GWB's piloting fun....

[David E. Powell]

http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm

Excerpt:

On the way to his infamous landing on an aircraft carrier, Bush toyed with
his Secret Service agent by intentionally shaking the plane from side to
side and then nosing downward so sharply they lifted out of their seats.


~~~!

[Aerophotos]

I wonder....did the Hoover keep on plummeting to the glossy blue or did
the "real" qualified Hoover driver wrestle the controls from Dubya who
didnt know left from right and climb from dive?..

What is a unqualified naval pilot such as Bush doing anyway at the
control of a naval aircraft ...furthermore... he isnt even qualified
on..... that is a question one needs to ask.


__________________________________________________ ___________________

Note additionally, George Bush has done more in last 3 years to
encourage arabs n muslims to hate us in the West then anyone before
him......one hand bush is claiming to stop terrorism and other hand he
promotes it.. so what does he want????

Cant have it both ways now... Mr Bush himself is a terrorist leader..
his forces in Iraq are killing n wounding civil and innocent people
....just like his predcessor Johnson did in vietnam...

For those apologists who support bushs way... imagine if a country
attacked - say Brazil - the US and many innocents were killed..in street
fighting trying to escape a invading force...

you think anyone would care???.. i wouldnt... its in a area of the world
where there is oil...

if so you think anyone should??.. name a reason? they are only terrorist
scum if they are wounded...

Anyone killed or injured would only be labelled a terrorist supporter
....


Anyone notice similarities already? israel vs arabs, irish vs british
etc etc.... such as is the treatment civil iraqis are getting from the
US n allies at the moment... see when you reverse the situ there is no
difference at all...

Bush's latest song is as ...

1,2,3,4, We dont give a damn cause "insert a name of a future US
military person who will die...resulting from a combat death" ..gona
die in Iraq for my oily hands.... / cut to smiling dumb smut mug pose of
Bush....

Also discussing Dubya flying the F-102 in the early 70s....Bush did
leisure cruises over the Gulf of Florida..... shooting down drones such
as AGM-34s.

Real brave Mr Bush.... while "real men" flew in Vietnam with the ANG in
various roles, he hung his ass out to dry in the most safe seat he could
find... well that is until bush skipped the training and roll calls...
for political work..



"David E. Powell" wrote:
>
> http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm
>
> Excerpt:
>
> On the way to his infamous landing on an aircraft carrier, Bush toyed with
> his Secret Service agent by intentionally shaking the plane from side to
> side and then nosing downward so sharply they lifted out of their seats.
>
> ~~~!

--

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"David E. Powell" > wrote:

> http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm
>
> Excerpt:
>
> On the way to his infamous landing on an aircraft carrier, Bush toyed with
> his Secret Service agent by intentionally shaking the plane from side to
> side and then nosing downward so sharply they lifted out of their seats.
>
>
> ~~~!
>
>

Good for him! It's about time that the SS got some thrills from the
Pres. They have GOT to be the most uptight of all the federal
bearucracies!

It sounds as if he gave them a zero-G ride!

[Kevin Brooks]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
...
> I wonder....did the Hoover keep on plummeting to the glossy blue or did
> the "real" qualified Hoover driver wrestle the controls from Dubya who
> didnt know left from right and climb from dive?..
>
> What is a unqualified naval pilot such as Bush doing anyway at the
> control of a naval aircraft ...furthermore... he isnt even qualified
> on..... that is a question one needs to ask.

An idiot like you may have to ask it, but others seem quite happy as is.
FYI, I can remember being rotated through the right seat of a C-123K and
being allowed to control it as a freakin' teenaged CAP cadet, along with a
bevy of other cadets; so stop acting as if you have discovered another
element of your great GWB Conspiracy Theory here.

Brooks

<snip further idiotic ranting from JGG>

[Pete]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
...
> I wonder....did the Hoover keep on plummeting to the glossy blue or did
> the "real" qualified Hoover driver wrestle the controls from Dubya who
> didnt know left from right and climb from dive?..
>
> What is a unqualified naval pilot such as Bush doing anyway at the
> control of a naval aircraft ...furthermore... he isnt even qualified
> on..... that is a question one needs to ask.

Oh please...

Not much different than a standard incentive ride given to many military
personnel.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

>It sounds as if he gave them a zero-G ride!

So how many people were in that airplane, anyhow?

Must have been awfully crowded.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Pechs1]

warbird-<< So how many people were in that airplane, anyhow? >><BR><BR>

Max of 4....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[nafod40]

Aerophotos wrote:
> I wonder....did the Hoover keep on plummeting to the glossy blue or did
> the "real" qualified Hoover driver wrestle the controls from Dubya who
> didnt know left from right and climb from dive?..

I wonder about your wondering. Are you really that big of a left wing
stooge? Flying is so easy even you could do it.

> What is a unqualified naval pilot such as Bush doing anyway at the
> control of a naval aircraft ...furthermore... he isnt even qualified
> on..... that is a question one needs to ask.

Every day thousands of unqualified naval aviators take the controls of
airplanes, and even fly them solo. Go take a trip to Pensacola and watch
them fly over you all day long. It ain't that hard. He's a jet pilot. Do
your research.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:32:46 +1000, Aerophotos >
wrote:

>I wonder....did the Hoover keep on plummeting to the glossy blue or did
>the "real" qualified Hoover driver wrestle the controls from Dubya who
>didnt know left from right and climb from dive?..
>
>What is a unqualified naval pilot such as Bush doing anyway at the
>control of a naval aircraft ...furthermore... he isnt even qualified
>on..... that is a question one needs to ask.
>

Have you overlooked the fact that George W. Bush is a rated USAF
pilot, graduate of USAF undergraduate pilot training and then
qualified in a single-seat, single-engine operational jet?

Setting any AF pilot in the right seat of a modern aircraft and giving
him/her control is no great stretch. Fiddling around and toying with
the IP is the most likely thing a fighter pilot will do, and is even
more likely when you've gone cross-service and the other guy is
quaking in his boots at the responsibility he's been given.

And, your aviation qualification?????


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Joe Delphi]

>
> What is a unqualified naval pilot such as Bush doing anyway at the
> control of a naval aircraft ...furthermore... he isnt even qualified
> on..... that is a question one needs to ask.
>

No its not a question one needs to ask. But here are two answers anyway:

1. He's the Commander In Chief.

2. He's a qualified and trained USAF pilot, so its not like he doesn't know
anything about aircraft.


JD

[George Z. Bush]

"Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> >
> > What is a unqualified naval pilot such as Bush doing anyway at the
> > control of a naval aircraft ...furthermore... he isnt even qualified
> > on..... that is a question one needs to ask.
> >
>
> No its not a question one needs to ask. But here are two answers anyway:
>
> 1. He's the Commander In Chief.
>
> 2. He's a qualified and trained USAF pilot, so its not like he doesn't know
> anything about aircraft.

Just for the sake of accuracy, let's just concede that he WAS a
qualif............etc. instead of is. Spoken from experience, I guarantee that
you can get pretty damned rusty after 30+ years out of the saddle. (^-^)))

George Z.

[Cub Driver]

>I wonder about your wondering. Are you really that big of a left wing
>stooge? Flying is so easy even you could do it.

Indeed it is, if you don't have to land the thang or take it into
combat.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

>qualified in a single-seat, single-engine operational jet?

He also has a single- and multi-engine "commercial" rating from the
FAA. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:28:50 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>qualified in a single-seat, single-engine operational jet?
>
>He also has a single- and multi-engine "commercial" rating from the
>FAA. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

That's the "military competence" provision. If you receive a military
pilot rating, you can go down to the local FAA office and complete a
short exam on FARs. They give you a commercial rating single and
multi-engine (C/L thrust) and instrument rating. No check flights
required. If you can show a form five (or whatever the time log is
now) qualification in an airplane with separated engines they'll take
off the C/L limitation and even issue a type rating. I've got Convair
240/340/440 on mine since I was forced to checkout in the T-29.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[fudog50]

5 in a piggie....



On 06 May 2004 12:54:45 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

>warbird-<< So how many people were in that airplane, anyhow? >><BR><BR>
>
>Max of 4....
>P. C. Chisholm
>CDR, USN(ret.)
>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John Keeney]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >It sounds as if he gave them a zero-G ride!
>
> So how many people were in that airplane, anyhow?
>
> Must have been awfully crowded.

My memory of the stories at the time is three.
The pilot, the President and one secret service guy.

[CallsignZippo]

To bad George did not have the same fun dancing over downtown
Hanoi.Oops I forgot he was having fun defending the US of A from an
air attack from the Mexican Air Force. Well, I guess that's another
yarn for another day.

Well, I don't know about anyone else but I am sure as hell glad all
major combat operations are over in Iraq, I was worried we were going
to get in a real shooting war for a while.

More boots on the ole proverbial ground, hell we don;t need them, we
just have to hire some more private contractors, and the dead enders
and thugs will be gone in no time.

Lastly, after 911 the primary theatre of operations should have been
Afghanistan and the outlaw regions of Pakistan, not Iraq. Bin Laden
and his band of murders never (until recently) had a foothold in Iraq,
but they sure as hell, have one today, not only in Afghanistan but
Iraq as well.

How in the hell, do you invade and occupy the WRONG country.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

George Z. Bush wrote:
>
> Just for the sake of accuracy, let's just concede that he WAS a
> qualif............etc. instead of is. Spoken from experience, I guarantee
> that you can get pretty damned rusty after 30+ years out of the saddle.


I seem to recall a flight down to the Bahamas where I let an old USAF type
handle the controls for the first time in 20 years or more. Within just a
couple of minutes he was holding heading within 5 degrees and altitude within 50
feet. I will admit the resulting landing required getting the landing gear
serviced.

But straight and level flying? Must be like riding the proverbial bike...



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Charles Samardza]

By the standard your setting down in your first paragraph I guess the
SAC pilots sitting on their wheels around the world weren't serving
either.


(CallsignZippo) wrote in message >...
> To bad George did not have the same fun dancing over downtown
> Hanoi.Oops I forgot he was having fun defending the US of A from an
> air attack from the Mexican Air Force. Well, I guess that's another
> yarn for another day.
>
> Well, I don't know about anyone else but I am sure as hell glad all
> major combat operations are over in Iraq, I was worried we were going
> to get in a real shooting war for a while.
>
> More boots on the ole proverbial ground, hell we don;t need them, we
> just have to hire some more private contractors, and the dead enders
> and thugs will be gone in no time.
>
> Lastly, after 911 the primary theatre of operations should have been
> Afghanistan and the outlaw regions of Pakistan, not Iraq. Bin Laden
> and his band of murders never (until recently) had a foothold in Iraq,
> but they sure as hell, have one today, not only in Afghanistan but
> Iraq as well.
>
> How in the hell, do you invade and occupy the WRONG country.

[George Z. Bush]

"CallsignZippo" > wrote in message
om...
> To bad George did not have the same fun dancing over downtown
> Hanoi.Oops I forgot he was having fun defending the US of A from an
> air attack from the Mexican Air Force. Well, I guess that's another
> yarn for another day.
>
> Well, I don't know about anyone else but I am sure as hell glad all
> major combat operations are over in Iraq, I was worried we were going
> to get in a real shooting war for a while.
>
> More boots on the ole proverbial ground, hell we don;t need them, we
> just have to hire some more private contractors, and the dead enders
> and thugs will be gone in no time.
>
> Lastly, after 911 the primary theatre of operations should have been
> Afghanistan and the outlaw regions of Pakistan, not Iraq. Bin Laden
> and his band of murders never (until recently) had a foothold in Iraq,
> but they sure as hell, have one today, not only in Afghanistan but
> Iraq as well.
>
> How in the hell, do you invade and occupy the WRONG country.

It ain't easy!! (^-^)))

George Z.

[CallsignZippo]

(Charles Samardza) wrote in message >...
> By the standard your setting down in your first paragraph I guess the
> SAC pilots sitting on their wheels around the world weren't serving
> either.
>
>
When was SAC,MAC or TAC service ever a political appointment?

[miso]

The funny thing about military outsourcing is it is the only case I
know of where the outsourcing costs more than the in-house employees.
However, having the contractors do the beating and killing of
prisoners does give the US cover.

(CallsignZippo) wrote in message >...
> To bad George did not have the same fun dancing over downtown
> Hanoi.Oops I forgot he was having fun defending the US of A from an
> air attack from the Mexican Air Force. Well, I guess that's another
> yarn for another day.
>
> Well, I don't know about anyone else but I am sure as hell glad all
> major combat operations are over in Iraq, I was worried we were going
> to get in a real shooting war for a while.
>
> More boots on the ole proverbial ground, hell we don;t need them, we
> just have to hire some more private contractors, and the dead enders
> and thugs will be gone in no time.
>
> Lastly, after 911 the primary theatre of operations should have been
> Afghanistan and the outlaw regions of Pakistan, not Iraq. Bin Laden
> and his band of murders never (until recently) had a foothold in Iraq,
> but they sure as hell, have one today, not only in Afghanistan but
> Iraq as well.
>
> How in the hell, do you invade and occupy the WRONG country.

[Mike Kanze]

>The funny thing about military outsourcing is it is the only case I know of
where the outsourcing costs more than the in-house employees. However,
having the contractors do the beating and killing of prisoners does give the
US cover.

The pejorative note of this comment aside, we as a nation have never fully
debated the question of the role - if any - that "contractors" should play.

One danger that I see is of our slipping into a "Légion Étrangère" mentality
(That's "Foreign Legion," to all you non-Francophones out there.). The
temptation for reckless adventurism increases when mercenaries - especially
non-US nationals - get paid to absorb the body counts, absolving politicians
of having to answer to the nation for those killed in the line of duty.

In short, do we really want to become like the French?

--
Mike Kanze

"Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's war record means he can beat Bush.
They say when it comes down to it voters will always vote for a war hero
over someone who tried to get out of the war. I'll be sure to mention that
to Bob Dole when I see him."

- Jay Leno


"miso" > wrote in message
om...
> [rest snipped]

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
(CallsignZippo) wrote:

> (Charles Samardza) wrote in message
>...
> > By the standard your setting down in your first paragraph I guess the
> > SAC pilots sitting on their wheels around the world weren't serving
> > either.
> >
> >
> When was SAC,MAC or TAC service ever a political appointment?

Who was >> appointed<< ?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "CallsignZippo" > wrote in message
> om...
> > To bad George did not have the same fun dancing over downtown
> > Hanoi.Oops I forgot he was having fun defending the US of A from an
> > air attack from the Mexican Air Force. Well, I guess that's another
> > yarn for another day.


> >
> > How in the hell, do you invade and occupy the WRONG country.
>
> It ain't easy!! (^-^)))

And it ain't the first time, either!

[Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
> >The funny thing about military outsourcing is it is the only case I know
of
> where the outsourcing costs more than the in-house employees. However,
> having the contractors do the beating and killing of prisoners does give
the
> US cover.

>
> In short, do we really want to become like the French?

This coming presidential election should give you a pretty clear answer to
that question.

[Bill Kambic]

"Mike Kanze" wrote in message

> >The funny thing about military outsourcing is it is the only case I know
of
> where the outsourcing costs more than the in-house employees. However,
> having the contractors do the beating and killing of prisoners does give
the
> US cover.
>
> The pejorative note of this comment aside, we as a nation have never fully
> debated the question of the role - if any - that "contractors" should
play.

The U.S. military has been using contractors since the time of Geo.
Washington. IIRC, his commissariat was all contractors (just not Bechtel).
During the Civil War wagoneers and teamsters were all civilian contractors.
Most of the railroads were civilian run (although the Army did have railroad
battalions of gandy dancers, as well as run full trains). During the Indian
Wars you could add civilian scouts to the wagonmen and teamsters. The
Remount Sevice was peopled mostly by civilians. This seems to change after
the very spotty performance by the U.S. Army during the Spanish-American War
so that by the time of WWII you had the Army Air Force owning aircraft
manufacturing plants.

I think the Navy has also made extensive use of contractors at Navy Yards
over history, again with a much larger use of uniformed servicement to
provide support services during WWII. And, to keep this at least somewhat
NavAir oriented, the Navy did run an aircraft factory in Philedelphia for a
long time (and may have run others).

So the role of the contractor has grown and diminished over the years,
depending on circumstances.

> One danger that I see is of our slipping into a "Légion Étrangère"
mentality
> (That's "Foreign Legion," to all you non-Francophones out there.). The
> temptation for reckless adventurism increases when mercenaries -
especially
> non-US nationals - get paid to absorb the body counts, absolving
politicians
> of having to answer to the nation for those killed in the line of duty.

I think this is a rather broad statement and not supported by the facts.

> In short, do we really want to become like the French?

Probably not. But that presumes that we are in any way, shape, or form
headed in that direction. I don't see that happening.

Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/6/04 7:56 AM, in article , "nafod40"
> wrote:

> Aerophotos wrote:
>> I wonder....did the Hoover keep on plummeting to the glossy blue or did
>> the "real" qualified Hoover driver wrestle the controls from Dubya who
>> didnt know left from right and climb from dive?..
>
> I wonder about your wondering. Are you really that big of a left wing
> stooge? Flying is so easy even you could do it.
>
>> What is a unqualified naval pilot such as Bush doing anyway at the
>> control of a naval aircraft ...furthermore... he isnt even qualified
>> on..... that is a question one needs to ask.
>
> Every day thousands of unqualified naval aviators take the controls of
> airplanes, and even fly them solo. Go take a trip to Pensacola and watch
> them fly over you all day long. It ain't that hard. He's a jet pilot. Do
> your research.
>

They're either "unqualified naval aviators" or STUDENT naval aviators. It's
all schematics.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/6/04 8:47 AM, in article ,
"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:

> On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:32:46 +1000, Aerophotos >
> wrote:
>
>> I wonder....did the Hoover keep on plummeting to the glossy blue or did
>> the "real" qualified Hoover driver wrestle the controls from Dubya who
>> didnt know left from right and climb from dive?..
>>
>> What is a unqualified naval pilot such as Bush doing anyway at the
>> control of a naval aircraft ...furthermore... he isnt even qualified
>> on..... that is a question one needs to ask.
>>
>
> Have you overlooked the fact that George W. Bush is a rated USAF
> pilot, graduate of USAF undergraduate pilot training and then
> qualified in a single-seat, single-engine operational jet?
>
> Setting any AF pilot in the right seat of a modern aircraft and giving
> him/her control is no great stretch. Fiddling around and toying with
> the IP is the most likely thing a fighter pilot will do, and is even
> more likely when you've gone cross-service and the other guy is
> quaking in his boots at the responsibility he's been given.
>
> And, your aviation qualification?????
>

Well put, Ed. Frankly, I'll bet the maneuver did a lot to ease the tension
of that poor O-4 in the left seat. Might've even been the thing that turned
what looked like a sure bolter to that 4-on-the-fly pass.

Man, was I surprised when they trapped!

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 5/6/04 11:30 PM, in article ,
"fudog50" > wrote:

> 5 in a piggie....
>
>
>
> On 06 May 2004 12:54:45 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:
>
>> warbird-<< So how many people were in that airplane, anyhow? >><BR><BR>
>>
>> Max of 4....
>> P. C. Chisholm
>> CDR, USN(ret.)
>> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
>

Oops! You're showing your age, Pechs... Ain't no piggies (US-3's) any more.
Haven't been for YEARS! |:-)

--Woody

[Mike Kanze]

Bill,

Thanks for the very interesting history of contactors serving the US
military. When I wrote this, I was thinking primarily of those contractors
whose "job descriptions" specifically send them into harm's way. Indian
scouts certainly qualify here, while yardbirds don't.

My point still remains, that we as a nation have never had a clear debate on
this question.

> > One danger that I see is of our slipping into a "Légion Étrangère"
mentality [rest snipped for brevity]
>
> I think this is a rather broad statement and not supported by the facts.

The ability for the French government to sacrifice non-French citizens in
the pursuit of national policy is precisely why France has maintained the
Légion Étrangère. If you think the US Left is passionate about not sending
our troops into war, you haven't seen the passion of the French on this
point. France (as well as Britain) was bled white by the excesses of WWI
and that horrific memory continues very sharp in the French mind, almost 90
years later.

IIRC, the Legion's officer corps are its only French nationals. Every other
Legionnaire is a non-citizen volunteer who may later obtain French
citizenship upon successful completion of his enlistment.

By contrast, the regular French Army is (or at least used to be) primarily
conscript.

> > In short, do we really want to become like the French?
>
> Probably not. But that presumes that we are in any way, shape, or form
headed in that direction. I don't see that happening.

I hope not.

--
Mike Kanze

"Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's war record means he can beat Bush.
They say when it comes down to it voters will always vote for a war hero
over someone who tried to get out of the war. I'll be sure to mention that
to Bob Dole when I see him."

- Jay Leno


"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Kanze" wrote in message
>[rest snipped]

[Bill Kambic]

"Mike Kanze" wrote in message

> Thanks for the very interesting history of contactors serving the US
> military. When I wrote this, I was thinking primarily of those
contractors
> whose "job descriptions" specifically send them into harm's way. Indian
> scouts certainly qualify here, while yardbirds don't.

I don't think I would apply the term "yarbirds" to frontier era teamsters or
wagonmasters.

Plenty of supply trains in every conflict were hit by hostiles. The Wagon
Box Fight was mostly hay cutters with a very few troopers and scouts holding
off a large party of braves. If you are part of a combat organization, even
as a contractor, you are in harm's way.

> My point still remains, that we as a nation have never had a clear debate
on
> this question.

I am not sure one is necessary.

> > > One danger that I see is of our slipping into a "Légion Étrangère"
> mentality [rest snipped for brevity]
> >
> > I think this is a rather broad statement and not supported by the facts.
>
> The ability for the French government to sacrifice non-French citizens in
> the pursuit of national policy is precisely why France has maintained the
> Légion Étrangère. If you think the US Left is passionate about not
sending
> our troops into war, you haven't seen the passion of the French on this
> point. France (as well as Britain) was bled white by the excesses of WWI
> and that horrific memory continues very sharp in the French mind, almost
90
> years later.

> IIRC, the Legion's officer corps are its only French nationals. Every
other
> Legionnaire is a non-citizen volunteer who may later obtain French
> citizenship upon successful completion of his enlistment.
>
> By contrast, the regular French Army is (or at least used to be) primarily
> conscript.

I think you correct on the French policy. But that does not even bear a
superficial resemblance to the modern, American all-volunteer force.

Back in the mid to late '60s George Reedy wrote a small book entitled, "Who
Will Do Our Fighting For Us?" It addressed many of the issues of the
volunteer vs. conscript force. It was worthwhile reading then, and it is
now.
>
> > > In short, do we really want to become like the French?
> >
> > Probably not. But that presumes that we are in any way, shape, or form
> headed in that direction. I don't see that happening.
>
> I hope not.

Me, too. And so far I see no evidence that it is.

Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

[Bob McKellar]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

> George Z. Bush wrote:
> >
> > Just for the sake of accuracy, let's just concede that he WAS a
> > qualif............etc. instead of is. Spoken from experience, I guarantee
> > that you can get pretty damned rusty after 30+ years out of the saddle.
>
> I seem to recall a flight down to the Bahamas where I let an old USAF type


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anybody we know?


>
> handle the controls for the first time in 20 years or more. Within just a
> couple of minutes he was holding heading within 5 degrees and altitude within 50
> feet. I will admit the resulting landing required getting the landing gear
> serviced.
>
> But straight and level flying? Must be like riding the proverbial bike...
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
> http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Bob McKellar

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Bob McKellar wrote:
>> I seem to recall a flight down to the Bahamas where I let an old USAF type
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Anybody we know?


'Twould be ungentlemanly of me to elaborate.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Pechs1]

Ed-<< If you receive a military
pilot rating, you can go down to the local FAA office and complete a
short exam on FARs. They give you a commercial rating single and
multi-engine (C/L thrust) and instrument rating. >><BR><BR>

I had to wait until I got NATOPS qualed in a multi engine A/C before I could
get the 'multi' part. I knew some guys that were A-4 and A-7 pilots that got a
single engine commercial only.

I got my multiengine non centerline thrust part when I flew the Turkey...had a
multi/C/L thrust from the F-4...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

delphi-<< 2. He's a qualified and trained USAF pilot, so its not like he
doesn't know
anything about aircraft.
>><BR><BR>

He 'was' 'certified', he is not 'qualified' now..in spite of him 'owning' all
the military.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

sam-<< By the standard your setting down in your first paragraph I guess the
SAC pilots sitting on their wheels around the world weren't serving
either. >><BR><BR>


C'mon..there is 'serving' and there is 'serving'...Getting into the AirGuard
with yer Daddy's help to avoid a comflict ain't quite the same as being in the
USAF on alert in case of the 'big heat'....
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

foodog-<< 5 in a piggie... >><BR><BR>


Another ejection seat??

Hope so...interesting to see all the other seats go...and sit there with yer
___ inyer hand...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Mike Kanze]

Bill,

> I don't think I would apply the term "yarbirds" to frontier era teamsters
or wagonmasters.

"Yardbirds" (my spelling, not yours) - as in shipyard workers. Teamsters
and wagonmasters would certainly be closer to any action.

> I think you correct on the French policy. But that does not even bear a
superficial resemblance to the modern, American all-volunteer force.

True today, but US population demographics may change this, as well as
whatever force level needs may evolve - especially if we become further
engaged elsewhere in the world. We don't ask today's 18-year old males to
send that postcard to the Uncle just for grins. (Disclosure: In the recent
past I have served as a member of a Selective Service System draft board.
They exist in a "reserve" status: get called up once or twice a year for a
Saturday of training, etc.)

--
Mike Kanze

"Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's war record means he can beat Bush.
They say when it comes down to it voters will always vote for a war hero
over someone who tried to get out of the war. I'll be sure to mention that
to Bob Dole when I see him."

- Jay Leno


"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Kanze" wrote in message
> [rest snipped]