amazed he hasn't invaded NK.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Tom Cervo) wrote in message >...
> > "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill
> >is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the
> >former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored
> >at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
>
> He may have been lying to Nixon--which sounds like one of those M C Escher
> prints.

If he was lying to Nixon then he (O'Neal) is dishonest.

If he was telling th etruth to Nixon then he (O'Neal) knows that
what he said about it being impossible for Kerry to have enterred
Cambodia is false.

Either way, he (O'Neal) is dishonest.

--

FF

[Brett]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> (Tom Cervo) wrote in message
>...
> > > "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill
> > >is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the
> > >former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored
> > >at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
> >
> > He may have been lying to Nixon--which sounds like one of those M C
Escher
> > prints.
>
> If he was lying to Nixon then he (O'Neal) is dishonest.

Well Kerry claimed he was in Cambodia Christmas Eve of 1968, and he made
that claim on the floor of the Senate, he wasn't and even his campaign
admits he wasn't.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> (Tom Cervo) wrote in message
>...
> > > "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill
> > >is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the
> > >former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored
> > >at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
> >
> > He may have been lying to Nixon--which sounds like one of those M C
Escher
> > prints.
>
> If he was lying to Nixon then he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
>
> If he was telling th etruth to Nixon then he (O'Neal) knows that
> what he said about it being impossible for Kerry to have enterred
> Cambodia is false.
>
> Either way, he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
>

He may be dishonest, but nothing O'Neill has done or said on this matter
indicates that he is. O'Neill says Kerry was not in Cambodia at the time
Kerry says that he was. O'Neill could have been there at a later date.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Tom Cervo) wrote in message
> >...
> > > > "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill
> > > >is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the
> > > >former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored
> > > >at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
> > >
> > > He may have been lying to Nixon--which sounds like one of those M C
> Escher
> > > prints.
> >
> > If he was lying to Nixon then he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
> >
> > If he was telling th etruth to Nixon then he (O'Neal) knows that
> > what he said about it being impossible for Kerry to have enterred
> > Cambodia is false.
> >
> > Either way, he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
> >
>
> He may be dishonest, but nothing O'Neill has done or said on this matter
> indicates that he is. O'Neill says Kerry was not in Cambodia at the time
> Kerry says that he was. O'Neill could have been there at a later date.

Actually he said that it was impossible for Kerry to have been in Cambodia,
that he (Kerry) would have been courtmartialed had he gone there. It
seems O'Neal (I've seen his name spelt three different ways) knows
better.

--

FF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
et>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Tom Cervo) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill
> > > > >is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the
> > > > >former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored
> > > > >at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
> > > >
> > > > He may have been lying to Nixon--which sounds like one of those M C
> > Escher
> > > > prints.
> > >
> > > If he was lying to Nixon then he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
> > >
> > > If he was telling th etruth to Nixon then he (O'Neal) knows that
> > > what he said about it being impossible for Kerry to have enterred
> > > Cambodia is false.
> > >
> > > Either way, he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
> > >
> >
> > He may be dishonest, but nothing O'Neill has done or said on this matter
> > indicates that he is. O'Neill says Kerry was not in Cambodia at the
time
> > Kerry says that he was. O'Neill could have been there at a later date.
>
> Actually he said that it was impossible for Kerry to have been in
Cambodia,
> that he (Kerry) would have been courtmartialed had he gone there.
>

Yes, at the time Kerry says he was there.


>
> It seems O'Neal (I've seen his name spelt three different ways) knows
> better.
>

It seems you don't understand what O'Neill said.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 8/28/2004 12:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
et>...
>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > (Tom Cervo) wrote in message
>> >...
>> > > > "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill
>> > > >is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the
>> > > >former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored
>> > > >at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
>> > >
>> > > He may have been lying to Nixon--which sounds like one of those M C
>> Escher
>> > > prints.
>> >
>> > If he was lying to Nixon then he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
>> >
>> > If he was telling th etruth to Nixon then he (O'Neal) knows that
>> > what he said about it being impossible for Kerry to have enterred
>> > Cambodia is false.
>> >
>> > Either way, he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
>> >
>>
>> He may be dishonest, but nothing O'Neill has done or said on this matter
>> indicates that he is. O'Neill says Kerry was not in Cambodia at the time
>> Kerry says that he was. O'Neill could have been there at a later date.
>
>Actually he said that it was impossible for Kerry to have been in Cambodia,
>that he (Kerry) would have been courtmartialed had he gone there. It
>seems O'Neal (I've seen his name spelt three different ways) knows
>better.
>
>--
>
>FF
>

Who cares? The important thing is that Bush never fought due to cowardice Same
for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight better
than neocons. WW II for example. We have the wong party leading America.




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

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 8/28/2004 4:37 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>>Date: 8/28/2004 12:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
et>...
>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>> > (Tom Cervo) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>> > > > "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill
>>> > > >is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the
>>> > > >former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored
>>> > > >at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
>>> > >
>>> > > He may have been lying to Nixon--which sounds like one of those M C
>>> Escher
>>> > > prints.
>>> >
>>> > If he was lying to Nixon then he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
>>> >
>>> > If he was telling th etruth to Nixon then he (O'Neal) knows that
>>> > what he said about it being impossible for Kerry to have enterred
>>> > Cambodia is false.
>>> >
>>> > Either way, he (O'Neal) is dishonest.
>>> >
>>>
>>> He may be dishonest, but nothing O'Neill has done or said on this matter
>>> indicates that he is. O'Neill says Kerry was not in Cambodia at the time
>>> Kerry says that he was. O'Neill could have been there at a later date.
>>
>>Actually he said that it was impossible for Kerry to have been in Cambodia,
>>that he (Kerry) would have been courtmartialed had he gone there. It
>>seems O'Neal (I've seen his name spelt three different ways) knows
>>better.
>>
>>--
>>
>>FF
>>
>
>Who cares? The important thing is that Bush never fought due to cowardice
>Same
>for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight better
>than neocons. WW II for example. We have the wong party leading America.
>
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Get a life already, Art, FDR never served in the military, Bush did.

The vast majority of the military of the time never went to war either. Are
they cowards too?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

ArtKramr wrote:

>The important thing is that Bush never fought due to cowardice Same
>for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him.

Hey genius, the closest FDR got to combat was an assasination attempt in Miami
in 1933. I guess FDR is a coward as well since he had amlpe opportunity before
being stricken with polio to "see combat".

>Democrats fight better
>than neocons. WW II for example.

Bad example. The U.S. casulty rate for WWII was worse than any conflict except
the U.S. Civil War. Now, you want to talk about DESERT STORM or OEF/OIF?


