[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Mark]

John D wrote:
> I should probably just return to "lurker" status-- now. At least back
> then I didn't cause any trouble.
> It used to be that one of the few joys left to an old man is how they
> could just make shit up and spread it around as historical truth
> because no one else was left that had actually been "there." Where
> ever "there" was. Damn that internet!
> Now I guess the only remaining joy left to an old man is to grow a
> beard and shake my fist at all those youngsters that drive their cars
> too fast.
>
> Hey, Brian, your dad was Robert L. ?   I'm way impressed!
>
> Brian wrote: The only problem with that version . . .
>   
Shake a cane at 'em - it's classier.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[John D]

I should probably just return to "lurker" status-- now. At least back
then I didn't cause any trouble.
It used to be that one of the few joys left to an old man is how they
could just make shit up and spread it around as historical truth
because no one else was left that had actually been "there." Where
ever "there" was. Damn that internet!
Now I guess the only remaining joy left to an old man is to grow a
beard and shake my fist at all those youngsters that drive their cars
too fast.

Hey, Brian, your dad was Robert L. ?   I'm way impressed!

Brian wrote: The only problem with that version . . .
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Bruce Johnson]

On Oct 12, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Mugsy Lunsford wrote:

> I was on a work crew with a Nam vet this week, and got an earful over
> lunch one afternoon when someone made a joking comment about the
> election. Seems the vet was on the Forrestal when the missile went
> off and killed 134 crewmen, and a lot of his fellow survivors were
> convinced that McCain was responsible for that incident

No, he wasn't. In fact it was his plane that was hit by the missile,  
or was next to the plane. Also, in the Wiki article note the  
orientation of McCains aircraft...the exhaust is out over the side,  
not where it could set off anything.



The Navy seriously studied that incident.

--
Bruce Johnson
U of Az  College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions don't have opinions, merely customs


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Brian Lawson]

The only problem with that version of the story is that there were no  
planes behind McCain's - it was sitting on the edge of the flight  
deck. The missile came from another aircraft on the opposite side of  
the ship. This is shown in the image of the arrangement of the  
aircraft on the flight deck in the Wikipedia article Richard  
referenced.  Notice that the F-4s are on one side of the ship and the A-4s on  
the other. It is also confirmed by the account I provided the link to.  
And by photographs from the Navy of the incident. 

--
Brian

On Oct 12, 2008, at 11:35 AM, John D wrote:
> My father was a fighter pilot, but that doesn't qualify me to know  
> anything, but here is my understanding of the Forrestal incident  
> tragedy: There are a couple ways to start a jet engine. There's the  
> safe way and there's the show off way. The show off way is called a  
> wet start which involves squirting excess kerosene onto the burners  
> to light a fire in a hurry. This is quick and effective and a big  
> surprise to everyone around you since it creates a huge flame that  
> flares out behind the jet. You'd use a "wet start" when you're in a  
> god damned hurry and also when you want to scare the bejeesus out of  
> the flight crew. The latter is what McCain had in mind.  
> Unfortunately he tried this on a crowded flight deck. A missile  
> mounted on the plane behind him let loose, tearing into the exterior  
> fuel tank on MCain's plane. It burst into a huge ball of flame and  
> rapidly spreading pool of burning jet fuel. Whether by accident or  
> malfunction, McCain's plane dropped two one-thousand pound bombs  
> intended for those little people in Viet Nam. They dropped from his  
> wings to the flight deck. McCain quickly realized the predicament he  
> was in and popped his canopy, jumped out over the nose of his plane  
> (there is video of this) swung out from the refueling tube and  
> escaped the flames that were rapidly engulfing the flight deck.  
> Lotta people died, lotta people wounded, aircraft all over being  
> frantically pushed into the sea to avoid their arsenal exploding on  
> deck, major damage to an important vessel in the fleet. Being the  
> son of the commander of the Pacific Fleet, John got wisked off ship  
> with a news crew to head for a little R & R and to not get lynched  
> right then and there by his shipmates (who spent the next 24 or so  
> hours fighting the flames, saving the ship and collecting the dead  
> and wounded.
>
>> Mugsy wrote: got an earful over . . . fooling around with  
>> afterburners and a flareout touching off the missile.  also  . . .   
>> McCain's plane was fragged  . . . meaning to ask a pilot . . .  
>> since I don't understand how the missile could have been set off

