Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:19:29 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:59:42 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:26:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:32:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:04:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:52:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:45:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:35:31 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. There were also conflicts that started under Democratic presidents, but Tom didn't declare that those didn't happen so I don't need to enumerate them. Eisenhower under treaty with France supplied military advisers to French Indochina as Vietnam was called then. Kennedy decided that America would be much better off with a war instead of looking on. You got it wrong again. In about 1950 the U.S. formed a so called Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) which managed the supply of some 10 million dollars in military equipment to support the French efforts in Vietnam. MAAG, by the way is simply a term used to denote a group which liaises with another government's military, that may or may not include advisers. As part of this "assistance" the U.S. loaned, lend leased, whatever you call it, some B-26 aircraft and supplied maintenance crews and parts for the airplanes, which were stationed at Saigon's airport. these aircraft were flown by French flight crews. In addition I believe there were a number of transport aircraft airplanes. As far as I know, from friends who were assigned to the B-26 group and went to Vietnam there were no so called military advisors. U.S.A.F. people maintained the airplanes and the French flew them. Since I got that directly from the New York Times you'll have to explain it to them. If you post a site for the article I would be happy to critique it :-) I did a bit more reading and the only mention I can find of U.S. participation prior to 1954 was the use of U.S. aircraft and supply of military supplies. The U.S. Navy assisted to the extent of delivering aircraft to the French and in 1954 they assisted the French Navy in Operation Passage to Freedom, the transportation of N. Vietnamese who wished to leave the Communist North to go to the South. But maintenance crews can hardly be called combat troops would it? I never felt I was in the war until I was being shot at. What do you suppose that service cross was for? What "service cross"? the USAF Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded for: Who distinguishes himself or herself in support of operations by "heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent to November 11, 1918" I don't remember a damn thing about it but I'm told that all those who served in a combat zone received a service cross. I was even shown a ribbon that would normally go on your uniform. Nope. If you served in a combat area you received a "service medal" to indicate that you had served in the theater, but that wasn't considered a "decoration", i.e., something that you got for actually doing something. It was more of "I was there, and here's the tee shirt" sort of thing. You'll have to explain that to the Air Force since I wasn't qualified for it until I went on an actual combat mission. The maintenance people that sat on Guam didn't. It ****ed off the two sargeants that volunteered to go there in order to gain points for being promoted. Not that it made any difference to me since I wasn't going to be promoted anyway. I think that you are going to be a great deal more specific here. Being stationed on Guam is not being stationed in Vietnam, thus no Vietnam Service Medal. If, on the other hand you participated in "combat" in Vietnam air space then you did qualify. I'm a bit curious about the two Sergeants who thought that by going to Guam they somehow earned promotion "points" for just being there as that certainly wasn't known to the people from Barksdale when "we" went to Guam for Arc Light. (I say "we" as my shop chief was having "wife problems" and volunteered to go and I stayed home to mind the store.) Firstly Guam was considered a war zone. Secondly I flew on bombing missions four times including the time we almost were hit by a SAM. To the best of my knowledge Guam was not considered a "war zone" during the Vietnam era. I might add that I was in the Air Force at the time and had a number of friends and fellow workers that served on Guam in support of the B-52's. None of them ever reported that they received any tax reduction, or other form of combat pay, for serving in a war zone. Nor did any of them wear a Vietnam ribbon on their Class A's. In fact people a lot closer to the guns, specifically Thailand, were not considered to be serving in a war zone. I had people, permanently assigned to a unit in Vietnam but working temporally in Thailand that were only paid combat pay and got the tax break if they physically were in Vietnam for at least one day during the month. I even flew the B52 when the AC had to take a leak and stretch. AF regs say that you have to have both seats filled when live bombs are on-board. That claim is simply ridiculous as the Air Force flew and probably still fly's quite a number of bomb loaded aircraft with only one pilot aboard. I don't suggest that you were not told that as, if I understand your posts correctly, you were some sort of civilian employee or employee of a contractor. In Air Force terms a "feather merchant" and normally view with considerable disdain. In some cases total disdain. I remember once being assured, by a Feather Merchant, that a certain job was "Impossible to do!". After it had been accomplished :-) We were told specifically that Guam was considered a war zone. In any case since I was in direct combat there isn't any question of that. I don't know who told you or why but I can say that the USAF did not, or was not allowed to, consider Guam as a war zone. No combat pay or income tax allowances were given to USAF troops stationed there, unless those troops visited a "war zone". And there was NO case that a B52 could be flown with a single pilot with live bombs on board. Please don't invent your beliefs as you go along. They didn't put me in the AC seat for fun. Your beliefs, or fantasies, are ridiculous. The B-52H carried a crew of five - Aircraft Commander, pilot, Radar Navigator (Bombardier), Navigator, and Electronic Warfare Officer. The B-52D (which I think was the other version flying from Guam) had an additional crew member, an enlisted gunner, I believe. Now which one got out of his or her seat to sit in the A.C.'s seat while he got up to pee, when you weren't there? More to the point, I researched a USAF document: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202, VOLUME 3 AIR COMBAT COMMAND Flying Operations GENERAL FLIGHT RULES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY which states in part: Chapter 5 GENERAL FLIGHT RULES 5.3. Crew at Stations. Crewmembers must occupy their assigned duty stations from takeoff to landing, unless absence is normal in the performance of crew duties, or in connection with physiological needs. Pilots shall not leave their duty station unless another qualified pilot establishes control of the aircraft. (Note the plural here "pilots" "their" ) 5.3. (ACC)Crew at their Stations. During non-critical phases of flight, crewmembers may be absent from their duty stations in the performance of crew duties or in connection with physiological needs... Any crewmember may sit in a pilot seat during non-critical phases of flight provided a qualified pilot occupies the other pilot seat. O.K. I've showed you mine, now show us yours. -- Cheers, John B. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 8:09:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:19:29 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:59:42 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:26:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:32:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:04:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:52:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:45:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:35:31 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. There were also conflicts that started under Democratic presidents, but Tom didn't declare that those didn't happen so I don't need to enumerate them. Eisenhower under treaty with France supplied military advisers to French Indochina as Vietnam was called then. Kennedy decided that America would be much better off with a war instead of looking on. You got it wrong again. In about 1950 the U.S. formed a so called Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) which managed the supply of some 10 million dollars in military equipment to support the French efforts in Vietnam. MAAG, by the way is simply a term used to denote a group which liaises with another government's military, that may or may not include advisers. As part of this "assistance" the U.S. loaned, lend leased, whatever you call it, some B-26 aircraft and supplied maintenance crews and parts for the airplanes, which were stationed at Saigon's airport. these aircraft were flown by French flight crews. In addition I believe there were a number of transport aircraft airplanes. As far as I know, from friends who were assigned to the B-26 group and went to Vietnam there were no so called military advisors. U.S.A.F. people maintained the airplanes and the French flew them. Since I got that directly from the New York Times you'll have to explain it to them. If you post a site for the article I would be happy to critique it :-) I did a bit more reading and the only mention I can find of U..S. participation prior to 1954 was the use of U.S. aircraft and supply of military supplies. The U.S. Navy assisted to the extent of delivering aircraft to the French and in 1954 they assisted the French Navy in Operation Passage to Freedom, the transportation of N. Vietnamese who wished to leave the Communist North to go to the South. But maintenance crews can hardly be called combat troops would it? I never felt I was in the war until I was being shot at. What do you suppose that service cross was for? What "service cross"? the USAF Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded for: Who distinguishes himself or herself in support of operations by "heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent to November 11, 1918" I don't remember a damn thing about it but I'm told that all those who served in a combat zone received a service cross. I was even shown a ribbon that would normally go on your uniform. Nope. If you served in a combat area you received a "service medal" to indicate that you had served in the theater, but that wasn't considered a "decoration", i.e., something that you got for actually doing something. It was more of "I was there, and here's the tee shirt" sort of thing. You'll have to explain that to the Air Force since I wasn't qualified for it until I went on an actual combat mission. The maintenance people that sat on Guam didn't. It ****ed off the two sargeants that volunteered to go there in order to gain points for being promoted. Not that it made any difference to me since I wasn't going to be promoted anyway. I think that you are going to be a great deal more specific here. Being stationed on Guam is not being stationed in Vietnam, thus no Vietnam Service Medal. If, on the other hand you participated in "combat" in Vietnam air space then you did qualify. I'm a bit curious about the two Sergeants who thought that by going to Guam they somehow earned promotion "points" for just being there as that certainly wasn't known to the people from Barksdale when "we" went to Guam for Arc Light. (I say "we" as my shop chief was having "wife problems" and volunteered to go and I stayed home to mind the store.) Firstly Guam was considered a war zone. Secondly I flew on bombing missions four times including the time we almost were hit by a SAM. To the best of my knowledge Guam was not considered a "war zone" during the Vietnam era. I might add that I was in the Air Force at the time and had a number of friends and fellow workers that served on Guam in support of the B-52's. None of them ever reported that they received any tax reduction, or other form of combat pay, for serving in a war zone. Nor did any of them wear a Vietnam ribbon on their Class A's. In fact people a lot closer to the guns, specifically Thailand, were not considered to be serving in a war zone. I had people, permanently assigned to a unit in Vietnam but working temporally in Thailand that were only paid combat pay and got the tax break if they physically were in Vietnam for at least one day during the month. I even flew the B52 when the AC had to take a leak and stretch. AF regs say that you have to have both seats filled when live bombs are on-board.. That claim is simply ridiculous as the Air Force flew and probably still fly's quite a number of bomb loaded aircraft with only one pilot aboard. I don't suggest that you were not told that as, if I understand your posts correctly, you were some sort of civilian employee or employee of a contractor. In Air Force terms a "feather merchant" and normally view with considerable disdain. In some cases total disdain. I remember once being assured, by a Feather Merchant, that a certain job was "Impossible to do!". After it had been accomplished :-) We were told specifically that Guam was considered a war zone. In any case since I was in direct combat there isn't any question of that. I don't know who told you or why but I can say that the USAF did not, or was not allowed to, consider Guam as a war zone. No combat pay or income tax allowances were given to USAF troops stationed there, unless those troops visited a "war zone". And there was NO case that a B52 could be flown with a single pilot with live bombs on board. Please don't invent your beliefs as you go along. They didn't put me in the AC seat for fun. Your beliefs, or fantasies, are ridiculous. The B-52H carried a crew of five - Aircraft Commander, pilot, Radar Navigator (Bombardier), Navigator, and Electronic Warfare Officer. The B-52D (which I think was the other version flying from Guam) had an additional crew member, an enlisted gunner, I believe. Now which one got out of his or her seat to sit in the A.C.'s seat while he got up to pee, when you weren't there? More to the point, I researched a USAF document: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202, VOLUME 3 AIR COMBAT COMMAND Flying Operations GENERAL FLIGHT RULES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY which states in part: Chapter 5 GENERAL FLIGHT RULES 5.3. Crew at Stations. Crewmembers must occupy their assigned duty stations from takeoff to landing, unless absence is normal in the performance of crew duties, or in connection with physiological needs. Pilots shall not leave their duty station unless another qualified pilot establishes control of the aircraft. (Note the plural here "pilots" "their" ) 5.3. (ACC)Crew at their Stations. During non-critical phases of flight, crewmembers may be absent from their duty stations in the performance of crew duties or in connection with physiological needs... Any crewmember may sit in a pilot seat during non-critical phases of flight provided a qualified pilot occupies the other pilot seat. O.K. I've showed you mine, now show us yours. John, there is a major difference in being in a war zone and being given combat pay. And you JUST showed mine. So exactly why are you arguing about what I said when you have right there in the regulations? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 12:31:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 8:09:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:19:29 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:59:42 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:26:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:32:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:04:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:52:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:45:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:35:31 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. There were also conflicts that started under Democratic presidents, but Tom didn't declare that those didn't happen so I don't need to enumerate them. Eisenhower under treaty with France supplied military advisers to French Indochina as Vietnam was called then. Kennedy decided that America would be much better off with a war instead of looking on. You got it wrong again. In about 1950 the U.S. formed a so called Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) which managed the supply of some 10 million dollars in military equipment to support the French efforts in Vietnam. MAAG, by the way is simply a term used to denote a group which liaises with another government's military, that may or may not include advisers. As part of this "assistance" the U.S. loaned, lend leased, whatever you call it, some B-26 aircraft and supplied maintenance crews and parts for the airplanes, which were stationed at Saigon's airport. these aircraft were flown by French flight crews. In addition I believe there were a number of transport aircraft airplanes. As far as I know, from friends who were assigned to the B-26 group and went to Vietnam there were no so called military advisors. U.S.A.F. people maintained the airplanes and the French flew them. Since I got that directly from the New York Times you'll have to explain it to them. If you post a site for the article I would be happy to critique it :-) I did a bit more reading and the only mention I can find of U.S. participation prior to 1954 was the use of U.S. aircraft and supply of military supplies. The U.S. Navy assisted to the extent of delivering aircraft to the French and in 1954 they assisted the French Navy in Operation Passage to Freedom, the transportation of N. Vietnamese who wished to leave the Communist North to go to the South. But maintenance crews can hardly be called combat troops would it? I never felt I was in the war until I was being shot at. What do you suppose that service cross was for? What "service cross"? the USAF Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded for: Who distinguishes himself or herself in support of operations by "heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent to November 11, 1918" I don't remember a damn thing about it but I'm told that all those who served in a combat zone received a service cross. I was even shown a ribbon that would normally go on your uniform. Nope. If you served in a combat area you received a "service medal" to indicate that you had served in the theater, but that wasn't considered a "decoration", i.e., something that you got for actually doing something. It was more of "I was there, and here's the tee shirt" sort of thing. You'll have to explain that to the Air Force since I wasn't qualified for it until I went on an actual combat mission. The maintenance people that sat on Guam didn't. It ****ed off the two sargeants that volunteered to go there in order to gain points for being promoted. Not that it made any difference to me since I wasn't going to be promoted anyway. I think that you are going to be a great deal more specific here. Being stationed on Guam is not being stationed in Vietnam, thus no Vietnam Service Medal. If, on the other hand you participated in "combat" in Vietnam air space then you did qualify. I'm a bit curious about the two Sergeants who thought that by going to Guam they somehow earned promotion "points" for just being there as that certainly wasn't known to the people from Barksdale when "we" went to Guam for Arc Light. (I say "we" as my shop chief was having "wife problems" and volunteered to go and I stayed home to mind the store.) Firstly Guam was considered a war zone. Secondly I flew on bombing missions four times including the time we almost were hit by a SAM. To the best of my knowledge Guam was not considered a "war zone" during the Vietnam era. I might add that I was in the Air Force at the time and had a number of friends and fellow workers that served on Guam in support of the B-52's. None of them ever reported that they received any tax reduction, or other form of combat pay, for serving in a war zone. Nor did any of them wear a Vietnam ribbon on their Class A's. In fact people a lot closer to the guns, specifically