GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

The F-102, at least in the website stats I found, had no worse,
and mainly better, an accident record, than other fighter jets of that same
generation, so pointing to its stats as something to crow about regarding
Bush's bravery or lack thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to
learn to fly the plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does
anyone really think that he did?

He chose the unit because it was close to home.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...

I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft
in
US
military history.

Sounds like a ridiculous claim to me. The F-102 did have
its share of problems, and all of the "century series" of
fighters were rather unsafe by today's standards. But overall
it appears seems to have been a well-liked aircraft without
major aerodynamic problems (which is much more than one
can say about the F-101 or the early F-100s), restricted to
a short first-line career mainly by a performance level and
electronic systems that fell short of the desired standards.

This seems to be an erroneous conclusion on your part

The accident statistics are available at

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Fl...s/f102mds.html

Of the 1000 or so aircraft produced 259 were lost
killing 70 pilots

In 1969 there were 13 losses for 162,000 hours flown
and 2 pilot fatalities


As I pointed out, that's low compared to other planes of that same time.
True, the F-102 was being used differently than some of the others, but the
F-102 doesn't look THAT bad compared to the others. In fact, for hours flown
in 1969, its pretty decent, safety-wise. Why are you so selective with your
stats?

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Fl...aft_stats.html

The F-100 had 31 losses and 10 pilot fatalities for 279,280 hours flown in
1969.

The F-101 had 10 losses and 3 pilot fatalities for 70,548 hours flown in
1969.

***The F-102 had 13 losses and 2 pilot fatalities for 162,000 hours flown
in 1969. ***

The F-104 had 10 losses and 3 pilot fatalities for 32,322 hours flown in
1969.

The F-105 had 14 losses and 9 pilot fatalities for 104,921 hours flown in
1969.

The F-106 had 6 losses and 1 pilot fatalities for 64,204 hours flown in
1969.

The F-111 had 8 losses and 4 pilot fatalities for 30,806 hours flown in
1969.

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04,
writes:
In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
*easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
now, since duba did it).

Politically, I don't have a dog in this fight. (But you're doing a
damned good job of convincing me) So let's put it on an objective,
factual basis. If the F-102 was so much easier than its Century Series
brethren, adn the jet fighters that preceded it, and thus more
suitable for drone work, how does that explain the QF-80s, QF-86s and
QF-104s that preceded it into service? Or the QF-100s that were its
contemporaries?

If you were to go and research the numbers for accidents, and
fatalities, you'd see that there were much safer options than flying
any sort of fighter available in that same timeframe. There were
National Guard units in the South who were flying C-97 and C-124
transports, which were at least an order of magnitude (As in to the
10th power) safer than any fighter. Or he could have been flying the
Squadron administrative aircraft - usually a T-29 or C-47 at that
time, with comfy seats, a coffee pot, and no chance of hurting itself.
And, to head off the next question, no, you don't have to be a
Resident of a State to be in a particular National Guard unit. Much
of, if not most of, the Vermont National Guard is made up of people
from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York. (VT is the only state
with Armored units in the Northeast. If you want to be a tanker,
that's where you go.) There was nothing stopping him, or anybody
else, from getting a nice, safe, comfy slot with the Tennesee,
Georgia, Mississippi or South Carolina Guard units flying the big
lifters. Hell - if he did, then he could, if he so desired, make all
sorts of true claims about flying into Viet Nam during the war - The
Guard and Reserve Airlift units were a regular part of the MAC
schedule, and made regular trips to Viet Nam and Thailand.

If you want to make a point, make a point. but don't be more stupid
than you have to be.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
because that's where he had the political connections to get in the day he
needed to.










In , on 08/19/2004
at 10:12 AM, (Peter Stickney) said:

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04,
writes:
In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
*easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
now, since duba did it).

Politically, I don't have a dog in this fight. (But you're doing a
damned good job of convincing me) So let's put it on an objective,
factual basis. If the F-102 was so much easier than its Century Series
brethren, adn the jet fighters that preceded it, and thus more suitable
for drone work, how does that explain the QF-80s, QF-86s and QF-104s that
preceded it into service? Or the QF-100s that were its contemporaries?

If you were to go and research the numbers for accidents, and fatalities,
you'd see that there were much safer options than flying any sort of
fighter available in that same timeframe. There were National Guard
units in the South who were flying C-97 and C-124 transports, which were
at least an order of magnitude (As in to the 10th power) safer than any
fighter. Or he could have been flying the Squadron administrative
aircraft - usually a T-29 or C-47 at that time, with comfy seats, a
coffee pot, and no chance of hurting itself. And, to head off the next
question, no, you don't have to be a Resident of a State to be in a
particular National Guard unit. Much of, if not most of, the Vermont
National Guard is made up of people from New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
and New York. (VT is the only state with Armored units in the Northeast.
If you want to be a tanker, that's where you go.) There was nothing
stopping him, or anybody else, from getting a nice, safe, comfy slot with
the Tennesee, Georgia, Mississippi or South Carolina Guard units flying
the big lifters. Hell - if he did, then he could, if he so desired, make
all sorts of true claims about flying into Viet Nam during the war - The
Guard and Reserve Airlift units were a regular part of the MAC schedule,
and made regular trips to Viet Nam and Thailand.

If you want to make a point, make a point. but don't be more stupid than
you have to be.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...

I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft in
US
military history.

Sounds like a ridiculous claim to me. The F-102 did have
its share of problems, and all of the "century series" of
fighters were rather unsafe by today's standards. But overall
it appears seems to have been a well-liked aircraft without
major aerodynamic problems (which is much more than one
can say about the F-101 or the early F-100s), restricted to
a short first-line career mainly by a performance level and
electronic systems that fell short of the desired standards.

By the early 1960s the F-102As had a new wing with a
cambered leading edge, a larger fin, and larger airbrakes,
improving their handling and stability. The troublesome
MG-3 avionics system was replaced by the MG-10, and
in Vietnam the F-102s were considered reliable aircraft
that required considerably less maintenance than F-4s.
Their loss rate in Vietnam was relatively low, despite the
abuse of F-102s for "campfire hunting" and other forms
of ground support, for which they emphatically had not
been designed.

George W's absence from Vietnam was probably a good
thing. He has demonstrated a lack of talent for evaluating
intelligence seriously, an inability to plan ahead even for
the most obviously predictable events, and a strong propensity
for ignoring glaring but inconvenient facts. Add to that an
admitted record of abuse of alcohol and drugs during his
youth, and one can hardly escape the conclusion that he
would have been a very dangerous comrade-in-arms.

Oddly enough, there wwere quite a few other western leaders who had reached
the same conclusion he had in terms of "evaluating intelligence seriously",
not to mention those surrounding Saddam's stomping grounds (both Jordanian
and Egyptian heads of state, among others, backed up the WMD analysis in
discussions with General Franks prior to hostilities--see his recent book).
As to planning ahead, again you should read Franks' book before you spout
off such nonsense. Finally, speaking as a guy who once had the temerity
(gasp!) to "abuse alcohol" at the weekly O-Club parleys in his youth, I find
it a bit hard to toss too many stones, especially as he has admitted his
past failures and demonstrated his own self-control since then (the latter
fact which is the most important). But hey, you don't have a vote in the
outcome anyway, right?

Brooks


--
Emmanuel Gustin

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04, wrote:

In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
*easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
now, since duba did it).

The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
worse safety records.

Did you have some point to make?

In , on 08/19/2004
at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04, wrote:

In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
*easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
now, since duba did it).

The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
worse safety records.

Did you have some point to make?

For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
didn't do something dangerous and daring.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Oddly enough, there wwere quite a few other western leaders who had
reached
the same conclusion he had in terms of "evaluating intelligence
seriously",

And some who didn't -- Putin told Blair in public, on a press
conference, that his intelligence didn't support the conclusions
the British were publishing. The German foreign secretary,
Joschka Fischer, did the same to Powell on a visit of the latter
to Germany, something which apparently made Powell rather
angry. We don't know what Bush' visitors told him in private,
but the story now promulgated by the Neocons in the White
House, that all Western intelligence services agreed on Iraqi
WMDs, is seriously lacking in credibility.

"Prior to the war, my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was
that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction. I would also point out
that many governments that chose not to support this war - certainly the
French President Chirac, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German
intelligence certainly believed that there was WMD." David Kay, testifying
before Congress last January.

"German intelligence reported that WMD laboratories are hidden in trucks
that appear completely normal on the outside."
www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/ si/may03/middleEast3.asp

Another source indicates German views may have changed at the last
minute...: "One focus of the ongoing investigations is whether the CIA
should have known Curveball was not credible. A former U.S. official who has
reviewed the classified file said the BND warned the CIA last spring that
they had ``various problems with the source.'' Die Zeit, a German news
weekly, first reported the warning last August. The official said the BND
sent the warning after Powell first described the bio-warfare trucks in deta
il to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. It's unclear whether the
German warning about Curveball arrived before the war began on March 19."
http://www.registerguard.com/news/20....WMD.0328.html

Don't act as if the german's did not also get their intel read wrong. Nor
the French, etc.
As to the Russians and causus belli...: "Last week, Russian President
Vladimir Putin said that Russia had given the Bush administration
intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks
against the United States and its interests abroad before the Iraq war."
www.mosnews.com/news/2004/06/24/wmd.shtml

So far your arguments are not adding up with the above...


Not that a president of the USA is supposed to rely on what
other leaders tell him. George W. Bush was sending soldiers
to fight in Iraq; arguably it was his duty to seriously review
the intelligence on the threats that they might encounter there.
One did not need to be a genius or a prophet to spot the serious
weaknesses in the US and UK intelligence assesments. A little
bit of insight in the way in which such intelligence is compiled,
and a dose of common sense, would do.

You said last year (17 Feb 03): "I think that Iraq probably has a small
stockpile
left from before 1991, which escaped the attention of inspectors.
It is also likely to have a biological / chemical weapons research
program, possibly less important than those of some of its neighbours,
and probably short of materials to work with. There appears to be
no evidence for more, or for the industrial production of WMD."