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[John D]

My father was a fighter pilot, but that doesn't qualify me to know
anything, but here is my understanding of the Forrestal incident/
tragedy: There are a couple ways to start a jet engine. There's the
safe way and there's the show off way. The show off way is called a
wet start which involves squirting excess kerosene onto the burners to
light a fire in a hurry. This is quick and effective and a big
surprise to everyone around you since it creates a huge flame that
flares out behind the jet. You'd use a "wet start" when you're in a
god damned hurry and also when you want to scare the bejeesus out of
the flight crew. The latter is what McCain had in mind. Unfortunately
he tried this on a crowded flight deck. A missile mounted on the plane
behind him let loose, tearing into the exterior fuel tank on MCain's
plane. It burst into a huge ball of flame and rapidly spreading pool
of burning jet fuel. Whether by accident or malfunction, McCain's
plane dropped two one-thousand pound bombs intended for those little
people in Viet Nam. They dropped from his wings to the flight deck.
McCain quickly realized the predicament he was in and popped his
canopy, jumped out over the nose of his plane (there is video of this)
swung out from the refueling tube and escaped the flames that were
rapidly engulfing the flight deck. Lotta people died, lotta people
wounded, aircraft all over being frantically pushed into the sea to
avoid their arsenal exploding on deck, major damage to an important
vessel in the fleet. Being the son of the commander of the Pacific
Fleet, John got wisked off ship with a news crew to head for a little
R & R and to not get lynched right then and there by his shipmates
(who spent the next 24 or so hours fighting the flames, saving the
ship and collecting the dead and wounded.

Mugsy wrote: got an earful over . . . fooling around with afterburners
and a flareout touching off the missile.  also  . . .  McCain's plane
was fragged  . . . meaning to ask a pilot . . . since I don't
understand how the missile could have been set off
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Brian Lawson]

The vet Mugsy quoted obviously had a major bias against McCain and his  
account totally disagrees with every other account I've ever seen.  
There is no way in hell McCain could have fired a wing mounted missile  
into his own aircraft's centerline fuel tank.

I've explained the discrepancies in the accounts of how the missile  
got fired. Early reports suggested it was an electrical malfunction or  
surge of some sort. Later investigations reported that the missile was  
cooked off by a starter cart. I chose the latter explanation.

Regardless of how the missile got launched (Was the F-4 pilot trying  
to frag McCain? How's that for conspiracy theories. ;-) ) the fact  
remains that McCain was not responsible for the accident and that was  
the thrust of my reply to Mugsy's message.

The History Channel runs a documentary on the Forrestal fire every so  
often. You might want to watch it the next time it comes on. It is  
very interesting. The heroism of those who fought the fire is  
absolutely amazing. A whole fire hose team will get killed when a bomb  
explodes and another 5 guys rush in immediately to pick the hose up  
and continue fighting the fire. It happens repeatedly. If it had not  
the ship and all aboard would have been lost. It was a hellacious  
inferno on that flight deck that day. The Japanese lost a carrier at  
Midway due to the same circumstances - we caught them in the middle of  
refueling and rearming their aircraft for another attack and the  
aircraft carrier was sunk more from the damage caused by their own  
armaments than by the 2 or 3 bombs we managed to get dropped onto it.  
Had we hit it with an empty flight deck it most likely would not have  
been sunk.

As for eyewitness accounts, why do you only give credence to those who  
blame McCain and ignore all the rest which show it wasn't his fault?  
Partisanship has no place in recounting of history.

As I've said every time this topic has come up - I'm not a McCain  
supporter but there is no way he is responsible for what happened on  
the Forrestal any more than Obama is responsible for the actions of  
Bill Ayers. You don't support what I would consider to be slander of  
one of our candidates for president, why should slander of the other  
be allowed? If you don't like slander, how about distortions of their  
records? Either way they are lies and should not be spread especially  
when they are so easily refuted.

