the perpetual excuse

[Guest Guest]

And you served exactly WHEN??????

Since you DIDNT Serve you have ZERO idea of what you are talking about..as usual.  The Day that YOU decide to put YOUR life on the line for something you can speak...until then,  shut your S**K-hole boy and hit your knees every night thanking the almighty that there are people willing to put their lives on the line for your pathetic civilian scumbag ass.  But no, you'll stay here hidng bravely behind your computer spouting crap like the scummy little coward you are.

76380[/snapback]

I hope you've written to Bush and Cheney and said the same because THEY'VE never put THEIR lives on the line.

[Strife767]

And you served exactly WHEN??????

I suppose it's impossible to know if food tastes like crap unless one is a master chef? Your implication is laughable.

It takes no courage to shoot and kill unarmed civilians. In fact, it takes quite a bit of cowardice.

Since you DIDNT Serve you have ZERO idea of what you are talking about..

Okay, you tell me why it takes courage to shoot at and kill unarmed civilians, since you obviously disagree with what I said. You can use the following space:

I'm waiting.

[Strife767]

I hope you've written to Bush and Cheney and said the same because THEY'VE never put THEIR lives on the line.

76445[/snapback]

Good point.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Are Paul and Strifey the two sharpest guys out there or what?

76436[/snapback]

Definitely, they would both agree with Keith that what Hanoi Jane did

was distasteful.

[Guest a proud american]

Though crippled after the Tet offensive.

Not that best reason for bailing on our allies, in my humble opinion.

Not really.

The U.S. didn't do much at all to integrate with South Vietnamese forces until after Gen. Abrams relieved Westmoreland.  In Iraq the army had to be built virtually from scratch.  Pretty big difference, there.

Baloney.  We're integrating with and training Iraqi forces.

They were overmatched.  They were overmatched because they did not have the air cover they were promised in the event the communists broke the peace agreement.  Nor did they have the other military aid promised by the U.S.  The Democrats voted to cut them off.  That sent the signal to the communists that they could take South Vietnam.  We betrayed them.

Right; the political will was broken.  That's the weakness of a democracy and it's the hope of groups like al Qaida.

You're misinformed.

Many political goals in Iraq have yet to be met, but the surge is providing a good amount of time for that government to get its act together.  The recent agreement to allow the paid Sunni militia is one important step (it provides a hedge against political domination by the Shia).  There's also been that little problem with Turkey ...

<snip the rest of the misinformed opinion>

76413[/snapback]

Thank you for the revisionist history of the Viet Nam war, although what would I know I only served a year there.

Apparently you didn't know that the US had Special Forces working with their Army for several years before our build up and a neighbor of mine was one of those Green Berets. Heres how he describes them: useless, worthless and would run at the first sign of battle. In fact the favorite expression of them was buy a south vietnamese army rifle, never been fired and only dropped once.

With regards to integration with our troops they had been integrated long before General Abrams (who I served under) arrived.

And as far as us not providing the necessary air support, you do know that we trained and equipped both their Air Force and Army pilots so they had their own air support. I know this because I was stationed at Ft. Wolters, TX which at the time, was the first phase helicopter center in the US.

And as far as deserting them, how many years was it after we left before their regime fell? Two years. Two years, billions of dollars in equipment at-least 15 years of training. And according to you we deserted them? Give me a break.

Now with regards to the present, Lets look at Iraq. You say they are starting an Army from scratch. They wouldn't have had to if Bremer had listened to General Garner and left the army intact. But this army has been training now for four years.

We can take a kid off the streets and have him in combat in 4 months.

And I would be very interested in knowing who's paying the Sunni's us or the Iraqi Government. Besides that, what other accomplishments can you add. Integrating the Iraqi troops? They should have done that four years ago. At this point, they should be ready by now. And as far as their Government, they have problems getting their Government to even meet let alone make progress.

Fortunately, even some of the Republican's are now saying if there isn't any real progress soon, they will vote to cut off the money. At-least for the moment, our fearless leader no longer has a viable reason to attack Iran. But give him time and I'm sure he'll invent one.

[Guest Guest]

Definitely, they would both agree with Keith that what Hanoi Jane did

  was distasteful.

76469[/snapback]

And what McNamara, Westmoreland, et al did was CRIMINAL

[Bryan]

Thank you for the revisionist history of the Viet Nam war, although what would I know I only served a year there.

It has needed revising for some time, since the version that stuck in the American consciousness is so far off base.

Spending a year in Vietnam gives you a degree of expertise in certain aspects of the conflict. It doesn't put you in a position, for example, to speak definitively on the general state of communist forces after the Tet offensive.

