Rumsfeld and flying

"D. Strang" wrote in message news:JxZ2c.14631$m4.9693@okepread03...
"Evan Brennan" wrote
"D. Strang" wrote

The war could never have been won, without an invasion of
the North, and the resulting Chinese and Soviet retaliation

Hanoi emphatically rejected the idea of Soviet or Chinese troops
landing in North Vietnam -- they were suspicious of and even reluctant
to accept technicians for training and logistics, although obviously
they had to compromise.

Korea thought the same way. After they lost the war, their
vote didn't count, and the Chicoms came rolling south.


Then they went rolling North.

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

There is no way to calculate the age of soldiers in Vietnam. (Think
about it for a while.) The average age of those who died was about
21.5.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]

old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art

One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.

I quite frankly have a lot of trouble with the WWII "poll" but know
nothing of its wording or how the question was asked. As you know,
these things can be totally meaningless (in January, some polls said
Howard Dean could beat Bush "if the election were held today", yet it
seems this same guy couldn't be a nominee). Two years after the war
perhaps the Marshall Plan discussions were causing a backlash in
public opinion???

should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

This makes sense though. WWII was a huge war compared with Vietnam.
The need for bodies was far greater by a large margin, so I'd expect
the draftee proportion to be high.

Good stuff to make one think. I've seen the book in the bookstore
but am now motivated to pick it up next visit.


SMH

George Z. Bush wrote:

Ron W wrote:

I think I remember that one. Didn't the farmers riot against the Base?
I think it was weeks before we could use the road to Tokyo.

Yeah, and I never understood what it was that got their undies in an uproar. It
wasn't like it was anything that we wanted to have happen. Maybe they were just
****ed because we were occupying space that they'd rather have had available to
them for more paddies. Tough! If that was the only price they had to pay for
losing the war, they got off scot free.

In the '62-'65 period, there used to be scheduled "riots"
outside the main gate at Tachi. I think driven mostly by
the local communist party. "Rioters" allegedly got paid for
the level of mayhem they caused.

Sometime during the 64-65 period I think the F-105s moved in
to Yokota. You could hear them winding up for takeoff.
Protesters outside both Tachi and Yokota by some of the local
Commies, carried signs saying "F-105 Go Home".

Of course the C-124s put out a lot of racket too when the
squadron cranked up to go somewhere en masse (Vietnam mostly).

Was there a stoplight at the start/end of the runway that went
red when an aircraft was landing or taking off? Right at the
fence. Always thought that was sooo cool when on my bike riding
the base perimeter!


SMH

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Ron" wrote in message
...
Yes it was strange they were justifying moving tour flights into part
135 as
a
safety measure, when the crashed listed as reasons ,were all part 135
already.

Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
nail in the coffin for GA.

Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html


Yes, I just didnt state clearly what I meant.

I used to do part 91 tour flying in Hawaii. But the FAA wants to make it
all
under part 135 it sounds like. I think it is bogus and the reasoning they
are
using is rather faulty.

The safest airplane is on that is parked.

The most intelligent Tarver Post is the one that never happened.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]

old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out
that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry
into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans
thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art

One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.

I quite frankly have a lot of trouble with the WWII "poll" but know
nothing of its wording or how the question was asked. As you know,
these things can be totally meaningless (in January, some polls said
Howard Dean could beat Bush "if the election were held today", yet it
seems this same guy couldn't be a nominee). Two years after the war
perhaps the Marshall Plan discussions were causing a backlash in
public opinion???

I'd suspect it had more to do with the usual economic slump that tends to
follow such an event. Unemployment was on the rise, estimated commerce was
flatlined. The commerce and GNP numbers would take off again a year or two
later, but the unemployment numbers continued to rise rather sharply, more
than doubling from the 1945 estimate of 1.3% to 3.8% in '47, then almost
again to 6.4% in 1949.


should really LOVE this one), contrary to popular belief, the percentage
of
draftees in the service during the Vietnam era was MUCH lower than
during
WWII (one-third versus two-thirds).

This makes sense though. WWII was a huge war compared with Vietnam.
The need for bodies was far greater by a large margin, so I'd expect
the draftee proportion to be high.

Good stuff to make one think. I've seen the book in the bookstore
but am now motivated to pick it up next visit.

It is a rather interesting read--don't take the wrong idea from the
aforementioned dry statistics. Burkett and his coauthor Whitley exposed
quite a few charlatan Vietnam vets and "heroes". I happened to be surfing
through the TV channels this weekend and watched a bit of the original
"First Blood". Burkett's book game me a new way of looking at that movie--I
had known that Stallone had neatly avoided military service during the war,
but I was surprised to learn that Brian Dennehy, who played the Sheriff,
apparently had a propensity for blowing a bit of smoke about his own
military service (he has claimed to have been a Vietnam vet, but in
actuality he served on Okinawa in the USMC *before* the US sent major ground
forces into the conflict).

Brooks


SMH

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Average warrior age in Vietnam was a lot closer to 22.

Is this average over all or just grunts, as I was referring?

There is no way to calculate the age of soldiers in Vietnam. (Think
about it for a while.) The average age of those who died was about
21.5.

Burkett indicates the actual average age for those killed was 22.8.

Brooks




all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest into
any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your cherished
myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

George Z.

Stephen Harding wrote:
George Z. Bush wrote:

Ron W wrote:

I think I remember that one. Didn't the farmers riot against the Base?
I think it was weeks before we could use the road to Tokyo.

Yeah, and I never understood what it was that got their undies in an uproar.
It wasn't like it was anything that we wanted to have happen. Maybe they
were just ****ed because we were occupying space that they'd rather have had
available to them for more paddies. Tough! If that was the only price they
had to pay for losing the war, they got off scot free.

In the '62-'65 period, there used to be scheduled "riots"
outside the main gate at Tachi. I think driven mostly by
the local communist party. "Rioters" allegedly got paid for
the level of mayhem they caused.

Sometime during the 64-65 period I think the F-105s moved in
to Yokota. You could hear them winding up for takeoff.
Protesters outside both Tachi and Yokota by some of the local
Commies, carried signs saying "F-105 Go Home".

Of course the C-124s put out a lot of racket too when the
squadron cranked up to go somewhere en masse (Vietnam mostly).

Was there a stoplight at the start/end of the runway that went
red when an aircraft was landing or taking off? Right at the
fence. Always thought that was sooo cool when on my bike riding
the base perimeter!

Yep, even back in my time. There also was a sign near where that road ran by a
fuel dump of some sort that said "Speed Limit 5mph". My wife actually got a
ticket for doing 15 in that area. Worse than that, she actually got chewed out
by my boss (dumb **** that he was) for that egregious behavior.

George Z.


SMH

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
into
any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about
Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more
admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep
muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from
your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your
cherished
myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding WSI,
are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky based
his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in blissful
ignorance, huh?

Brooks


George Z.