BUFDRVR

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

[Bob Coe]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Democrats fight better than neocons.

This is the most juvenile remark I've ever heard. It's about
as ignorant as Republicans copulate better than liberals.

If you want to communicate here with adults, then you need to
knock off the baby talk.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Bob Coe"
>Date: 8/28/2004 6:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <nW9Yc.15373$ni.15274@okepread01>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> Democrats fight better than neocons.
>
>This is the most juvenile remark I've ever heard. It's about
>as ignorant as Republicans copulate better than liberals.
>
>If you want to communicate here with adults, then you need to
>knock off the baby talk.
>

It's not baby talk. During WW II the entire nation was Democratic. And we won
that war. You figure it out. If you are adult enough that is.


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

[Bob Coe]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> During WW II the entire nation was Democratic.

There were no other political parties?

This statement is not only juvenile, it is *ridiculous*.

Synonyms: antic, bizarre, comic, comical, contemptible,
daffy, derisory, droll, fantastic, farcical, fool-headed, foolish,
funny, gelastic, goofy, grotesque, harebrained, hilarious,
impossible, incredible, jerky, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical,
nutty, outrageous, preposterous, risible, sappy, silly, slaphappy,
stupid, unbelievable, wacky

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who cares? The important thing is that Bush never fought due to cowardice
Same
> for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight
better
> than neocons. WW II for example. We have the wong party leading America.
>

Roosevelt never served in the military.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 8/28/2004 10:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Who cares? The important thing is that Bush never fought due to cowardice
>Same
>> for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight
>better
>> than neocons. WW II for example. We have the wong party leading America.
>>
>
>Roosevelt never served in the military.


But he was a great war leader while Bush is a disaster.


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

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 8/29/2004 6:41 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>Date: 8/28/2004 10:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: t>
>>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Who cares? The important thing is that Bush never fought due to cowardice
>>Same
>>> for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight
>>better
>>> than neocons. WW II for example. We have the wong party leading America.
>>>
>>
>>Roosevelt never served in the military.
>
>
>But he was a great war leader while Bush is a disaster.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Geeze, art, you can take all sides just like that scuzzball kerry. First you
said FDR was a great war leader because he was a combat vet therefore kerry
would be one too because he is a combat vet. Now you say it doesn't matter that
FDR wasn't a combat after spending months telling us that Bush could never be a
good president because he wasn't a combat vet.You have spent months telling us
combat veterans are the only people you respect and now this? I bet you don't
even see a contradiction. Now just how will you blame "neocons" for your
twisted logic?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 8/29/2004 4:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: (ArtKramr)
>>Date: 8/29/2004 6:41 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>>Date: 8/28/2004 10:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: t>
>>>
>>>
>>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> Who cares? The important thing is that Bush never fought due to
>cowardice
>>>Same
>>>> for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight
>>>better
>>>> than neocons. WW II for example. We have the wong party leading America.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Roosevelt never served in the military.
>>
>>
>>But he was a great war leader while Bush is a disaster.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Geeze, art, you can take all sides just like that scuzzball kerry. First you
>said FDR was a great war leader because he was a combat vet therefore kerry
>would be one too because he is a combat vet. Now you say it doesn't matter
>that
>FDR wasn't a combat after spending months telling us that Bush could never be
>a
>good president because he wasn't a combat vet.You have spent months telling
>us
>combat veterans are the only people you respect and now this? I bet you
>don't
>even see a contradiction. Now just how will you blame "neocons" for your
>twisted logic?
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

You can't read.


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

[Bob Coe]

> The important thing is that Bush never fought due to cowardice.
> Same for Cheney.

Why is this important? Is everyone a coward who didn't go to war?

> Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight
> better than neocons.

Millions of men died and he created the cold war. Ted Kennedy
never fought better, and he's a Democrat?

> But he was a great war leader while Bush is a disaster.

So if a million men die, then Bush will become a great war leader?

> You can't read.

Your logic is like a 5 year old kid.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> But he was a great war leader while Bush is a disaster.
>

How so? There were far more casualties under Roosevelt.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
> >From: (B2431)
> >Date: 8/29/2004 4:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>From: (ArtKramr)
> >>Date: 8/29/2004 6:41 AM Central Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>
> >>>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
> >>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
> >>>Date: 8/28/2004 10:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>>Message-id: t>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Who cares? The important thing is that Bush never fought due to
> >cowardice
> >>>Same
> >>>> for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight
> >>>better
> >>>> than neocons. WW II for example. We have the wong party leading
America.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Roosevelt never served in the military.
> >>
> >>
> >>But he was a great war leader while Bush is a disaster.
> >>
> >>
> >>Arthur Kramer
> >
> >Geeze, art, you can take all sides just like that scuzzball kerry. First
you
> >said FDR was a great war leader because he was a combat vet therefore
kerry
> >would be one too because he is a combat vet. Now you say it doesn't
matter
> >that
> >FDR wasn't a combat after spending months telling us that Bush could
never be
> >a
> >good president because he wasn't a combat vet.You have spent months
telling
> >us
> >combat veterans are the only people you respect and now this? I bet you
> >don't
> >even see a contradiction. Now just how will you blame "neocons" for your
> >twisted logic?
> >
> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
>
> You can't read.
>

You can't think.

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 8/29/2004 7:04 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>>From: (B2431)
>>Date: 8/29/2004 4:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>From: (ArtKramr)
>>>Date: 8/29/2004 6:41 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>>>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>>>Date: 8/28/2004 10:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: t>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares? The important thing is that Bush never fought due to
>>cowardice
>>>>Same
>>>>> for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight
>>>>better
>>>>> than neocons. WW II for example. We have the wong party leading
>America.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Roosevelt never served in the military.
>>>
>>>
>>>But he was a great war leader while Bush is a disaster.
>>>
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>
>>Geeze, art, you can take all sides just like that scuzzball kerry. First you
>>said FDR was a great war leader because he was a combat vet therefore kerry
>>would be one too because he is a combat vet. Now you say it doesn't matter
>>that
>>FDR wasn't a combat after spending months telling us that Bush could never
>be
>>a
>>good president because he wasn't a combat vet.You have spent months telling
>>us
>>combat veterans are the only people you respect and now this? I bet you
>>don't
>>even see a contradiction. Now just how will you blame "neocons" for your
>>twisted logic?
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>You can't read.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

