Piloting an AC-130 Spectre

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:25:28 -0800, Larry Dighera wrote
(in article ):

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:26:21 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

It seems to me that we "turned the other cheek" too many times in the
past: Lebanon, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, the USS
Cole, etc.

Can there be too many times? Aggression only spawns more aggression.
Isn't that the wisdom behind Christ's words?


You would sound a lot more sincere if you did not regard belief in Christ as
"irrational."

IMHO, you have to "turn the other cheek" only once. If he hits you
again, you flatten him, which is long overdue.

That's not a very enlightened attitude, IMO.

No, I do not think it is, either. However, there is a difference between
forgiveness and defending yourself, your family, and your property. You can
forgive a thief, but you don't have to let him rob you. You can forgive a
murderer, but you don't have to let him kill you or your family.

But I think there is a line between defending yourself from an immediate
threat and going out and destroying all those who simply *might* be a threat
some day.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:10:33 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:26:21 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

It seems to me that we "turned the other cheek" too many times in the
past: Lebanon, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, the USS
Cole, etc.

Can there be too many times? Aggression only spawns more aggression.
Isn't that the wisdom behind Christ's words?

IMHO, you have to "turn the other cheek" only once. If he hits you
again, you flatten him, which is long overdue.

That's not a very enlightened attitude, IMO.

I think that it is a very enlightened approach -- it assures survival to
promote further "enlightened attitudes."

J.C. never mentioned what you do after the other guy hits you again.

Some people and groups respect only superior force.

An alternative to combat must be found. The causes of Martin Luther
King and Gandhi prevailed without their resorting to barbarism. It
took _sacrifice_ and commitment to a noble ideal, but they would have
ultimately failed without the weight of public sentiment being brought
to bear in their behalf.

Isn't it time we outgrew our reprehensible past behavior, and learned
to walk fully upright?

If our species doesn't learn to respond passively to attack, the human
race is doomed to a life of war. Isn't that obvious?

Well -- the first order of business is to understand your adversaries.
If their basic attitude is barbarism, then that is all they will
understand. Isn't that obvious?

Remember -- MLK and Ghandi were dealing with adversaries who operated
from a basically civilized point of view. AQ does not -- they only want
dominance and to kill "infidels."

We are fighting an enemy who has no problem and in fact has it as their
primary tactic to kill civilians. They also have no problem sheilding
themselves with non-combatants, including children. If we don't have the
stomach to attack them whereever they may be we need to call it quits and
pull every soldier, sailor and airman we have around the world back home.
Because we can't win or for that matter defend ourselves.


Golda Meier has been quoted as saying, 'We can forgive them for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill there's'.
We are fighting an enemy with different values than ours. We need to adjust to that.

Golda Meier has been quoted as saying, 'We can forgive them for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill there's'.
We are fighting an enemy with different values than ours. We need to adjust to that.

That's one of the most enlightened quotes I've ever read -- and it
truly, sadly, sums up the war we're in.

Unfortunately the electorate is too busy worrying about Paris Hilton's
latest diet to notice. By the time they *do* notice, it may be too
late.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

wrote:
We are fighting an enemy who has no problem and in fact has it as their
primary tactic to kill civilians. They also have no problem sheilding
themselves with non-combatants, including children. If we don't have the
stomach to attack them whereever they may be we need to call it quits and
pull every soldier, sailor and airman we have around the world back home.
Because we can't win or for that matter defend ourselves.


Golda Meier has been quoted as saying, "We can forgive them for killing our
children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill there's".

We are fighting an enemy with different values than ours. We need to adjust to that.

I'm not sure I get this quote... that's seems to be one of the most
convoluted rationales for revenge I've heard - but I must be missing an
obvious point. Please explain. Seriously
(I did some editing to get the quote and the comment separated)

"Where the choice is set between cowardice and violence...

Non-violence is not always cowardace.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Well, it seems pretty well established that the whole thing is done with
smoke and computers today. The original Gooney Bird setup sounds like
it required stick and shooting skills but that's a long time ago.

Regarding commercial pylon turns. Jay, these are actually kind of fun
to learn to do. Great for 'shooting' some ground object with a camera
aimed at your wing tip. With a wind, it's the only to keep a fixed
camera on a fixed ground point while turning

I just looked it up in the Airplane Flying Handbook where it describes
2 commercial pylon turn manuevers. One is "Eights Around Pylons", the
second is "Eights-on-Pylons" or "Pylon Eights". The first corresponds
to the turns around a point you learn in primary. The second is the
interesting one. Instead of varying your bank to compensate for wind
drift at a constant altitude, you vary your altitude and airspeed to
keep the wing tip on the pylon. But it can only be done at the "pivotal
altitude" that corresponds to your airspeed.

Easier to have someone demo it than to read about it. I learned it
during my commercial and it's probably my most performed manuever when
giving someone a ride. As in, "let's take a look at that building over
there". I do a "Turn-on-a-Point" to give my passenger a perfect view of
the building sitting under my tip thru as many turns as we want. Of
course you will put the object on top of your tip.

It's just a neat one to know and learn.

Dave S wrote:
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay

If you can fly to commercial standards you should be able to perform
the maneuver in question: Pylon turns.

Bill Watson wrote:
wrote:
We are fighting an enemy who has no problem and in fact has it as
their primary tactic to kill civilians. They also have no problem
sheilding themselves with non-combatants, including children. If we
don't have the stomach to attack them whereever they may be we need
to call it quits and pull every soldier, sailor and airman we have
around the world back home. Because we can't win or for that matter
defend ourselves.

Golda Meier has been quoted as saying, "We can forgive them for
killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us
kill there's". We are fighting an enemy with different values than
ours. We need to adjust to that.
I'm not sure I get this quote... that's seems to be one of the most
convoluted rationales for revenge I've heard - but I must be missing
an obvious point. Please explain. Seriously
(I did some editing to get the quote and the comment separated)


I hardly speak for Golda or the nation of Israel but I think she means that
it is easier to forgive evil than to forgive being forced to do evil.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On 11 Jan 2007 19:59:21 -0800, "Marco Leon" wrote
in . com:


Wow Larry, it only took the very next post for you to take the thread
off-topic commenting on none of Jay's aviation-related questions.


It was Mr. Honeck who expressed an erroneous statement, and I sought
to correct it. Would you prefer to read inaccurate statements or
truth?

We prefer the truth, so please stop posting. :-)

Matt

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
... Bush would have followed the enlightened teachings of his savior,
instead of using his faith and irrational beliefs to cause
reinforcement of negative world opinion toward the US at this critical
time in history. Our nation would today enjoy the world's public
support, instead of it's fear and distrust, if Bush had heeded the
WRITTEN words of Christ, and been capable of appreciating the futility
of this war, instead of listening to the irrational VOICES IN HIS
HEAD.
...

It turns out that it's not all W's fault...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43189

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.