Apparently you didn't know that the US had Special Forces working with their Army for several years before our build up and a neighbor of mine was one of those Green Berets. Heres how he describes them: useless, worthless and would run at the first sign of battle. In fact the favorite expression of them was buy a south vietnamese army rifle, never been fired and only dropped once.

Starting in 1969 President Richard Nixon started the process of "Vietnamization", pulling out American forces and rendering the ARVN capable of fighting an effective war against the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) of the North (Also called NVA for North Vietnamese Army) and the allied National Liberation Front. Slowly, ARVN began to expand from its counter-insurgency role to become the primary ground defense against the NLF and PAVN.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2...pRV3ypZeVChzmBQ

1969=>Abrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creighton_Abrams#Vietnam

With regards to integration with our troops they had been integrated long before General Abrams (who I served under) arrived.

Why were they fighting counterinsurgency instead of "search and destroy" then?

And as far as us not providing the necessary air support, you do know that we trained and equipped both their Air Force and Army pilots so they had their own air support. I know this because I was stationed at Ft. Wolters, TX which at the  time, was the first phase helicopter center in the US.

Emboldened by the American eagerness to withdraw unilaterally from Vietnam at all costs, in May of 1972, the North Vietnamese Communists launched their attacks simultaneously at three fronts: Quang Tri in the I Corps, Kontum in the II Corps, and An Loc in the III Corps. Quang Tri was lost immediately and was only retaken by the ARVN in September 1972. Kontum was able to hold through a two week siege. An Loc was able to hold through a three month siege. In all these three battlefronts, the ARVN units were able to hold-up against the enemy only with intensive American air-power, especially with the carpet bombing of B-52s. Temporary, the Vietnamization seemed to be working.

Realizing that the ARVN would be still strong enough to resist their attacks with the assistance of the United States, the North Vietnamese Communists agreed to sign the Paris Agreements on January 23, 1973, just to make the Americans limit combat materials supply on a one-to-one replacement basis to the ARVN and not to provide air-power support to the ARVN, in exchange for American POWs' release. But then, right after the signing of the accord, the Ho Chi Minh trail became a 24-hour-7-day all-weather conduit of troops and materials streaming from the North to the South. Meanwhile, to the delight of the North Vietnamese Communists and to the bewilderment of the South Vietnamese, the United States reduced funding to South Vietnam 30% (from 1.6 billion to 1.26 billion) in 1973, and 60% (from 1.6 billion to 700 millions) in 1974. Furthermore, the United States reduced ground ammunitions down 30% (from 179,000 tons to 126,000 tons) and P.O.L and spare parts down 50%.

In 1974, the North Vietnamese Communists were still fearful of a private promise Nixon made to Thieu to re-enter South Vietnam militarily if the North invades the South. They decided to test that promise by attacking Phuoc Long in December 1974. When Phuoc Long fell in January without provoking any American reaction, they got bolder and attacked and vanquished Ban Me Thuot in March 1975, still without any reaction from the United States.

http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/e...tnamization.htm

And as far as deserting them, how many years was it after we left before their regime fell? Two years. Two years, billions of dollars in equipment at-least 15 years of training. And according to you we deserted them?  Give me a break.

Can't you handle the truth?

The President of the United States used a combination of threat and promise to deal with his South Vietnamese counterpart. After warning that he might, if necessary, agree to a separate peace, Nixon assured Thieu he would react to future North Vietnamese aggression just as he had to the offensive of 1972. The South Vietnamese leader thereupon abandoned his opposition to the cease-fire that Kissinger had negotiated.

To persuade Hanoi as well as Saigon, Nixon renewed the air war, sending B-52s against military targets at or near Hanoi and Haiphong. The operation, LINEBACKER II, tested the discipline of the B-52 crews, for North Vietnamese surface-to-air missiles downed fifteen of the bombers during the attacks. These losses came at the time the United States was on the verge of extricating itself from an unpopular war. Because the war lacked public support and the end seemed so close, commanders had to guard against sagging morale, doing whatever seemed necessary to sustain professionalism. These measures, as the two officers writing on LINEBACKER II explain, ranged from Christmas parties to a threat to court-martial any aircraft commander who broke formation to evade a missile and thus disrupted the pattern of electronic jamming. Morale did not break, no one had to be court-martialed, and the 20,000 tons of bombs dropped by B-52s and tactical fighters between Dec. 18 and 29 utterly destroyed North Vietnam's air defenses, exposing the nation's heartland to further devastation. Hanoi resumed negotiations, and a settlement rapidly took shape. Although the cease-fire, signed in January 1973, led to the release of the Americans held prisoner, it did not force North Vietnam to withdraw from the South. Consequently, the survival of South Vietnam might well depend on President Nixon's personal pledge to intervene if Communist forces again invaded.

When North Vietnam invaded in March 1975, the promised American intervention never materialized. Richard Nixon was no longer President; he had resigned rather than face impeachment for, among other things, concealing the fact that members of the White House staff had broken into the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office building. Watergate proved to be but one in a succession of scandals that undermined support for further involvement in Southeast Asia. Revelation of the My Lai massacre, in which American soldiers had murdered unarmed civilians suspected of aiding the Communists, raised questions about the morality of the war. Publication of The Pentagon Papers, essentially a documentary his tory of the American decision-making while McNamara was Secretary of Defense, revealed imprecise thinking and a succession of flawed judgments. The secret bombing of Cambodia came to light, as did a series of unauthorized aerial attacks on North Vietnam prior to the 1972 invasion. Reports of drug use by service personnel in Southeast Asia‹and rumors that South Vietnamese officials profited from dealing in drugs‹also helped turn the American public against the Saigon leadership. Congress reflected the popular mood, halting the bombing in Cambodia effective July 15, 1973, and reducing aid to South Vietnam. Since Thieu intended to fight the same kind of war he always had, with lavish use of firepower, the cuts in aid proved especially damaging.

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/vietnam.htm

Now with regards to the present, Lets look at Iraq. You say they are starting an Army from scratch. They wouldn't have had to if Bremer had listened to General Garner and left the army intact. But this army has been training now for four years.

We can take a kid off the streets and have him in combat in 4 months.

We have infrastructure in place. If you made our armed forces disappear completely and started from scratch you wouldn't get good results with 12 months of training, let alone 4 months. You ought to know that.

And I would be very interested in knowing who's paying the Sunni's us or the Iraqi Government. Besides that, what other accomplishments can you add. Integrating the Iraqi troops? They should have done that four years ago. At this point, they should be ready by now. And as far as their Government, they have problems getting their Government to even meet let alone make progress.

What other accomplishments do I need?

Integrating the Iraqi troops did start 4 years ago. They were mostly worthless, because it takes time (and experience) to put together a capable fighting force.

Fortunately, even some of the Republican's are now saying if there isn't any real progress soon, they will vote to cut off the money.

That's not fortunate. It's music in the ears of Iranian mullahs.

At-least for the moment, our fearless leader no longer has a viable reason to attack Iran. But give him time and I'm sure he'll invent one.

76474[/snapback]

[Guest Guest]

I hope you've written to Bush and Cheney and said the same because THEY'VE never put THEIR lives on the line.

76445[/snapback]

In cheney's case you'r correct..however George W Bush WAS in fact a Fighter Pilot, flying one of the most difficult aircraft in the USAF arsenal to master. The F-102 had ZERO forward visibility m,ainly because ti was designed purely as an interceptor, to go after Soviet Bombers, NOT other fighters. Bush in fact Requested Twice to go to Vietnam, but due to the timeline, and the transition time from the F-102 to a different platform, his requests were denied. At the time USAF was drawing back the units it had in country, and Not transitioning anyone from the F-102 into the F-105 or F-4 platform.

[Guest Guest]

In cheney's case you'r correct..however George W Bush WAS in fact a Fighter Pilot, flying one of the most difficult aircraft in the USAF arsenal to master.  The F-102 had ZERO forward visibility m,ainly because ti was designed purely as an interceptor, to go after Soviet Bombers, NOT other fighters.  Bush in fact Requested Twice to go to Vietnam, but due to the timeline, and the transition time from the F-102 to a different platform, his requests were denied.  At the time USAF was drawing back the units it had in country, and Not transitioning anyone from the F-102 into the F-105 or F-4 platform.

76576[/snapback]

It would have been nice if he had actually showed up. It might have meant something if he had ever been deployed.

[Guest Guest]

In cheney's case you'r correct..however George W Bush WAS in fact a Fighter Pilot, flying one of the most difficult aircraft in the USAF arsenal to master.  The F-102 had ZERO forward visibility m,ainly because ti was designed purely as an interceptor, to go after Soviet Bombers, NOT other fighters.  Bush in fact Requested Twice to go to Vietnam, but due to the timeline, and the transition time from the F-102 to a different platform, his requests were denied.  At the time USAF was drawing back the units it had in country, and Not transitioning anyone from the F-102 into the F-105 or F-4 platform.

76576[/snapback]

Protecting the skies of Alabama is hardly laying your life on the line. And WHERE is there any RELIABLE documentation that Bush ever requested Vietnam duty?