That's my opinion, you are free to disagree.
--
Brian

On Oct 12, 2008, at 11:08 AM, richardsan san wrote:

> there is the [purported] account by an eyewitness
> there is the account you wrote
> then the account you linked us to
> and the previous account.
> wiki says
> unusual electrical anomaly discharged a Zuni rocket
>
> there, there are 5 accounts. some with details, and some without. i  
> can lend some credence to eye witnessing, that's acceptable, right?
>
> the link you sent us to, didn't substantiate the story in your post.  
> it didn't say anything about missiles being accidently lit from  
> engine starters and firing. from the vet's story mugsy related in  
> her post, it's substantially different than the accounts that you  
> relayed.
>
> in light of some of the actions of the military higher ups, it's not  
> a big leap to think they do not always depict things as they really  
> happen/ed.
> unfortunately, the military brass has a long standing history of  
> faux pas, that account for much tragic loss of innocent lives.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[richardsan san]

there is the [purported] account by an eyewitness
there is the account you wrotethen the account you linked us to
and the previous account.
wiki says
unusual electrical anomaly discharged a Zuni
rocket

there, there are 5 accounts. some with details, and some without. i can lend
some credence to eye witnessing, that's acceptable, right?

the link you sent us to, didn't substantiate the story in your post. it
didn't say anything about missiles being accidently lit from engine starters
and firing. from the vet's story mugsy related in her post, it's
substantially different than the accounts that you relayed.

in light of some of the actions of the military higher ups, it's not a big
leap to think they do not always depict things as they really happen/ed.
unfortunately, the military brass has a long standing history of faux pas,
that account for much tragic loss of innocent lives.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Brian Lawson]

On Oct 12, 2008, at 9:14 AM, richardsan san wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Brian Lawson  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2008, at 8:51 AM, richardsan san wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Brian Lawson  
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The A-4 aircraft that McCain was flying over Vietnam (and may  
>>> others of that period) did not have self-starting engines. A small  
>>> jet engine in a cart was used to get the turbines of the aircraft  
>>> turning so the engine could be ignited. What happened on the  
>>> Forrestal is that a starter cart was being used on an aircraft  
>>> across the flight deck from McCain's aircraft. The exhaust from  
>>> the starter cart was blowing on an air-to-air missile on another  
>>> aircraft and the missile "cooked-off", its engine ignited from the  
>>> heat of the starter cart. That missile flew across the deck and  
>>> hit McCain's aircraft starting the fire and causing it to drop its  
>>> bombs into the flames which in turn cooked off and exploded  
>>> causing more fire and damage to other aircraft, etc.
>>>
>>> I am no fan of McCain but he was in no way responsible for what  
>>> happened on the Forrestal.
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> that linked story doesn't jive with the ^ above paragraph. just  
>> sayin'
>
> And how does it not? It clearly states "a Zuni rocket accidentally  
> fired from an F-4 Phantom parked on the starboard side flight deck  
> aft of the island. The missile streaked across the deck into a 400  
> gallon belly fuel tank on a parked A-4D Skyhawk." McCain was an A-4  
> pilot, not an F-4 pilot and he was in the A-4 which was hit.
>
> There are plenty of other web sites which talk about this incident.  
> The only difference between them (those which are not politically  
> partisan) is in how the missile got launched. One I've read reports  
> it was an electrical surge but that is the only report I've ever  
> heard which mentioned that as the cause. Most say for "unknown  
> reasons". My assertion that it was cooked off comes from multiple  
> documentary programs and other reading material I've seen over the  
> years. I'm something of a Naval history fan as my father was in the  
> Navy for over 30 years and was the editor of a highly respected  
> Naval History and current events magazine, The Hook.
> --
>
> it doesn't corroborate the details in your OP.

