Why was the USAF.....................

Someone wrote,,

So, you were just an SP (e.g: AF cop?) Now that explains a LOT!
Reminds me of the time some pompous jackass SP who was publically
chewing out a mechanic at the front gate simply for having a bit of
grease on his uniform.

Now I don't know what world you come from, but i can assure you that a greasy
uniform on a maitenance troop was the last thing any cops that i worked with
would ever worry about. Dan may not have been a "full blown" SP, but i was for
10 yrs in SAC. I've sen uniforms on mechanics that were so black they didn't
even look like uniforms and not once did any SP that I ever HEARD of got bent
because of that. Now on the other hand, you enter the restricted area or
violate a no lone zone and you'd have a whole new definition oh hurt!!!

Jim
SAC COP
78-88

Mike Marron wrote:

Thank you. I rest my case.

I'm so relieved!

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:18:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"Mike Marron" wrote in message
.. .

Of course not. A preemptive strike "wherever terrorists hide, or run,
or plan" (e.g: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, etc. etc...)


Right. Kill all the terrorists before they can commit terror. Yup, that's
what the Air Force shoulda done.

Yep, and they should have prevented that ENRON thing too. :-)

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 01:02:11 GMT, Mike Marron wrote:

(OXMORON1) wrote:

[snip]

The whole intelligence community was screwed up and the only good that I see
from 9/11 is posibly the system will be cleaned up in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the USAF an integral part of the
intelligence community? If yes, then doesn't the USAF share the
blame for 9/11?


The USAF is NOT, rpt NOT an integral part of the intelligence community.

Buy a clue

Al Minyard

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:38:41 GMT, Mike Marron wrote:

Dave Holford wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

A preemptive strike, perhaps? Recall the Israeli attack on the Osiraq
nuclear powerplant near Baghdad back in 1981.

On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?

Of course not. A preemptive strike "wherever terrorists hide, or run,
or plan" (e.g: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, etc. etc...)


Oh, now I get it, we should have killed every Moslem in the world!!
And Germany, France and the UK because terrorist cells existed
in those countries!!

Al Minyard

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:22:09 GMT, Mike Marron wrote:

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
You have.

As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?

Your opinion in this matter is so juvenile and patently wrong
that it does not rise to the level of intelligent discourse. Please
go away.

Al Minyard

"Chad Irby" wrote

The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.

Apparently, waveoffs were also an 'intersting' experience.

Pete

In article ,
"Pete" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote

The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.

Apparently, waveoffs were also an 'intersting' experience.

Well, they weren't so much "waveoffs' as "waveoh****s!"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

From: "Pete"
Date: 1/11/2004 8:37 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Chad Irby" wrote

The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.

Apparently, waveoffs were also an 'intersting' experience.

Pete

There was the unfortunate incident where a wave off of a B-52N resulted in
cooking 3 men on the vulture's walk and blowing over 20 more off of the deck.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"Pete" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote

The 6" diameter arrestor cables for the B-52N were also a bit of a
problem, and were a pain to clear. Not to mention the three tailhooks
and how they were fitted to the fuselage, which reduced the bombload and
occasionally got caught on trees in low-level flight.

Apparently, waveoffs were also an 'intersting' experience.

Well, they weren't so much "waveoffs' as "waveoh****s!"

Closely followed by "D U C K ! !" delivered at 150 db
--

-Gord.