And I believe your statement that the F-102 had ZERO forward visibility "because" it was designed as an interceptor only displays your lack of knowledge. It's lack of forward visibility was a result of its delta planform and the characteristics of a delta wing, it was only a factor in low speed/high angle of attack situations, i.e. take offs and landings. It was also the progenitor of the F-106, I'm not sure how much the 102 incorporated automatic controls but the 106 was designed to be taken off by a pilot and then flown automatically to its target by a rudimentasry guidance system that would then return it to its base where the pilot would retake control.

[Strife767]

In cheney's case you'r correct..however George W Bush WAS in fact a Fighter Pilot,

76576[/snapback]

Doesn't look like he actually did anything other than training, though.

May 28, 1968: Bush enlists as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is selected to attend pilot training.

July 12, 1968: A three-member board of officers decides that Bush should get a direct commission as a second lieutenant after competing airman's basic training.

July 14 to Aug. 25, 1968: Bush attends six weeks of basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.

Sept. 4, 1968: Bush is commissioned a second lieutenant and takes an 8-week leave to work on a Senate campaign in Florida.

Nov. 25, 1968 to Nov. 28, 1969: Bush attends and graduates from flight school at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. (UTP Course #P-V4A-A Moody AFB, Ga. 53 weeks November 1969)

January 1,1970 147th changes from doing Alerts to training F-102 pilots.

December 1969 to June 27, 1970: Bush trains full-time to be an F-102 pilot at Ellington Air Force Base.

Febuary 1970 Bush attends Preint Pilot Training (T-33 ANG112501 5 weeks )

June 1970 his records are not clear his computer records show RGRAD NAV TNG but his Discharge shows F102 Intcp Pilot Training (F102 ANG1125D 16 weeks). His Military Biography shows: Professional Military Education: Basic Military Training, Undergraduate Pilot Training and nothing else.

Here is his total Service

July 1970 to April 16, 1972: Bush, as a certified fighter pilot, attends frequent drills and alerts at Ellington.

Computer records show last Physical as May 1971. Which also shows him as CR MEM ON FS (crew member on flight service) not PILOT.

During his fifth year as a guardsman, Bush's records show no sign he appeared for duty.

May 24, 1972: Bush, who has moved to Alabama to work on a US Senate race, gets permission to serve with a reserve unit in Alabama. But headquarters decided Bush must serve with a more active unit.

Sept. 5, 1972: Bush is granted permission to do his Guard duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. But Bush's record shows no evidence he did the duty, and the unit commander says he never showed up.

November 1972 to April 30, 1973: Bush returns to Houston, but apparently not to his Air Force unit.

May 2, 1973: The two lieutenant colonels in charge of Bush's unit in Houston cannot rate him for the prior 12 months, saying he has not been at the unit in that period.

May to July 1973: Bush, after special orders are issued for him to report for duty, logs 36 days of duty.

July 30, 1973: His last day in uniform, according to his records.

Oct. 1, 1973: A month after Bush starts at Harvard Business School, he is formally discharged from the Texas Air National Guard -- eight months before his six-year term expires.

The quoted link above contains further links embedded in this chunk, so you can go to the URL for more information.

[Guest Guest]

In cheney's case you'r correct..however George W Bush WAS in fact a Fighter Pilot, flying one of the most difficult aircraft in the USAF arsenal to master.  The F-102 had ZERO forward visibility m,ainly because ti was designed purely as an interceptor, to go after Soviet Bombers, NOT other fighters.  Bush in fact Requested Twice to go to Vietnam, but due to the timeline, and the transition time from the F-102 to a different platform, his requests were denied.  At the time USAF was drawing back the units it had in country, and Not transitioning anyone from the F-102 into the F-105 or F-4 platform.

76576[/snapback]

Why is there any reason to believe that Bush's alleged request for duty in Vietnam was anything other than a case of:

F-102 pilot knows no F-102 pilots being transitoned to Vietnam bound aircraft/units

F-102 pilot plays hero and requests what he knows will not be granted

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Guest Guest]

In cheney's case you'r correct..however George W Bush WAS in fact a Fighter Pilot, flying one of the most difficult aircraft in the USAF arsenal to master.  The F-102 had ZERO forward visibility m,ainly because ti was designed purely as an interceptor, to go after Soviet Bombers, NOT other fighters.  Bush in fact Requested Twice to go to Vietnam, but due to the timeline, and the transition time from the F-102 to a different platform, his requests were denied.  At the time USAF was drawing back the units it had in country, and Not transitioning anyone from the F-102 into the F-105 or F-4 platform.

76576[/snapback]

Bush requested duty in Vietnam. Yeah, and I'm the Pope.

[Guest a proud american]

It has needed revising for some time, since the version that stuck in the American consciousness is so far off base.

Spending a year in Vietnam gives you a degree of expertise in certain aspects of the conflict.  It doesn't put you in a position, for example, to speak definitively on the general state of communist forces after the Tet offensive.

Starting in 1969 President Richard Nixon started the process of "Vietnamization", pulling out American forces and rendering the ARVN capable of fighting an effective war against the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) of the North (Also called NVA for North Vietnamese Army) and the allied National Liberation Front. Slowly, ARVN began to expand from its counter-insurgency role to become the primary ground defense against the NLF and PAVN.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2...pRV3ypZeVChzmBQ

1969=>Abrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creighton_Abrams#Vietnam

Why were they fighting counterinsurgency instead of "search and destroy" then?

Emboldened by the American eagerness to withdraw unilaterally from Vietnam at all costs, in May of 1972, the North Vietnamese Communists launched their attacks simultaneously at three fronts: Quang Tri in the I Corps, Kontum in the II Corps, and An Loc in the III Corps. Quang Tri was lost immediately and was only retaken by the ARVN in September 1972. Kontum was able to hold through a two week siege. An Loc was able to hold through a three month siege. In all these three battlefronts, the ARVN units were able to hold-up against the enemy only with intensive American air-power, especially with the carpet bombing of B-52s. Temporary, the Vietnamization seemed to be working.

Realizing that the ARVN would be still strong enough to resist their attacks with the assistance of the United States, the North Vietnamese Communists agreed to sign the Paris Agreements on January 23, 1973, just to make the Americans limit combat materials supply on a one-to-one replacement basis to the ARVN and not to provide air-power support to the ARVN, in exchange for American POWs' release. But then, right after the signing of the accord, the Ho Chi Minh trail became a 24-hour-7-day all-weather conduit of troops and materials streaming from the North to the South. Meanwhile, to the delight of the North Vietnamese Communists and to the bewilderment of the South Vietnamese, the United States reduced funding to South Vietnam 30% (from 1.6 billion to 1.26 billion) in 1973, and 60% (from 1.6 billion to 700 millions) in 1974. Furthermore, the United States reduced ground ammunitions down 30% (from 179,000 tons to 126,000 tons) and P.O.L and spare parts down 50%.

In 1974, the North Vietnamese Communists were still fearful of a private promise Nixon made to Thieu to re-enter South Vietnam militarily if the North invades the South. They decided to test that promise by attacking Phuoc Long in December 1974. When Phuoc Long fell in January without provoking any American reaction, they got bolder and attacked and vanquished Ban Me Thuot in March 1975, still without any reaction from the United States.

http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/e...tnamization.htm

Can't you handle the truth?

The President of the United States used a combination of threat and promise to deal with his South Vietnamese counterpart. After warning that he might, if necessary, agree to a separate peace, Nixon assured Thieu he would react to future North Vietnamese aggression just as he had to the offensive of 1972. The South Vietnamese leader thereupon abandoned his opposition to the cease-fire that Kissinger had negotiated.

To persuade Hanoi as well as Saigon, Nixon renewed the air war, sending B-52s against military targets at or near Hanoi and Haiphong. The operation, LINEBACKER II, tested the discipline of the B-52 crews, for North Vietnamese surface-to-air missiles downed fifteen of the bombers during the attacks. These losses came at the time the United States was on the verge of extricating itself from an unpopular war. Because the war lacked public support and the end seemed so close, commanders had to guard against sagging morale, doing whatever seemed necessary to sustain professionalism. These measures, as the two officers writing on LINEBACKER II explain, ranged from Christmas parties to a threat to court-martial any aircraft commander who broke formation to evade a missile and thus disrupted the pattern of electronic jamming. Morale did not break, no one had to be court-martialed, and the 20,000 tons of bombs dropped by B-52s and tactical fighters between Dec. 18 and 29 utterly destroyed North Vietnam's air defenses, exposing the nation's heartland to further devastation. Hanoi resumed negotiations, and a settlement rapidly took shape. Although the cease-fire, signed in January 1973, led to the release of the Americans held prisoner, it did not force North Vietnam to withdraw from the South. Consequently, the survival of South Vietnam might well depend on President Nixon's personal pledge to intervene if Communist forces again invaded.

When North Vietnam invaded in March 1975, the promised American intervention never materialized. Richard Nixon was no longer President; he had resigned rather than face impeachment for, among other things, concealing the fact that members of the White House staff had broken into the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office building. Watergate proved to be but one in a succession of scandals that undermined support for further involvement in Southeast Asia. Revelation of the My Lai massacre, in which American soldiers had murdered unarmed civilians suspected of aiding the Communists, raised questions about the morality of the war. Publication of The Pentagon Papers, essentially a documentary his tory of the American decision-making while McNamara was Secretary of Defense, revealed imprecise thinking and a succession of flawed judgments. The secret bombing of Cambodia came to light, as did a series of unauthorized aerial attacks on North Vietnam prior to the 1972 invasion. Reports of drug use by service personnel in Southeast Asia‹and rumors that South Vietnamese officials profited from dealing in drugs‹also helped turn the American public against the Saigon leadership. Congress reflected the popular mood, halting the bombing in Cambodia effective July 15, 1973, and reducing aid to South Vietnam. Since Thieu intended to fight the same kind of war he always had, with lavish use of firepower, the cuts in aid proved especially damaging.