Which details? Be specific please. I'm not looking for a fight, I just  
want to know how you think it differs. Even the biography posted the  
other day agrees that McCain wasn't at fault. "Then, in an instant,  
the world around McCain erupted in flames. A six-foot-long Zuni  
rocket, inexplicably launched by an F-4 Phantom across the flight  
deck, ripped through the fuel tank of McCain's aircraft. Hundreds of  
gallons of fuel splashed onto the deck and came ablaze. Then: Clank.  
Clank. Two 1,000-pound bombs dropped from under the belly of McCain's  
stubby A-4, the Navy's "Tinkertoy Bomber," into the fire."
--
Brian
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[richardsan san]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Brian Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> On Oct 12, 2008, at 8:51 AM, richardsan san wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Brian Lawson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The A-4 aircraft that McCain was flying over Vietnam (and may
> >> others of that period) did not have self-starting engines. A small
> >> jet engine in a cart was used to get the turbines of the aircraft
> >> turning so the engine could be ignited. What happened on the
> >> Forrestal is that a starter cart was being used on an aircraft
> >> across the flight deck from McCain's aircraft. The exhaust from the
> >> starter cart was blowing on an air-to-air missile on another
> >> aircraft and the missile "cooked-off", its engine ignited from the
> >> heat of the starter cart. That missile flew across the deck and hit
> >> McCain's aircraft starting the fire and causing it to drop its
> >> bombs into the flames which in turn cooked off and exploded causing
> >> more fire and damage to other aircraft, etc.
> >>
> >> I am no fan of McCain but he was in no way responsible for what
> >> happened on the Forrestal.
> >>
> >> 
> >
> > that linked story doesn't jive with the ^ above paragraph. just sayin'
>
> And how does it not? It clearly states "a Zuni rocket accidentally
> fired from an F-4 Phantom parked on the starboard side flight deck aft
> of the island. The missile streaked across the deck into a 400 gallon
> belly fuel tank on a parked A-4D Skyhawk." McCain was an A-4 pilot,
> not an F-4 pilot and he was in the A-4 which was hit.
>
> There are plenty of other web sites which talk about this incident.
> The only difference between them (those which are not politically
> partisan) is in how the missile got launched. One I've read reports it
> was an electrical surge but that is the only report I've ever heard
> which mentioned that as the cause. Most say for "unknown reasons". My
> assertion that it was cooked off comes from multiple documentary
> programs and other reading material I've seen over the years. I'm
> something of a Naval history fan as my father was in the Navy for over
> 30 years and was the editor of a highly respected Naval History and
> current events magazine, The Hook.
> --


it doesn't corroborate the details in your OP.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Brian Lawson]

On Oct 12, 2008, at 8:51 AM, richardsan san wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Brian Lawson  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The A-4 aircraft that McCain was flying over Vietnam (and may  
>> others of that period) did not have self-starting engines. A small  
>> jet engine in a cart was used to get the turbines of the aircraft  
>> turning so the engine could be ignited. What happened on the  
>> Forrestal is that a starter cart was being used on an aircraft  
>> across the flight deck from McCain's aircraft. The exhaust from the  
>> starter cart was blowing on an air-to-air missile on another  
>> aircraft and the missile "cooked-off", its engine ignited from the  
>> heat of the starter cart. That missile flew across the deck and hit  
>> McCain's aircraft starting the fire and causing it to drop its  
>> bombs into the flames which in turn cooked off and exploded causing  
>> more fire and damage to other aircraft, etc.
>>
>> I am no fan of McCain but he was in no way responsible for what  
>> happened on the Forrestal.
>>
>> 
>
> that linked story doesn't jive with the ^ above paragraph. just sayin'

And how does it not? It clearly states "a Zuni rocket accidentally  
fired from an F-4 Phantom parked on the starboard side flight deck aft  
of the island. The missile streaked across the deck into a 400 gallon  
belly fuel tank on a parked A-4D Skyhawk." McCain was an A-4 pilot,  
not an F-4 pilot and he was in the A-4 which was hit.

