"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
Juvat wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks blurted out:


I wonder if you'd have the temerity to utter such a thing to, say, the
personnel from the ANG units like those in CO and NM that were
activated and flew in Vietnam,

Jeez...you're reading waaaay too much into Scott's posts IMO.

No, I am not reading anything "into it". His words are quite clear in
their meaning and intent.

The
original question you will recall had to do with ANG F-102 units
called up. He posited none due to the mission. He was correct on that
score. Yes? No?

No, he was incorrect. He said none were deployed (which was wrong)
because there was no need for interceptors (wrong again, as in fact an
interceptor force was maintained in Vietnam, and in Thailand
(including some RAAF folks with F-86's at one point, IIRC) throughout
the period of major US involvement).


or to those "champagne unit" (your
description) members who pulled their voluntary rotations in Vietnam?
Methinks not...

Okay, but that's an entirely different issue from the "entitled"
gentlemen that used their position to get an officer slot in the TX
ANG...in an airplane that had next to ZERO chance of getting activated
and sent into harm's way.

Zero chance? That's probably what the F-100 jockeys from CO thought,
too, right up until they deployed to the RVN. An airplane that had
ZERO percent chanc??? Odd, since that very same aircraft served in SEA
throughout most of the war, with ANG pilots forming part of the
manning that supported them.

If I recall my reading correctly(an article I read about 34 years ago), the
ANG F100 units were flying "C" models, while the Regular Air Force was
flying "D " models. A difference which may seem minor, but apparently was
significant.