Thailand, were not considered to be serving in a war zone. I had people, permanently assigned to a unit in Vietnam but working temporally in Thailand that were only paid combat pay and got the tax break if they physically were in Vietnam for at least one day during the month. I even flew the B52 when the AC had to take a leak and stretch. AF regs say that you have to have both seats filled when live bombs are on-board. That claim is simply ridiculous as the Air Force flew and probably still fly's quite a number of bomb loaded aircraft with only one pilot aboard. I don't suggest that you were not told that as, if I understand your posts correctly, you were some sort of civilian employee or employee of a contractor. In Air Force terms a "feather merchant" and normally view with considerable disdain. In some cases total disdain. I remember once being assured, by a Feather Merchant, that a certain job was "Impossible to do!". After it had been accomplished :-) We were told specifically that Guam was considered a war zone. In any case since I was in direct combat there isn't any question of that. I don't know who told you or why but I can say that the USAF did not, or was not allowed to, consider Guam as a war zone. No combat pay or income tax allowances were given to USAF troops stationed there, unless those troops visited a "war zone". And there was NO case that a B52 could be flown with a single pilot with live bombs on board. Please don't invent your beliefs as you go along. They didn't put me in the AC seat for fun. Your beliefs, or fantasies, are ridiculous. The B-52H carried a crew of five - Aircraft Commander, pilot, Radar Navigator (Bombardier), Navigator, and Electronic Warfare Officer. The B-52D (which I think was the other version flying from Guam) had an additional crew member, an enlisted gunner, I believe. Now which one got out of his or her seat to sit in the A.C.'s seat while he got up to pee, when you weren't there? More to the point, I researched a USAF document: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202, VOLUME 3 AIR COMBAT COMMAND Flying Operations GENERAL FLIGHT RULES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY which states in part: Chapter 5 GENERAL FLIGHT RULES 5.3. Crew at Stations. Crewmembers must occupy their assigned duty stations from takeoff to landing, unless absence is normal in the performance of crew duties, or in connection with physiological needs. Pilots shall not leave their duty station unless another qualified pilot establishes control of the aircraft. (Note the plural here "pilots" "their" ) 5.3. (ACC)Crew at their Stations. During non-critical phases of flight, crewmembers may be absent from their duty stations in the performance of crew duties or in connection with physiological needs... Any crewmember may sit in a pilot seat during non-critical phases of flight provided a qualified pilot occupies the other pilot seat. O.K. I've showed you mine, now show us yours. John, there is a major difference in being in a war zone and being given combat pay. Not for military personnel. In fact that is an almost immediate reaction - get the guys combat pay and income tax relief. There was none in Guam. Definitions: Definition of Combat Zone A combat zone is any area the President of the United States designates by Executive Order as an area in which the U.S. Armed Forces are engaging or have engaged in combat. Was Guam designated a combat zone? No. And you JUST showed mine. So exactly why are you arguing about what I said when you have right there in the regulations? Unfortunately standing tall, chin raised and speaking in authoritative tones is not proof of anything, except for arrogance perhaps. The fact is that some of the greatest con men in history have acted just that way. -- Cheers, John B. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 8:32:07 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 12:31:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 8:09:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:19:29 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:59:42 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:26:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:32:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:04:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:52:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:45:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:35:31 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. There were also conflicts that started under Democratic presidents, but Tom didn't declare that those didn't happen so I don't need to enumerate them. Eisenhower under treaty with France supplied military advisers to French Indochina as Vietnam was called then. Kennedy decided that America would be much better off with a war instead of looking on. You got it wrong again. In about 1950 the U.S. formed a so called Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) which managed the supply of some 10 million dollars in military equipment to support the French efforts in Vietnam. MAAG, by the way is simply a term used to denote a group which liaises with another government's military, that may or may not include advisers. As part of this "assistance" the U.S. loaned, lend leased, whatever you call it, some B-26 aircraft and supplied maintenance crews and parts for the airplanes, which were stationed at Saigon's airport. these aircraft were flown by French flight crews. In addition I believe there were a number of transport aircraft airplanes. As far as I know, from friends who were assigned to the B-26 group and went to Vietnam there were no so called military advisors. U.S.A.F. people maintained the airplanes and the French flew them. Since I got that directly from the New York Times you'll have to explain it to them. If you post a site for the article I would be happy to critique it :-) I did a bit more reading and the only mention I can find of U.S. participation prior to 1954 was the use of U.S. aircraft and supply of military supplies. The U.S. Navy assisted to the extent of delivering aircraft to the French and in 1954 they assisted the French Navy in Operation Passage to Freedom, the transportation of N. Vietnamese who wished to leave the Communist North to go to the South. But maintenance crews can hardly be called combat troops would it? I never felt I was in the war until I was being shot at. What do you suppose that service cross was for? What "service cross"? the USAF Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded for: Who distinguishes himself or herself in support of operations by "heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent to November 11, 1918" I don't remember a damn thing about it but I'm told that all those who served in a combat zone received a service cross. I was even shown a ribbon that would normally go on your uniform. Nope. If you served in a combat area you received a "service medal" to indicate that you had served in the theater, but that wasn't considered a "decoration", i.e., something that you got for actually doing something. It was more of "I was there, and here's the tee shirt" sort of thing. You'll have to explain that to the Air Force since I wasn't qualified for it until I went on an actual combat mission. The maintenance people that sat on Guam didn't. It ****ed off the two sargeants that volunteered to go there in order to gain points for being promoted. Not that it made any difference to me since I wasn't going to be promoted anyway. I think that you are going to be a great deal more specific here.. Being stationed on Guam is not being stationed in Vietnam, thus no Vietnam Service Medal. If, on the other hand you participated in "combat" in Vietnam air space then you did qualify. I'm a bit curious about the two Sergeants who thought that by going to Guam they somehow earned promotion "points" for just being there as that certainly wasn't known to the people from Barksdale when "we" went to Guam for Arc Light. (I say "we" as my shop chief was having "wife problems" and volunteered to go and I stayed home to mind the store.) Firstly Guam was considered a war zone. Secondly I flew on bombing missions four times including the time we almost were hit by a SAM. To the best of my knowledge Guam was not considered a "war zone" during the Vietnam era. I might add that I was in the Air Force at the time and had a number of friends and fellow workers that served on Guam in support of the B-52's. None of them ever reported that they received any tax reduction, or other form of combat pay, for serving in a war zone. Nor did any of them wear a Vietnam ribbon on their Class A's. In fact people a lot closer to the guns, specifically Thailand, were not considered to be serving in a war zone. I had people, permanently assigned to a unit in Vietnam but working temporally in Thailand that were only paid combat pay and got the tax break if they physically were in Vietnam for at least one day during the month. I even flew the B52 when the AC had to take a leak and stretch. AF regs say that you have to have both seats filled when live bombs are on-board. That claim is simply ridiculous as the Air Force flew and probably still fly's quite a number of bomb loaded aircraft with only one pilot aboard. I don't suggest that you were not told that as, if I understand your posts correctly, you were some sort of civilian employee or employee of a contractor. In Air Force terms a "feather merchant" and normally view with considerable disdain. In some cases total disdain. I remember once being assured, by a Feather Merchant, that a certain job was "Impossible to do!". After it had been accomplished :-) We were told specifically that Guam was considered a war zone. In any case since I was in direct combat there isn't any question of that. I don't know who told you or why but I can say that the USAF did not, or was not allowed to, consider Guam as a war zone. No combat pay or income tax allowances were given to USAF troops stationed there, unless those troops visited a "war zone". And there was NO case that a B52 could be flown with a single pilot with live bombs on board. Please don't invent your beliefs as you go along. They didn't put me in the AC seat for fun. Your beliefs, or fantasies, are ridiculous. The B-52H carried a crew of five - Aircraft Commander, pilot, Radar Navigator (Bombardier), Navigator, and Electronic Warfare Officer. The B-52D (which I think was the other version flying from Guam) had an additional crew member, an enlisted gunner, I believe. Now which one got out of his or her seat to sit in the A.C.'s seat while he got up to pee, when you weren't there? More to the point, I researched a USAF document: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202, VOLUME 3 AIR COMBAT COMMAND Flying Operations GENERAL FLIGHT RULES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY which states in part: Chapter 5 GENERAL FLIGHT RULES 5.3. Crew at Stations. Crewmembers must occupy their assigned duty stations from takeoff to landing, unless absence is normal in the performance of crew duties, or in connection with physiological needs. Pilots shall not leave their duty station unless another qualified pilot establishes control of the aircraft. (Note the plural here "pilots" "their" ) 5.3. (ACC)Crew at their Stations. During non-critical phases of flight, crewmembers may be absent from their duty stations in the performance of crew duties or in connection with physiological needs... Any crewmember may sit in a pilot seat during non-critical phases of flight provided a qualified pilot occupies the other pilot seat. O.K. I've showed you mine, now show us yours. John, there is a major difference in being in a war zone and being given combat pay. Not for military personnel. In fact that is an almost immediate reaction - get the guys combat pay and income tax relief. There was none in Guam. Definitions: Definition of Combat Zone A combat zone is any area the President of the United States designates by Executive Order as an area in which the U.S. Armed Forces are engaging or have engaged in combat. Was Guam designated a combat zone? No. And you JUST showed mine. So exactly why are you arguing about what I said when you have right there in the regulations? Unfortunately standing tall, chin raised and speaking in authoritative tones is not proof of anything, except for arrogance perhaps. The fact is that some of the greatest con men in history have acted just that way. "I want to expand my comments just a little. Any veteran who entered the territorial waters, or air space of Viet-Nam, or served loading the planes which were deployed to Viet-Nam, or fired heavy guns inland Viet-nam is a Viet-Nam veteran and not an ERA veteran." It must be hell that the only way you can make yourself feel good is to degrade others. You, Frank and Jay really make a good team. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 06:51:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 8:32:07 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 12:31:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 8:09:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:19:29 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:59:42 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:26:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:32:43 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:04:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:52:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:45:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:35:31 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. There were also conflicts that started under Democratic presidents, but Tom didn't declare that those didn't happen so I don't need to enumerate them. Eisenhower under treaty with France supplied military advisers to French Indochina as Vietnam was called then. Kennedy decided that America would be much better off with a war instead of looking on. You got it wrong again. In about 1950 the U.S. formed a so called Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) which managed the supply of some 10 million dollars in military equipment to support the French efforts in Vietnam. MAAG, by the way is simply a term used to denote a group which liaises with another government's military, that may or may not include advisers. As part of this "assistance" the U.S. loaned, lend leased, whatever you call it, some B-26 aircraft and supplied maintenance crews and parts for the airplanes, which were stationed at Saigon's airport. these aircraft were flown by French flight crews. In addition I believe there were a number of transport aircraft airplanes. As far as I know, from friends who were assigned to the B-26 group and went to Vietnam there were no so called military advisors. U.S.A.F. people maintained the airplanes and the French flew them. Since I got that directly from the New York Times you'll have to explain it to them. If you post a site for the article I would be happy to critique it :-) I did a bit more reading and the only mention I can find of U.S. participation prior to 1954 was the use of U.S. aircraft and supply of military supplies. The U.S. Navy assisted to the extent of delivering aircraft to the French and in 1954 they assisted the French Navy in Operation Passage to Freedom, the transportation of N. Vietnamese who wished to leave the Communist North to go to the South. But maintenance crews can hardly be called combat troops would it? I never felt I was in the war until I was being shot at. What do you suppose that service cross was for? What "service cross"? the USAF Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded for: Who distinguishes himself or herself in support of operations by "heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent to November 11, 1918" I don't remember a damn thing about it but I'm told that all those who served in a combat zone received a service cross. I was even shown a ribbon that would normally go on your uniform. Nope. If you served in a combat area you received a "service medal" to indicate that you had served in the theater, but that wasn't considered a "decoration", i.e., something that you got for actually doing something. It was more of "I was there, and here's the tee shirt" sort of thing. You'll have to explain that to the Air Force since I wasn't qualified for it until I went on an actual combat mission. The maintenance people that sat on Guam didn't. It ****ed off the two sargeants that volunteered to go there in order to gain points for being promoted. Not that it made any difference to me since I wasn't going to be promoted anyway. I think that you are going to be a great deal more specific here. Being stationed on Guam is not being stationed in Vietnam, thus no Vietnam Service Medal. If, on the other hand you participated in "combat" in Vietnam air space then you did qualify. I'm a bit curious about the two Sergeants who thought that by going to Guam they somehow earned promotion "points" for just being there as that certainly wasn't known to the people from Barksdale when "we" went to Guam for Arc Light. (I say "we" as my shop chief was having "wife problems" and volunteered to go and I stayed home to mind the store.) Firstly Guam was considered a war zone. Secondly I flew on bombing missions four times including the time we almost were hit by a SAM. To the best of my knowledge Guam was not considered a "war zone" during the Vietnam era. I might add that I was in the Air Force at the time and had a number of friends and fellow workers that served on Guam in support of the B-52's. None of them ever reported that they received any tax reduction, or other form of combat pay, for serving in a war zone. Nor did any of them wear a Vietnam ribbon on their Class A's. In fact people a lot closer to the guns, specifically Thailand, were not considered to be serving in a war zone. I had people, permanently assigned to a unit in Vietnam but working temporally in Thailand that were only paid combat pay and got the tax break if they physically were in Vietnam for at least one day during the month. I even flew the B52 when the AC had to take a leak and stretch. AF regs say that you have to have both seats filled when live bombs are on-board. That claim is simply ridiculous as the Air Force flew and probably still fly's quite a number of bomb loaded aircraft with only one pilot aboard. I don't suggest that you were not told that as, if I understand your posts correctly, you were some sort of civilian employee or employee of a contractor. In Air Force terms a "feather merchant" and normally view with considerable disdain. In some cases total disdain. I remember once being assured, by a Feather Merchant, that a certain job was "Impossible to do!". After it had been accomplished :-) We were told specifically that Guam was considered a war zone. In any case since I was in direct combat there isn't any question of that. I don't know who told you or why but I can say that the USAF did not, or was not allowed to, consider Guam as a war zone. No combat pay or income tax allowances were given to USAF troops stationed there, unless those troops visited a "war zone". And there was NO case that a B52 could be flown with a single pilot with live bombs on board. Please don't invent your beliefs as you go along. They didn't put me in the AC seat for fun. Your beliefs, or fantasies, are ridiculous. The B-52H carried a crew of five - Aircraft Commander, pilot, Radar Navigator (Bombardier), Navigator, and Electronic Warfare Officer. The B-52D (which I think was the other version flying from Guam) had an additional crew member, an enlisted gunner, I believe. Now which one got out of his or her seat to sit in the A.C.'s seat while he got up to pee, when you weren't there? More to the point, I researched a USAF document: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202, VOLUME 3 AIR COMBAT COMMAND Flying Operations GENERAL FLIGHT RULES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY which states in part: Chapter 5 GENERAL FLIGHT RULES 5.3. Crew at Stations. Crewmembers must occupy their assigned duty stations from takeoff to landing, unless absence is normal in the performance of crew duties, or in connection with physiological needs. Pilots shall not leave their duty station unless another qualified pilot establishes control of the aircraft. (Note the plural here "pilots" "their" ) 5.3. (ACC)Crew at their Stations. During non-critical phases of flight, crewmembers may be absent