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

From: Mike Marron
Date: 1/8/2004 12:38 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Dave Holford wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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

On where - Florida where they were taking pilot training?

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


Marion, all you have proved is that you can make an accusation such as "the
USAF is responsible for 9/11" without providing a shred of proof that this was
the case. You have admitted not having a clue how the USAF operates. You have
ignored repeated requests for your opinion how the USAF was responsible and now
come up with a lame brained suggestion we should have bombed Afghanistan which
had not yet committed an offense to the USA.

Next time you decide to accuse any person, group or organization of anything
you should at least have a well thought out theory why.

In this case all you have done is offend those of us who served and make
yourself look like a fool.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: Mike Marron
Date: 1/8/2004 11:43 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Christ! am I ever glad that you aren't in any position of power
Mr Marron.

Spoken like the true Canuck wussy that you are. Whattsa' matter Gordo,
jealous because when the doctors performed exploratory surgery in your
lower groin area looking for testicles they couldn't find any?

Marion, no need to stoop to tarver's level.

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


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity. You
have. That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: Mike Marron


Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
B2431 wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Of course you're correct. Let's disregard the manner in which the
question was asked (the original poster asked, "Why was the USAF stood
down on 9/11?") and simply ask instead something along the lines of;
"Why was the USAF unable to prevent 9/11?"

The orignal poster has no idea of what standing down means.

That's true. While much of my service was overseas,
the only time I can recall a one-day "stand down" was
in 1969, during a well-organized civilian "Moratorium
Against the (VN) War" - and it only applied to TAC.
(Evidently, they were concerned that the demonstration
would be considerably larger than it actually was...)

I agreed that the original poster either A) had no idea what "standing
down" means, or B) was simply trolling. Hence, my suggestion above
to restate the question so as to have a more meaningful and productive
discussion as opposed to the usual trolling and massive amounts of
wasted bandwidth mudslinging.

Your suggestion that the USAF was somehow at fault for 9/11 is offensive
and it
shows you have no idea what the USAF's job is.

Agreed.

After spending the first 20 years of my life on ADC bases I grew
accustomed to the sound of afterburners blasting off all day
and night and the even louder concussions of sonic booms.
As a young kid, I rode in those dark blue Air Force panel trucks on

snip a long story.

And you expect your experiences as a base brat to trump those of us who
actually served? It is evident you learned nothing about how the USAF
functions.

Marron, I will let you in on a little secret your father committed a crime by
taking you on the flightline in a launch truck. He and his buddies committed a
crime by giving you beer as a minor. He and his buddies were fools for letting
an unqualified person handle their life support equipment.

One more thing: fighter pilots are the second biggest BS artists in the world
when it comes to swapping stories.

I'm sorry if I come across as attacking your father. Unfortunately he wasn't
the first nor will he be the last to take a child where he doesn't belong.

The flightline, squadron ops, base ops, life support etc are not playgrounds
for children.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:
From: Mike Marron wrote:

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

Marion, all you have proved is that [blah blah blah...]

Just curious Dan "B2431," what is YOUR last name?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

Error on the side of those on the ground.

Because the lives of those on the ground are more valuable than the lives of
those in the airplane?

Because the guys on the ground don't have the same kinetic energy to kill
and bring down centers of commerce.

(B2431) wrote:

And you expect your experiences as a base brat to trump those of us who
actually served? It is evident you learned nothing about how the USAF
functions.

Let's just hope and pray the USAF never ever "functions" again like it
did back on Sept 11, 2001.

Marron, I will let you in on a little secret your father committed a crime by
taking you on the flightline in a launch truck. He and his buddies committed a
crime by giving you beer as a minor. He and his buddies were fools for letting
an unqualified person handle their life support equipment.

One more thing: fighter pilots are the second biggest BS artists in the world
when it comes to swapping stories.

I'm sorry if I come across as attacking your father. Unfortunately he wasn't
the first nor will he be the last to take a child where he doesn't belong.

The flightline, squadron ops, base ops, life support etc are not playgrounds
for children.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Hilarious! Just curious, if fighter pilots are the second biggest BS
artists in the world, whose the first biggest?

Mike Marron wrote:

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

[snip]

Question: Your are in charge of the air force in 2001. What would you
have done to prevent 9/11 from occuring?

Pre-9/11 Intelligence or *today's* beefed up Intelligence and Homeland
Security?

You're reading comprehension is slipping there Marion, to
'prevent something which has happened' you 'must' use the
conditions existing at that time son.

Could this comprehension problem have been the cause of your
'bare ass in public' errors awhile ago WRT your embarrassing
confusion between AoA and AoI?
--

-Gord.

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

"David Hartung" wrote:

If I recall, there were three interceptors which used "ROs", the F89, F94, &
F101. Just out of curiosity, which one did your Dad fly?

F-101B.

Did Your dad ever fly out of Portland?

I really don't know. We were based in Klamath Falls (Kingsley Field)
Oregon from the time he returned home from SEA 'till 1969-70.

From: Mike Marron
Date: 1/8/2004 6:22 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.

You are dismissed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired