AviationBanter

AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Military Aviation (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=9683)

B2431 July 11th 04 01:36 AM

From: "D. Strang"
Date: 7/10/2004 6:59 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: rp%[email protected]

"Brett" wrote
"D. Strang" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote
Scott Peterson wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

Ever wonder why you never met an active duty military
medical doctor in the grade of Lt?

Met lots of them......in the Navy.

Cute. Sort of like me calling transportation and identifying myself as
"Captain" on a USN installation. I suppose clear communication might
require identifying as O-1, 2, or 3. I recall standing in line
watching Academy grads (any of the three trade schools) sorting out
their dates of rank prior to getting into a vehicle. Gotta follow that
protocol thing.

I remember queuing up for a C-141 ride to Panama. This LtCol came
out and told us that the Officers would get on first so they could pick

the
best seats,


There are no "best seats" in a C-141 (or is/was there a VIP pallet

qualified
for use on the aircraft).


I'm pretty much with you on that! It seemed the officers always wanted the
six seats on the last row at the back of the plane (leg room). I really
didn't care
for a seat, as I would straggle back to the cargo and lay on top of a pallet
for
a nap. Some loadmasters didn't like it, but most didn't give you a hard time.


If the 141 or 130 had the side troop seats I'd wait until enough people went to
go find places to lie down or stretch out. I'd push the seat belts back and the
seats would make rather comfortable cots.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Jim Thomas July 11th 04 01:49 AM

George Shirley wrote in message news:
Most grunts referred to officers "advancing their careers" by serving a
tour or part of a tour as "getting their ticket punched." Had to get a
least some combat time for advancement. Many officers were there because
that was the only war we had at the time and war means promotions,
officer or enlisted lifer.

And why is this a bad thing? I'd venture to say that most of the
officers who volunteered to serve in SEA did so, not to save the USA
from the Communist hordes, but because it was, indeed, "the only war
we had"; going to war, if required, was what we all signed to do; and
yes, anyone who expected to make a career as a warrior needed to prove
that he could be one. If this is "ticket punching", then I'm guilty.

Jim Thomas

George Shirley July 11th 04 02:04 AM

Jim Thomas wrote:
George Shirley wrote in message news:

Most grunts referred to officers "advancing their careers" by serving a
tour or part of a tour as "getting their ticket punched." Had to get a
least some combat time for advancement. Many officers were there because
that was the only war we had at the time and war means promotions,
officer or enlisted lifer.


And why is this a bad thing? I'd venture to say that most of the
officers who volunteered to serve in SEA did so, not to save the USA
from the Communist hordes, but because it was, indeed, "the only war
we had"; going to war, if required, was what we all signed to do; and
yes, anyone who expected to make a career as a warrior needed to prove
that he could be one. If this is "ticket punching", then I'm guilty.

Jim Thomas


I probably should have paragraphed between the ticket punchers and the
officer volunteers Jim. I had no problem with the majority of them, just
the ones who showed up, stayed the minimum time in a safe area and "got
their ticket punched."

A lot of my friends volunteered to go because that was their profession
and they wanted to be where the action was. There were a great many very
good officers and senior NCO's over there for the "only war we had." For
those folks it wasn't ticket punching, it was a love of the profession
of arms and the career they chose. If you were one of them good for you.

George


BUFDRVR July 11th 04 02:19 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

The statements of
fact are for the consideration of the lurkers who might otherwise find
their ideas forever corrupted with simplistic propaganda.


I understand this Ed, but its really killing this newsgroup.


BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR July 11th 04 02:26 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Cute. Sort of like me calling transportation and identifying myself as
"Captain" on a USN installation.


I took full advantage of that on my one month tour on the USS Theodore
Roosevelt. Unbelievable the attention and service you get when you call up and
identify yourself as "Captain X from the MAAP cell" ;)


BUFDRVR

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

Regnirps July 11th 04 03:10 AM

(ArtKramr) wrote:

It's just neocon bitterness from a president and vice president who ever went
to war when they damn well should have.


You know, I didn't either. Mayby that's why I can't stand Thurston Howell the
Third and his new Gilligan. Jeeze, he even has a wife who outdoes "Lovey". I'm
not crazy about Bush, and I can understand someone hating him. I CAN'T
understand hating Bush and liking Kerry.

-- Charlie Springer


Steven P. McNicoll July 11th 04 03:13 AM


"Jack" wrote in message
...

Wrong! No American should have been drafted to serve in SEA. The
professionals, with the proper leadership (read C in C), would have
produced quite a different outcome in far less time.


No, I'm not wrong. No American should have gone to that war. The US
shouldn't have assisted France in reclaiming it's colony after WWII. After
four years of German occupation the French should have learned something
about oppression.



Steven P. McNicoll July 11th 04 03:25 AM


"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:f4%[email protected]

I remember queuing up for a C-141 ride to Panama. This LtCol came
out and told us that the Officers would get on first so they could pick

the
best seats, and the enlisted would get on second.


Getting the best seats would require them to displace the flight crew. The
C-141 was a great airplane, but a good ride it wasn't.



Ian MacLure July 11th 04 05:27 AM

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

"Ian MacLure" wrote in message
...

Safety wasn't the problem. Drag was. The F-102 was supposed to be
a supersonic aircraft but wasn't good for much beyond Mach 1.


That would make it a supersonic aircraft.


Yes strictly speaking I suppose it would however just barely.
Mach 1.3 or so?

Area ruling and an increase in power gave us the F-106, easily
capable of Mach 2.


The F-102A was area ruled.


Seems I had the development history confabulated with the
operational versions. Couldn't find the reference that talked
the development issues which (IIRC) included area ruling to
deal with unexpectedly high drag

IBM

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


Bill Shatzer July 11th 04 05:31 AM

Ed Rasimus ) writes:

-snip-

Sorry, Bill, but that simply isn't so. While "early outs" were
becoming available for a few specialties as early as '71,


Well, certainly much earlier than that. Heck -I- got an "early out"
in the summer of '67 which cut almost three full months of my
enlistment.

the policy
didn't apply to overseas tours which were strictly controlled.


I seem to recall a couple members of my unit who received "early
outs" which not only cut their enlistment terms but also were
granted in advance of their scheduled DROS cutting a month or
so off their scheduled RVN tours. But, it was a long time ago,
perhaps I misremember.

The only exception would be unit relocations, but not individuals.
When the 469th TFS shut down at the end of FY '72, there were no early
outs or early rotations back to CONUS. My second tour went from June
of '72 to July of '73 with no availability of curtailment.


Perhaps the Air Force policy on such things was different than
that of the US Army?

And, you really might want to look up the duration of Mr. Gore's
overseas assignment.


Everything I've seen sez it was early January, '71 through late
May, '71 with a scheduled discharge date of August 5, '71.

You have information to the contrary?

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AviationBanter.com