from their duty stations in the performance of crew duties or in connection with physiological needs... Any crewmember may sit in a pilot seat during non-critical phases of flight provided a qualified pilot occupies the other pilot seat. O.K. I've showed you mine, now show us yours. John, there is a major difference in being in a war zone and being given combat pay. Not for military personnel. In fact that is an almost immediate reaction - get the guys combat pay and income tax relief. There was none in Guam. Definitions: Definition of Combat Zone A combat zone is any area the President of the United States designates by Executive Order as an area in which the U.S. Armed Forces are engaging or have engaged in combat. Was Guam designated a combat zone? No. And you JUST showed mine. So exactly why are you arguing about what I said when you have right there in the regulations? Unfortunately standing tall, chin raised and speaking in authoritative tones is not proof of anything, except for arrogance perhaps. The fact is that some of the greatest con men in history have acted just that way. "I want to expand my comments just a little. Any veteran who entered the territorial waters, or air space of Viet-Nam, or served loading the planes which were deployed to Viet-Nam, or fired heavy guns inland Viet-nam is a Viet-Nam veteran and not an ERA veteran." And nope you are wrong. The people stationed in Thailand loading the F-105's with those humongous big anti-radar missiles were not considered by the U.S.A.F., the Defense Depart, or the U.S. government as serving in a war zone. And, again I was there and I was doing that, and you are wrong. It must be hell that the only way you can make yourself feel good is to degrade others. You, Frank and Jay really make a good team. The difference is that I was there and I did that and I've got the tee shirts (decorations) to prove it. What have you got? -- Cheers, John B. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Jobst
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:43:38 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 06:51:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 8:32:07 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 12:31:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 8:09:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:58:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Sat, 2 Sep 2017 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:19:29 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:59:42 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:26:36 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 7:32:43 PM UTC-7, John B.. wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:04:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:52:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:45:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:35:31 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On 8/28/2017 11:43 AM, wrote: Every war since WW I was gone into from a Democrat President while the Democrat party has been accusing Republicans of being war mongers. Hmm. Many of the wars the US was involved in were the reuslts of treaty obligations and critical US interests, the roots of whihc typically predated the president in office at the time (whether Republican or Democrat) the shooting started. Just to pick a few that started shooting under Republican presidents post WW 1: The Lebanon Crisis (Eisenhower), Lebanese Civil War (Reagan), invasion of Grenada (Reagan), bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon- Reagan), Operations Earnest Will/Prime Chance in the Persian Gulf (Reagan), invasion of Panama (GHW Bush), the Gulf War (GHW Bush), inervention in the Somali civil war (GHW Bush), the war in Afghanistan (GW Bush), the Iraq War (GW Bush), the war in North-west Pakistan (GW Bush). That list is not fully comprehensive of all the operations as some are (Desert Storm, Desert Shield, etc.) are under the larger umbrella conflicts mentioned above. There were also conflicts that started under Democratic presidents, but Tom didn't declare that those didn't happen so I don't need to enumerate them. Eisenhower under treaty with France supplied military advisers to French Indochina as Vietnam was called then. Kennedy decided that America would be much better off with a war instead of looking on. You got it wrong again. In about 1950 the U.S. formed a so called Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) which managed the supply of some 10 million dollars in military equipment to support the French efforts in Vietnam. MAAG, by the way is simply a term used to denote a group which liaises with another government's military, that may or may not include advisers. As part of this "assistance" the U.S. loaned, lend leased, whatever you call it, some B-26 aircraft and supplied maintenance crews and parts for the airplanes, which were stationed at Saigon's airport. these aircraft were flown by French flight crews. In addition I believe there were a number of transport aircraft airplanes. As far as I know, from friends who were assigned to the B-26 group and went to Vietnam there were no so called military advisors. U.S.A.F. people maintained the airplanes and the French flew them. Since I got that directly from the New York Times you'll have to explain it to them. If you post a site for the article I would be happy to critique it :-) I did a bit more reading and the only mention I can find of U.S. participation prior to 1954 was the use of U.S. aircraft and supply of military supplies. The U.S. Navy assisted to the extent of delivering aircraft to the French and in 1954 they assisted the French Navy in Operation Passage to Freedom, the transportation of N. Vietnamese who wished to leave the Communist North to go to the South. But maintenance crews can hardly be called combat troops would it? I never felt I was in the war until I was being shot at. What do you suppose that service cross was for? What "service cross"? the USAF Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded for: Who distinguishes himself or herself in support of operations by "heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent to November 11, 1918" I don't remember a damn thing about it but I'm told that all those who served in a combat zone received a service cross. I was even shown a ribbon that would normally go on your uniform. Nope. If you served in a combat area you received a "service medal" to indicate that you had served in the theater, but that wasn't considered a "decoration", i.e., something that you got for actually doing something. It was more of "I was there, and here's the tee shirt" sort of thing. You'll have to explain that to the Air Force since I wasn't qualified for it until I went on an actual combat mission. The maintenance people that sat