Which makes it appear that you were right only in regards to the last two
sentences, but the last is a bit muddled due to Kay's noting that the Iraqis
made a destinct effort to continue developing "dual use" facilities with the
express purpose of allowing future WMD production. So you were really doing
no better than Bush, right?



But now Bush and Blair are telling us that they took everything
they were told at face value -- asked no questions -- never had
any doubts. Never mind that the UN inspectors, who actually
were in a position to verify information on the ground, reported
that US intelligence had been found to be wrong on every occasion
when they tried to verify it. Blair even claimed that, while he
believed the claim that Saddam could deploy WMD within 45
minutes, he never asked which ones!

While I have seen some references to Blair claiming immense stockpiles of
ready-to-use weapons, I don't recall Bush ever making such boldfaced claims;
he and Powell concentrated more on noting the Iraqi accounting
discrepancies, and the continuing development efforts.


It is an old rule that when politicians are given the choice between
appearing to be dishonest and appearing to be incompetent, they
will plunge for incompetence. That is unlikely to be the full thruth.
However, incompetence is bad enough.

And you therefore rank yourself as being at least as incompetent, if not
moreso, than Bush, right? Based upon the above and items like last year when
*you* were telling us that Zarqawi was not operating from Iraq (16 FEB 03);
care to change your stance on that one?



As to planning ahead, again you should read Franks' book before you
spout
off such nonsense.

Regardless of what Franks wrote -- and I don't expect his book
to appear this side of the Atlantic -- it has been acknowledged
even by the US government that planning for the post-war occupation
of Iraq was, to put it mildly, sketchy and unrealistic. But worse
than failing to predict an insurgency was not having a policy at all
for the future of Iraq; except perhaps the part that pinned its hopes
on (of all people) Chalabi. For many months after the occupation,
US policy zigzagged aimlessly, before hitting on the idea of dumping
the problems on the UN and an Iraqi transition government.

While I would admit the phase IV planning was not all that it could have
been, it was far from being the total lack of planning that you were
inferring. make the effort to get Franks book--you might learn a bit about
what phase IV planning was done, and how the situation changed as time
progressed. We surpassed pre-war Iraqi power production and distribution
levels before the end of 2003. Water production and distribution was a
similar story, IIRC. And a nation that has not known democracy is now making
its first tentative steps down that path. Not bad, IMO; and of course, there
is no longer any need to be worried about what Saddam is or is not up to.


it a bit hard to toss too many stones, especially as he has admitted his
past failures and demonstrated his own self-control since then (the
latter
fact which is the most important).

Well, I was referring to a hypothetical service of George W. Bush
in Vietnam; his conduct afterwards is immaterial to that.

Really? You have been indicting him as President for his capabilities and
decisions in the present tense, have you not?

Except
of course that, given his behaviour at the time, there was a good
chance that there would have been no later opportunity for him
to establish self-control.

But hey, you don't have a vote in the outcome anyway, right?

Right. Which is why I am strongly in favour of an EU with a
common foreign policy and defence -- it is about time we are
able to fend for ourselves.

Oh, boy! Are you gonna hold your breath until that comes about? How is the
old vaunted EU rapid reaction force doing these days, eh? heck, you can't
even get everyone onboard the same *currency*, but you think you are gonna
develop a truly unified defense and foreign policy stance? Get real.

It is not that I dislike Americans,
but it is just absolute folly to resignedly entrust our fate to
whomever they elect as president. Best case, as it looks now,
is that the worst president in US history will be replaced by
a fairly mediocre one -- welcome progress, but hardly of a
kind to inspire confidence.

Hold that thought; I am guessing your analysis here is going to be as flawed
as your thinking Zarqawi was not playing footsie in Iraq last year...

Brooks


--
Emmanuel Gustin

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
Oddly enough, there wwere quite a few other western leaders who had reached
the same conclusion he had in terms of "evaluating intelligence seriously",

Given the way 'evaluating intelligence' appears to have consisted of
frontline analysts reporting 'there is no current evidence of a
significant Iraqi WME threat' and politicians saying "that 'no' really
spoils the sentence, why don't we delete it?" then that statement needs
a little care.

The leaders were given intelligence, and reached conclusions that said
evidence did not readily support. See the Butler Report here in the UK
for how evidence was gently modified with caveats removed and the
possible turned into the certain, between gathering and action.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

LawsonE wrote:

Mind you, I don't think its relevant either way, but it was an
example, to me, of how everyone is indulging in spin (not just
Michael Moore) in this election. The F-102, at least in the website
stats I found, had no worse, and mainly better, an accident record,

Unfortuantely, people fly and die in real aircraft, not websites.

than other fighter jets of that same generation, so pointing to its
stats as something to crow about regarding Bush's bravery or lack
thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to learn to fly the
plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does anyone
really think that he did?

People don't choose to go into combat because it's dangerous, either. They
choose to accept the inherent danger. I didn't choose to work in a steam
plant because I thought dying in a steam rupture or uncontrollable Class
Bravo fire sounded like fun.

However, the point isn't Bush's courage, but rather the inability for him to
be both stupid, and a living F-102 pilot... at least not for very long.