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/vietnam.htm

We have infrastructure in place.  If you made our armed forces disappear completely and started from scratch you wouldn't get good results with 12 months of training, let alone 4 months.  You ought to know that.

What other accomplishments do I need?

Integrating the Iraqi troops did start 4 years ago.  They were mostly worthless, because it takes time (and experience) to put together a capable fighting force.

That's not fortunate.  It's music in the ears of Iranian mullahs.

76540[/snapback]

Again, thank you for you giving me the latest history lesson although I already knew what you wrote. And as far as Vietnamization, we had already been doing that before Nixon invented the word.

And with regards to Nixon, thanks to his little excursions into Cambodia and Laos, in case you forgot or didn't know we also sent in ground troops in 1970. The only reason I bring this up is because I was supposed to be sent to Germany but was instead sent to Viet Nam as a replacement. I went proudly and had no complaint.

However, when I was stationed at Ft. Wolters, He did get me a little irritated when he decided to bomb Hanoi and Hai Phong, because I was three weeks from being discharged. I actually had my discharge orders in my hand and when he gave his speech that night My CO told me to report to Battalion HQ the next morning for a breifing. I was told that due to Military man power shortages, myself and several others were having our tours of duty involuntarily extended for six months. But it wasn't a total waste. I was able to get a semester of College out of it without using the GI Bill.

So, we left them with all of the equipment needed to fight, they had an Army, Navy and Marine Units, that was trained to fight, They had the artillery, helicopters, Jets, and boats, all of the weapons we had and somehow, because we didn't honor our agreement they lost? Two years after our ground troops left?

Here's the bottom line. They lost because they had a corrupt President in Thieu, an incompetent General in charge of their forces (he now owns a liquor store in California) General Ky and had no will to keep fighting period. And as I understand it, several Billion in Gold disappeared.

Now, with regards to Iraq, I noticed or maybe I missed it that you failed to respond to my comment about Bremer. See they had an Army until he disbanded it. I think four years should be long enough to train the Iraqi soldiers.

And with regards to the Iranian Mullahs, I don't think it's music you're hearing. I think it's laughter, because once again our fearless Leader was wrong. Only this time the truth came out before he and his neo-con friends had a chance to cook the books so to speak. What is really sad is that, as Commander in Chief, he didn't even know what Cheney and others knew. Now thats a real confidence booster.

[Guest a proud american]

In cheney's case you'r correct..however George W Bush WAS in fact a Fighter Pilot, flying one of the most difficult aircraft in the USAF arsenal to master.  The F-102 had ZERO forward visibility m,ainly because ti was designed purely as an interceptor, to go after Soviet Bombers, NOT other fighters.  Bush in fact Requested Twice to go to Vietnam, but due to the timeline, and the transition time from the F-102 to a different platform, his requests were denied.  At the time USAF was drawing back the units it had in country, and Not transitioning anyone from the F-102 into the F-105 or F-4 platform.

76576[/snapback]

Normally I don't ask for people to use citations, but in response to your comments I have to.

Please, tell me where you got this information from, because to be quite honest with you I don't think there is anyone out there that could possibly believe what you wrote including Bush himself. You do know that he was taken off of flight status because he refused to take a flight physical unless his own doctor did it and there is a $10,000.00 reward waiting from Larry Flynt if just one person steps forward and says that they saw him At the Alabama ANG on the dates he claims to have been present.

[Bern]

Doesn't look like he actually did anything other than training, though.

May 28, 1968: Bush enlists as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is selected to attend pilot training.

July 12, 1968: A three-member board of officers decides that Bush should get a direct commission as a second lieutenant after competing airman's basic training.

July 14 to Aug. 25, 1968: Bush attends six weeks of basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.

Sept. 4, 1968: Bush is commissioned a second lieutenant and takes an 8-week leave to work on a Senate campaign in Florida.

Nov. 25, 1968 to Nov. 28, 1969: Bush attends and graduates from flight school at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. (UTP Course #P-V4A-A Moody AFB, Ga. 53 weeks November 1969)

January 1,1970 147th changes from doing Alerts to training F-102 pilots.

December 1969 to June 27, 1970: Bush trains full-time to be an F-102 pilot at Ellington Air Force Base.

Febuary 1970 Bush attends Preint Pilot Training (T-33 ANG112501 5 weeks )

June 1970 his records are not clear his computer records show RGRAD NAV TNG but his Discharge shows F102 Intcp Pilot Training (F102 ANG1125D 16 weeks). His Military Biography shows: Professional Military Education: Basic Military Training, Undergraduate Pilot Training and nothing else.

Here is his total Service

July 1970 to April 16, 1972: Bush, as a certified fighter pilot, attends frequent drills and alerts at Ellington.

Computer records show last Physical as May 1971. Which also shows him as CR MEM ON FS (crew member on flight service) not PILOT.

During his fifth year as a guardsman, Bush's records show no sign he appeared for duty.

May 24, 1972: Bush, who has moved to Alabama to work on a US Senate race, gets permission to serve with a reserve unit in Alabama. But headquarters decided Bush must serve with a more active unit.

Sept. 5, 1972: Bush is granted permission to do his Guard duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. But Bush's record shows no evidence he did the duty, and the unit commander says he never showed up.

November 1972 to April 30, 1973: Bush returns to Houston, but apparently not to his Air Force unit.

May 2, 1973: The two lieutenant colonels in charge of Bush's unit in Houston cannot rate him for the prior 12 months, saying he has not been at the unit in that period.

May to July 1973: Bush, after special orders are issued for him to report for duty, logs 36 days of duty.

July 30, 1973: His last day in uniform, according to his records.

Oct. 1, 1973: A month after Bush starts at Harvard Business School, he is formally discharged from the Texas Air National Guard -- eight months before his six-year term expires.

The quoted link above contains further links embedded in this chunk, so you can go to the URL for more information.

76597[/snapback]

What a hero and work horse.

[Bern]

Why is there any reason to believe that Bush's alleged request for duty in Vietnam was anything other than a case of:

F-102 pilot knows no F-102 pilots being transitoned to Vietnam bound aircraft/units

F-102 pilot plays hero and requests what he knows will not be granted

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

76610[/snapback]

If he ALLEGEDLY did request, then this makes sense. The pilots would certainly know that they are not being transitioned.

[Guest Guest]

Bush requested duty in Vietnam. Yeah, and I'm the Pope.

76626[/snapback]

Hey Ben! How y'all doin'

[Bryan]

Again, thank you for you giving me the latest history lesson although I already knew what you wrote. And as far as Vietnamization, we had already been doing that before Nixon invented the word.

It wasn't a priority with Westmoreland.

It was a priority once the political will to fight ebbed in the U.S.--it should have bee a priority regardless.

And with regards to Nixon, thanks to his little excursions into Cambodia and Laos,  in case you forgot or didn't know we also sent in ground troops in 1970. The only reason I bring this up is because I was supposed to be sent to Germany but was instead sent to Viet Nam as a replacement. I went proudly and had no complaint.

Good.

So, we left them with all of the equipment needed to fight, they had an Army, Navy and Marine Units, that was trained to fight, They had the artillery, helicopters, Jets, and boats, all of the weapons we had and somehow, because we didn't honor our agreement they lost? Two years after our ground troops left?

Yes. The communists waited until after the Dems pulled the plug on aid and then attacked. U.S. air power would have made a very significant difference.

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/exhibit...nam/750405a.htm

Communist Forces Capture Phuoc Long Province: The South Vietnamese Army loses twenty planes in a failed effort to defend Phuoc Long, a key province just north of Saigon. North Vietnamese leaders interpret the US's complete lack of response to the siege as an indication that they could move more aggressively in the South.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm

Here's the bottom line. They lost because they had a corrupt President in Thieu, an incompetent General in charge of their forces (he now owns a liquor store in California) General Ky and had no will to keep fighting period. And as I understand it, several Billion in Gold disappeared.

Thieu was horrible, but that doesn't take away the fact that the U.S. broke its promises to South Vietnam, nor does it make go away the fact that a strong U.S. response to late communist incursions would have made a huge difference.

The communists broke the peace agreement and the United States shrugged and looked the other way. Courtesy of Congress.

Now, with regards to Iraq, I noticed or maybe I missed it that you failed to respond to my comment about Bremer. See they had an Army until he disbanded it. I think four years should be long enough to train the Iraqi soldiers.

The Shiites probably wouldn't have tolerated keeping the old army, which was dominated by Sunnis. Even now the Iraqi government is against allowing Sunni veterans into the defense forces in numbers.

And with regards to the Iranian Mullahs, I don't think it's music you're hearing. I think it's laughter, because once again our fearless Leader was wrong. Only this time the truth came out before he and his neo-con friends had a chance to cook the books so to speak.

