HOME QUOTES SCANDAL$ VIETNAM EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT WOMEN RELIGION GENOCIDE DRUGS MONEY WELFARE FORUM ABOUT

[Randy Cunningham Photo]

Randy “Duke” Cunningham Forum


 New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Log In   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 
 For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   07-02-05 14:28

To paraphrase the quote, “For whom the Gods would destroy, they first make – stupid.”

The unauthorized Randy Cunningham page is excellent!

I was a Navy fighter pilot, at Miramar, when Duke was there. Flew the F-4 and lived. Being a liberal in a conservative camp, it was not easy.

Duke was always known as a great fighter pilot who could out-fight just about anyone in the sky. But he was near terminally stupid. His MBA from National “University” is a joke. He was so stupid that while at Topgun he broke into his C.O.’s office to take a look at his terrible fitness report (Why look?). He was so stupid that despite holding the Navy Cross and having made Ace, he barely made it to Commander. His squadron command was a shore based command, did not deploy to sea tours, and was only made possible by the Navy inserting very, very strong executive and operations officers.

BTW - Many of us do not believe that a SAM got him. We flew F-4s and knew its gas consumption . . . we believe he just stayed too long in the fight and plain ran out of gas. The SAM story was a cover-up concocted after he got back on board the Connie by flagstaff.

El Duke has had a couple passes at his 15-minutes of fame, it is time for him to go away . . . and take that job in the defense industry that awaits him.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: John (---.san.res.rr.com)
Date:   07-02-05 19:49

Paul,

Fame -- and 5 MiG's -- can obscure flaws of character for many years. People see what they want to see, and disregard the rest.

The Navy was well aware of Cunningham's flaws early on. They refused his request for a regular commission, and were going to terminate him after that Constellation WestPac cruise.

But 5 MiG's suddenly changed that!

To separate Cunningham afterward would have been a PR disaster. He became a real problem for the Navy, and it had to "cover" for their inappropriate and disappointing hero for the next 15 years. His commanding officers usually rated him at the bottom, as a sub par officer. His CO at Top Gun said he "couldn't write a simple declarative sentence." ("Fall From Glory, p. 236)

Did he run out of gas? That was the speculative consensus of F-4 drivers. Even if a SAM really did get he and Willie, as the story went, he was also out of gas anyway, for staying too long.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   07-03-05 10:50

The story about him, mentioned elsewhere, as to having been shot down by another MiG after his 5th kill was wrong also. Had he been shot down by a MiG, you can bet that North Vietnam would have hooted and hollered about it in the international press.

You're right, he stayed for the 5th kill, when he could have extended and gotten the hell out of Dodge. All of us would have done exactly the same thing. That is why the SAM story was viewed as so much BS, no one cared that he ran out of gas after getting his 5th. "You damn right I stayed on in the fight and got my 5th" "You damn right I traded a $3.5 million dollar airplane for a $250,000 airplane . . . so what!" Nothing wrong with that logic for a fighter pilot.

As for him not being augmented to a regular navy commission. It addition to all of the "flaws" that have been so well documented, he also simply waited too long to put in his letter. Augmentation letters, back then, were usually submitted during the 0-2 and 0-3 period of a reserve officer's service; not 0-4 and 0-5 time frames. The timing of that letter was quite important.

John, in addition to everything that you said above (including reminding us of Jack's wonderful statement about him and the " . . . declarative sentence" business) another overriding reason for non-augmentation of many officers, was that the Navy was drastically cutting back the black shoe and aviation officer ranks. A lot of us were just hired for the war, and then gotten rid of as soon as possible . . . with out a doubt, had Randy not become an ace, he would have been gone when the war was over . . . willingly or un-willingly.

And by the way his nickname or "call sign" of "Duke" had nothing to do with John Wayne. He greatly admired Diego "Duke" Hernandez, who was in VF-96 with him and a Naval Aviator that we all knew and admired. I went through the F-4 RAG with Hernandez at VF-101 Key West. Duke Hernandez was a great officer, Naval Aviator and example. Randy took on "Duke" Hernandez's nickname for his own. Sadly he did not pack the gear to also take-up his example.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Karn (---.ka9q.net)
Date:   07-03-05 14:52

I'm not totally familiar with Duke's Vietnam flying record. I've certainly heard that he claimed 5 MIG kills, which he is still milking, but after that, what happened to his plane? Where did it crash? Was it ever found, and if so, could it be determined whether it was shot down or simply ran out of gas?
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   07-03-05 20:59

It went down in pieces in the Gulf of Tonkin. I for one ain't going back there to look . . .

What would be the purpose anyhow? If it is a lie, and I am one of many who wore the uniform who believes it is, it served a purpose. I can guarantee you that "Red Crown" and "War Chief" IOIC and Ops knew what happened. But the lid was shut tightly on it.

Also there are so many Navy a/c in the Golf of Tonkin, including one of mine that I would prefer not brought back up (Again, the circuit breaker was IN!), you would never find that "Showtime F-4"

His 5-kills are very authentic. The man could fly the aircraft!
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   07-08-05 07:30

Heh Heh....once again I'll state that if you {{{SHRIEK}}} Liberals....would put as much time and effort into humanitarian causes you might have as you put time and effort into BASHING another human, you probably would accomplish something in your lifetime.

And once again I'll state that despite your efforts to destroy Randy, the VOTERS have made their CHOICE.

I agree with most of the above...Randy was NOT a great officer nor a great leader. Just a great fighter pilot with an advanced sense of situational awareness.

And Randy...and I....were the ONLY ones on the '70 Cruise in America to check out and study the "Drill" and "Doughnut" manuals...and Randy was the ONLY one to get a last minute AI briefing on possible MiG movements and locations.

I detect a great sense of jealousy from those other so-called fighter pilots who didn't get one MiG....let alone FIVE.

Now go get a real job, and ACCEPT the CHOICE the VOTERS have made.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   07-08-05 09:49

The problem with this whole mess is as was said in some arcane piece of case law, ". . (that) it is the appearance of impropriety that offends the court." For whatever reason in this age of the news traveling at the speed of heat and fully disclosing a public figures most confidential information (that) no elected person can have feet of clay or dirt under his finger nails. Had the man simply recused himself from any voting on matter affecting friends and business associates, we would not be having these conversations. Then the man could have sold the home for 3-times its value, and folks would have said, “Welcome to California real estate.” Was the deal illegal, probably not or not provable. Was it stupid for an elected official of government to do such a thing? Of course it was. It does not matter if he had shot down the entire North Vietnamese Air Force; prior good acts these days does not get him a pass.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Karn (---.ka9q.net)
Date:   07-08-05 10:32

Hey, getting Duke out of office *is* a humanitarian cause! Just look at that idiot's voting record.

As for the voters, they're fickle. Incredibly fickle. Most who voted for Cunningham knew very little about him, just as they know very little about the other candidates they vote for. That's why we get so many corrupt, incompetent clowns in public office. And its both our right and our duty, under the First Amendment, to better inform the public about the people who represent them. And they just might change their minds.

I find it absolutely laughable that someone's proficiency in an airplane 35 years ago should somehow qualify them for a policy-making public office. If anything, all those g-forces acting on his brain probably made him *less* qualified.

To be honest, I couldn't care less about Cunningham's Vietnam record, no more than I care about Kerry's or even Bush's. They're totally irrelevant, and I never could understand why so much was made of them. I do care very much about their positions on public issues, their basic honesty and integrity, and above all their respect for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principles of human rights that they represent. Given that Cunningham has sponsored, and the House has passed, the very first amendment that would begin to dismantle the Bill of Rights, I think I have an excellent reason to oppose him. It's just too bad that so few people care about the Bill of Rights anymore. So instead we'll have to rely on his having cheated the taxpayers out of a few hundred million. That's peanuts compared to protecting the Bill of Rights, but so be it.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   07-08-05 12:39

Well said Phil . . .

Especially this attempted dismantling of the Bill of Rights with this stupid and unnecesary flag burning amendment. This is what really concerns me about the right wing, they really want to go after those first 10 amendments to or Constitution. If the radical right wing, religious right wing had its way, free speech would be out, illegal search would be out etc. But every wacko could own a .50 cal machine gun.

If you are not a member of the ACLU, go on line and join. The ACLU's job is to protect those precious first 10 amendments. Nutty as it sometimes is, our Bill of Rights has been blindly defended by the ACLU.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Karn (---.ka9q.net)
Date:   07-08-05 15:08

Thank you. It's not that I want to burn a flag myself, or even watch someone else do it. It *is* a pretty crude form of protest. But if you really believe in what the First Amendment says -- that you have a right to nonviolent expression even when others find it offensive -- then the conclusion that flag burning is protected expression is absolutely inescapable.

I've always seen the flag burning amendment as something like a canary in a coal mine. If this amendment passes and becomes part of the Constitution, the canary will have died. The canary itself isn't a big loss. It's what its death signifies.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Karn (---.ka9q.net)
Date:   07-08-05 15:10

Oh, and yes I *do* support the ACLU. I gave their foundation a grant last year. They are one of the most important (if not *the* most important) organizations in this area, along with the EFF (which specializes in computer freedoms). And yes, I support the ACLU even when they defend the non-violent expression of people I find loathsome, such as fundamentalist abortion protesters or the American Nazi Party. If their freedom of speech is protected, then mine will be too.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: John Lester (---.hsd1.il.comcast.net)
Date:   07-10-05 14:38

When I was first commissioned, and upon every promotion after, the oath I swore was to 'support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic'. I didn't swear my allegiance to a man, a party, the then current Administration or a swatch of fabric.

The genius of the Founding Fathers was their realization that all those things are easily corrupted -- men and their political parties fail, governments come and go, and the most despicable monsters wrap themselves in flags to make their crap palatable to the masses.

What makes our particular country different is not the graphic artistry of our emblems. It's the way we set up our government in order to ensure the maximum possible individual liberty consistent with necessary social responsibility. The most powerful symbol of our Democracy is not the flag --- we could change that tomorrow and not change who we are or what we believe. No, the most powerfull symbol of our Democracy is our Constitution - change that, and you truly change who we are.

But that's exactly why this drive to change the Constitution is on the front burner - because the folks who lie awake at night listening for the tiny, tiny screams of stem cells, yet are deaf to the cries of the humans around them, want very badly to change who we are.

It doesn't surprise me that the poster boy they've chosen for their Crusade is Mr. Cunningham. Many fighter pilots I've known are pretty one-dimensional - don't hate me, that's just a personal observation from ten years on active duty, and not as a pilot. He might have been God's Own Gift gripping the stick .... but that has no bearing on anything outside the cockpit. Recorded history is full of competent warriors who make lousy policy makers.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Dani Dodge (---.uniontrib.com)
Date:   08-08-05 13:12

I am very interested in talking to people who served with Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Please call me at 760-476-8227 or email me at Dani.Dodge@uniontrib.com
Thank you,
Dani Dodge
staff writer
The San Diego Union-Tribune
Reply To This Message
 
 American Fighter Aces Association 1984
Author: Dan Anderson (---.drydog.com)
Date:   08-26-05 12:02

Here's an interesting quote from "TCatTAFM" at http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/25/21659/2828 about Cunningham:

Here's a story that tells you everything you need to know about "The Duke":

Back in 1984, at the annual convention of The American Figher Aces Association, Cunningham showed up in uniform that Saturday night, playing the role of "America's only fighter ace still on active duty" to the hilt, glad-handing left and right.

I was sitting there with three For-Real fighter aces from WW2, (I'm an aviation historian in one of my other existences) and not one of them would get up to shake his hand, and in fact they gathered a few other "legends" (at least to those of us who pay attention to such things) and proceeded to bad-mouth Cunningham as being a perfect example of NOT having what Tom Wolfe described as "The Right Stuff."
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Bill Justice (199.218.242.---)
Date:   09-15-05 03:45

I find it interesting that Paul, and John did not give their units. Lemme guess you guys were in nam. Yea right.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   09-15-05 13:22

Author: Bill Justice (199.218.242.---)
Date: 09-15-05 03:45

I find it interesting that Paul, and John did not give their units. Lemme guess you guys were in nam. Yea right.==============
=========

I'd like to know what VF they were in also, and when THEY were there. Duke was there a long time. In the 34 years I've been out, I've met quite a few "wannabees" including two who bragged about being an F-4 Pilot, and one who claimed to be "CO of the Blue Angels" while in dress blues Navy Captains uniform, in Salt Lake City claiming to be scouting the area for an upcoming airshow at the county fairgrounds. Geeze.

I should have called the FBI on that one.

LB
VF-96 1969-1971
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   09-15-05 17:14

Bill - I was a dog when Doc Townsend had it, and again when the drunk Bill Albertson had it, which was about the time you were in - 96. If I know Diego "Duke" Hernandez, one of the greats, I was there. We know me. I will see you at the Nugget. Simply because someone speaks against your postion or belief or hero, does not make them a fraud. p
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   09-15-05 17:15

Correct my last, "You know me." p
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   09-15-05 17:42

Bill and the others who disagree with some of the opinions of Congressman Cunningham, and facts surrounding his fall from grace employ the old and worn knee jerk conservative argue mode. When they cannot argue the message - because what we detractors are saying is absolutely true, they then attempt to attack the messengers. Bill, I appreciate you defense of him, I really do. I cannot wait to hear it at ‘Hook. You also know me from the RAG, VF-121 –“me Aviator, you get in the back.” Bill, not all of us were conservatives, and went the lockstep party line bs. I guy that had the SDS (students for a democratic society) logo on my helmet, that caused Dan Pederson, Ops of -121, to almost have a stroke. Now you know my real name is not Paul. Call sign was a type of cat. Think Bill, give it a try, burn some neurons. An anti-war LCDR MOS:1310 that resigned his commission in 1972 . . . think Bill, think!
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: John (---.san.res.rr.com)
Date:   09-19-05 17:19

Bill & LB:

I'm sorry you do not like, nor are you able to argue against Paul's and my messages. Therefore, as Paul has so correctly pointed out, you then attempt to shoot at and discredit we messengers, while you both conveniently ignore the real issue – Cunningham.

Unfortunately for you, and unlike the Dukestir, it would appear that both we messengers are bulletproof.
(196 combat missions in SEA with VF-151, 1971-1973.)
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   09-20-05 07:23

I'm sorry you do not like, nor are you able to argue against Paul's and my messages. Therefore, as Paul has so correctly pointed out, you then attempt to shoot at and discredit we messengers, while you both conveniently ignore the real issue – Cunningham.


I'm sorry that YOU are unable to comprehend the problem here. I am NOT arguing against your messages. I AM arguing against the method of MANY messages besides yours. I AM not arguing against any ethics issues Randy may have gotten himself into.

I personally know a LOT more about him than has ever been discussed...my wife can't stand the guy because of certain things he did and admitted way back then....and I didn't particularly care for the guy.....but still....

My only issue with this whole forum is WHY do you folks waste so much time on ONE INDIVIDUAL????? There are no other issues, problems, concerns in the world that you folks WASTE SO MUCH TIME!!!!!

What do you expect to accomplish by trashing one man????

And BTW, if you and the others will learn to R-E-A-D and go back over the other messages, you'll learn that MUCH was trashed about Randy before this Real Estate deal became public.

Here's a website to help you with comprehension: http://www.neuro.read.net/



Lemmeesee.....earlier Randy wasn't being trashed for the RE deal, it was Oh...."Randy ran out of gas", "Randy was a womanizer", "Randy is gay", (how about that...a womanizing gay guy) "Randy wasn't CO of a "real" Squadron" ( Never mind that the goal of VF-126 was to give realistic ACM TRAINING to the TOP GUN students, et al, to they might learn to fly as good as Randy....but THAT isn't good enough for some folks). "Randy doesn't fly a flag in front of his house." And a myriad other "Randy does this"...or "Randy doesn't do that." Geeze guys. Ya mean No other Fighter Pilot was a womanizer??? and ALL other Fighter Pilots, All other congressmen fly flags in front of their house???? If the issue is Cunningham, how come THAT PURE CRAP has to be used as some sort of "proof" of how "bad" RAndy is????

I'll NEVER support Randy if he is found guilty of violating the law. I will never support Randy for whatever ethics or morals I disagree with. But until you and your ILK come up with some PROOF y'all oughta keep your mouths shut and go do something productive for those less fortunate than you.

And after you learn to R-E-A-D...go back and review my posts here and show me where I've argued against either you or Paul's messages.

http://www.neuro.read.net/
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   09-20-05 09:00

Why is the site so much about Cunningham . . . because that is the subject of the site! People are welcome to put up a site praising him . . . . and I wish that someone would.

Cunningham got -126 because he could fly, and fly damn well. The Navy backstopped him with folks that could administer. The Navy was after his expertise being passed along, not his leadership tools.

The fighter pilot things, good and bad, are irrelevant to the issues of the MZM deals, yacht deal and who he bought his rancho santa fe home from. Gents, it is the appearance of impropriety.

If the charges support and indictment, he will get his day in court to prove his innocence as is every American’s right. He publicly said that he “Welcomes the change to clear his name.” So, says I, let the games begin.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   09-20-05 17:47

Dear L. B.,

First of all, I have to say that this thread is the best on this site. People are answering back and discussing the issues. That's a great thing. Thank you LB for that.

Second of all, I never served in the military, although three of my siblings did. None were in the Navy, all were ground pounders duking (sorry) it out in the weeds.

Third, I will always be damn proud of them. I also supported them and support any of our fine fellow citizens (for the most part) in uniform today serving their country.

Fourth - like it or not LB - this site and the issues contained herein are about Randy Cunningham, his record as a Congressman and the drama and issues surrounding both. What don't you get?

Sure, there are other, more noble causes to fight and effort into. There always has been, always will be. But where does it start? I for one, am tired of doing nothing. My comments contained on this site is one way I have at making sure my voice is heard. On this subject and others I also write to reporters and elected officials.

I don't know about you LB but I can think of few better causes to fight than massive and unmitigated corruption of our elected officials. Where does the fight for noble causes start? I can few better starting points.

And I am sure we can all read, thank you.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   09-21-05 08:31

Fourth - like it or not LB - this site and the issues contained herein are about Randy Cunningham, his record as a Congressman and the drama and issues surrounding both. What don't you get?

....
And I am sure we can all read, thank you.

=============
I truly am SORRY. I didn't realize that NOT flying a flag in front of his house, charges of womanizing, charges of being gay, speculation of whether he shot down 5 MiGs, charges that Col. "toon" Toom" Toomb" did not exist, speculation that he ran out of gas rather than being SAM'ed (I think had he not been SAM'd, he would have ran out of gas anyway), charges that he wasn't CO of a "real" Navy VF because it was land-based, and a myriad of other things had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH "his record as a Congressman and the drama and issues surrounding both."

I apologize that I am so f*cking STUPID as to not realize that. After all Ted Kennedy was not only a womanizer but even managed to KILL one of his girlfriends. Or Congressman Franks, since Randy is charged with being both a womanizer and gay!!!! Randy has so much more to look up to with those two as his mentors.

Now if you'll really learn to R-E-A-D, you'll see that I have NEVER defended Randy against charges or speculation about corruption and misuse of power as a congressman. The ONLY argument I have brought to the table is contained in my first paragraph above. As I earlier stated, I could tell a tale or two about his ethics and morality in his personal life, but that has NOTHING to do with his being a Congressman.

So....either I am too STUPID to realize that those things are important in being a "good" congressman, or YOU and your ILK truly cannot R-E-A-D...or COMPREHEND what is written.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   09-21-05 09:16

No apologies necessary. I don't think you are stupid, LB and I wasn't saying you were defending him...but it seems like we are talking apples and oranges.

My point: You are posting your opinion on an anti-Randy Cunningham site saying, essentially, that people who post the their opinion on this site are stupid, can't read and should commit themselves to more worthy (as you see it) causes.

I get it.

Forgive for saying so but, is that not a bit hypocritical?

And like I said - I feel that posting content and information on this site IS a worthy cause.

Admittedly, Mr. Anderson presents the information about Randy in a satire heavy way, for comedic purposes. But the press reports, Congressional records and Randy's quotes I feel are accurate and without out embellishment.

Simply put LB: It is Mr. Anderson's site and he has a right (yes, I know, a right secured by Randy and others) to present or have a site anyway he wants...as long as it is not distorting or manufacturing false accounts about Randy. Within this framework, on this subject, I choose to comment.

I am sure Randy knows about this site and has looked into how to get it shut down. The fact that he hasn't been able to says he has no right (see above) to do so.

Like I said L.B. - there are many, many causes worthy of all of our attention. This site and these issues about Randy are just one. Just so you know - I am involved in others causes that I feel are worthy (as I am sure you are) and have had great accomplishments in my life, thank you. I count being able to read as being just one.

Brass tacks: As I have stated in other posts on this site, I formerly admired Mr. Cunningham. I thought that he was a true American hero who choose public service.
But then I choose (and it is a choice LB) to delve a bit deeper. It was then I found out that I really didn't know the man at all. The more I found out the less I liked...and here we are today.

I have a right to feel what I feel and say what I say...even if you don't like it or think I am wasting my time on a fruitless, liberal cause.

You think I am a fool. Fine, I can live with that and you have a right to what you believe. Great. Dead heat and it costs us nothing. But be careful arguing with a fool LB, people might not be able to tell the difference between us.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   09-21-05 10:35

And LB, on a few different subjects having to do with your posts, I have a question: Why do you use the phrase "you liberals"? Do you mean that as a insult? Do you have a primer or a guidebook that tells you when a person is a liberal and when they are not? Please, enlighten this ignorant surf.

You, cleary being extremely literate and lexicographically astute, surely knows the meaning of the word liberal. For those of you who do not, let's examine it, shall we? According to Dictionary.com it means:

Liberal-
1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2. a. Tending to give freely; generous
b. Generous in amount; ample

So...basically, "Liberal" means open, generous, broad-minded and non-racist.

Wow. Thanks LB, for the compliment. How did you know I was all those things? I guess it was not intended as an insult after all. Great.

So if being a liberal is the opposite of being a conservative, that MUST mean that the meaning of the word conservative means the opposite as well. Let’s check it out:

Conservative-
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2.Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

Hmm. Not quite the opposite. Quite interesting nonetheless.

Also, another subject: You along with Bill Justice (great name!) question if Paul or John ever served in the military. When they did give you the proof you required, it didn't really change anything. But, as you stated SEVERAL times above, that wasn't the main thrust of your reasoning for posting, was it?

What's the deal with that anyway? Are veterans the only people who can comment on other veterans? To my way of thinking, that's a wee bit exclusionary. It's like the only people who can really comment on Congressmen are other Congressmen. And that would be like having the fox guard the chicken coop, right?

Please comment. I am interested in your view on any of this.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   09-21-05 14:13

There you go again RM being logical!
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: John (---.san.res.rr.com)
Date:   09-24-05 18:10

"As I earlier stated, I could tell a tale or two about his ethics and morality in his personal life, but that has NOTHING to do with his being a Congressman."

===================================

LB,

"NOTHING"? On the contrary, Cunningham's questionable ethics and morality have EVERYTHING to do with his being a Congressman, and have led to the betrayal of the public trust with his alleged criminal activity. Indeed, we must always hold all our representatives to the highest personal standards.

Cunningham has long been a deceptive pretender. He was never the man for whom voters thought they were voting, unfortunately. Many of the posts here on this forum tend to paint a more realistic picture of the man than voters ever saw.

Although there were few pilots equal to him in aerial combat, a large majority of his fellow fighter pilots were of far greater intelligence, diligence, and character than he. And despite his wide renown for being a Vietnam ace, most of his contemporaries who knew him were absolutely amazed that that this limited individual could parlay that singular experience into being elected to the U. S Congress, given his serious lack of appropriate talent or character required of the position. As a well documented sub-par officer relative to most of his contemporaries, nearly all fighter pilots of that time were far better qualified for Congress than Cunningham, save for his unique celebrity.


Here is a just a small example of Cunningham's hype and deception, taken from his current congressional biography:

"Many of his real-life experiences as a Navy aviator and fighter pilot instructor were depicted in the popular movie "Top Gun."

The false implication here - and one often repeated - was that this movie was about *him*. Well this fictional movie was about the school, Top Gun, not him, Cunningham. And the story's main protagonist – Tom Cruise's character Maverick – was selected by his squadron to attend NFWS, Top Gun. However, Cunningham was never so selected to attend Top Gun, and he never was a student of the school. This movie is no more about Cunningham than it is about thousands of other naval aviators.

Here is another except from his biography:

"Duke's experience in Vietnam and his background as an educator prepared him well to train fighter pilots at the Navy Fighter Weapons School -- the famed "Top Gun" program at Miramar Naval Air Station. As Commanding Officer of the elite Navy Adversary Squadron, Cunningham flew Russian tactics and formations against America's best combat fighter pilots."

Reading that carefully contrived paragraph, one is led to the false conclusion that Cunningham must have been the Commanding Officer of Top Gun -- which he was not. It was by design that many believe Cunningham ran Top Gun when in fact, he never did. He was only the C.O. of VF126, a squadron totally separate from Naval Fighter Weapons School, a.k.a., Top Gun.

http://cunningham.house.gov/Biography/
Congressional Biography


While all this pales in comparison the serious ethical and criminal charges against the man, it does provide some background and insight into his flawed makeup. It may help to explain that he was far less of a man than many were led to believe. When all the pieces of this puzzling man are put into place, they do in aggregate paint a picture of a flawed individual who, regardless of his alleged current criminal activity, should never have been elected into office and a position of trust in the first place, . . . . . . . if people only knew.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   10-04-05 15:07

I have been patiently waiting for LB to respond or comment on the questions I put to him.

Obviously, he has yet to respond.

I have read other post on this site asking why people who take the side of Randy fail to follow up on their comments. Why should this be so?

To date, and much to his credit (truly), the only person who cared enough about their point was, in fact, LB. But it seems, only up to a point.

It has been my experience that most people like to sum up an argument or an issue under debate simply with a personal statement. The problem with that is there is no chance for debate. There is no discussion at all.

Is it fear or for lack of anything else to say? I don't know. I grew up thinking that if I was going to open up my big mouth, I ought to be able to back up what I was saying. Personal conjecture and offensive ridicule are not worthy talking points.

A larger read on the state of politics in this country at virtually every level is more about conjecture, spin and the ever lustful objective: getting re-elected.

As a romantic at heart, I would rather a leader that served reluctantly. At least then, his or her mind would be on the task at hand and not on the petty partisan crap we all have to wade through.

Truth is, there will always be a divide between left and right. How big that divide is, is solely dependent on having the ability to not only to find, but to seek, common ground.

When that stops happening in the larger sense, we cease to be a Republic.

I, for one, will, when faced with a compelling argument defending Randy, will put aside my tendency to flame and engage. Also, the opposite is true - if all you have to offer is a personal statement of mindless support of the man, be prepared to take the heat for your stupidity.

Any takers?
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   10-04-05 15:14

BTW - I put the subject of people not defending what the say on this site to an eight year old recently. His response: "Maybe they are just punk-assed bitches."

I couldn't agree more...
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   10-04-05 16:38

Well SOME of us have better things to do than to hassle with this pure BS from some strangers.

Maybe SOME of us are busy closing the fiscal year end books, putting in 80 hour work-weeks.

Maybe SOME of us are busy getting ready for our son's wedding back east.