And you can't admit when you are wrong. You, sir, are a lying hypocrite.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 8/29/2004 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: (ArtKramr)
>>Date: 8/29/2004 7:04 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>>>From: (B2431)
>>>Date: 8/29/2004 4:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>>From: (ArtKramr)
>>>>Date: 8/29/2004 6:41 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
>>>>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>>>>Date: 8/28/2004 10:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: t>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who cares? The important thing is that Bush never fought due to
>>>cowardice
>>>>>Same
>>>>>> for Cheney. Where is Roosevelt now that we need him. Democrats fight
>>>>>better
>>>>>> than neocons. WW II for example. We have the wong party leading
>>America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Roosevelt never served in the military.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But he was a great war leader while Bush is a disaster.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>
>>>Geeze, art, you can take all sides just like that scuzzball kerry. First
>you
>>>said FDR was a great war leader because he was a combat vet therefore kerry
>>>would be one too because he is a combat vet. Now you say it doesn't matter
>>>that
>>>FDR wasn't a combat after spending months telling us that Bush could never
>>be
>>>a
>>>good president because he wasn't a combat vet.You have spent months telling
>>>us
>>>combat veterans are the only people you respect and now this? I bet you
>>>don't
>>>even see a contradiction. Now just how will you blame "neocons" for your
>>>twisted logic?
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>You can't read.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>And you can't admit when you are wrong. You, sir, are a lying hypocrite.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

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

[Bob Coe]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> PLONK

I guess that was the toilet seat lid. Hopefully he is going to flush now,
although I don't think he's gotten everything out of his brain yet.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:CQqYc.15616$ni.10357@okepread01...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
> >
> > PLONK
>
> I guess that was the toilet seat lid. Hopefully he is going to flush now,
> although I don't think he's gotten everything out of his brain yet.

LOL! Just give him a day or two and he'll be back to responding to Dan's
posts. Apparently Art thinks that merely typing "plonk" activates the
filter. Within a couple of days, he has usually forgotten who he supposedly
plonked and who he hasn't, and is back to heaving his grade school level
insults at them all over again (that is, when he is not completely confused
and mistakenly tosses those insults the rare posters who has actually
*agreed* with him...).

Brooks


>
>

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 8/29/2004 4:46 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
>news:CQqYc.15616$ni.10357@okepread01...
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote
>> >
>> > PLONK
>>
>> I guess that was the toilet seat lid. Hopefully he is going to flush now,
>> although I don't think he's gotten everything out of his brain yet.
>
>LOL! Just give him a day or two and he'll be back to responding to Dan's
>posts. Apparently Art thinks that merely typing "plonk" activates the
>filter. Within a couple of days, he has usually forgotten who he supposedly
>plonked and who he hasn't, and is back to heaving his grade school level
>insults at them all over again (that is, when he is not completely confused
>and mistakenly tosses those insults the rare posters who has actually
>*agreed* with him...).
>
>Brooks

He's plonked me before.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> >> On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
> >> Shirt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> >> >> On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
> >> >> Shirt) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
> >> >> >Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
> >> >> >is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.
> >> >...
> >
> >> Personally, I'm putting very little stock into the words of the "band
> >> of brothers" who seem to be getting a lot of travel, perks and
> >> "face-time" by being loyal to Senator Kerry.
> >
> >That sounds remarkably close to slander.
>
> How is it slander to claim that I put little stock into their words?
> Or, is it slander to point out that they are traveling the country
> with the candidate and not at their own expense? I've not come close
> to slander in the slightest.

It is slanderous to imply that they are lying in exchange for the
privilege of traveling about the country at the DNC's expense.

> >
> >> They don't seem to be
> >> bothered by his subsequent slander of his "brothers" when he completed
> >> his 4 months of duty.
> >
> >
> >As we have previously discussed, Kerry did not slander them though
> >arguably it is slander to claim that he did.
>
> Lemme see now, if you quote "Viet vets" and your own experience in the
> Senate testimony under oath that accuses the military in Vietnam of
> atrocities, war crimes, violations of the Geneva Convention, etc.

See below. Typically the whole body of treaties comprising the
laws of warfare are referred by the umbrella term Geneva Conventions
even though the treaties may have been negotiated in the Hague or
other cities. I'll use the term that way.

> knowing (or at least you should have known before becoming the
> organization's front-man) that they are lying, often not combat vets
> and often not vets at all are you not slandering me? (See Burkett's
> "Stolen Valor" for evidence on the veracity and qualifications of the
> Winter Soldier testimony. --Burkett's work has been thoroughly
> peer-reviewed and examined for accuracy.)

While 'peer review' is not without its uses in other fields when
one moves outside of the sciences it does little to assure accuracy.
For example, had Pons and Fleichman submitted their famous 'cold
fusion' paper to peer review they would never have published because
their peers would have pointed out the major flaw in their
methodology.
In an investigation of historical fact, acceptable methodology is
nowhere near as well-defined as in science, nor does it do as well
to assure accuracy. That's not a reflection on the intellect, skill,
or honesty of the writer and reviewer, just a consequence of the
nature
of the field itself.

If you have a copy of the book, perhaps you'd like to post a list of
WSI witnesses whom Burkett claims to debunk. Not organisers, or
supporters, but witnesses, those who gave 'testimony'. I'll
check that list against lists of witnesses and their testimony.

>
> If you go on "Meet the Press" and state that the command structure
> from the top down to the field officer was complicit in ordering,
> prescribing, tolerating war crimes are you not slandering me?

No more so than I slander you and myself today when I blame you
and myself for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

>
> If you say that abiding by the ROE is a war crime are you not
> slandering me?


To my knowledge, Kerry never said "abiding by the ROE is a war crime"
It is easy to criticise someone for words YOU put in his mouth.
However, if the ROE themselves call for violations of the GC, then
one may commit a war crime by acts that fall within the ROE, right?

> If you say that using a .50 cal against personnel is a
> war crime (it isn't!) and I've used 20MM Vulcan against troops in the
> open are you not slandering me?

No, I am not. Since the 1868 St Petersburg declaration several
nations have prohibitted the use of explosive or incindiery
projectiles weighing less than 400 grams (approximately the weight
of a 37mm shell). The development of the warplane motivated
a refinement such that use of said ammunition against aircraft,
or other vehicles was not a crime while retaining the prohibition
for antipersonell use. Also, unlike some provisions of the Geneva
Conventions, the declaration is not reciprocal. Signatory nations
consider violation of the declaration by any nation to be a war
crime.

As you know, the 12.7 mm (.50 cal) HMG has used a variety of
ammunition including solid, tracer, explosive, armor piercing,
and incindiery, often a mix of two or more of these was used
in the same belt. In Norway (and I suppose probably many other
European countries) the 12.7 mm HMG is dedicated to anti-aircraft
use, the standard load is HE. So when Europeans read of the
US using .50 cal machine guns I suspect they assumed it was
used with explosive, rather than solid, projectiles. I believe
that this contributed to the misconception that use of the
..50 cal per se, was a war crime and Kerry was factually mistaken
in the matter IF his .50 was firing solid projectiles. A bit
of googling shows he is not alone, it appears to be a common
misconception.