The CIA needs to do the explaining, not Bush. Did you bother to compare the contrasting NIE from 2005?

[Guest Guest]

It wasn't a priority with Westmoreland.

It was a priority once the political will to fight ebbed in the U.S.--it should have bee a priority regardless.

Good.

Westmoreland was a lying POS, other than glorifying himself who knows what his priorities were?

[Guest Guest]

It wasn't a priority with Westmoreland.

It was a priority once the political will to fight ebbed in the U.S.--it should have bee a priority regardless.

Good.

Yes.  The communists waited until after the Dems pulled the plug on aid and then attacked.  U.S. air power would have made a very significant difference.

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/exhibit...nam/750405a.htm

Communist Forces Capture Phuoc Long Province:    The South Vietnamese Army loses twenty planes in a failed effort to defend Phuoc Long, a key province just north of Saigon. North Vietnamese leaders interpret the US's complete lack of response to the siege as an indication that they could move more aggressively in the South.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/vietnam/timeline.htm

Thieu was horrible, but that doesn't take away the fact that the U.S. broke its promises to South Vietnam, nor does it make go away the fact that a strong U.S. response to late communist incursions would have made a huge difference.

The communists broke the peace agreement and the United States shrugged and looked the other way.  Courtesy of Congress.

The Shiites probably wouldn't have tolerated keeping the old army, which was dominated by Sunnis.  Even now the Iraqi government is against allowing Sunni veterans into the defense forces in numbers.

The CIA needs to do the explaining, not Bush.  Did you bother to compare the contrasting NIE from 2005?

76769[/snapback]

Bush is Commander in Chief. It is he who is ultimatley responsible. That is what he agreed to when he took the oath of office. Somethings even daddy can't clean up. However history chooses to judge him it will be because of his actions and his alone. He's the "decider" after all.

[Guest Guest]

The CIA needs to do the explaining, not Bush.  Did you bother to compare the contrasting NIE from 2005?

76769[/snapback]

When it happens on Bush's watch, he also has some explaining to do. When adults were president, they understand where the buck stopped.

[Bern]

Bush is Commander in Chief. It is he who is ultimatley responsible. That is what he agreed to when he took the oath of office. Somethings even daddy can't clean up. However history chooses to judge him it will be because of his actions and his alone. He's the "decider" after all.

76810[/snapback]

Most Presidents accepted that.

Truman had a sign on his Oval Office desk - "The Buck Stops Here."

With Bush it would be - "The Buck Never Got Here."

[Bryan]

Bush is Commander in Chief. It is he who is ultimatley responsible.

Well, get on with the impeachment, then. I'm sure somebody in the executive branch has done something very clearly impeachable. Since it's Bush's fault, impeach him for it.

Seriously, your argument is hilariously specious. It's distinctly possible that the authors of the NIE wrote it as they did to deliberately undermine the president's approach to foreign policy. By making the president responsible for actions taken within the executive branch that run contrary to the president's own policies, you'd make the actions of a CIA traitor, or that of one who illegally leaks details of a program that tracked the banking transactions of terrorists, the fault of the president regardless of his ability to alter the behavior. That's stupid.

I can guarantee I didn't blame Clinton for bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

That is what he agreed to when he took the oath of office. Somethings even daddy can't clean up. However history chooses to judge him it will be because of his actions and his alone. He's the "decider" after all.

76810[/snapback]

How's the weather in the fever swamp this time of year?

[Guest a proud american]

Well, get on with the impeachment, then.  I'm sure somebody in the executive branch has done something very clearly impeachable.  Since it's Bush's fault, impeach him for it.

Seriously, your argument is hilariously specious.  It's distinctly possible that the authors of the NIE wrote it as they did to deliberately undermine the president's approach to foreign policy.  By making the president responsible for actions taken within the executive branch that run contrary to the president's own policies, you'd make the actions of a CIA traitor, or that of one who illegally leaks details of a program that tracked the banking transactions of terrorists, the fault of the president regardless of his ability to alter the behavior.  That's stupid.

I can guarantee I didn't blame Clinton for bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

How's the weather in the fever swamp this time of year?

77062[/snapback]

So, once again it's someone elses fault. It's never his fault.

With regards to impeaching him, why waste the time. He's gone in a little over a year anyway and besides, since he would invoke executive priveledge and has classified almost all of the domuments he can to be secret, the courts would have to sort it out.

As I've said before, he's going down as the worst President ever, so why would we want to screw that up. At-least I have the satisfaction of knowing I didn't vote for him and will leave history to you and your ilk to rewrite. And with regards to Viet Nam, those who served there know the truth. They don't need a history lesson.