And just maybe SOME of us are the only child of an 83 y/o who fell and broke her pelvis and are trying to find a decent nursing home for her rehab.

That doesn't stop some truly IGNORANT pricks from thinking THEY are the ONLY things on the planet worth worrying about.

Besides, all y/all have done is IGNORE the FACT that I never defended Randy at all. Only pointed out that those who second guess whether he ran out of gas somehow affects his current job; Those who speculate on whether he is a womanizer or whether he is gay affects his current job; Those who are so overly concerned that he was in command of a "real" squadron, but merely one so insignificent that they merely TRAIN US NAVAL AVIATORS TO DOGFIGHT AGAINST THE ENEMY, somehow affects his current job.

I have never defended Randy in his current job. Merely stand up against those who use the ploys mentioned above since they apparently have no other abilities to demean the guy.

I would thing that those of you who actually post the FACTS would also stand up against those who use the red herrings since they also detract from what the REAL ISSUE is.

Now if you can't accept that, then I feel so sorry for you.

Now with your gracious PERMISSION, I'll be heading to Chicago for a wedding and then back home to care for my injured mom who will most likely be confined to a wheelchair from now on.

SCREW OFF, JERKS>
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   10-04-05 16:47

And just to REPEAT for the umpteenth time, this one from 9/21 just for you illiterate folks:

I truly am SORRY. I didn't realize that NOT flying a flag in front of his house, charges of womanizing, charges of being gay, speculation of whether he shot down 5 MiGs, charges that Col. "toon" Toom" Toomb" did not exist, speculation that he ran out of gas rather than being SAM'ed (I think had he not been SAM'd, he would have ran out of gas anyway), charges that he wasn't CO of a "real" Navy VF because it was land-based, and a myriad of other things had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH "his record as a Congressman and the drama and issues surrounding both."

I apologize that I am so f*cking STUPID as to not realize that. After all Ted Kennedy was not only a womanizer but even managed to KILL one of his girlfriends. Or Congressman Franks, since Randy is charged with being both a womanizer and gay!!!! Randy has so much more to look up to with those two as his mentors.

Now if you'll really learn to R-E-A-D, you'll see that I have NEVER defended Randy against charges or speculation about corruption and misuse of power as a congressman. The ONLY argument I have brought to the table is contained in my first paragraph above. As I earlier stated, I could tell a tale or two about his ethics and morality in his personal life, but that has NOTHING to do with his being a Congressman.

So....either I am too STUPID to realize that those things are important in being a "good" congressman, or YOU and your ILK truly cannot R-E-A-D...or COMPREHEND what is written.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   10-04-05 21:37

LB for the sake of time, let's all agree that you are an idiot and move on . . . .

I am sorry about your mom. However, how are your personal factoids in your posts apropos of the discussion herein?

If you are looking for sympathy, you can find it between @!#$ and syphilis in the dictionary.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Karn (---.ka9q.net)
Date:   10-04-05 21:44

Ted Kennedy "killed" one of his girlfriends? Really? If so, how come he was never charged with first-degree murder?

Could it be because it wasn't murder at all, but rather an accident?

Amazing how some people are still fixated on Chappaquiddick, nearly 40 years after the fact.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   10-04-05 21:51

Phil is right, Kennedy was cleared, let it pass.

Phil, Phil, Phil, some people are fixed on it because Kennedy is such a huge target . . . no pun intended . . . really!
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   10-05-05 07:11

Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date: 10-04-05 21:37

LB for the sake of time, let's all agree that you are an idiot and move on . . . .

I am sorry about your mom. However, how are your personal factoids in your posts apropos of the discussion herein?
==========================

HOW???? I merely responded to another idiotic post, which was:
=================
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date: 10-04-05 15:07

I have been patiently waiting for LB to respond or comment on the questions I put to him.

Obviously, he has yet to respond.

=================

Try to follow along, and BTW, THANK your for exposing your LIBERAL mentality for what truly is:


"..you are an idiot.."
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   10-05-05 10:05

Thanks LB for your post.

We are back to square one, in a sense, it seems.

Thank you for your penetrating view of your personal struggles. We all have problems in our lives and busy schedules that we all have to deal with.

Since you were talking in the third-person perspective, I can only assume that you are talking about yourself.

Not to mean any offence but all of that really has no bearing on the subjects at hand. Besides, I can think of very few who don't have 10-15 minutes a day to post comments of interest, as you have shown with your last three posts.

Be all that as it may - you responded, and that's the important thing. Thank you.

At any rate...

You still have not directly addressed my questions put forth to you. See above for both my posts on 9-21 for reference. Please do so, at your leisure. I will be here...

On the subject of your most recent post:
One last time - I never accused you of defending the PRESENT Randy. It seems that your problems are with:
1. People who post meaningless (as you see it) trible on websites
2. People questioning the PAST exploits of Randy
3. People who cannot read
4. People who have too much time on their hands
5. Liberals

Ok? If I am wrong, I am sorry.

Points 1, 3, 4 and 5 are not really worth discussion since, again, they really have no bearing in this forum. See my comments above on 10-04. True, I have commented on all four of these points but, in this case, I choose (again, it is a CHOICE) not to. Again, see my comments on 10-04.

Point two, as I see it, is the crux of relevant discussion.

As such, I have to disagree with you, and here is why: Wouldn't you say that the best indicator of future behavior is, indeed, past behavior? Poke holes in the reasoning all you want but it is true. Being as Randy is an elected official, tasked with an incredible amount of responsibility and influence, his past exploits and claims ARE relevant. Since, really, that is all we have to go on.

Petty as it sometimes may be, that is the process we ALL follow. When hiring people, is it not the first thing to do is check the ACCURACY of the information on a resume? The recent round of hearings with Chief Justice Roberts ought to show you the length taken to ensure a proper appointment. The reason is simple. To examine and to see how the facts uncovered bear on the truth.

Don't you see that? What other information are we to go on, if not the past?

Besides, as citizen of this country, do we not ALL have the right to ask what we want, speculate on what we want, and say what we want...as long as we propose no falsehoods that gain wide acceptance as fact. For instance, as a hypothetical, if I were to go on national TV today claiming that Rep. Cunningham is gay man, I would be in trouble. I can personally speculate about it all I want, however. THAT LB, is a clearly defined RIGHT. The fact that you don't like it is savagely irrelevant, in all ways.

And if you will do me the kind favor to READ my posting the the forum concerning the speculation about Mr. Cunningham being gay, you will see that I post comments saying that I don't think it's true or worth further consideration. Clearly, the person who started that thread did so out of a desire to inflame supporters of Randy. Which, IF true, he or she has done a great job.

To my knowledge, in all content on this site, besides these forums, Mr. Anderson has relied heavily on published news and literature for the basis of his arguments. And Mr. Anderson has right to do so.

--

I hope you can appreciate my restraint as, clearly, you want to make statements and insult those of us with dissenting opinions. Perhaps you are right to feel angry. Fine. But in a large way, you beget the responses you are angry at.

I find it very telling that you ONLY have a problem with speculation on Dukes past. I would think, as a busy, hardworking citizen like yourself, you would be more interested in Dukes current improprieties and $hitcan the rest.

I have put forth more than a few olive branches to you LB. Let's cut the crap, okay? If you have something to say, please, from now on dispense with the insults and just say it.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   10-05-05 11:20

I have put forth more than a few olive branches to you LB. Let's cut the crap, okay? If you have something to say, please, from now on dispense with the insults and just say it.


Absolutely CORRECT. How 'bout from BOTH sides...though as far as Randy's possible problems with honesty, morality, and ethics, if proven true, then THAT issue is as disgusting as many of his peers in DC.

My main issue is with those who tear him down with demeaning remarks about being a womanizer, gay, not a real CO of a "real" VF, ran out of gas....which BTW, so did the Blue Angels when they first got their F-4's....


...doesn't fly a flag in front of his house.

I mean, what the hell does THAT have to do with anything???

So you see, I am not at all a supporter of Randy if his ethics, morals, and honesty are proven to be as horrible as posted here.

Sorry if you and Paul, et al can't seem to figure that out...but no skin off my nose that you can't.

Oh well.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   10-05-05 14:13

Damn it LB...that is what I am talking about.

Thank you very much for getting down to it. Truly.

I get what you have been saying, and I get it this time as well.

In most respects, I totally agree with you. Most of what you say is true. And I take your point as well.

Quite frankly, I don't personally care if Randy is was a great pilot, a lousy pilot, a womanizer, fly's a flag, is gay, straight, left, right, red, blue or yellow.

Detractor's will always have their say, just like everyone else. I try to filter all that out, dispense with the histrionics and focus on what we know, today.

My sole concerns with regards to Randy are:

A. Is the man honest?
B. Can he govern?

That is it.

The first concern, I have a feeling, will become known it due course. Part of that comes from sites like this one. Sites like this one give people a place to vent...and it puts pressure on certain people. To do what? To not sweep things under the rug. It pressures people to become accountable. The way it does that may not always be palatable to all. But I would rather live with sites like these than not.

If he is guilty then I say bust him and toss him in jail. No lily-livered slap on the wrist. If that happens, it will be just like the ruling-elite used to be in Russia. We have had far too much of that in the country.

The second concern is arguable. To take nothing from Randy and the things he has accomplished for his true constituents but, I for one, tire of the division he has fostered. The tearing down of one group for the sole gain of another. When a group has to point out how bad all other options or points of view are in order to pass their option or point of view is not governing. We all ought to expect more out of the people we choose to represent us.

Sigh. Perhaps that's the way it's always been. But that is not the way it always has to be.

A fair deal in business is usually when neither side gets everything it wants. If we, fellow citizens, are to coexist peacefully then we have to stop acting as if everything is winner take all.

Other aspects of Randy I don't like as well. But I say what I say and trust others will make their choices based on truth and not on what I say.

I personally think Randy is guilty. Looking at it from a pure percentages viewpoint - I think that, when confronted with the mountain of evidence, the chances for the number of things that would have to be coincidences in order for him to be innocent approaches infinity.

I know, LB, that you have never defended him in that respect. I am just saying...

As to the other points you made (gay, flag, etc.) I just think that when Randy carries on like he does for political gain (flag burning admendment for one) that people enjoy rubbing his nose in his hypocracy and his nepotisim. It doesn't change anything. I am quite sure Randy doesn't care what some Dem in San Fransisco thinks of him. Things like these seem to take on a life of their own. People really start kicking you when you are down. This has been true forever. Randy is just taking his lumps...as he has dished out lumps to others.

Anyway LB,...again, thank you for writing back.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   10-05-05 17:14

I know, LB, that you have never defended him in that respect. I am just saying...

As to the other points you made (gay, flag, etc.) I just think that when Randy carries on like he does for political gain (flag burning admendment for one) that people enjoy rubbing his nose in his hypocracy and his nepotisim. It doesn't change anything. I am quite sure Randy doesn't care what some Dem in San Fransisco thinks of him. Things like these seem to take on a life of their own. People really start kicking you when you are down. This has been true forever. Randy is just taking his lumps...as he has dished out lumps to others.

Anyway LB,...again, thank you for writing back.
================

Grazi as well. As I stated earlier my wife can't stand the guy because of moral and ethical issues back then; I could barely stand the guy, and in fact requested not to fly with him on the second cruise....and as it turned out Willie came on board and I was given several other options outside of VF-96.

Thanks for finally figuring out what I've said. And since I don't live in San Diego, I don't hear much of Randy's carrying on's, so those who do are much closer to the "problem" than I am....

<Just as YOU don't hear of Colorado's great tax "problem".....we're he ONLY state that has spending limits and if they want a tax increase, the VOTERS have to approve it. In FACT, if the state collects too much revenue, they have to GIVE IT BACK unless voters approve the state can keep it. (I realize this has nothing to do with the Randy issue, but pointing out that those who reside where the "problems" lie, hear more about it than those outside. Besides, I like to brag about our wonderful tax system here.)>

Now if the other participants on this forum could carry on and actually stick to the REAL ISSUE as YOU DO, then it would be a lot more informative.

I'm off to the wedding.

Bye for now.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Patton (---.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net)
Date:   10-05-05 20:13

God, you Navy types are worthless.

Join the Army and do something productive.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Flyboy (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   10-06-05 08:11

Author: Patton (---.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net)
Date: 10-05-05 20:13

God, you Navy types are worthless.

Join the Army and do something productive.[/b}
==============

LMFAOSMCAOMM!!!!!!

Gee Does ya thank!!!!!

Never mind that the NAVY has ALWAYS been FIRST on the scene since the 1958 Lebanon incident with an aircraft carrier as a SHOW OF FORCE.


And never mind that the MARINES have been FIRST ashore when the ground fighting begins making it much SAFER for the ARMY...and when the fighting is over the ARMY uses it's "productivity" to clean up the mess while the NAVY and MARINES are first on the scene of the next conflict, making it safer for the ARMY to come in and clean up, in a "productive" manner.



But HEY...ol' "Patton" here is just jealous he couldn't join the ranks of THE BEST and had to settle for the ARMY who will take just about anybody with any attitude of what they think is "productive".

Hey...Google "Army Sucks" and you get 2.35 MILLION hits, vs "Navy Sucks" and you only get 1.1 Million hits. So the Army sucks more than twice as much as the Navy. Now THAT's "productive". LMAO
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   10-06-05 15:20

Excellent Flyboy.

I can damn sure tell you that when I was flying close air support for the Army during 2 tours to Vietnam in a F-4 Phantom, that the Army certainly did not think that our efforts to save their butts from being overrun sucked.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   10-07-05 10:06

Sigh...

I have never really understood the division between our armed forces, in a true sense. I have never served but three of my siblings have, for more than one tour. One is still serving. He was just awarded a Purple Heart. I couldn't be prouder of all of them.

They were/are all Army.

Full disclosure: A neighbor and a friend of mine flies off the The Abe. Great guy. I have two great friends who are Marines.