On its face the antipersonell use of tracers would seem to violate
the St Petersburg declaration but I'm skeptical that anyone would
interpret it that narrowly.

However it is clear that using a 20mm against troops in the open
is a violation of the St Petersburg declaration, even as modified,
and would therefor be considered a war crime by any signatory
nation. That the US is not a signatory nation, said use permitted
by the ROE, and you would never be prosecuted in a US court for
the non-violation of US law does not make is slander if someone
were to accuse you of a war crime. It IS a war crime in many
(perhaps most) civilized nations and those officers in the chain
of command from the CIC on down who order or permit the anti-
personell use of explosive projectiles under 400 grams are
war criminals according to the laws of those nations even
if those nations do not assert prosecutorial jurisdiction.

Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans. That
we had not officially acknowledged, or accepted those same
laws was regarded as evidence of guilt, not as a defense.

Another issue was the use of CS chemical agent (tear gas).
There are GC prohibitions against poisonous, deleterious or
other gases, clearly not limited to lethal gasses, and understood
to not be limitted to gasses as most such agents were atomized
liquids. CS, in fact, is a solid particulate. But there is
no need to quibble over the issue of how 'deleterious' a
chemical weapon need be to be prohibited. The CS munitions
used by the US in tunnels and bunkers in Vietnam produced
and dispersed CS by combustion, which also produced, as a
by product, carbon monoxide. CO IS a gas and IS poisonous.
The CS munitions used in tunnels in Vietnam killed. Some
of the victims were friendlies who made the mistake of
thinking that a gas mask would provide adequate protection.

Another issue is the use of napalm. Weapons that cause excessive
suffering are prohibitted on principle. By the Vietnam era
most European nations had abandoned the use of incindiery
anti-personell weapons on that basis so many regarded the
use by the US to be a war crime.

That the US did not recognise these are war crimes does not
exhonerate us, rather it condemns us for permitting the use
of weapons the rest of the civilized world had outlawed or
restricted.

> If you say that employing ordinance in
> a free-fire zone is a war crime--knowing that free fire zones are
> militarily controlled areas held by the enemy, are you not slandering
> me?

Ignoring your staw man I'll point out that the term 'free fire zone'
can be used in practice in a manner that constitutes a war crime:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGERFORCE/110210076

Under questioning during the Army investigation, at
least eight officers with authority over Tiger Force
- mostly captains and majors - swore that free-fire
zones gave the men the right to "kill anything that
moved."


> If you say that bombing campaigns are war crimes and I've
> dutifully engaged in 250 combat missions are you not slandering me?

Not if you dutifully engage in those missions because, as I'm
sure you'll agree, your duty forbad you from comitting
a war crime.

However:

S. BRIAN WILLSON, [who is NOT a John Kerry supporter, FF]
, http://www.brianwillson.com
As head of a 40-man USAF combat security
unit in Vietnam, I was separately tasked to assess 'success'
of targeted bombings. I discovered egregious war crimes --
daylight terror bombings of undefended fishing and rice
farming villages resulting in mass murders and maimings of
hundreds of residents.

If you can show that Mr Wilson was not the 'head of a 40-man USAF
combat security unit in Vietnam' etc etc, please let me know.

>
> It isn't slander for me to apply what he clearly said in the Senate
> and to Tim Russert on Meet the Press and call it lies.

It is slanderous for you take what he said out of context and to
misquote him. In another article we addresse the issue of how
it must be obvious to a man of your intelligence, when Kerry
was speaking generally, or for others, and when he was speaking
personally for himself.

> >
> >> >
> >> >Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
> >> >that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
> >> >'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
> >> >60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
> >> >conclusion.
> >>
> >> I understand your parsing here, and while it might be quite good in a
> >> courtroom, it doesn't pass the (un)-common sense test of daily
> >> discourse in usenet. Consider this, I'm going to write a book. I'm
> >> planning to call it "Unfit for Command". I'm planning to entire a
> >> political firefight challenging a major presidential candidate's
> >> credentials. I ask you to contribute. What do you do if you don't
> >> agree with the thesis of my book?
> >
> >To directly address your question, I would make honest and truthful
> >statements to the authors. Why, what would you do?
> >

No answer?

> >But your hypothetical presumes over much. First, you assume 60
> >persons really did contribute, and really know that they contributed.
> >Perhaps you base that on faith in the authors. I don't know the
> >authors myself, and am not willing to make that presumption.
>
> My point is that if I'm writing a book in which I'm seeking your
> testimony about the actions of someone in combat with the intent to
> disprove that individual's assertions about his own action, you won't
> contribute your name to the effort if you don't agree with the book's
> thesis. You're more intelligent than that.

And my point is that you don't have to tell me the thesis of your
book in order to talk with me about my experiences. I'm more
trusting than that. Even if you do, and I disagree with it I
might not stonewall you. I might be quite willing to talk with
you hoping to disabuse you of your misconceptions.

I'm contributing to this discussion right now. We agree on very
little. In the future if you write about your UseNet experiences
you could honestly claim that I was a contributor.

> >
> >Second you presume that the authors informed the persons they
> >interviewed of their intent befor even interviewing them. How could that be
> >unless the authors reached their conclusions befor doing their research?
>
> This isn't academic research. It is historic recounting of the
> experiences of the authors. It is collection of supporting information
> to validate what they already know and to bolster their thesis.

Non sequitor. That does not preclude interviewing 60 people
most of whom, for example have no opinion on the thesis itself
and simply corraborate objective historical information.
E.g. 60 contributors to the book does not prove 60 people
support the thesis.

> Don't
> confuse it with science in which you postulate and then conduct
> experiments to substantiate your hypothesis. You don't need to do a
> "double-blind" on your own experiences.

I don't need 60 witnesses either.

> >
> >Third, you assume that the authors informed those they interviewed
> >of that conclusion, or that they read the book. Otherwise, how would
> >they know what conclusion the authors had reached?
>
> Few publishers will allow authors to quote individuals without
> questioning the author regarding the accuracy and authorizations for
> those quotes.

Now you are assuming all 60 were quoted. One may contribute without
being quoted.

....
> >
> >> You may recall several weeks ago there was a fairly extensive document
> >> with photos of Swifties at all levels of the chain of command who had
> >> come forward in May of this year in a press conference in Washington
> >> DC at the National Press Club.
> >
> >No, I missed that. Can you direct me to a copy of that document?
>
> At your service:
> http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes
>
>

> >
> >Now that he has started down that path *I* personally would like
> >to see him continue and explain his actions after his return to the
> >US.
> >
> >> It is also a repudiation of the actions of the Senator after his brief
> >> combat service.
> >
> >No.
>
> He doesn't appear to be running on his war resistance. That position
> served him for an earlier election. Now he's running on his war
> participation and running away from his record (much more substantial)
> as a resister.