on Guam didn't. It ****ed off the two sargeants that volunteered to go there in order to gain points for being promoted. Not that it made any difference to me since I wasn't going to be promoted anyway. I think that you are going to be a great deal more specific here. Being stationed on Guam is not being stationed in Vietnam, thus no Vietnam Service Medal. If, on the other hand you participated in "combat" in Vietnam air space then you did qualify. I'm a bit curious about the two Sergeants who thought that by going to Guam they somehow earned promotion "points" for just being there as that certainly wasn't known to the people from Barksdale when "we" went to Guam for Arc Light. (I say "we" as my shop chief was having "wife problems" and volunteered to go and I stayed home to mind the store.) Firstly Guam was considered a war zone. Secondly I flew on bombing missions four times including the time we almost were hit by a SAM. To the best of my knowledge Guam was not considered a "war zone" during the Vietnam era. I might add that I was in the Air Force at the time and had a number of friends and fellow workers that served on Guam in support of the B-52's. None of them ever reported that they received any tax reduction, or other form of combat pay, for serving in a war zone. Nor did any of them wear a Vietnam ribbon on their Class A's. In fact people a lot closer to the guns, specifically Thailand, were not considered to be serving in a war zone. I had people, permanently assigned to a unit in Vietnam but working temporally in Thailand that were only paid combat pay and got the tax break if they physically were in Vietnam for at least one day during the month. I even flew the B52 when the AC had to take a leak and stretch. AF regs say that you have to have both seats filled when live bombs are on-board. That claim is simply ridiculous as the Air Force flew and probably still fly's quite a number of bomb loaded aircraft with only one pilot aboard. I don't suggest that you were not told that as, if I understand your posts correctly, you were some sort of civilian employee or employee of a contractor. In Air Force terms a "feather merchant" and normally view with considerable disdain. In some cases total disdain. I remember once being assured, by a Feather Merchant, that a certain job was "Impossible to do!". After it had been accomplished :-) We were told specifically that Guam was considered a war zone. In any case since I was in direct combat there isn't any question of that. I don't know who told you or why but I can say that the USAF did not, or was not allowed to, consider Guam as a war zone. No combat pay or income tax allowances were given to USAF troops stationed there, unless those troops visited a "war zone". And there was NO case that a B52 could be flown with a single pilot with live bombs on board. Please don't invent your beliefs as you go along. They didn't put me in the AC seat for fun. Your beliefs, or fantasies, are ridiculous. The B-52H carried a crew of five - Aircraft Commander, pilot, Radar Navigator (Bombardier), Navigator, and Electronic Warfare Officer. The B-52D (which I think was the other version flying from Guam) had an additional crew member, an enlisted gunner, I believe. Now which one got out of his or her seat to sit in the A.C.'s seat while he got up to pee, when you weren't there? More to the point, I researched a USAF document: AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202, VOLUME 3 AIR COMBAT COMMAND Flying Operations GENERAL FLIGHT RULES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY which states in part: Chapter 5 GENERAL FLIGHT RULES 5.3. Crew at Stations. Crewmembers must occupy their assigned duty stations from takeoff to landing, unless absence is normal in the performance of crew duties, or in connection with physiological needs. Pilots shall not leave their duty station unless another qualified pilot establishes control of the aircraft. (Note the plural here "pilots" "their" ) 5.3. (ACC)Crew at their Stations. During non-critical phases of flight, crewmembers may be absent from their duty stations in the performance of crew duties or in connection with physiological needs... Any crewmember may sit in a pilot seat during non-critical phases of flight provided a qualified pilot occupies the other pilot seat. O.K. I've showed you mine, now show us yours. John, there is a major difference in being in a war zone and being given combat pay. Not for military personnel. In fact that is an almost immediate reaction - get the guys combat pay and income tax relief. There was none in Guam. Definitions: Definition of Combat Zone A combat zone is any area the President of the United States designates by Executive Order as an area in which the U.S. Armed Forces are engaging or have engaged in combat. Was Guam designated a combat zone? No. And you JUST showed mine. So exactly why are you arguing about what I said when you have right there in the regulations? Unfortunately standing tall, chin raised and speaking in authoritative tones is not proof of anything, except for arrogance perhaps. The fact is that some of the greatest con men in history have acted just that way. "I want to expand my comments just a little. Any veteran who entered the territorial waters, or air space of Viet-Nam, or served loading the planes which were deployed to Viet-Nam, or fired heavy guns inland Viet-nam is a Viet-Nam veteran and not an ERA veteran." And nope you are wrong. The people stationed in Thailand loading the F-105's with those humongous big anti-radar missiles were not considered by the U.S.A.F., the Defense Depart, or the U.S. government as serving in a war zone. And, again I was there and I was doing that, and you are wrong. It must be hell that the only way you can make yourself feel good is to degrade others. You, Frank and Jay really make a good team. The difference is that I was there and I did that and I've got the tee shirts (decorations) to prove it. What have you got? John, I simply don't believe anything from you anymore. I was there and I was told before I left that Guam was considered a war zone and after I got back I received some sort of combat ribbon. That was just a written order authorizing it and I wasn't going to pay money for it and so didn't buy it. Your bull**** about a B52 not requiring two pilots at all times ain't flying either. I wasn't called up to sit in the AC seat because it seemed like a good idea at the time. So as far as I'm concerned you're suffering from advancing Alzheimer's or dementia. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jobst | Phil H | Techniques | 83 | July 13th 11 12:53 AM |
Is jobst gone? | Crescentius Vespasianus | Techniques | 7 | June 23rd 11 12:08 AM |
Jobst | Brad Anders | Racing | 20 | January 19th 11 05:31 PM |
Jobst | TriGuru55x11 | Rides | 1 | January 19th 11 01:13 PM |