I get the healthy rivalry and barbed comments meant in fun at each of the armed services. Jar Heads vs. Squids vs. Airedales...etc. etc.... That is normal, and fosters pride in one's own service.

Is that all it is? I sure appears to be and I hope so. But guys in the service (I decline to say which service) I talk to take it to extremes.

From this civilian pukes' point of view: I just feel that if the members of all the services are willing to die for our country, or perhaps more to the point - make the other poor bastard die for his country - that fact alone would make you all roughly equal. I mean, you are all serving. You have all agreed, with pride, to make the ultimate sacrifice for your country.

I would count that as all the common ground one would need to get along.

True, some are closer to the pointed end than others, and I know, even within the same service (see above) that it is never one big happy family but...well, you are all in uniform, doing the job.

Besides - Airpower has never, and will never, win a war. The guys in the weeds do that. But (see above) they need support. The Navy is great at carrying the big stick and if you need a strategic target hit, send in the Spirts. Symbiotic relationship.

Is it just a simple matter or learned behavior?
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   10-07-05 12:44

Trust me R. Middlemas, this Patton guy is just an idjit. The service members are a band of brothers. This guy is an outsider, a wanna be. Spreading the allusion of hate and discontent amongst the services that simply does not exist. When you are in a fight, you don't care what the uniform is that is helping you. The services depend upon mutual support and cross train. Each service has special and unique training and tools that contributes to the success of the effort. All are interdependent upon the other.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   10-13-05 16:48

Since there's so much negativism on this form, I thought it might be interesting....for some, anyway.....to relate some of the adventures and mis-adventures with Randy. Here's one from VF-121 RAG....the F-4 training squadron:

When doing Carrier Quals in the F-4, they normally put an experienced RIO with a nugget pilot and a nugget RIO with an experienced pilot. On this day in April, 1969, the Navy screwed up and crewed two nuggets together for their first night launch/landing. Randy and me.

The normal routine is for six launches and traps.

Our launch went just fine but as we turned to final, I’ll never forget the red meatball, sinking to flashing red, and the 125 knots…fortunately the a/c was clean and with minimum fuel, but at that airspeed barely flying.

The LSO was screaming POWER POWER POWER and we landed. They had Randy shut down the aircraft and we got out. They took him aside after flight ops, showed just how close we came to hitting the back of the ship. He came to me and apologized...."I almost killed us tonight".

A few months later, in August, we were both assigned to VF-96 and I requested to fly with him. He wanted to know why I wanted to fly with him after what happened back in April. I told him that I knew he would NEVER EVER DO THAT AGAIN, but I didn’t know about the other pilots.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   10-14-05 16:24

Pretty cool story LB, thanks. Makes sense to me. You only learn by your mistakes.

Like I have always said, Randy had to have been one damn fine pilot. Whatever people say about him now and with his current troubles, he should be proud of at least that. I am sure he is though.

To me (someone who has never flown but loves jets and the stories just the same) to even be able to fly, let alone excel at flying a beast like the F-4...man, what a rush. Paul has stated that he flew the F-4 and you flew as a RIO. I have nothing but respect for the skills necessary to do such a thing....that goes for Randy as well. The father of a college friend of mine used to fly A-4's in Vietnam. Him and I would stay up for hours talking about it. He would never get tired of my questions... His son always got bored with it and went to bed. Not me.

You guys who have flown those planes on actual missions...you have no idea how big a thing that is to people like me. For me, in this context, I have great respect and admiration.

Hope the wedding went well for you LB.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   10-14-05 17:24

LB, as you know, many of us nuggets saw that red ball on CQ. We were in most cases, scared out of our wits, but would never admit it - forzen at the controls rings a bell.

When I went stupid, and me, the RIO and F-4 lived through the landing, I too was parked. The LSO almost dragged me into the Island. On the CQ ship, the Saratoga, there was a small void about 6' x 8', in the the island structure. He invited me in and he closed and dogged the hatch. And then I picked myself up off the deck. He said that if I ever did that to him, if I did not imediately resond to a power call, he would beat me half to death. He was about 6'4" and 230 and I was about 5'10" and 185. No contest! I never had another incident in over 350 carrier landings.

What we had was a failure to communicate and this guy settled the problem.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: John (---.san.res.rr.com)
Date:   10-14-05 23:21

LB,

Although our politics might differ, and we may debate certain important - and maybe some less important - issues regarding Cunningham, I was really caught off guard by your "Randy and me", "first night launch" recollections.

Then, following R. Middlemas's appreciative post – kind, and wonderful words, and the few words any of us ever heard back then in circa, 1968– 73, we then hear of Paul's harrowing landing experiences as a "nugget" (new guy), and his excessively physical 'debrief' in proving the point of never accepting a "red ball."

All of this struck me - like never before on this forum – as to how we all have so very much in common, all with our collective, most unique, and life-changing experiences together – and that does indeed include, Randy Cunningham.

If you guys want to tell sea-stories, I have one I need to tell, too.

But first, I find it very interesting that although all 3 of us must have flown many combat missions in SEA; have been shot at routinely; and probably have lost some friends, we never talk about any of that.

We like to talk about aircraft carrier landings!

Me, I was double-cycled in the middle of the night; 2 months into my nugget cruise for a Bar-Cap, and dog-tired. Returning to the carrier, I first got a fouled-deck wave-off. The next time around, the ship was in a turn, and I was waved off again. Frustrated and having been awake in excess of 30 some hours, been double-cycled and airborne for nearly 5, having to take a leak really bad, and in the middle of the blackest ever Gulf of Tonkin night, I decided to land the next time, come hell or high water.

"Water, Water, Steel Steel," as we used to say. I wanted to land on that pass so bad, I took the forbidden "cut" in the wires (went to idle power, instead of the always required, full power - in case the arresting wires were missed.)

Unfortunately, I hook-skipped all the wires – and went over the angle deck at nearly idle power . . . . all while the LSO screamed.

Somewhere, there is a chilling, ship's black & white video of an F-4, sparks flying on the angle deck, boltering, and the F-4's navigation lights totally disappearing below the angle deck, while my LSO ("Hot-Dog" Brown) screams- and I mean really SCREAMS, "POWER…B-B-BURNER-BURNER-BURNER!!!!

After a long black moment, there is suddenly a picture of an almost out of gas F-4, standing on its two brightly glowing, dual afterburners, rising nearly straight up like a space shuttle launch from the dark abyss below the angle deck.

Recovered, we then flew quietly downwind, and on to make the next trap – an OK 3-wire.

As I taxied forward on the darkened flight deck, it was hardly the first time my knees shook up and down, uncontrollably, while riding the foot-brakes; nor would it be my last. (That was a common, occupational event.)

I considered turning in my wings that night, but didn't. The next night, I was right back at it, pitching deck and all, like nothing had ever happened – and another OK-3. Subsequently, I had many hundreds of carrier traps, all without incident.

Today, every time I sail with friends on San Diego Bay, I look up at the grey angle deck of the USS Midway (now a waterfront museum), and remember that night so long ago, which, by all intents and purposes, I should have died right then and there. (I also say a prayer for those many who did indeed die, during our 11-month combat cruise- I will never forget them.)

All of us who flew in Vietnam have similar stories, many way far beyond mine.

And while I have no problem criticizing Cunningham today for his serious transgressions, I will still stand with Randy, you LB, Paul, and all of us together, based upon our uncommon brotherhood and courage, as United States Navy Fighter Pilots in combat, despite all the odds, way back then.

John
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   10-16-05 09:35

Amen, brother. These deathly experiences were the fire that hardened our steel. Our success, living, was the oil that quenched us.

The unknowing believe that for the Vietnam Naval Aviator that our missions to "pigpen" or "bull’s-eye" or to the bridges or to some useless target that the NVA had surrounded with meg flack traps and SAM sites, etc. were what was tough . . . and they were. But they were nothing like a bad night in the Gulf, "awake in excess of 30 some hours" trying to manually fly that damn ball with under 1,200 or a 1,000 pounds of gas, an RIO hyperventilating on the ICS and you just pure scared shi&%(@@." I never looked down a guy who tossed his wings, after carp like that.

Often was the night, after getting back on-board, that I could not light a cigarette I was shaking so badly. One night, I had just come in-board, shaking like a leaf, trying to light up and could not. An EM walked by, took the cigarette out of my mouth, lit it and put it back in my mouth . . . he never said a word. As he walked away, I said, "Thank you, bless you."

The amazing thing was that so many of us went right back out the next day and night, many times for another double cycle or “double bubble” and did it again. I sincerely believe that many who died did so as a result of a heart attack or stroke. That flying was perilous, that is why they had/have young guys doing it.

Another thing I noted, and only to myself, were that the guys that bought it, I considered more talented than me. I would never, of course admit it, but I certainly pondered in my dark stateroom away from the world, that I had best be diligent because if "he could get it" it could sneak up on anyone. I was also amazed by people dying doing something that I had done and I lived through it.

As for my observations on Randy, I am not surprised about what happened, to be a risk taker was the essence of being a fighter pilot. But to step over the line between legal and illegal is against the Code. I have carried the honor code from the Academy my whole life, it is my touch stone . . . "If you do it, you got to go."
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Hal G. (---.block4.gvtc.com)
Date:   11-28-05 14:35

LB;

I met that same guy. Captain's ensignia all over the place and two different uniforms. Blue pants and summer white shirt if I remember correctly. He was CO of an F-16 squadron on the Enterprise...as a captain. I asked about three pointed questions that he had ridiculous answers for and then he left.

Cheers.

Hal
VA 115 Kitty Hawk 1963-66
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Frank Cleland (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   11-28-05 19:56

Do you think that after the great "Duke" exits the can in 10 or so years they"ll still elect him?
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: gb (---.dyn.iinet.net.au)
Date:   11-28-05 21:46

R. Middlemas - I've been scanning through the commentaries, and from what I read I think you've done a great job being civil and respectful with those who disagree. From what I read, you seem to cut through the rhetoric on both sides, and focus more on the Facts.

If I am understanding LB right, that seems to be his primary objection - especially when taking into account Duke's service in the Navy. Virtually all the points he made seem to deal with idle speculation and political rhetoric, which are light on fact (if any) and heavy on theory.

Take for instance the theory that Duke ran out of gas. Where's the proof? We have at least two witnesses that say it didn't happen that way - whether we like them or not. From what I've read, when Randy and Bill were chasing one of their first MiGs they encountered, Randy was so focused on the MiG that Bill let him know they were low on gas. They then disengaged. Why would he admit to that and do the right thing by returning to base in that case, but not in the other? Furthermore, what does Bill think about this the theory? I'm wondering has anyone bothered to ask him since he was there as well? Two witnesses of an event hold much more weight in a court of law than some one who was not there and is speculating without factual data.

Anyway, I disagree on one small comment you made. I hope you do not take offence to my take on it either, when you said:

"... You only learn by your mistakes."

True we can learn by our mistakes, and we are all bound to fail. When we do fail isn't the true test of character to: admit our failings, accepting the price to be paid, and making a sincere effort to change our ways?

Hopefully, this is the path that Randy will chose. And if he does, maybe he will truly repent and make amends.

However, many people, even when caught red handed, never accept responsibility for anything they did wrong. They still live in a state of denial. They do not accept paying the price. And therefore, they may never make a sincere effort to change their ways.

Which character would we rather deal with? And which character would we naturally have more compassion for?

Obviously, the best character would be one who strives to minimize his faults and not get himself into bad situations to begin with. But again we all have our faults. What it comes down to is that some faults are much more serious than others.

And that is why I disagree with your sentiment - even though it was not directed at Randy per se. We don't have to ONLY learn by OUR mistakes. We CAN learn from OTHER peoples mistakes. If more people today focused on learning from other people's past mistakes, it would save many of us needless headaches in our lives.

For instance, there's a whole host of corrupt politicians in D.C. Yes, some are caught and many get away with it, but like the old saying goes 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.'

If Randy had made the effort to learn from some of those mistakes made by other people, he wouldn't find himself in a state of disgrace today.
If he was wise he would have learned from those cases. And he would have saved himself, his family, and constituents a whole lot of grief.

So that's what I suggest 'Learn from other people's mistakes, before you make their mistakes your own."
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   11-28-05 22:12

gb - Willie (your Bill) has and will stay quiet about this entire matter. No doubt he is in shock and pain right now. Anyway, what could he add . . .
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: gb (---.dyn.iinet.net.au)
Date:   11-28-05 22:48

Paul, point well taken. The issue was not about bribe scandal, but whether he would confirm the "out of gas theory" or not - which I highly doubt he would.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: J Pcok (---.fv.dl.cox.net)
Date:   11-29-05 01:56

After reading some "factoids" about Randy's leadership ratings I get the sense that he was sort of put into office by some special interest groups in need of the perfect politician. That is if you are a special interest that sees an asset in a House member who will put only put out legislation covering hot button emotional issues on his own that go with his patriotic war-hero backround as a smoke screen for economic legislation written by the kind folks at the various special interest groups.

Pure Speculation from top to bottom, but it does seem to fit nicely. Cunningham was just along for the ride and thought friends in high places giving him all this stuff would have the clout to keep him out of any trouble. Gee, it's real close to how he was passed through in his Navy career. He was used by them and that put him a particular category. As a well funded Special Interest group it would seem wise to hire very intelligent folks to develop a database of people fitting a certain profile to achieve very favorable economic gain in the process.

Wow, it's like the Manchurian candidate.

Don't get me wrong, I don't create victims out of folks who commit criminal acts. I'm just following some semi-logical paths here. Cunningham was man enough to fly an F4 and shoot down Migs so it follows that he could be man enough to know what a questionable free ride looks like.