He needs to advance the clock and explain why he came out against
the war, or more accurately, against American participation in the
war. Many Americans went through a similare transition at that
time and more recently in regard to the Iraq campaign. For
example a Navy aviation verteran who lives next door to me
who confidently stated that we'd 'stomp them into a mudhole'.
befor the invasion, pointed out that is pretty much what we did
just after the fall of Baghdad, and now regards the Bush
administration much as he does LBJ.

> >
> >Apropos so long as the '60 contributors' to the book remain unamed.
>
> Have you read the book?
>

No. Have you?

Someone who has has posted elsewhere in this thread that the 60
contibutors are named. For the moment that satifies my concerns
as none of your speculation could. People who have the means
to do so can contact them and ask appropriate questions.

I expect that if any of those 60 named dispute the authors,
we'll hear about it.

--

FF

[BUFDRVR]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
>was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
>the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans.

Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there. Europe's issue with
the U.S. was political, not legal.


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]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
> >was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
> >the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans.
>
> Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against troops in
> SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.

I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

> Europe's issue with
> the U.S. was political, not legal.
>

Non sequitor. Just because the French did it too doesn't mean
it wasn't against the laws of war as generally recognized by
Europeans nor does it mean that they can't hate us for doing
the same.

Aside from which, France is not the only nation in Europe.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > ...
> > Actually he said that it was impossible for Kerry to have been in
> Cambodia,
> > that he (Kerry) would have been courtmartialed had he gone there.
> >
>
> Yes, at the time Kerry says he was there.

First, it is not hard to believe that Kerry confused two or more,
missions, thus misremembering which was the Christmas mission.

Second, it is accepted that there were special forces operations
in Cambodia long befor the offical invasion in 1970. Those
special forces had to get there, maybe they walked in, maybe
they parachuted in, or maybe they were ferried in by Swift boats
or small boats with outboard motors.

> >
> > It seems O'Neal (I've seen his name spelt three different ways) knows
> > better.
> >
>
> It seems you don't understand what O'Neill said.

He said to Nixon that he was in Cambodia.

--

FF

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Fred the
Red Shirt > writes
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
>...
>> Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against
>>troops in
>> SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.
>
>I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

20mm HE from Bearcats, at the very least.

Explosive rounds with a mass under a certain limit (Hague or St.
Petersburg, can't recall offhand): technical war crime. (One of those
ignored issues because everyone found 20mm+ cannon so useful for
shooting at "stuff" and therefore also fired them at people _outside_
trucks, trains, cars, tanks, ships etc.)


There was a prohibition against firing rounds weighing less than, IIRC,
400g (just under a pound) at people. This led to the interwar selection
of 1.1" for the US light antiaircraft gun, to keep the shell 'legal' for
firing at manned aircraft. It appears to have been gently allowed to
fall into abeyance, like only-recently-rescinded laws about it being
legal to shoot Welshmen with bow and arrow in certain British towns
after the hours of darkness, when everyone discovered how useful 20mm
cannon were.

But more relevant, there is no reason at all why firing ball rounds from
a .50 machine gun at enemy combatants should be less than lawful.
There's a persistent myth that it's illegal to fire .50" at people, and
it just isn't true.

It might be possible to claim that firing 'explosive bullets' of under
the proscribed weight is a war crime, which would make every 20mm
strafing run an atrocity: but by the time of Vietnam this fell into
"long-accepted custom" with every nation that could strafe troops having
done so with 20-23mm cannon.

The law was written around the idea that undersized low-velocity
explosive bullets with a few grains of black powder as burster and
unreliable fuzes were excessively injurious to people and ineffective
against hardware. Time rapidly produced much more effective
small-calibre rounds that *were* effective against machinery and
vehicles.

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

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

[BUFDRVR]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>First, it is not hard to believe that Kerry confused two or more,
>missions, thus misremembering which was the Christmas mission.

Except that he said the memory was "seared into his brain". Kind of hard to get
confused with memories that are "seared".


BUFDRVR

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >First, it is not hard to believe that Kerry confused two or more,
> >missions, thus misremembering which was the Christmas mission.
>
> Except that he said the memory was "seared into his brain". Kind of hard
to get
> confused with memories that are "seared".

Even worse is his double-speak regarding his first "wound". He has
steadfastly maintained of late that the 2 Dec 68 action where he received
that scrape did involve enemy fires directed at the boats. Unfortunately for
him, though, he had given his personal journals from the era to his
hand-picked biographer, Brinkley, who stated in "Tour of Duty" that Kerry'y
recorded on 11 Dec, nine days after this wound was received, that he and his
crew had *yet* to be fired at by the enemy.

Brooks

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

[Bob]

On 02 Sep 2004 03:33:32 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>>First, it is not hard to believe that Kerry confused two or more,
>>missions, thus misremembering which was the Christmas mission.
>
>Except that he said the memory was "seared into his brain". Kind of hard to get
>confused with memories that are "seared".

Wonder if that rice got seared into his rear end?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Fred the
> Red Shirt > writes
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in message
> >...
> >> Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against
> >>troops in
> >> SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.
> >
> >I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?
>
> 20mm HE from Bearcats, at the very least.
>
> Explosive rounds with a [explosive, FF] mass under a certain limit
> (Hague or St. Petersburg, can't recall offhand): technical war crime.

St Petersburg was the first such prohibition though the US Army
decided, as a matter of policy, to eschew them as well for the
same reasons, they exacerbated the injuries to men who would
have been disabled by the plain ammunition of the day.

The mass limit was 400 gms, approximately the mass of a 37 mm
cannon.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914m/gene68.html

My previous statement about the St Pete not being reciprocal was
incorrect, though there is a tendency for alleged crimes to be
tried according to the laws of the nations holding the trial,
regardless of what laws were accepted by the defendant's nation.
Entirely justified, IMHO, so long as it is the decision makers
and not the soldiers in the field who are on trial.

> (One of those
> ignored issues because everyone found 20mm+ cannon so useful for
> shooting at "stuff" and therefore also fired them at people _outside_
> trucks, trains, cars, tanks, ships etc.)

It appears that the Prohibition was observed without controversy
from 1868 until WWI when the British began using incindiery (also
banned) ammunition in their aircraft. The Germans protested, but
then withdrew their protest apparently decided they preferred
to use the same themselves.

It would seem that tracers are also banned, but it is hard to
imagine a .50 cal tracer exacerbating injuries to a person,
compared to .50 cal hardball. Is there a difference, historically,
between ammuniton designated as tracer and that designated as
incindiery?

>
> ... It appears to have been gently allowed to
> fall into abeyance, like only-recently-rescinded laws about it being
> legal to shoot Welshmen with bow and arrow in certain British towns
> after the hours of darkness, when everyone discovered how useful 20mm
> cannon were.

So the British have discovered that the 20mm is useful for shooting
Welshmen after dark?

>
> But more relevant, there is no reason at all why firing ball rounds from
> a .50 machine gun at enemy combatants should be less than lawful.
> There's a persistent myth that it's illegal to fire .50" at people, and
> it just isn't true.

Agreed. The only basis I can find for that myth is the St Petersburg
(and subsequent) declarations, coupled with the assumption that the
ammunition is incindiery or explosive. I found one Usenet article
by a Norwegian named Per who said the standard ammuniton for a
12.7 mm HMG in Norway was HE, and intended for use against helicopters.

>
> It might be possible to claim that firing 'explosive bullets' of under
> the proscribed weight is a war crime, which would make every 20mm
> strafing run an atrocity: but by the time of Vietnam this fell into
> "long-accepted custom" with every nation that could strafe troops having
> done so with 20-23mm cannon.
>

IMHO the prohibition became unworkable as soon as it became lawful
to issue weapons with the previously proscribed ammunition for
any purpose. You simply cannot expect a soldier in combat to
decline to use any weapon at his disposal.

....

Mr Rasimus, in another ng, says that he is unaware that explosive
ammunition has ever been used in .50 cal. Here and there over the
years I have seen references to explosive .50 cal or 12.7 mm ammuntion.
What is the history here?


--

FF

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Fred the
Red Shirt > writes
>Mr Rasimus, in another ng, says that he is unaware that explosive
>ammunition has ever been used in .50 cal. Here and there over the
>years I have seen references to explosive .50 cal or 12.7 mm ammuntion.
>What is the history here?

There was an explosive round developed in .50" for spotting rifles and
ranging machine guns, usually mounted coaxially with tank guns or above
the barrel of recoilless rifles: ballistically matched to the main gun,
you could aim and fire, and be rewarded with a bright flash if you were
on target (thus cueing you to fire a 106mm or 120mm shell rather than a
..50" bullet). Don't think it was used in machine guns, though. (It might
be the source of the "can't shoot .50 at people" story)




More recently, Raufoss in Norway developed a multipurpose round that
didn't require a mechanical fuze and scaled down as far as 12.7mm, and
it's now quite widely used (by the UK and US among many others). It's a
relatively (10-15 years) recent development, but extremely effective.

http://www.nammo.com/medium_calibre/12,7mm/127mm.html#Anchor-MP-8889
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk211.htm

"The standard design of Multipurpose ammunition (20 - 40 mm) consist of
an aluminium nose cap press filled with an incendiary charge on top of
the shell body (heat treated steel) which again is press filled with a
HE charge and an incendiary charge. The projectile can also be equipped
with a tracer and a self-destruct element.

The 12.7 mm Multipurpose projectile differs from the standard design by
using a tungsten carbide hardcore to increase penetration capabilities
and being encased in a copper jacket. Since Multipurpose ammunition is a
fuse-less design and do not have any sensitive primary high explosive
components (only secondary high explosive) it does not have the safety
risk associated with fused projectiles and does not produce dangerous
duds.

Functioning of the Multipurpose projectile is obtained by hitting the
target (light or heavy) inducing a fast deformation of the nose cap
which is press filled with the incendiary charge. Upon reaching the
ignition criteria for the incendiary charge the charge will start
burning and subsequently ignite the HE charge resulting in the
fragmentation of the shell body. Sensitivity is dependent on the
deformation speed of the nose cap and the high speed associated with a
projectile travelling down the trajectory is needed to obtain the
necessary sensitivity. "

>
>

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

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

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >First, it is not hard to believe that Kerry confused two or more,
> >missions, thus misremembering which was the Christmas mission.
>
> Except that he said the memory was "seared into his brain". Kind of hard to get
> confused with memories that are "seared".

Wrong.

Traumatic memory is well-known to be highly inaccurate, as well as
extrordinarily clear and vivid.

The clarity and vivid nature of memories 'seared into' a person's
brain is often confused with accuracy. Nothing could be further
from the truth.

The release of adrenalin into the bloodstream has a complex interaction
with the formation of long term memory. To a first approximation memories
of events that immediately precede the 'adrenalin rush' are enhanced
in accuracy at the expense of the accuracy of memories of events observed
while the adrenalin is in the bloodstream.

This goes a long ways toward explaining why eyewitnesses to traumatic
events often have very different memories of a common experience.

--

FF

[BUFDRVR]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>Wrong.
>
>Traumatic memory is well-known to be highly inaccurate, as well as
>extrordinarily clear and vivid.

That would be a resonable excuse if we were talking about a traumatic incident,
but just being in Cambodia is much less than a traumatic event.

<snip a bunch of stuff that explains why first hand combat accounts are not the
most reliable event reconstruction tools>


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]

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in message >...
> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
....
> >
> > Lemme see now, if you quote "Viet vets" and your own experience in the
> > Senate testimony under oath that accuses the military in Vietnam of
> > atrocities, war crimes, violations of the Geneva Convention, etc.
> ...
> > knowing (or at least you should have known before becoming the
> > organization's front-man)

Kerry himself, though at first defensive of Hubbard, apparently
checked
out the accusations and then outed Hubbard him befor the VVAW:

rding to the FBI:

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/1497_0_2_0

Kerry's Commie Friends
By Cliff Kincaid | May 7, 2004

....

The documents on several occasions report that Kerry believed that one
of the founders of VVAW, Al Hubbard, who claimed to be a decorated
Vietnam vet, had never served in Vietnam, and had never been a member
of the military. One document says, "John Kerry again attempted to
have Al Hubbard voted off the executive committee as Kerry stated he
did not think Hubbard ever served in Vietnam or was ever in service."
[Kerry] saw [Hubbard] in July, and according to FBI [files on Vietnam
Veterans Against the War] and the minutes of those meetings, [Kerry]
probably saw him in November [1971] too," Nicosia said.
....


http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1252298.html

Marc Morano
Senior Staff Writer

....

Kerry and Hubbard had a heated argument at the St. Louis meeting in
July that was "witnessed by 200 veterans," according to Nicosia.

Despite the presidential candidate's claim last week that Hubbard had
not hurt the anti-war group's credibility in 1971, Kerry actually
believed otherwise, according to Nicosia.

"There was a big fight with Al Hubbard in which Kerry confronted him
and they were screaming at each other across the hall," Nicosia
explained. Hubbard, who had ties to the radical Black Panthers group,
and Kerry "couldn't have been more opposite personalities," Nicosia
said.

The simmering tension between the two men finally reached a boil in
St. Louis, Nicosia said, with Kerry shouting, "Who are you, Al
Hubbard? Are you even really a veteran?

****

However, Hubbard was NOT a WSI witness.

> > that they are lying, often not combat vets
> > and often not vets at all are you not slandering me? (See Burkett's
> > "Stolen Valor" for evidence on the veracity and qualifications of the
> > Winter Soldier testimony. --Burkett's work has been thoroughly
> > peer-reviewed and examined for accuracy.)
>
> ...
>
> If you have a copy of the book, perhaps you'd like to post a list of
> WSI witnesses whom Burkett claims to debunk. Not organisers, or
> supporters, but witnesses, those who gave 'testimony'. I'll
> check that list against lists of witnesses and their testimony.
>

Tell you what, I'll go first. Here's a list of WSI witnesses. You
can tell us which of these Burkett debunked and what he had to say
about them.

Alex Primm, 26, SP/4 (E-4), Public Information Office, 1st Logistics
Command, Headquarters (September 1968 to June 1969)

Allen Akers, 25, Pfc. (E-2), "E" Co., 2nd Bn., 4th Marine Reg., 3rd
Marine Division (May 1965 to March 1966)

Allan Crouse, 22 (E-4), 3rd Engineers Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division
(January 1969 to December 1969)

Barry Hopkins, 23, 3/39th, 9th Infantry Division (January 1969 to
January 1970)

Bill Perry, 23, Pfc. (E-3), "A" Co., 1/506, 101st Airborne Division
(November 1966 to August 1968)

Carl Rippberger, 23, (E-4), "K" Troop, 3rd Squad, 11th Armored Cav.
Reg., attached to 9th Infantry Division (May 1967 to May 1968)

Charles Leffler, 25, Pfc. (E-3), "G" Co., 2nd Bn., 26 Marine Reg., 9th
Marine Amphibious Brigade, LRRP, attached to 1st and 3rd Marine
Division (September 1968 to September 1969)

Charles Stephens, 24, Pfc. (E-3), 1/327, 101st Airborne Division
(December 1965 to February 1967)

Christopher Simpson, 21, Cpl. (E-4), "E" Co., 2nd Bn., 5th Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Div. (1967-1968)

Christopher Soares, 20, L/Cpl. (E-3), "G" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th Marine
Reg., 3rd Marine Division (February 1969 to April 1969)

Curtis Wingrodski, 22, SP/4, 59th Scout Dog, 11th Brigade, Americal
Division (March 1969 to October 1969)

David Bishop, 21, L/Cpl., "H" Co., 2nd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division

David Chiles, 24, SP/4 (E-4), 3/4, 25th Infantry Division (January
1968 to December 1968)

David Cohen, Naval Coastal, Division 11 (November 1966 to November
1967)

David Stark, 25, SP/5 (E-5), 524 Military Intelligence Detachment
(October 1967 to October 1968)

Dennis Butts, 24, SP/4 (E-4), HHQ Co., 2/12, 25th Infantry Division
and "E" Co., 4/39, 9th Infantry Division (September 1966 to September
1967)

Dennis Caldwell, 24, CWO-2, "A" Trp., 3/17, Air Cav., 1st Aviation
Brigade (October 1968 to October 1969)

Don Pugsley, 23, SP/4, 5th Special Forces (October 1969 to December
1969)

Donald Donner, 24, SP/4 (E-4), 20th Brigade, 86th Combat Engineers
(August 1967 to July 1968)

Don Dzagulones, 23, SP/5, 635th Military Intelligence Detachment,
attached to 11th Infantry Brigade, Americal Division (January 1969 to
December 1969)

Douglas Craig, 22, SP/4, "D" Co., 2nd Bn., 8th Brigade, 1st Air Cav.
Division (December 1968 to August 1969)

Doug Wright, SP/4, 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division

Ed Murphy, 23, Sgt. (E-5), 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division (October
1967 to September 1968)

Ernie Sachs, 27, Captain, Medium Helicopter Squadron 362, Marine Air
Group 36, 1st Marine Division (August 1966 to September 1967)

Eugene Keys, 25, SP/4 (E-4), 3/4 25th Infantry Division (February 1966
to February 1967)

Franklin Shepard, 23, S. Sgt. (E-6), 5/60, 9th Infantry Division
(March 1968 to August 1969)

Fred Bernath, 26, 1st Lt., 101st MP Co., 101st Airborne Division
(December 1968 to October 1969)

Fred Nienke, 21, Sgt. (E-5), "D" Co., 1st Bn., 5th Mor. Reg., 1st
Marine Division (July 1967 to February 1968); 1st Prov. Rifle Co., Mag
36, 1st Marine Air Wing, 1st Marine Div. (January 1969 to August 1969)

Gary Keyes, 22, SP/4, "E" Troop, 1st Cav. Reg., 11th Brigade, Americal
Division (April 1969 to March 1970)

Gordon Stewart, 20, Sgt. (E-5), "H" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th Marine Reg., 3rd
Marine Div. (September 1968 to September 1969)

Jack Bronaugh, 21, Pvt. (E-1), "E" Btry. 213, 2nd Bn., 27 Marine Reg.;
H & S Bn., 7th Marine POW Compound; 1st Bn., 5th Marine Regiment;
MAC-11, H & MS-11, 1st Marine Air Wing, 1st Marine Division (February
1968 to October 1969)

Jack Smith, 27, S/Sgt. (E-6), HQ Battery, 12th Marine Reg., 3rd Marine
Division (January 1969 to December 1969)

James Duffy, 23, SP/5 (E-5), 228 Avn. Bn., 1st Air Cav. Div. (February
1967 to April 1968)

Jamie Henry, 23, Sgt., 1/35 Inf., 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division
(August 1967 to August 1968)

James Mackay, 20, Sgt. (E-5), HHQ 3rd Brigade, 9th Inf. Div. (October
1968 to August 1970)

James Umenhofer, SP/4 (E-4), 2/501, 101st Airborne Division (November
1969 to October 1970)

Jim Weber, 24, Sgt. (E-5), "A" Co., 1/6 and 1/46, 198 LIB, Americal
Division (November 1967 to November 1968)

Joe Bangert, 22, Sgt. (E-5), VMO-6, PMAG-39, 1st Marine Air Wing, 1st
Marine Division (October 1968 to October 1969)

Joe Galbally, 23, SP/4 (E-4), 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division (October
1967 to April 1968)

John Beitzel, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 4/21, 11th Brigade, Americal Division
(January 1969 to January 1970)

John Birch, 24, Cpl. (E-4), "B" Co., 3rd Shore Party Bn., 4th Marine
Reg., 3rd Marine Division (May 1965 to August 1966)

John Hartner, 26, Sgt. (E-5), H & HD 3rd Brigade, H & HD 2nd Brigade,
4th Infantry Division (November 1969 to August 1970)

John Henry, 26, SP/4, 2/60, 1/11 Artillery, 9th Infantry Division
(March 1968 to February 1969)

John Lytle, 24, SP/4 (E-4), "E" Co., 6/15 Arty., 1st Infantry Division
(August 1967 to March 1969)

John Mallory, 24, Captain, 1st Sq., 11th Arm. Cav. Reg., 1st Air Cav.
Division (May 1969 to May 1970)

Kenneth Campbell, 21, Cpl. (E-4), "A" Btry., 1st Bn., 11th Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Div., scouted for "B" Co., 1st Bn., 1st Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Division (February 1968 to March 1969)

Kenneth Ruth, 26, (E-4), HHQ Co., 2/12 Air Cav. Reg., 1st Air Cav.
Div. (February 1966 to February 1967)

Kevin Byrne, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 42nd Scout Dog, 1st Brigade, 101st
Airborne Division (November 1968 to November 1969)

Kevin Delay, 20, Cpl., H & S Co., 3rd Bn., 1st Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division (October 1969 to March 1970)

Larry Brooks, 21, Pfc., 2nd Bn., 7th Marine Reg., 1st Marine Division
(July 1969 to January 1970)

Larry Craig, 29, SP/4, Public Information Office, 25th Infantry
Division (1966 to 1967)

Mark Lenix, 24, 1st Lt., 1/11th Arty. and 2/39 Infantry, 9th Infantry
Division (1968 to 1969)

Mike Nakayamo, 1st Bn., 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division

Michael Damron, 24, Pvt. (E-1), "B" Co., 3rd Tank Bn., 3rd Marine
Reg., 3rd Marine Division (September 1966 to October 1967)

Michael Erard, 29, SP/5 (E-5), 3/503, 173rd Airborne Brigade (April
1969 to March 1970)

Michael Farrell, 24, SP/4 (E-4), "A" Co., 2/60, 9th Infantry Division
(January 1967 to January 1968)

Michael Kenny, 20, 2nd Bn., 26th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division

Michael Miziaszek, 22, SP/4 (E-4), 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne
Division, FSSE (December 1968 to January 1970)

Michael McCusker, 29, (2) Sgt. (E-5), Public Information Office, 1st
Marine Division (1966 to 1967)

Murphy Lloyd, 27, (2) Sgt. (E-5), "D" Co., 4th Bn., 173rd Airborne
Brigade (February 1967 to February 1968)

Nathan Hale, 23, SP/5, M.I. Detachment, 198 L.I.B., Americal Division
(December 1967 to December 1968)

Orville Carey, 1st Logistics Command

Patrick Ostrenga, "D" Co., 25th Infantry Division (February to
December)

Paul Olimpieri, 23, Cpl. (E-4), "D" Co., 1st Bn., 5th Marine Regiment,
1st Marine Division (1967-1968)

Paul Williams, 24, L/Cpl. (E-3), "A" Btry., 1st Bn., 12th Marine
Regiment, 3rd Marine Division (May 1966 to May 1967)

Robert Clark, 22, L/Cpl. (E-3), "H&S" Co. & "G" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th
Marine Reg., 3rd Marine Division (May 1969 to May 1970)

Robert S. Craig, 23, Pfc. (E-2), 2nd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division (August 1966 to December 1967)

Robert Kruch, 25, Pfc. (E-3), 3/21, 196 LIB, Americal Division

Robert McConnachie, 22, Sgt. (E-5), 2/28th, 1st Infantry (October 1967
to October 1968)

Robert Wiktorski, 22, SP/4 (E-4), "C" Co., 2/12 Air Cav. Reg., 1st Air
Cav. Div. (May 1968 to May 1969)

Ronald Palosaari, 23, SP/4, 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division (1967 to
1968)

Ron Podlaski, 24, Sgt. (E-5), 5th Special Forces Group (April 1968 to
April 1969)

Ron Newton, 24, Pfc. (E-3), 3rd Brigade, HHQ Co., 704 Maintenance Bn.,
4th Infantry Division (July 1966 to June 1967)

Russell Kogut, 22, WO-1, 155 Assault Helicopter Co. (May 1968 to March
1969)

Sam Bunge, 1st Lt., "B" Co., 3/187, 101st Airborne Division (July 1968
to June 1969)

Sam Schorr, SP/4 (E-4), 86th Combat Engineers (September 1966 to
September 1967)

Scott Camile, 24, Sgt. (E-5), 1st Bn., 11th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division

Scott Moore, 26, 1st Lt., 2/39th, 9th Infantry Division (1968 to 1969)

Sean Newton, 24, L/Cpl. (E-3), 3rd Bn., 7th Marine Reg., 1st Marine
Division (February 1966 to December 1966); "D" Co., 1/26, 3rd Combined
Action Group, 3rd Marine Div. (August 1967 to August 1968)

Steve Pitkin, 20, SP/4, "C" Co., 2/239, 9th Infantry Division (May
1969 to July 1969)

Steve Noetzel, 31, SP/4, 5th Special Forces Group Augmentation (May
1963 to May 1964)

Steve Rose, 26, U.S.N. Corpsmen (E-5), HQ Bn., 4th Marine Reg., 3rd
Marine Division (December 1966 to December 1967)

Ted Eckert, 21, Sgt. (E-5), MAG-16; Support Group-17, 1st Marine Air
Wing, 1st Marine Division (July 1969 to August 1970)

Thomas Heidtman, 26, Pfc. (E-3), 3rd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division (October 1966 to November 1967)

Timon Hagelin, 21, SP/4 (E-4), Graves Registration Platoon, 243 Field
Serv. Co., 1st Logistics Command (August 1968 to August 1969)

Vernon Shibla, 27, SP/4, Public Information Office, 25th Infantry
Division (1966 to 1967)

Walter Hendrickson, 22, Pfc (E-2), "F" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th Marine
Regiment, 3rd Marine Division (November 1968 to April 1969)

William Bezanson, 24, Pfc., 4/3, 11th Brigade, Americal Division and
123rd Aviation Bn. (1967 to 1968)

William Hatton, 23, Cpl. (E-4), Engineer Mn. Plt., FLSG Bravo, 3rd
Marine Div. (October 1968 to September 1969)

William Rice, 21, SP/4, 3/47th and HQ, 3rd Brigade, 9th Infantry
Division (January 1969 to January 1970)


Personally, I find Bangert's story rather hard to believe. But if
in 1971 I had heard a similar story about the VC, I would not have
doubted it for a minute.

--

FF