There are plenty of other web sites which talk about this incident.  
The only difference between them (those which are not politically  
partisan) is in how the missile got launched. One I've read reports it  
was an electrical surge but that is the only report I've ever heard  
which mentioned that as the cause. Most say for "unknown reasons". My  
assertion that it was cooked off comes from multiple documentary  
programs and other reading material I've seen over the years. I'm  
something of a Naval history fan as my father was in the Navy for over  
30 years and was the editor of a highly respected Naval History and  
current events magazine, The Hook.
--
Brian

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[richardsan san]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Brian Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 12, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Mugsy Lunsford wrote:
> > At 5:29 PM -0500 10/10/08, richardsan san said:
> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Michael Luscombe
> >
> >> Not everyone who talks to a communist or communist sympathizer
> >> becomes a communist. If that were the case, wouldn't John McCain
> >> want to run the country like Vietnam? Some sensible
> >> characterization of those meetings is in order. Plenty of
> >> Republicans worked with Bill Ayers as well.
> >>
> >>  mccain has at least a 5 year history of communicating with
> >> communists. didn't he give them more than just name,rank and serial
> >> number?
> >
> > I was on a work crew with a Nam vet this week, and got an earful
> > over lunch one afternoon when someone made a joking comment about
> > the election. Seems the vet was on the Forrestal when the missile
> > went off and killed 134 crewmen, and a lot of his fellow survivors
> > were convinced that McCain was responsible for that incident - I
> > didn't understand all of what he said since he became quite
> > passionate while reliving the scene, and began speaking in military
> > acronyms. Something about fooling around with afterburners and a
> > flareout touching off the missile. This vet closed his rant with an
> > assurance that he was also certain that McCain's plane was fragged
> > out of the sky by his peers who were tired of his risky behavior.
> > I'd been listening with shock probably showing on my face, and he
> > turned to me and said "Fragged! Do you know what that means, to be
> > fragged? It means your own side thinks you don't deserve to live!"
> > The rest of us simply listened, dumb-founded. That's the first I've
> > heard of any of that, but the guy was extremely serious and very
> > very angry, kept referring to McCain as "Songbird." Got up and
> > stormed off after he finished talking, and the rest of the crew
> > agreed to avoid talking about politics around him.  I keep meaning
> > to ask a pilot about this, since I don't understand how the missile
> > could have been set off like that in the first place.
>
> The A-4 aircraft that McCain was flying over Vietnam (and may others
> of that period) did not have self-starting engines. A small jet engine
> in a cart was used to get the turbines of the aircraft turning so the
> engine could be ignited. What happened on the Forrestal is that a
> starter cart was being used on an aircraft across the flight deck from
> McCain's aircraft. The exhaust from the starter cart was blowing on an
> air-to-air missile on another aircraft and the missile "cooked-off",
> its engine ignited from the heat of the starter cart. That missile
> flew across the deck and hit McCain's aircraft starting the fire and
> causing it to drop its bombs into the flames which in turn cooked off
> and exploded causing more fire and damage to other aircraft, etc.
>
> I am no fan of McCain but he was in no way responsible for what
> happened on the Forrestal.
>
> 
>
> that linked story doesn't jive with the ^ above paragraph.
just sayin'

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Brian Lawson]

On Oct 12, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Mugsy Lunsford wrote:
> At 5:29 PM -0500 10/10/08, richardsan san said:
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Michael Luscombe
>
>> Not everyone who talks to a communist or communist sympathizer  
>> becomes a communist. If that were the case, wouldn't John McCain  
>> want to run the country like Vietnam? Some sensible  
>> characterization of those meetings is in order. Plenty of  
>> Republicans worked with Bill Ayers as well.
>>
>>  mccain has at least a 5 year history of communicating with  
>> communists. didn't he give them more than just name,rank and serial  
>> number?
>
> I was on a work crew with a Nam vet this week, and got an earful  
> over lunch one afternoon when someone made a joking comment about  
> the election. Seems the vet was on the Forrestal when the missile  
> went off and killed 134 crewmen, and a lot of his fellow survivors  
> were convinced that McCain was responsible for that incident - I  
> didn't understand all of what he said since he became quite  
> passionate while reliving the scene, and began speaking in military  
> acronyms. Something about fooling around with afterburners and a  
> flareout touching off the missile. This vet closed his rant with an  
> assurance that he was also certain that McCain's plane was fragged  
> out of the sky by his peers who were tired of his risky behavior.  
> I'd been listening with shock probably showing on my face, and he  
> turned to me and said "Fragged! Do you know what that means, to be  
> fragged? It means your own side thinks you don't deserve to live!"  
> The rest of us simply listened, dumb-founded. That's the first I've  
> heard of any of that, but the guy was extremely serious and very  
> very angry, kept referring to McCain as "Songbird." Got up and  
> stormed off after he finished talking, and the rest of the crew  
> agreed to avoid talking about politics around him.  I keep meaning  
> to ask a pilot about this, since I don't understand how the missile  
> could have been set off like that in the first place.

The A-4 aircraft that McCain was flying over Vietnam (and may others  
of that period) did not have self-starting engines. A small jet engine  
in a cart was used to get the turbines of the aircraft turning so the  
engine could be ignited. What happened on the Forrestal is that a  
starter cart was being used on an aircraft across the flight deck from  
McCain's aircraft. The exhaust from the starter cart was blowing on an  
air-to-air missile on another aircraft and the missile "cooked-off",  
its engine ignited from the heat of the starter cart. That missile  
flew across the deck and hit McCain's aircraft starting the fire and  
causing it to drop its bombs into the flames which in turn cooked off  
and exploded causing more fire and damage to other aircraft, etc.

I am no fan of McCain but he was in no way responsible for what  
happened on the Forrestal.



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[richardsan san]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Mugsy Lunsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> At 5:29 PM -0500 10/10/08, richardsan san said:
> >On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Michael Luscombe
>
> >Not everyone who talks to a communist or communist sympathizer
> >becomes a communist. If that were the case, wouldn't John McCain want
> >to run the country like Vietnam? Some sensible characterization of
> >those meetings is in order. Plenty of Republicans worked with Bill
> >Ayers as well.
> >
> >   mccain has at least a 5 year history of communicating with
> communists.
> >didn't he give them more than just name,rank and serial number?
>
> I was on a work crew with a Nam vet this week, and got an earful over
> lunch one afternoon when someone made a joking comment about the
> election. Seems the vet was on the Forrestal when the missile went
> off and killed 134 crewmen, and a lot of his fellow survivors were
> convinced that McCain was responsible for that incident - I didn't
> understand all of what he said since he became quite passionate while
> reliving the scene, and began speaking in military acronyms.
> Something about fooling around with afterburners and a flareout
> touching off the missile. This vet closed his rant with an assurance
> that he was also certain that McCain's plane was fragged out of the
> sky by his peers who were tired of his risky behavior. I'd been
> listening with shock probably showing on my face, and he turned to me
> and said "Fragged! Do you know what that means, to be fragged? It
> means your own side thinks you don't deserve to live!" The rest of us
> simply listened, dumb-founded. That's the first I've heard of any of
> that, but the guy was extremely serious and very very angry, kept
> referring to McCain as "Songbird." Got up and stormed off after he
> finished talking, and the rest of the crew agreed to avoid talking
> about politics around him.  I keep meaning to ask a pilot about this,
> since I don't understand how the missile could have been set off like
> that in the first place.
>
>
maybe something like putting a box of firecrackers near the exhaust of a
nitro burning car and the flare out igniting them...?
wow, if the fragging thing is accurate, it lends some cred. to his ill
personality.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Michael Luscombe]

Yes, I do. I read the article, and I replied to it. It had no  
substance, only conjecture and fearmongering. You want to talk  
specifically about why more wasn't made about Obama's association  
with radicals in the past?

All of those people are in the public eye, we know their history. The  
democrats are left and socialism is far left. Most democrats will  
have some association with some left leaning literati or activist. If  
there was something to make of it, people would be making something  
of it. If there was dirt to dig up, and some terrorist plot to  
reveal, why wasn't that relevant to Obama being a senator? Why hasn't  
McCain produced some shred of evidence instead of this hushed blogger  
conspiracy?

So? What do you want to talk about? Do you have something real to  
bring up, besides the fact that you think democrats are "America- 
haters" and communist terrorists and some other loon agrees with you?

I still feel like your founding fathers included the right to bear  
arms in your constitution specifically so you could rise up against  
what Republicans have become. This is a difference of perspective,  
and your "facts" tell different stories to my eyes.

Michael


On 10-Oct-08, at 7:35 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote:

> No, that's not what the article is about Michael.
>
> Do you ever deal with anything straight up?
>
> Ever?
>
> On Oct 10, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote:
>
>> On 10-Oct-08, at 4:28 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote:
>>
>>> >> why_obamas_communist_connectio.html>
>>>
>>> "I have seen for quite some time that although we won the Cold  
>>> War --
>>> and defeated the Soviet communist empire -- America is vulnerable to
>>> varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, "creeping
>>> socialism" (Ronald Reagan's phrase), class-warfare rhetoric, and
>>> generally milder, more palatable (but still dangerous) forms of
>>> disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and
>>> truth about communism is not taught by our educators."
>>>
>>> The author makes some other astute observations about leftists and
>>> conservatives and their respective views on communism and fascism.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Francis Drouillard]

No, that's not what the article is about Michael.

Do you ever deal with anything straight up?

Ever?

On Oct 10, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote:

>
> On 10-Oct-08, at 4:28 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote:
>
>> > why_obamas_communist_connectio.html>
>>
>> "I have seen for quite some time that although we won the Cold War --
>> and defeated the Soviet communist empire -- America is vulnerable to
>> varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, "creeping
>> socialism" (Ronald Reagan's phrase), class-warfare rhetoric, and
>> generally milder, more palatable (but still dangerous) forms of
>> disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and
>> truth about communism is not taught by our educators."
>>
>> The author makes some other astute observations about leftists and
>> conservatives and their respective views on communism and fascism.
>
> --
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Michael


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Michael Luscombe]

On 10-Oct-08, at 6:29 PM, richardsan san wrote:

> Not everyone who talks to a communist or communist sympathizer
> becomes a communist. If that were the case, wouldn't John McCain want
> to run the country like Vietnam? Some sensible characterization of
> those meetings is in order. Plenty of Republicans worked with Bill
> Ayers as well.
>
>   mccain has at least a 5 year history of communicating with  
> communists.
> didn't he give them more than just name,rank and serial number?

--

Yes, his war-hero status is slightly storied, to say the least.



--
Michael

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[richardsan san]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Brian Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 10, 2008, at 4:29 PM, richardsan san wrote:
> >   mccain has at least a 5 year history of communicating with
> > communists. didn't he give them more than just name,rank and serial
> > number?
>
> I'll bet most people would under the conditions he was under. Torture
> has a way of making people talk. Doesn't mean what they say has any
> relevance to anything but they do talk.


 "country first"  seems so out of sync.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Michael Luscombe]

On 10-Oct-08, at 6:36 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:

> These conspiracy theories are just shibboleths of the far right, the
> cowering, paranoid, fearful core of the Conservative Movement, back to
> seeing commies under every bed. They know that the last eight years
> have discredited their movement so badly that they're back to the pre-
> Goldwater days.
--

This imagined link between communism and democrats should be of no  
surprise. I've cried "fascism" and "imperialism" to describe  
republican ideology, of course conservatives are going to cry  
"communism" when the spector of socialism rears it's head in general  
conversation.

It's rhetoric and perspective. Where I regard Carter as a good  
diplomatic president, republicans call him a disaster. Where they  
tout the virtues of Reagan, I see only a tool for big business and  
imperialism.

Our perspectives and world view clearly differ in a way that renders  
conservative judgement completely useless to me.

--
Michael

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Bruce Johnson]

On Oct 10, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote:

>
> Not everyone who talks to a communist or communist sympathizer
> becomes a communist.

But not everyone has an exotic middle name, and is Not Like You and ME  
.

One would think that at least one or two of the many students Obama  
has taught over the years would have mentioned being groomed for the  
Maoist takeover, or that this would have come out during the  
Democratic primary season, which was as hard fought as any we've seen.

The towering level of conspiracy needed for their scenarios would make  
David Icke scoff and call them nutters.

These idiots wouldn't know a Socialist, much LESS a Marxist if they  
came up and pissed on their shoes.

These conspiracy theories are just shibboleths of the far right, the  
cowering, paranoid, fearful core of the Conservative Movement, back to  
seeing commies under every bed. They know that the last eight years  
have discredited their movement so badly that they're back to the pre- 
Goldwater days.

Who, by the way, can be heard spinning in his grave from herethey  
should hook him up to a generator, we could light up Phoenix for free.

-- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Brian Lawson]

On Oct 10, 2008, at 4:29 PM, richardsan san wrote:
>   mccain has at least a 5 year history of communicating with  
> communists. didn't he give them more than just name,rank and serial  
> number?

I'll bet most people would under the conditions he was under. Torture  
has a way of making people talk. Doesn't mean what they say has any  
relevance to anything but they do talk.
--
Brian

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[richardsan san]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Michael Luscombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> On 10-Oct-08, at 4:28 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote:
>
> >  > why_obamas_communist_connectio.html>
> >
> > "I have seen for quite some time that although we won the Cold War --
> > and defeated the Soviet communist empire -- America is vulnerable to
> > varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, "creeping
> > socialism" (Ronald Reagan's phrase), class-warfare rhetoric, and
> > generally milder, more palatable (but still dangerous) forms of
> > disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and
> > truth about communism is not taught by our educators."
> >
> > The author makes some other astute observations about leftists and
> > conservatives and their respective views on communism and fascism.
>
> --
>
> The article you posted is really about communism, and by extension,
> military dictatorships. Plenty of countries seem to be able to run
> their health care systems without seeing the need to round up all the
> Jews.
>
> I'm pretty sure communists eat bread, but I don't see causality
> between bread and communism. Despite promoting that ridiculous link,
> the article made absolutely no salient points about how evil any
> specific social program was, simply that anything associated with
> communism in any way is evil. Of course that's McCarthyism.
>
> Isn't this just fear-mongering, which is really the trademark of the
> republicans and conservatism of late? Fear of change, fear of the
> unknown, fear of terrorist boogeymen, fear of an educated black man
> in office?





>
>
> Not everyone who talks to a communist or communist sympathizer
> becomes a communist. If that were the case, wouldn't John McCain want
> to run the country like Vietnam? Some sensible characterization of
> those meetings is in order. Plenty of Republicans worked with Bill
> Ayers as well.


  mccain has at least a 5 year history of communicating with communists.
didn't he give them more than just name,rank and serial number?

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[Stratalist-ot] Re: I'm afraid he's right ...

[Michael Luscombe]

On 10-Oct-08, at 4:28 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote:

>  why_obamas_communist_connectio.html>
>
> "I have seen for quite some time that although we won the Cold War --
> and defeated the Soviet communist empire -- America is vulnerable to
> varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, "creeping
> socialism" (Ronald Reagan's phrase), class-warfare rhetoric, and
> generally milder, more palatable (but still dangerous) forms of
> disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and
> truth about communism is not taught by our educators."
>
> The author makes some other astute observations about leftists and
> conservatives and their respective views on communism and fascism.

--

The article you posted is really about communism, and by extension,  
military dictatorships. Plenty of countries seem to be able to run  
their health care systems without seeing the need to round up all the  
Jews.

I'm pretty sure communists eat bread, but I don't see causality  
between bread and communism. Despite promoting that ridiculous link,  
the article made absolutely no salient points about how evil any  
specific social program was, simply that anything associated with  
communism in any way is evil. Of course that's McCarthyism.

Isn't this just fear-mongering, which is really the trademark of the  
republicans and conservatism of late? Fear of change, fear of the  
unknown, fear of terrorist boogeymen, fear of an educated black man  
in office?

Not everyone who talks to a communist or communist sympathizer  
becomes a communist. If that were the case, wouldn't John McCain want  
to run the country like Vietnam? Some sensible characterization of  
those meetings is in order. Plenty of Republicans worked with Bill  
Ayers as well.

--
Michael


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to StrataList-OT@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---