Also, Jarhead, Grunt, Squid, and Fly Boy are terms of endearment between the different services. I was an Army 7th ID Light Infantry Grunt. If I personally know someone that was a marine or sailor I can usually call them a Jarhead or a Squid. If they are in uniform or I don't know them then it is bad form and can get your A@@ kicked. The rivalry is not a bad thing, really. It exists down to a pretty surprising level. 1st Squad is better than 2nd Squad. 1st Platoon is Better than 3rd Herd. Charlie Company is better than Alpha Company, and so on up the OOB and on to the different services. We all make fun of the Coast Guard. Until we need them.

-Peacock
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   11-29-05 02:03

I am one of the Navy F-4 drivers - that knows Randy, knew him then, was in a different squadron, different air group, different ship - who believe that THEY ran out of gas. Both crew members run out of gas, not just the stick. If the guy in the back can get credits for kills, he damn sure can also get credit for running the a/c out of gas. During that 3-kill engagement, THEY never went to the tanker for fuel between engagements. They topped off internal after launch, as we all did, but never went back for more gas. Sorry gb, the F-4 simply did not have those kind of legs. It had 15-minutes of fuel under 20,000 feet in burner. Those engagements were all in afterburner.

Willie, nor Randy, would ever say anything other than that they had been shot down. No reason to change the story.

Would I and every red blooded American Navy fighter pilot that I know/knew have ran out of gas to get that 3rd MiG that day, and achieve Ace status . . . ? In a f---ing New York minute!
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: gb (---.dyn.iinet.net.au)
Date:   11-29-05 03:10

It may be a good theory, but where are the facts. Theory and fact aren't the same. That's what I'm getting at.

As I noted, in a similar situation instead of continuing to chase one of the first MiGs they engaged, he disengaged when he was made aware of their fuel state. They refuelled and headed home. Even he had indicated that this was the wise thing to do.

Why would he do that in the one case and not the other? In either case he would have been one MiG closer to becoming an ace if he got the MiG. He admits he had difficulty with the last one. Why not extend out and fight another day - as the MiGs were finally coming up and fighting and there were plenty more engagements in that period?

He also mentioned that after finishing his fight with the last MiG, one of his wingmen came to his aid. And when he was heading to the coast he claimed there were A-7s and F-4s all around his burning F-4.

Even if we entertain the notion that he was lying, why don't any of these other pilots speak out? They didn't get any credit for the MiGs that Randy and Bill shot down.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: chuck (62.50.193.---)
Date:   11-29-05 06:44

How did this guy ever make it through flight school...he seem incapable of stringing words together in coherant sentences.

Were the acedemic standards really that low in the mid 60s?
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   11-29-05 06:44

Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date: 11-29-05 02:03

I am one of the Navy F-4 drivers - that knows Randy, knew him then, was in a different squadron, different air group, different ship - who believe that THEY ran out of gas. Both crew members run out of gas, not just the stick. If the guy in the back can get credits for kills, he damn sure can also get credit for running the a/c out of gas. During that 3-kill engagement, THEY never went to the tanker for fuel between engagements. They topped off internal after launch, as we all did, but never went back for more gas. Sorry gb, the F-4 simply did not have those kind of legs. It had 15-minutes of fuel under 20,000 feet in burner. Those engagements were all in afterburner.
==========
On one hand you sound like a WANNABEE "driver".....on the other, pretty typical with your BLAME somebody else....like the RIO...for something that went wrong....

Lemmeesee.....Uh...."It had 15-minutes of fuel under 20,000 feet in burner. Those engagements were all in afterburner." ASSuming that they had a full bag of internal fuel, your timeline of 15 min. is pretty accurate....However A REAL "driver" would know that you do NOT stay in burner the entire time of an engagement.

A REAL "driver" knows that you use burner to disengage, or to catch up to the bogey....a REAL "driver" would know that you pull back on the throttles as you climb to zero airspeed at the top of the circle where MiGs cant climb to, then spot the bogey below, then dive after it. You do NOT stay in burner the whole time.

I know first hand that Randy was absolutely #1 TOPS in fuel management...several times *I* wanted to continue the ACM, showboating, etc., and Randy refused, not because we WERE low on gas, but because we MIGHT run low on gas.

If Randy had any fault as a stick, during ACM training, he would often get LOW and SLOW in order to save on gas. When Willie took my seat, I warned him about that tendency of Randy.....now engaging with MiGs might have made Randy forget about fuel management, but you better bet Willie would have been screaming and yelling at him.

However, as Paul indicates, many REAL 'drivers" also find anyone else to blame when something goes WRONG...in Paul's post, he places equal blame on Willie for them running out of gas. EXCUSE me, but whatever happened to the absolute FACT that the PILOT in COMMAND is in total charge and has total RESPONSIBILITY...legally, morally, and functionally, for that aircraft and whatever happens to it?????

A real "driver" knows that the RIO has NO control whatsoever for the a/c, no stick, no throttle, NOTHING other than the ICS or the radio to scream into when RIO wants to do something else.

Paul shows he's a REAL "driver" when he expresses his disdain for Willie getting credit for the kills and therefore should be equally to blame for the loss of the a/c....OTOH, a REAL "driver" also knows that other than awards and ceremonies, REAL "drivers" get ALL the credit from other REAL "drivers" for when things go RIGHT, and totally IGNORE the RIO's, or other TEAMMATES involved.

Example 1: Randy and I were on a live missle shoot and engaged a Sperry Firebee drone. RIO....(ME) locked on the target head-on and Randy hosed off a Sparrow, wounding the target and creating a nice burning target....Randy then pitched up, rolled over,, got a tone, and finished off the Firebee with a 'winder. Later at the O-club, guess WHO got 110% of the credit for the KILL????? Guess WHO got bought rounds of drinks and pats on the back from other REAL "drivers" while the RIO watched from the sidelines. Guess WHO forgot to mention that there took a tad of skill, knowledge, etc., to get a radar lock on the target in the first place. ZERO credit to the RIO for the good stuff.

Ex 2: Another REAL "driver" and I were on a X-country...we were to refuel at Moffat when our radios died...I told "driver" to squawk 7600 after which tower gave us the green light to land.

The landing jolted the radios back to life and during the hot refuel, tower gave nothing but praise to "driver" for his quick thinking, SMART knowledge and skill to squawk 7600 (no radios). Pilot simply acknowledged how SMART *HE* really is....not a word about TEAMWORK, two folks in the A/C, who came up with the idea....(even though it was the dumb RIO who really did it). ZERO credit to the RIO for the GOOD stuff.

EX 3 Both ways: On a bombing run, Randy got disoriented and pickled the bombs WAY off target. As he later explained...."WE....missed the target". WE. On another run WE got a major hit on a truck park near Ban Kari pass...and HE got ALL the credit, from the REAL "drivers".


All in all, I guess those REAL "drivers" out there have nothing better to do than to speculate on something that happened 33+ years ago in an effort to further disgrace someone who has done a prefectly good job of doing that to himself in another line of work.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: R. Middlemas (---.drizzle.com)
Date:   11-29-05 11:14

To GB: Thanks for the kind words. I surely do try...
And thank you for correcting me. What you said is more to the point of what I meant to say. God knows, I have repeatedly learned from other's mistakes.

As you say, it would do well for all of us to remember that.

I have not illusions, however to the grand theme. Stupid is as stupid does...and truly their are fools in the world.

That being the case, here's to making all of our own little corners of it a bit better.
---

LB and Paul: Glad to see the debate is alive and well. Not meaning any offence to either of you as I cannot comment to your subjects at hand.

---

This whole sad deal with Randy...and it is sad...What could have been accomplished with his record and image...and pissed away.

I know that in other posts as well as this one...I have treated Randy perhaps a bit unfairly...and surely unkindly. The reason for this, I now know is that I felt he wronged me. Not only myself but the other good people (yes, BOTH red and blue) that believed in him, and what he stands/stood? for. The belief in this country and of that of it's heroes. It got me thinking...What is a country? At it's most basic it is the Randy's and the Paul's and the LB's and the GB's and the Dan’s....doing what we do. I know that all of you - in a heartbeat - would stand firm, together, if a ghastly set of circumstances arose. This I do not doubt.

When I think in those terms, I am heartened.

I have no doubt Randy loves his country. It's just too bad that he didn't feel the need to agree with all of what makes a country great.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Larry (---.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Date:   11-29-05 11:58

Ok guys.....perhaps I can add a little enlisted perspective to this whole thread (Retired MCPO/26 years active duty/former aircrew in "Connies" and "Stoofs")

When I learned yesterday that Cunningham had plead guilty to all charges I was, in some ways, devastated. Not because I was a great fan of his. Not because I ever thought of him as anything other than a great PR guy that the Navy sorely needed at the end of the war. Not because I ever thought of him as some intellectually gifted congressman.

No, I was devasted because, during this time of great debate over the current war, many people will equate his behavior with all that is perceived to be wrong with the military. I'm deeply concerned that this will be a very black eye on the Navy as much as it is a black eye on congress in general.

I watched with disgust as the "Dukester" performed his public mea culpa, "tears and breaking voice" and somehow working God and religion into the admission of guilt. Gimme a break!

For those of us who served honorably for many years in harms way, no less in harms way than the Dukester without the accolades, and have lived a hardworking and honorable life after our military career, this is a betrayal of trust given to Cunningham by the voters that sent him to Congress and by the rest of us who allowed ourselves to be duped by his "celebrity". And in Navy world I lived in, betrayel of trust is the most capital of sins. There will never be enough "attaboys" in his resume, past or future, to attone for this betrayal. I will never consider him to be anything but a scumbag of the lowest form from this day forward.

A very sad day indeed.
Reply To This Message
 
 More Cunningham as pilot discussion
Author: Dan Anderson (---.drydog.com)
Date:   11-29-05 12:06

More discussion on Cunningham, the possibility of running out of gas, and other pilot-related stuff is at the
PPRuNE Forum (Pro. Pilots Rumour Network)
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=810d3d03c74a7ab3fb49f902b877e410&threadid=200198&perpage=20&pagenumber=1
(under category "Other Aircrew Forums >> Military Aircrew)

Also at "Glock Talk"
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=bac74bf9f356ae583382cfb29c5c12a9&threadid=465752
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   11-29-05 16:28

LB you are on drugs? "pull back on the throttles as you climb to zero airspeed at the top of the circle where MiGs cant climb to . . " I can assure you that every MiG that we engaged - at the altitudes that we engaged them - climbed with us very nicely. They had the pretty good command of the vertical below 25M right there with the F-4, as Cunningham very well states in his book. Most MiG engagements in Vietnam were below 18,000. They were not up there at 40,000 feet.

With the F-8 they had some problems . . . but only because the 'gator could do a good job of turning with them in the climb - vertical rolling scissors. The F-4 only went up with the MiG, because it could not turn with the MiG. "Pull back on the throttles . . . ?” When any F-4 stick got slow with a MiG he was dead. You kept up your energy for no other reason than to make it easier to disengage from the MiG, unload and run like hell. I can assure you that we used the full range of burner through out the engagement with a MiG-17.

I gather from your defense that you were an RIO. Well, as for the RIO, hey the crew concept, "one for all, all for one." What you should be able to tell is my background is not a distain for RIOs, but before F-4s I did a tour in F-8s. Last of the true 1-man, manual fly, gun fighters. If RIOs are able to claim carrier landings, be able to fire missiles from the back seat, claim kills and be - due to seniority - the "mission commander" then pal, they get their ticket punched too for the screw-ups that take place. I knew and know some great, simply exquisite RIOs . . . then again.

As for what RIOs think of pilots, absolutely! Why anyone would ever climb into a rear cockpit, no flight controls, with a nut up front, I never could figure out.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   11-29-05 16:48

LB you are on drugs? "pull back on the throttles as you climb to zero airspeed at the top of the circle where MiGs cant climb to . . " I can assure you that every MiG that we engaged - at the altitudes that we engaged them - climbed with us very nicely. They had the pretty good command of the vertical below 25M right there with the F-4, as Cunningham very well states in his book. Most MiG engagements in Vietnam were below 18,000. They were not up there at 40,000 feet.

==========

Since I never got to engage with a REAL MiG, I can only relate to the training the Top Gun guys taught us...and that WAS to pass the bogey head-on, then zoom climb right up to ZERO airspeed, rolling on your back as you do so.....so you can look down.....or "up" thru the canopy to spot the bogey and then able to come down on him no matter which direction he headed. Even if you don't climb to zero, the F-4 can turn around much faster by pulling up and over...getting into a horizontal turning circle with a Mig is deadly....which is why the Navy and AF had such a lousy kill ration before Top Gun.

NO, you don't engage at 40M ft....but you DO, if you follow the procedures, zoom climb to better position yourself to engaged back "down there".

WE learned early on in training something NOT to do...during ACM training, we passed the bogies head-on, then started the zoom climb....shortly thereafter, wingman was way above us, so Randy plugged in the burners...AHEM....no BURNERS in the engagement prior to then....pulled back on the stick, and as we were at 120 knots dropped rapidly to 90, yanno, kinda screwed up the ol' Fuel Air and Heat formula.
two of our engines quit...Kinda sucked since we only had two to begin with.

Quite interesting at how quiet it got and how much noise the generators, engines, and whatever other electrical/electronic equipment makes in one's headset.

Nonetheless, even engaging below 25M or even 18M, I can assure you that one does NOT stay in burner the entire time. That 15 minute timeline you gave would NOT even allow for one engagement, then depart, find the tanker...who would NOT be near the fur-ball....THAT fur-ball especially, get gas and go home...or go back to the fight.

Many other VF-96 and 92 F-4's were also engaged directly or trying to help others, and they didn't run out of gas.

And as GB points out, other F-4's, and A-7's were there to assist and fly cover when Randy and Willie ejected. How come NOT ONE of them contradicted the story that Showtime 100 was downed by a SAM????
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   11-29-05 17:33

Actually there were not any a/c around when they went down. They were all alone. RESCAP arrived later, after they did that "barrel roll thingie out over the Gulf . . . right!"

Don't know what they told the kids in training, but I'll tell you one scene that I saw in the war . . . gets some popcorn. There I was sitting in RR #6 with a bunch of guys watching a rerun of the previous recovery. This was a great recovery, our squadron had engaged some -17s and popped one. Well, the wingman lands . . . and this is this story. The camera follows him to his parking spot, thinking that he was the shooter . . . again, he was not. Anyway, they park him up on cat 2 and shut him down. The RIO gets out slides down on the wing and on to the deck and checks the tie downs and signal "thumbs-up." The pilot climbs down and the RIO says something to him, and the pilot takes off his helmet to hear what the RIO said . . . with that removal of the helmet, right there on TV the RIO knocks the pilot on his @!#$. Like I say, I was watching a rerun of the recovery, because I was that pilot seeing myself get knocked on his @!#$. Me and that RIO never had another problem, and I never got slow again. I also never took off my helmet on the flight deck ever again!

It seems that I had pulled your zoom, and for whatever reason taken it out of burner and got slower than s--t, the airspeed got down to somewhere just above rudder kick over - 175 kts. With that the MiG wing man took his shot and almost shot our asses down.

I had a deal with my RIOs, I never got below 400 Kts on Yankee station, except on the ball and in the night bolter pattern. I had broken that deal.

Now I do not know what they taught in those fancy peace time schools in Fallon etc. where they could "stop" the exercise, but I know that if you got slow in combat you were dead or your RIO should have been punching your freekin lights out.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: gb (---.dyn.iinet.net.au)
Date:   11-29-05 17:58

This is off the subject LB, but it does have to do with a government injustice I feel.

I think you mentioned you're seeking nursing care for mother. I used to work in a nursing care facility. While there, I saw many people lose everything because most of us naturally assume Medicare will foot the bill - which by and large it actually does not.

I saw a number of patients lose everything they worked their whole life for and then shipped off to a lesser facility. I wanted to at least get the word out because I felt this was an injustice.

As a result I started helping people plan for those situations - as difficult as it is to think or talk about. Like I was suggesting, it's better to let other people make the mistakes for you. And for us to learn from them.

If you want some free, general advice on the matter or if you have any questions let me know. I'd be happy to try and help if you feel it may be of any benefit to you and/or your mother.

My email is gbreuder@yahoo.com
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: John (---.san.res.rr.com)
Date:   11-29-05 21:14

Indeed. Speed was life!
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   11-30-05 00:35

Indeed! It kept you out of the Hilton and from getting punched out by your RIO! I am a believer in the "speed of heat" principle.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: chuck (62.50.196.---)
Date:   11-30-05 02:42

So just how did this fella get through Officer Training and flight school to the front seat of an F4...reading his quotes from congress and you'd swear he was barely literate and a red neck moron to boot?


Chuck.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   11-30-05 05:55

Chuck, that has been said about him for years. Read Vistica's book and what VADM Jack Ready had to say about him when Ready was C.O. of Top Gun and Cunningham was an instructor.

How did he get through flight training and into the front seat of the Phantom? Because he could fly an a/c! They were looking for killers then, not English majors.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Jamie Reno - Newsweek (---.san.res.rr.com)
Date:   12-01-05 13:17

My name is Jamie Reno, with Newsweek magazine. I'm interested in talking to anyone who served with Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Please contact me at your earlierst convenience. Thanks very much, and cheers.

Sincerely,

Jamie Reno
Newsweek
858-467-1070
jreno@san.rr.com
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Karn (---.ka9q.net)
Date:   12-01-05 14:43

Larry, I don't think you need to worry. While I've never thought much
of the military as an institution, and I'm glad I never had to be in
it, I don't think Duke represents "all that's wrong with the
military". And I don't think that many others will blame the military
for him either.

Duke *does* represent all that's wrong with the
military-industrial-CONGRESSIONAL complex (as Ike originally wanted to
call it.)

The military is just a tool that can be used for either good or
evil. It can be a last resort to defend our own country against
attack. It can be part of a collective defense to protect our friends
against aggression. Or, as we've seen all too often in the past few
decades, it can be cynically abused to amass enormous, untoward
political and economic power, not to mention enormous personal wealth
for policymakers and their friends. We saw this in the Cold
War and in Vietnam, and now we're seeing it in Iraq on an
unprecedented scale.

While Duke should get everything that's coming to him, he is also the
product of a corrupt system that breeds countless people just like
him. He was merely the first to be caught thanks to his incredible
stupidity.

I can only hope that Duke's guilty plea represents the beginning of
the end of the whole rotten, stinking Republican war machine that has
done so much damage to our country and to the world. If the
prosecutors are smart, they'll put him on suicide watch and ensure he
is well protected from those he will now expose.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   12-04-05 14:21

LB - read this account and get that "stay out of burner and get slow on top @!#$ out of your RIO head." http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/cunningham.html
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil (---.sub-70-218-28.myvzw.com)
Date:   12-04-05 16:02

As a former USCG SAR Controller, I appreciate the comments about intra-and inter-service rivalries, especially, "We all make fun of the Coast Guard. Until we need them. "

As a news editor for a Great Metropolitan Radio Station (KIRO-AM, Seattle), I doubt the Navy's image will be tarnished by Randy Cunningham's guilty plea.

I don't hear reporters in our shop (or real people on the street, for that matter) connecting Cunningham's criminal behavior as a Member of Congress with his Navy service. What I am hearing is stuff like, "How could a guy who showed bravery under fire stoop to sh-- like this?"

Most of our society has finally decided to respect Vietnam veterans, despite that war's divisiveness. Even aging folks from the Loony Left who spat on returning service members (including Coasties) during the 60s and 70s have figured out that it's no longer PC to chant "Baby killer!" when a Vietnam vet decides to run for public office.

Investigative reporters are no doubt searching Cunningham's personal history for evidence of character flaws, and I'll be surprised if they don't find some (duh) -- maybe some of it in his Navy career. And we'll no doubt see exposes of the cozy relationships between lobbyists and Members of Congress.

But having said that, I respect the man's service as a warrior. I believe that Congress -- not the Navy -- is the institution that needs to start worrying about its image.

Phil
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   12-04-05 16:29

Well said, Phil . . . .
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LouieDuck (---.bartlt01.ga.comcast.net)
Date:   12-06-05 09:16

It's been a pleasure following this discussion. If an admittedly liberal attack guy can weigh in (A-4s Oriskany '66)...Cunningham will be judged for his betayal as a congressman and, separately, for his stick and throttle skills. I doubt the Navy or Navy pilots will get any stink on either.

His scandal may rub off somewhat on the Republican Party because of accompanying misdeeds by DeLay and Frist but in the long run, and it may be long, "Duke" is in this by himself.

When Congressman Cunningham picked up the right wing hatchet and started swinging it years ago on the House floor I figured he would ultimately augur in. They all do.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   12-06-05 12:33

You Skyhawk Assn type of guy!

Cunningham made a lot of enemies. And it all has come back to roost.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LouieDuck (---.bartlt01.ga.comcast.net)
Date:   12-07-05 08:41

"You Skyhawk Assn type of guy!"
.....

Aye. Still, I think most Americans will mold their thinking of Navy pilots to the McCain image (A-4s, also VA-163) and not the puffy Cunningham visage.

Nothing against two-seat plane jocks, but we single seat guys willingly and necessarily take all the credit -- and all the blame -- for our actions.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Paul (---.wavecable.com)
Date:   12-07-05 10:01

My first tour was F-8s . . . I was forced into F-4s. So I embrace everything that you say.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: the phantom (---.nocharge.com)
Date:   01-09-06 18:02

I have about 6000hrs in the (front seat) of various high performance a/c, and I am disgusted with alot of the bs that has been slewn throughout this web page. I liked what you had to say about what it takes to be a REAL f-4 driver. It was extremely necessary for you to clarify the reality of fuel consumption for the general public as they do not understand that REAL f-4 drivers do not fly around in full burner looking for bogeys for 15 minutes!!! ..........col tomb
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: the phantom (---.nocharge.com)
Date:   01-09-06 18:04

where is my post?
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Mark (68.62.195.---)
Date:   03-08-06 17:58

LB -- Thanks for the input, it's a pleasant break from the likes of Paul who kinda makes me ill and was almost certainly never anywhere near an F-4 especially (with people shooting at him) and get their jollies shooting down other people. Thanks for the perspective.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: lb (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   03-09-06 07:55

LB -- Thanks for the input, it's a pleasant break from the likes of Paul who kinda makes me ill and was almost certainly never anywhere near an F-4 especially (with people shooting at him) and get their jollies shooting down other people. Thanks for the perspective.

=====

You're welcome. There's a lot of wannabee's, and while I don't doubt paul saw the F-4 scene, it's truy apparent it was before the Top Gun school because I can assure folks that my description of F-4 vs. MiG tactics are absolutly accurate. And Randy was amongst the BEST at fuel management, though my thought still stands that had he not been shot down, he WOULD have run out of gas.

What does it all matter anyway....other than it gives jollies to some pathetic could-have-beens to wallow in denial of what someone else accomplished without their help.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Karn (---.qualcomm.com)
Date:   03-09-06 14:05

At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, what exactly was "accomplished" in Duke's legendary battle over Vietnam? We lost that war. It was based on a lie -- a supposed attack that never happened. We were all stridently warned that if Vietnam fell to the commies, the rest of the world would soon fall like dominoes. That didn't happen either. We just killed 50,000 Americans, who knows how many Vietnamese, decimated their country, seriously divided our own, bled our treasury and severely damaged our reputation.

So, again, what exactly *was* accomplished? Or am I supposed to just keep quiet and worship the heroes I'm told to worship?
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: lb (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   03-10-06 08:37

At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, what exactly was "accomplished" in Duke's legendary battle over Vietnam?>>>


What was "accomplished" is that the training in Top Gun proved to be worthwhile. The MiG kill ratio jumped from 2-1 before the school to 12 to 1 after. What was "accomplished" is that Randy got 5 MiG kills wheras the wannabe's like Paul, and some others have done NOTHING but put Randy down, putting spins out there like Randy may be Gay, Randy ran out of gas rather than being shot down, Randy really didn't get 5 MiG's, blah blah blah.

I have LONG stated that that war was based on a lie....the attack on the destroyers never happened.

However, that does NOTHING to take away from the FACT that Top Gun was a major "accomplishment" in the training of our fighter pilots and continues to this day.

However:

<< Vietnam fell to the commies, the rest of the world would soon fall like dominoes. That didn't happen either.>>>

You have obviously overlooked HISTORY and have stuck your head in the sand when it comes to the MILLIONS of Vietnames, Cambodians, Laotians, etc., that were slaughtered after Vietham fell. How CONVENIENT.

Vietnam fell to the commies, the rest of the world would soon fall like dominoes. That didn't happen either.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Karn (---.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net)
Date:   03-10-06 15:32

Again, I ask: what was "accomplished" by increased MiG kill ratios? Take a wide view. Look beyond the narrow, romantic, testosterone-laden adolescent fantasy epitomized in the "Top Gun" movie. Stop deluding yourself that everything the US military ever does somehow advances the cause of "freedom".

How have I overlooked history? I am well aware of what happened in SE Asia in the 1970s. How are those events relevant to a destructive, pointless and counterproductive war in Vietnam we never should have fought?

I'm reminded of a favorite line in the movie "Animal House", when the brothers witness their pledges being abused by members of another fraternity: "How dare they do that to our pledges? Only WE can do that to our pledges!" Maybe it was wrong to allow all those millions in SE Asia to be murdered by others. We should have continued to do it ourselves, eh?

I'm also well aware of an incredible amount of human suffering around the world that the US barely notices because of a lack of "strategic interests" in the region. Some of the worst suffering doesn't even involve repressive governments or civil wars but rather diseases like HIV, polio, etc. Where is your righteous outrage over the lack of US action in these cases?

At least we stopped our direct share of the slaughtering in SE Asia when we left. That's got to be good for *something*.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: gb (---.dyn.iinet.net.au)
Date:   03-10-06 18:48

You obviously didn't comprehend what LB wrote. The kill ratios went up. That was just one of the accomplishments. How is that relevent? Well, for starters it proved the training worked. Why is that important? Since that period the U.S. has retained air supremacy in all the future conflicts such as: Panama, Desert Storm, the Balkans, Enduring Freedom, Iraq etc..

Why is air supremacy important? Well ask the grunts who have to slug it out on the ground. Or what about those in the service stationed on bases or ships? Wouldn't life for them be even more miserable if an enemy is able to attack them from the air? Or ask the bomber and attack pilots who the fighters have to protect and escort.

In the "wide view" what did those things amount too? Well, if you're involved in a war shouldn't the object be to win it? Shouldn't you try to minimize - at the very least - your own loss of life?

Note: Please don't confuse this with whether you think we should be in that particular war or any war to begin with. Those are two entirely different issues.

Let's face it, it is a job. So, for that matter what about any job in the "wide view"? What if you're working at a job, and you feel in the grand scheme of things my own efforts and contribution are insignificant. Therefore, why bother? Well if everyone had that attitude, what will ever get accomplished?

So, I at least give Randy credit in this respect, he has publicly acknowledged many times that it was really the whole combined efforts of the ships crew that led to his victories. He saw and acknowledged the "wider view" - at least in that respect.

Therefore, regardless of what the conflict is, it is always important to establish air supremacy. And in Vietnam we lost a lot of ground in that area to begin with and have since regained it. That's why it is important.

Whether you agree with getting involved in Vietnam or any other war is your choice. I can see why people were against it and war in general. Sometimes we have a choice. Did we have a choice with Vietnam, yes. Did we have one with Pearl Harbor or 9-11? I sense most people realize we really didn't have much of a choice whether to fight back or not. One would have to be at the extreme of pacifacism to think that.

I think where you have overlooked history is the fact that push of Communist expansion did not stop with Vietnam. It may have slowed, but historically it would be innaccurate to say or even imply that there was no further 'Domino effect' after that. Who knows can anyone say for certain that had the U.S. not been involved in Vietnam that the pace of communist expansion would not have continued at the rapid rate it was?

And the 'Domino effect' had already happened, it was not some mystical theory. If it was, how would we explain the conquest of Eastern Europe, Korea, and countries even in our own backyard? Even John F. Kennedy recognized this threat - hence the standoff with the Cuban missile crisis. He could have optioned just to overlook it and let the nuclear missiles be installed. And under who's administration did we get ivolved in Vietnam and escalated under?

With respect to the concern for human life. Should we forget that Stalin and Communist Russia killed more people in genocide than even Hitler?
Why is this glaring fact so often overlooked in debates over these subject matters? What about all the other sufferings and oppressions under communist controlled countries? In these countries what about all the things that went on behind closed doors that we don't know about?

I didn't hear any mention of these large scale human sufferings and atrocities. So the same could be said, "where is your righteous outrage?" Lest you be a hypocrite.

I live in a community with a large number of Vietnamese refugees from the war. Why did so many move to a democratic country if everything would have been the same or better? I also know and have worked with a number of immigrants from former communist blocks countries. Again, why would they have fled?

Those are just a few of the myriad or reasons why it was important to resist the push for communism. What about all the human rights issues? What about the lack of freedom of speech? Again "where is your righteous outrage?" Would you have been able to post such political comments under a Russian communist regime?

It reminds me of an old joke. During the cold war, a Russian ambassador was in the U.S. speaking with an American. The American was expressing his gratitude for his freedom of speech and trying to persuade him. He said to the Russian ambassador. "See here in my country, I can come into work and say that President Ronald Regan is a real @!#$. I hate that f-ing guy." The Russian ambassador smiled and said, "In my country I can say this too."


In short, is it fair to compare the faults and failings of the U.S. to regimes that commit mass genocide? If you believe there is a Utopian country out there with no faults and failings, please let me know and I'll pack my bags in an instant.

With respect to alleviating suffering around the world, does the U.S. do it all? No. Could it do more? Yes. But for that matter what country does not fall into these two categories? What country out there fulfills both criteria?

If you are going to be critical of the U.S. at least give us another country to compare it against when it comes to generosity. Let's look at the dollar amounts and other facts not some abstract argument based on personal perception. If you do that your argument will come across as something more fair, reasoned, and logical.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: LB (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   03-11-06 09:09

Again, I ask: what was "accomplished" by increased MiG kill ratios? Take a wide view. Look beyond the narrow, romantic, testosterone-laden adolescent fantasy epitomized in the "Top Gun" movie. Stop deluding yourself that everything the US military ever does somehow advances the cause of "freedom".>>>

Well for one thing, increased MiG kill rations equals FEWER US planes, and aircrew killed. But with your attitude I don't think that is GOOD from your POV.

As for taking a "wide view...adolescent fantasty...in..."Top Gun" movie....I'd suggest YOU review the posts and threads and actually find out WHO you are talking about and stop making dumb ASSumptions about who or what I am, do, or think.

The only one here who seem to be "testosterone-laden" with a "fantasy" about Top Gun is YOU, since you obviously haven't a CLUE as to what the Top Gun school was/is all about. And it sure wasn't reflected in the movie. But it WAS reflected in what not only Randy, but VF-96 and VF-92 "accomplished" on May 10, 1972. I'd suggest YOU read up on that and figure it out.

As for the US not coming to the aid of the world...Name ONE COUNTRY that has sacrificed more, given more time, energy and funding around the world than the United States!!!!

I saw LIBERALS @!#$, moan, criticize the US for sending ships including an aircraft carrier to help after the Tsunami....SHRIEK!!!!! The US sending WARSHIPS....Oh the crime on all humanity!!!!! Never mind it provided medical care, a functioning airport from which to provide search and rescue and supplies, etc.

I'd suggest you READ about those countries where AIDS is so epidemic...even pandemic...and you might discover that they don't WANT the US to help, and even more, the CUSTOM and CULTURE of the people is that they don't and won't us condoms or other protective measures. Should the US FORCE them to change their attidude and customs??? According to your criticism of the US....Apparently so.

And apparently it's OK for the KILLING FIELDS to go on around the world as long as the US isn't involved....as long as we provide $$$AID.

Please name your favorite country that is as UTOPIAN as you wish and move there ASAP. At least the Military of the United States has provided you the FREEDOM to criticize the United States all you want. I suggest you remember that.

As the saying goes...."If you can READ, thank a teacher, If you can READ it in English, thank a soldier."
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: gb (---.dyn.iinet.net.au)
Date:   03-11-06 17:55

To back up what you're saying about the movie Top Gun, LB, I've heard the movie was loaded with inaccuracies. I believe Pete Pettigrew was an advisor for the movie, and if I'm not mistaken was one of the pilots from VF-92 who got a MiG on 10 May. I think he also played a bit part as Charlies date in the bar.
From what I understand he originally objected to some of these inaccuracies but the producer insisted on "Hollywoodizing" it. If you do a free screenplay search on the net, you can easily find a copy of one of the early drafts. In many ways it sounds more accurate and played out better on the page.

And with the Tsunami, don't forget the billions of dollars that Americans gave both through private and public funds.

One other thought for those who complain about giving for charity, when a charity worker comes knocking on your door - how much do you give? Do you rush to the piggy bank and give a good portion or everything you have?
I'd venture to say most give what they feel they can. That's a personal judgement. Could we give more than we do ordinarily? I'm sure most people would have to admit they could.

I don't think I ever heard Mother Teresa complain about the amount of aid the U.S. gave. I can't think of any single individual who has done more for humanitarian causes in recent times. In fact, it was Mother Teresa who said that in the vast richness of the U.S. it was actually poor - poor in spirit.

If you anyone really has a guilty conscience of how much the U.S. gives in aid, there is always the option to supplement your tax dollars with your own dollars. No one will stop you. People are free to join charity organizations and give their time and talent. Mother Teresa owned virtually nothing and had virtually no money, yet look what she accomplished with a poorness of wealth but a richness in spirit.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Karn (---.ka9q.net)
Date:   03-11-06 23:17

Wow, I sure seem to have struck a nerve.

I think you guys (gb and LB) are engaging in quite a bit of non-sequitor
reasoning. Here I'll respond to just a few examples.

If every increase in the ability of the US military to shoot down
airplanes automatically increased peace, prosperity, health and
happiness for the entire human race, you'd have a good point. But it
doesn't.

It's interesting that you would mention the Cuban missile crisis,
because I've always thought it was one of the most egregious examples
of irresponsible saber-rattling by any modern US president. Sure,
those Soviet missiles could have reached Washington DC in a matter of
minutes. So what? After the Soviets backed down and removed their
missiles from Cuba, they built a fleet of nuclear missile submarines
that can get far closer to Washington than Cuba ever could, and a
fleet of ICBMs that can do so from their own country. Before and after
the Cuban missile crisis, we kept the Soviets from attacking not with
a pre-emptive attack, but with the threat of retaliation. Like it or
not, a second-strike capability *without* a first-strike capability
was the key to stability in the Cold War. So what, exactly, did JFK
accomplish? (I do credit him with resisting hotheads like Gen. Curtis
LeMay who definitely *would* have gotten us all killed.)

Vietnam was much more of a civil war than an example of "communist
expansion". As we've seen elsewhere, when external forces forcibly
occupy and/or partition a country the people who've been living there
for many centuries don't always take kindly to the idea. They often
prefer their own local rulers even when we don't.

That there are many brutal regimes and terrorist bands around the
world is not under dispute. We've even created or helped support a
few ourselves; the Nicaraguan Contras were the classic example of
US-sponsored terrorists (of course, we called them "freedom
fighters"). But we don't necessarily do the citizens living under a
brutal regime any big favors by bombing them into submission. Try a
little thought experiment. Let's say Hillary Clinton becomes the next
president of the US (bear with me here). As soon as she takes office,
she starts doing lots of things you guys don't like. *Lots* of things
-- use your imagination. The Iranians (say) decide they've had enough
and issue an ultimatum. Naturally, Clinton refuses to back
down. Seeking "regime change", the Iranians start bombing. Then they
invade and occupy the US. How would you feel about it?

You'd be pretty unhappy with the Iranians, right? Now I don't think
you could dislike President Hillary Clinton half as much as I detest
George W Bush for the enormous damage he has done to this country and
to the world. But I'd still be really, *really* pissed off if anyone
bombed, invaded and occupied us, even if they did it with noble
intention of freeing us from George W Bush. Why, I suspect a great
number of Americans, regardless of how they had felt about their
leaders, might even form an insurgency under such conditions...

So why do you think it unreasonable to object to US military policy in
places like Vietnam and Iraq?

That you would equate the US military, and my dissent with US military
policy, with attacks on the US as a whole speaks volumes. I did not
say that the US is incapable of doing good in the world; it often
does. Even the military is capable of doing good, such as when we send
peaceful relief after natural disasters. But it's hard to help a
country by raining bombs on it. We may have our reasons, and in rare
circumstances (such as when they've already attacked us) it may even
be necessary. But don't kid yourself that "doing them a favor" is on
the list.

Because we didn't learn that lesson in Vietnam, we're now repeating
the exact same mistakes in Iraq. And we'll *keep* making them until we
exchange our childish infatuation with high-tech weapons for a little
wisdom about human nature.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: gb (---.dyn.iinet.net.au)
Date:   03-12-06 09:35

Phil,

With all due respect you're still missing the point to the answers given.
Neither LB nor myself ever claimed that shooting down a MiG "automatically increased peace." Where is the qoute on that? I don't even see how one could derive that thought from what we wrote?

What's being said is that during times of war , control of the skies is a critical component in modern combat. But again that's not to say it's the only component of trying to win a war. It's one thing to keep its role in perspective of the larger effort. It's another thing to minimize it's role or importance to nothing in a combat environment - which in effect is the argument you seem to be making.

And during times of peace it can act as a deterrent. But there is no automatic guarantee of anything, where did either or us make that claim?

If you are considering that some wars should be fought - such as your self defense example with Iran. Than how can you not see the role airpower has to play in the outcome of modern combat?

If however your argument was that war by its very nature is against all those humanitarian issues than that is a different thought and debate all together. But that's not what was asked was it?

With respect to the Cuban missile crisis, you're free to think what ever you feel about how it was handled. I'm sure most Americans then and now would disagree with you on how JFK handled it. Have you considered that it may very well have been the posturing and saber rattling that prevented a pre-emptive style strike suggested by LeMay and other Generals?

I think most people will judge it by the outcome on whether it was a good or bad decision. Contrast this posture and outcome to England's before the outset of WWII>

England's Neville Chamberlain tried your approach with Hitler. Most people now realize he naively wished for peace and stuck his head in the sand rather than deal with the threat at hand. Did wishing for peace and ignoring the threat work then?

When WWII began many Americans did not want to get invovled in another war either. Charles Lindbergh is a famous example. Yet, when America was eventually dragged into it he realized we couldn't just ignore it any longer. Then he wanted to support the efforts and our troops.

Again, Stalin like Hitler were both dictators, both socialists, and both had no problems exterminating millions of their own people and declaing war on others - yet why is this is hardly ever mentioned by socialist sympathizers?

The events of WWII would have still been fresh in the minds of many Americans at that time. I'm sure most Americans realized that appeasement did not work with Hitler and it probably would not work with Stalin and Castro. That kind of policy tends to only emboldens those behaving aggressively. It can be perceived as a sign of weakness - which in the end may only encourage a war if you're seen as someone unwilling to even defend yourself. So, in the end JFK balanced it right, and we averted a real war.

With respect to the Soviet subs. I'm fairly certain that the Russians already had deployed their first ballistic missile submarines in the late 1950s - which was before the Cuban Missile crisis. So, they were already emerging as a first strike threat. In addition, that's what fast attack subs and other anti-submarine equipment was designed to counter. How would they have even possibly countered the missiles in Cuba without striking them first? I agree that the MAD deterence policy played a role in the secondary strike capacity. But even the MAD policy may be literally "mad" in some instances. The reason being that it relys on the fact that the other person values their life and the lives of their own people too. What happens when dealing with a person who has a disregard for both - and may even believe that dying in such a way will make them a martyr?

Your approach to Vietnam was an "either or" rather than a "both and" proposition. Look at the outcome, Vietnam is a communist regime. There's no disputing that. Therefore it was communist expansion. Was there an element of a civil war? Yes. But it at the very most it was as much a civil war as it was a push for communist expansion.

The situation in Nicaragua only further illustrates that communism was trying to expand it's influence even on our back door step. Cuba backed the Sandinistas. As far as "freedom fighters" goes well it depends what you mean by freedom. Freedom is to be free from something. It depends on what you want to be free from. The Contras wanted to be free from a socialistic. communist backed Sandinista government.

Likewise, I've heard some people liken the Muslim terrorists and insurgents to "freedom fighters." Some people are offended by this thought and think it's a misrepresentation of what a "freedom fighter" is. To me, it's rhetoric. The issue is what do they want to be free from? In this case these Muslims want to be free from a western, democratic style government and culture.
In that sense they are "freedom fighters" because they want to be free from something. But using this logic, any person who takes up arms is a freedom fighter.

In this instance, what do the Muslim insurgents want? Generally, a theological, sharia law type state that is in opposition to our core values. They definately don't want anything America stands for. So, will it be a free society as we know it? I don't think most people would conclude that as most people believe that a freedom fighter is not only fighting to be free from something but also fighting for public freedom and liberties as we know it.

With respect to your theory on the U.S. being invaded by Iran - first Iran doesn't have the capability to invade it in the traditional sense. But, I'll go along with your idea for the moment for arguments sake.

I don't doubt that most Americans would collectively come together to fight back the Iranians. The problem with this example is that I don't think mainstream Americans have anything in common with the mainstream Iranian regime or their ideals. Therefore, the only groups or factions of people within the U.S. who would support such a move by Iran would be the relatively small number of Muslim fundamentalists who believe Islam should conquer the world. That relatively small number of the population would probably constitute the bulk of American supporters backing an Iranian "intervention." A better example may have been former communist Russia and/or China. They may have had at least some ability to mount an invasion, and there are enough socialist sympathizers in the United States that they may actually take the sides of a communist regime coming to intervene on their behalf

So, the problem with your comparison is that in some of these countries we have intervened in, there would be a number of people who are in favor of democracy as we know it and against a dictatorship. Again, why do so many Vietnamese refugees live around me? What did they risk life and limb to be free from? With respect to Iraq, it seems that even in the left leaning media reports many Iraqis were glad to be free from Saddam. However, do they want American troops still there? I guess that depends on who you ask and who is reporting. Mainstream media reports suggest that most Iraqis are thankful that Saddam is gone, but they want the U.S. gone too.

From reports I've heard from many soldiers in the field who deal with the Iraqis, say the opposite. The fact that there are homicidal/suicidal bombings after bombings certainly suggests there is a reasonable faction that is against America and any democratic government coming to power there.

Do the Iraqis want democracy as we know it? Well, they've had elections. But I don't think most people are convinced their culture wants a western type of democracy. That's evident by the mish mosh in their constitution. The provision to the effect that there can be nothing against democracy and nothing against Islam is contradictory in many scopes. I don't think that those contradictions in terms will be able to be rectified, and if their government actually manages to survive for a little while there will probably be a lot of conflict just over those two issues.

Anyway, if you read and listened to what I wrote I didn't say there was anything wrong to conscientiously object to a war like Vietnam and Iraq. I think it's far different when our country is directly attacked rather than defending the rights of another country that is being attacked. I did already express that point of view. To me it's more the manner and tone in which it is done.

However, I sense that most people who are in favor of defending people's rights in other countries view it much in the same way as some may view humanitarian aid. For instance, if we have a guilty conscience about our nations wealth, health, and prosperity while others born elsewhere are deprived. Why does being born in one part of the world afford benefits to one person that are not afforded to another. It can seem kind of unfair and unjust right?

Isn't that one reason why we share what we feel we can with those less fortunate? Well, if one believes that democracy is one of the major reasons why we are so blessed with our freedoms and prosperity, why should someone born in another part of the world go without the same benefits? Why shouldn't they be allowed to build themselves up and their nation up so it is prosperous?

I think when people such as myself counter your arguments, for me it's not about debating whether we should get involved in another countries war or not. I'm sure most people think a healthy debate is a good thing.

For me though it is when those debates are completely bitter and negative about something which I love. It is something which may have many imperfections - starting with myself and you too. For neither of us is perfect, and if nobody is perfect than doesn't it stand to reason that any country made up of imperfect beings will therefore be imperfect? Hence, there is no perfect country and no utopian society - so I guess since you haven't found one for me I won't be packing my bags to move there.

I will gladly acknowledge America's imperfections, but I've travelled around the world enough to know just how good we have it. Is America the best at anything and everything? No. Does it do many things well in comparison? I feel it does from my own experience living in other countries and cultures.

I liken these negative sentiments to when I was a kid. When I was a young, immature teenager I didn't like how my parents handled most things. In my eyes, there was nothing they could do right and nothing I could do wrong. I loved to focus on any slight imperfection and hypocrisy and challenge them on it in a contentious way. Probably the only good thing about this was that I was not alone.

When I was really unbearable with the bitterness of my complaints my father often told me if I have it so bad and don't like it there pack my bags and leave.

I thought it was a bit cold and uncaring for him to say such things. Oddly enough, I never left. I reluctantly had to admit that he was right, if not with words, but by my action or rather my inaction to take up his challenge.

As I got older and more mature, I realized a few things. First, I'm not perfect, and maybe I should eat a piece of humble pie once in a while. It's good for one's health. Furthermore, why not spend more time reflecting on my own personal shortcomings and failures rather than constantly being preoccupied with others. Maybe if I did that, the positives that would come from that might rub off on others as much as my negative ones were.
So, instead of trying to save the world, why don't I try and save myself first. If I can't get that right what good am I going to be to others except leading them down the same miserable path?

Second, if I'm not perfect maybe I should stop insisting on everyone else and everything else being perfect. I mean isn't that the greatest hypocrisy of them all?

Third, there were valid issues and concerns in the family - as there will be in any family. However, the way that I went about effecting change was not always the best. If I wanted to effect change within my family why not show a bit more love and respect for it first? If I actually took a moment then to realize my parents had feelings too and respected that, maybe I would have gotten along much better with them and maybe things would develop in a co-operative, positive direction more readily.

The bottom line was I was a spoiled and didn't realize it at the time.
And dysfunctional as it is at times, like it or not, America is a family and we are the members.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: lb (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   03-12-06 10:39

Vietnam was much more of a civil war than an example of "communist
expansion". >>>>

Ignoring the FACT that the "civil" part of NVN's role was aided and abetted by USSR and China. Those MiGs were, in fact, NOT made in factories just outside the Hanoi Hilton. The SAM's weren't either, nor were the trucks, Anti-Aircraft guns, cannons, machine guns, rifles, and so on.

It amazes me that so long after that war that some folks still IGNORE the TRUTH and the FACTS of who supported NVN in their push to overthrow SVN.

And the real FACT is SVN and the Unites States were part of the South East Treaty Organization, and thus the United States upheld their obligation to support the other members...namely SVN in this case.

YES...LBJ expanded the whole thing based on a LIE, and LBJ and McNamera got a lot of US military, and NVN and SVN people KILLED based on his LIES and their micro-managing ...and mis-managing the war. Hell, you'ld be even more outraged if you saw the "rules of engagement" that those two idiots placed on our troops...and especially the aviators.

IE: couldn't bomb a SAM site until it was operational; couldn't hit a MiG unless it was airborn; couldn't bomb ships offloading missiles, guns, trucks, etc., in Haiphong harbor because it was probably Russian....and so on.

In our ready room we had pictures of ships laden with trucks, missiles, etc., sailing by the carrier headed for Haiphong.....with the caption underneath "NEXT WEEK'S TARGETS".

But HEY, it was just a "civil war".
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: lb (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   03-12-06 10:57

I believe Pete Pettigrew was an advisor for the movie, and if I'm not mistaken was one of the pilots from VF-92 who got a MiG on 10 May. >>

Pete was an advisor and former Top Gun instructor. Pete was in VF 114 and got his MiG kill a few days earlier. Curt Dose was the VF-92 driver who got a MiG kill on 10 May.

Pete is now retired and sells modern day MiGs if someone has enough $$$ to buy one.

Google Pete Pettigrew and you'll find lots of links to him and Top Gun, including one that points out the many inaccuracies of the movie.

And for a FACT, "Maverick" would have been kicked out of the Navy LONG before he came on the scene in the movie had he pulled the stunts he did. But that doesn't stop folks like Phil from getting so enthralled with Hollywood's portrayal they think that fighter pilots really DO those things.

Back to the subject and Phil's objections.....the point of Top Gun was to train pilots to engage the enemy and WIN. WINNING is the whole point. Both the USN and USAF had around a 2-1 Kill ratio in Vietnam....until the Top Gun school was formed....and after that, the Navy's ratio jumped to 12-1. And in quite a few MiG kills since Vietnam, the Navy has not lost one aircraft to a MiG or any other enemy plane.

WINNING is what it is all about. If we're going to be flying $35 MILLION airplanes, why would Phil object to being the BEST TRAINED in those planes to WIN???
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: gb (---.nv.iinet.net.au)
Date:   03-12-06 17:14

Thanks LB for correcting me about Pete Pettigrew. My memory is not always the best, and I don't want to be spreading more misinformation on this website.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Johnson (---.sub-70-218-126.myvzw.com)
Date:   03-12-06 17:55

Gents,

I want to check in here on just one issue: The Cunningham military pension.

As a Congressman, this man was a scumbag. An elected official who sells influence for money is the worst kind of politician. Unfortunately, he's neither the first nor will he be the last. Fortunately, he's getting what he deserves -- public disgrace and prison.

But as far as I know, his military pension remains intact, and I believe it should be.

It seems to me that short of a less-than-honorable discharge or resignation before qualifying for pension, a warrior (even one with warts) ought to get his money. What happens later is... well, later.

Comments?

LCDR Phil Johnson
USCGR (ret.)
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: lb (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   03-12-06 23:25

But as far as I know, his military pension remains intact, and I believe it should be.>>>>

Absolutely.....

However, his congressional pension, which I understand is 100% of the current salary and bene's, is still intact. Under current law, the only way a congressman can be denied pension is if they have committed a crime against the United States....ie TREASON.

John Kerry (MA) and Ken Salazar (CO) have sponsored bills that would deny pensions to individuals who have committed felony crimes as a member of congress. I certainly hope that passes.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: H. Stevens (63.197.134.---)
Date:   03-24-06 13:53

I served in the Navy and was attached to VF-92 out or Miramar during the Vietnam era (1965-1969). I was just an electronics tech fixing F-4 radios and the sort, not a pilot. During our deployments I spent many hours watching flight operations from the observation deck of the Enterprise. I was always amazed at the talent and skills of the pilots on the Big E in handling landings and take offs. Those guys were good. One day I watched one of our planes (I think the pilot was our squadon CO) that flew back was serously shot and crippled plane. Not unusual to have that happne. The pilot had been shot up through the legs and nearly bled to death on his flight back. He somehow managed to land and when his plane stopped, I watched the flight deck crew lilft him out of the cockpit and get him to sickbay for medical care. Many planes came back with varying degrees of damage and limited the pilots to control their landings, or else they would have had to ditch. On a few occassions I watched take offs with bomb laden planes catapulted off the flight deck then nose down into the ocean and disappear from sight and miisng flight crews, some that were rescued, some not. Those were the risks. Pilots knew that each time they took off and, as such, they always had my utmost respect.

The "Duke" may have been one of those I watched take off and land. It saddens me to know that he may have been someone that piloted a plane I took part in fixing. I would not criticize his military service record because that is not the issue. The issue is greed and how Mr. Cunningham willingly allowed himself to stoop so low and in such a demeaning, illegal and disrespective manner. And to what end? A sad tale indeed; from hero to schmuck.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: lb (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date:   03-24-06 14:13

<<The "Duke" may have been one of those I watched take off and land. It saddens me to know that he may have been someone that piloted a plane I took part in fixing. >>

Randy was not on the big E. His first cruise was in 1970 in USS America,and he was in VF 96 not 92.

<< I was just an electronics tech fixing F-4 radios and the sort,>>>

What do you mean "Just an..."??? Without you and the rest of the maintenance crew, NOBODY goes flying. Randy may have turned out to be a schmuck...but there were no Junior Officers who had more respect for the fix-it guys than Randy and myself, so drop the word "just" when you tell what you did. OK!!!!!
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: Phil Johnson (---.tukw.qwest.net)
Date:   03-25-06 03:38

Amen to lb's comments.

I was an enlisted Coast Guard ET for 6 years before being commissioned.

I maintained radios, radars, audio and video systems, Loran receivers, fathometers, some other military boxes, and the occasional stereo.

I hope you jet drivers didn't have a lot of use for fathometers, but boat and ship drivers who want to keep their jobs find them handy.

And that's the point: Boats, ships, and airplanes don't continue functioning without the hard work of the people who maintain them.

I'm proud of my work as a "fix-it guy," and the experience served me well as an officer. I salute H. Stevens for his service.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: H. Stevens (63.197.134.---)
Date:   03-27-06 13:51

Thanks lb & Phil for your kind thoughts. It looks as though I missed Cunningham by 1 cruise. VF-92 (the "Silver Kings") was also the sister F-4 squadron to VF-96 (the "Fighting Falcons"). The three cruises we were part of the the Enterprise air wing were between 1966 and 1969. Since Cunningham went out to sea a year later, I missed him, sort of. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: MACS(SW) Ramey (---.dhcp.smrt.tn.charter.com)
Date:   04-12-06 15:23

I am a retired Senior Chief Master-at-Arms, and served on two carriers (JFK/IKE)as an investigator on the JFK & CMAA on the IKE. During my career I was amazed at the skill it took to pilot any aircraft to a stop on a floating island. I have watched the History channel several times with CDR Cunningham being interviewed about his exploits as a Naval Aviator. I was and still am impressed with his skills. One thing that a lot of people seem to forget, the old Navy traditions during the Cold War and Vietnam were to work hard and play hard. The Jet Jocks seemed to bring a lot of attention to themselves and like any Sailor they get drunk and make fools of themselves. I personally have escorted a Vice Admiral and numerous high ranking officers back to the ship highly intoxicated. A sea story? Here is one, a Navy Captain who was the Chief of Staff for an unnamed Admiral broke into a golf course at night with his staff members and stole golf carts tearing up the base. I had to beg the XO of the base not to do anything about it. He reluctantly agreed. Duke is a victim of the old Navy, and a victim of that old Sin, greed. He is currently at the FCI Prison, Butner, NC. Look it up online.
Reply To This Message
 
 Re: For Whom The Gods Would Destroy . . . .
Author: jerry kammer (---.res.east.verizon.net)
Date:   11-04-06 04:51


I'm one of the Copley reporters who worked on the Cunningham bribes-for-earmarks story. We're doing a book now. Would sure like to talk with you.
Please let me know how to contact you.
Reply To This Message
 Threaded View   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic