Military Experience

[Jimbo07]

It has come up time-and-again, in the U.S. elections especially, that military experience is a qualification for a war president. This confuses me. Someone can be career military, maybe even brave, yet still not be capable of leading a horse to water, much less a regiment or dare I say a country! This relates to the McCain commercial thread and my thread on leadership.

I contend that military experience alone is not a particularly useful measure of a presidential candidate's qualifications, wartime or otherwise.

Discuss.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It is only an issue among the stupid.

[joobz]

Military service really only helps if you are democrat and you want to shake off the label of being a miltary-hating hippie peacenik panty-waste.

That was why the swiftboat thing was such a effective move against Kerry. It gave conservatives a reason (regardless of how valid) to label Kerry a miltary-hating hippie peacenik panty-waste. The fact that Bush never served was largely considered unimportant.


I do not think McCain's service will mean much in terms of validating his abilities as a war president. I think the only thing his service helps with is it gives many conservatives a reason to respect him when, in the past, they were used to labeling him as a middle of the road, wishy-washy, fake-republican.

ETA: This post's sole purpose was to use the phrase miltary-hating hippie peacenik panty-waste twice.. (Well, now three times).

[DoubtingStephen]

When I hear this sort of comment I'm forced to wonder whether dropping bombs or having bombs dropped on oneself provides the better qualification.

Which experience would provide the kind of first-hand knowledge we want a President to have?

The late Kurt Vonnegut survived quite a few bombs, I thought the experience gave him very valuable insights into the practical and ethical value of killing people you can not see.

Had Kurt Vonnegut run for President I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.

[Jimbo07]

Military service really only helps if you are democrat and you want to shake off the label of being a miltary-hating hippie peacenik panty-waste.

A person can have been in the military and still hate it. Similarly, there are many who have not been and seem to love the idea of a rootin'-tootin'-shootin' good time!

BTW, I thought it was panty-waist... :confused:

[dirtywick]

Depends a lot on the rank. In John McCain's case, I seriously doubt anyone could make O6 without picking up a few things about command. I wouldn't be so quick to discount his service in this case.

It's panty waist, because that's where panties go.

[joobz]

yes it is panty-waist. But panty-waste conjures up much more disturbing imagery, and so I shall leave it.

[Sefarst]

It has come up time-and-again, in the U.S. elections especially, that military experience is a qualification for a war president. This confuses me. Someone can be career military, maybe even brave, yet still not be capable of leading a horse to water, much less a regiment or dare I say a country! This relates to the McCain commercial thread and my thread on leadership.

I contend that military experience alone is not a particularly useful measure of a presidential candidate's qualifications, wartime or otherwise.

Discuss.
Alone, I would say not. I would certainly argue, however, that it is a plus. It allows the decision-maker to better understand the gravity of his decisions. IMO, for Bush the war is a lot of numbers on paper, hence why I think he had the ability to be so cavalier about it for so long. I posted a Slate article a while back that I can find again, if anyone is interested, that demonstrates the idea pretty well. In it, McCain directly criticizes Bush's handling of the war, saying that the President doesn't question enough, doesn't get personally involved enough, that he just asks the generals if they have everything they need, the generals say "yes," and Bush says "okay, keep up the good work." Bush also seems to have much more romanticized notions of war than perhaps he should. I think we would benefit greatly from having a president who knows the horrors of war and has the personal experience to follow the inner workings of the military, strategy, etc.

[BeAChooser]

The fact that Bush never served was largely considered unimportant.

This is false. Or don't you considering being in the National Guard service? I'm sure a great many of those in Iraq would be surprised to hear you say that. And by the way, Bush flew one of the most dangerous planes to fly in US inventories at the time.

[Jimbo07]

Depends a lot on the rank.

Yes and no... in any aspect of life, people tend to rise to their own level of incompetence...

[joobz]

This is false. Or don't you considering being in the National Guard service? I'm sure a great many of those in Iraq would be surprised to hear you say that. And by the way, Bush flew one of the most dangerous planes to fly in US inventories at the time.
Sorry for the poor wording. I was referring to the fact that he never served in active duty. You know, actually being in combat during Vietnam. Both Kerry and McCain had.

Also, I do not know what relevance Bush's flying a plane in non-combat settings has to do with anything.

[Jimbo07]

Also, I do not know what relevance Bush's flying a plane in non-combat settings has to do with anything.

I suppose there's the idea that it does take some marginal competence to operate heavy machinery. Operators of expensive military vehicles (ships, planes, etc.) often have to make rapid decisions with multiple sensory inputs in limited time, even during peacetime.

I would trust a fighter pilot to be a leader over a hairstylist, sight unseen, but you never know the talents hidden in an individual. It's the same sort of way that some employers hire people with degrees, even though a degree is not any sort of guarantee of intelligence. That said, sight unseen, I would trust a highly-educated, well-spoken lawyer to competently lead as a politician, over a fighter pilot, any day!

[Daylight]

And by the way, Bush flew one of the most dangerous planes to fly in US inventories at the time.

Not a true statement. Not sure where you got your info but it is false.

The early pre-production YF-102's flown in 1953 were dangerous.

But the 1970 late production F-102A Bush flew with area ruled fuselage extension, redesigned wing, taller tail, new gear oleo's and aerodynamic fairings was not. It had an excellent safety record in Vienam.

Thank you for trying though. ;)

[BeAChooser]

I do not know what relevance Bush's flying a plane in non-combat settings has to do with anything.

You seem to forget there was a cold war on at the time, with Soviet bombers testing US defenses periodically. The Soviet bomber fleet threatened both military and civilian targets here in the US with nuclear destruction. The Air National Guard was the shield protecting us from that threat. Air National Guard aircraft were armed. Those weren't treated like peacetime missions. They were war time. A cold war.

And like I said, the aircraft that Bush learned to fly on such air defense missions was considered one of the more dangerous to fly at the time. Many pilots lost their lives on those missions. So it wasn't necessarily a coward's way out of combat. Plus, at the time Bush began his training, individuals, in the unit that Bush was a member, were flying that type aircraft in combat in Vietnam. And at some point Bush apparently volunteered for that duty. But was turned down because by that time the F102 was being phased out of Vietnam to be replaced by newer aircraft.

Also, just to set the record straight ... Kerry's service seemed to have involve a lot of effort aimed at trying to get out of Vietnam by concocting and submitting purple heart requests. And note that Kerry, unlike Bush, was a trained pilot before he even entered the service. He could have joined the "active" Air Force ... but then that might have put him in harm's way over Vietnam. Instead, he joined the Navy ... I think because he thought he'd be safe at sea since Vietnam had no navy or means to threaten ours. Furthermore, the Boston Globe quoted him saying "`It was clear to me that I was going to be at risk. My draft board . . . said, `Look, the likelihood is you are probably going to be drafted.' I said, `If I'm going to be drafted, I'd like to have responsibility and be an officer.''' He then joined only after he asked for permission to study a year in Paris and the draft board refused.

Once he entered the Navy, he was assigned to a guided missile frigate. He asked for assignment to Swift boats later ... perhaps because he thought it would be John Kennedyesk and be a good photo opportunity for those political ads he'd eventually be starring in (he says his lifetime ambition was to be President). At the time he joined the Swift Boats, they were not operating on the rivers of Vietnam. In his own 1986 book he wrote: "I didn't really want to get involved in the war. (BAC - that's no surprise since he protested the war while in college) When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." And according to several accounts, he was vocally unhappy when before he arrived in Vietnam, in his own words, "they changed the policy on the use of the boats - decided to send them up the river to prove to the Vietcong that they didn't own the waters."

[joobz]

You seem to forget there was a cold war on at the time, with Soviet bombers testing US defenses periodically. The Soviet bomber fleet threatened both military and civilian targets here in the US with nuclear destruction. The Air National Guard was the shield protecting us from that threat. Air National Guard aircraft were armed. Those weren't treated like peacetime missions. They were war time. A cold war.

And like I said, the aircraft that Bush learned to fly on such air defense missions was considered one of the more dangerous to fly at the time. Many pilots lost their lives on those missions. So it wasn't necessarily a coward's way out of combat. Plus, at the time Bush began his training, individuals, in the unit that Bush was a member, were flying that type aircraft in combat in Vietnam. And at some point Bush apparently volunteered for that duty. But was turned down because by that time the F102 was being phased out of Vietnam to be replaced by newer aircraft.

Also, just to set the record straight ... Kerry's service seemed to have involve a lot of effort aimed at trying to get out of Vietnam by concocting and submitting purple heart requests. And note that Kerry, unlike Bush, was a trained pilot before he even entered the service. He could have joined the "active" Air Force ... but then that might have put him in harm's way over Vietnam. Instead, he joined the Navy ... I think because he thought he'd be safe at sea since Vietnam had no navy or means to threaten ours. Furthermore, the Boston Globe quoted him saying "`It was clear to me that I was going to be at risk. My draft board . . . said, `Look, the likelihood is you are probably going to be drafted.' I said, `If I'm going to be drafted, I'd like to have responsibility and be an officer.''' He then joined only after he asked for permission to study a year in Paris and the draft board refused.

Once he entered the Navy, he was assigned to a guided missile frigate. He asked for assignment to Swift boats later ... perhaps because he thought it would be John Kennedyesk and be a good photo opportunity for those political ads he'd eventually be starring in (he says his lifetime ambition was to be President). At the time he joined the Swift Boats, they were not operating on the rivers of Vietnam. In his own 1986 book he wrote: "I didn't really want to get involved in the war. (BAC - that's no surprise since he protested the war while in college) When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." And according to several accounts, he was vocally unhappy when before he arrived in Vietnam, in his own words, "they changed the policy on the use of the boats - decided to send them up the river to prove to the Vietcong that they didn't own the waters."
Your ability to selectively present reality to suite a chosen bias is quite amusing.

FACTS:
Kerry saw combat in Vietnam.
Bush didn't.


What part of this is hard for you to understand?

[Jimbo07]

FACTS:
Kerry saw combat in Vietnam.
Bush didn't.


What part of this is hard for you to understand?

And, according to my OP... what does it matter?

[plumjam]

Such a militaristic culture, the USA. Shame, really.

The fact that someone went to the other side of the World to kill a load of people they didn't know, and often not knowing why... well, that shouldn't be any kind of advantage in an election.
To me it just exhibits a certain degree of susceptibility to thought-control, or gullibility, if you prefer.

Vote for me instead. :p

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And by the way, Bush flew one of the most dangerous planes to fly in US inventories at the time.

Not a true statement. Not sure where you got your info but it is false.

The early pre-production YF-102's flown in 1953 were dangerous.

But the 1970 late production F-102A Bush flew with area ruled fuselage extension, redesigned wing, taller tail, new gear oleo's and aerodynamic fairings was not. It had an excellent safety record in Vienam.

You sure?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml " According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, and the rate was especially high during the early years of the plane's service. ... snip ... Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."

Nice try though. :)

[joobz]

And, according to my OP... what does it matter?
It doesn't. I agree.

No matter what a liberal does, conservatives will label that person a military-hating, hippie peacenik panty-waste(waist). BeAChooser helped demonstrate that.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The fact that someone went to the other side of the World to kill a load of people they didn't know, and often not knowing why... well, that shouldn't be any kind of advantage in an election.

To me it just exhibits a certain degree of susceptibility to thought-control, or gullibility, if you prefer.


I'm not sure to what extent you're being facetious here, so if you were, I apologize in advance. But your comment above is ignorant, to say the least. It's one thing to say that military experience shouldn't give an advantage in an election (and I agree with that). It is quite another to suggest that serving in the military is indicative of gullibility. Many of us on the board have served in the military and we neither have a "susceptibility to though-control" nor are we gullible. Arguably, the leadership training experience you get in the military is some of the best you can get anywhere -- and that includes quite a bit of critical thinking, analysis, and the ability to think independently. There are many other excellent sources of leadership training as well -- but the military is a very high quality one.

As for the OP, I agree. Military experience by itself doesn't prove much, one way or the other. One could be an excellent, even heroic Soldier but not a great leader. One could be a great military leader but a terrible civilian leader. And so on.

As others have mentioned, I think a lot of the emphasis is on the idea that, since the President is the Commander-In-Chief and making decisions about deploying troops and going to war, it is good for him/her to have military experience to color that decision-making. On the other hand, there is a reason we specifically have a civilian as the Commander-In-Chief.

[BeAChooser]

No matter what a liberal does, conservatives will label that person a military-hating, hippie peacenik panty-waste(waist). BeAChooser helped demonstrate that.

I didn't use those terms anywhere in this thread. In fact, I haven't even used the worlds "hippie", "peacenik", "panty-waste(waist)" on any thread.

But now that you mention it ... maybe that's an apt description of Kerry (the man democrats recently tried to make President) and his friends.

Here's the book he wrote:

http://ejsmithweb.com/fr/newsoldier/New-Soldier-Inro/Chapter.aspx

And here's a photo of him with some of his friends:

http://611.mystarband.net/images/protest.jpg

Of the two in front, one defended Saddam recently and the other lied about serving in Vietnam (because he didn't). :D

[joobz]

Nice post, Rubber chicken. I fully agree.

I will say that I do not think Plumjam meant any disrespect with his comment. Plumjam likes to joke arround, it's one of his admirable traits.

BTW, whereabouts in Kentucky are you?

[fuelair]

Military service really only helps if you are democrat and you want to shake off the label of being a miltary-hating hippie peacenik panty-waste.

That was why the swiftboat thing was such a effective move against Kerry. It gave conservatives a reason (regardless of how valid) to label Kerry a miltary-hating hippie peacenik panty-waste. The fact that Bush never served was largely considered unimportant.


I do not think McCain's service will mean much in terms of validating his abilities as a war president. I think the only thing his service helps with is it gives many conservatives a reason to respect him when, in the past, they were used to labeling him as a middle of the road, wishy-washy, fake-republican.

ETA: This post's sole purpose was to use the phrase miltary-hating hippie peacenik panty-waste twice.. (Well, now three times).
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pantywaist

[Jimbo07]

"susceptibility to though-control" nor are we gullible.

I'd assume that those of us who both served in the military and are advocates of the proper application of the scientific method would be deemed by PJ to be gullible and susceptible to thought-control...

;)

[Daylight]

You sure?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml " According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, and the rate was especially high during the early years of the plane's service. ... snip ... Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."

Nice try though. :)

Yep I'm sure.

See you are comparing apples to oranges early 1950's designed aircraft vs early 1970's designed aircraft. Also, I posted about in Vietnam where he would have flown. Not the overall safety record. Remember with the F-102A the early blocks were updated quite a bit compared to the 1970's era F-102.

So here's some homework for you. Look up the safety record for other 50's designed fighters. I think you'll be shocked at the F-8's safety record. ;)

BTW, the 1953-1970 time frame was an interesting era for trans/supersonic aerodynamics.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Nice post, Rubber chicken. I fully agree.

I will say that I do not think Plumjam meant any disrespect with his comment. Plumjam likes to joke arround, it's one of his admirable traits.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if he was being facetious or not (as I noted in the beginning). I don't think we've had the pleasure of crossing paths before, and as always, sarcasm can get lost in posts ;) But no biggy.


BTW, whereabouts in Kentucky are you?

Louisville. Been here about 8 months. Nice city.

[ravdin]

Military service really only helps if you are democrat and you want to shake off the label of being a miltary-hating hippie peacenik panty-waste.

That's not what the record shows. Bill Clinton is a draft dodger and he beat two World War II veterans. Al Gore and John Kerry are both Vietnam vets and both lost to a GOP draft dodger.

[plumjam]

I'm not sure to what extent you're being facetious here, so if you were, I apologize in advance. But your comment above is ignorant, to say the least. It's one thing to say that military experience shouldn't give an advantage in an election (and I agree with that). It is quite another to suggest that serving in the military is indicative of gullibility. Many of us on the board have served in the military and we neither have a "susceptibility to though-control" nor are we gullible. Arguably, the leadership training experience you get in the military is some of the best you can get anywhere -- and that includes quite a bit of critical thinking, analysis, and the ability to think independently. There are many other excellent sources of leadership training as well -- but the military is a very high quality one.

I do like to joke around, but I was pretty much serious in the point I made. By joining the military (in any country) you are effectively surrendering a large degree of your moral autonomy. If the military to which you sign up to is directed by people (politicians) of impeccable morality, then you may just get away with it. This, unfortunately, is almost never the case.
Thus military personnel willingly (if not always wittingly) put themselves in the position of implementing the immoral actions of their "superiors". This is just as true in the US or UK army as it was in the German army in WWII... the latter of which it was never subsequently accepted as a saving argument that "I vos just following ze orders."

So, yes. Joining any (real world) military organisation is, from a moral point of view, an act of gullibility and susceptibility to thought-control.
In some cases this can be rescued by subsequent conscientious objection, desertion, disobedience and the like.

Sieg Heil !

[BeAChooser]

Yep I'm sure.

Let me repeat, since you obviously missed this:

"Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."

:)

[BeAChooser]

Al Gore and John Kerry are both Vietnam vets and both lost to a GOP draft dodger.

I believe I proved that if Bush was a "draft dodger", Kerry was too. :)

[BeAChooser]

By joining the military (in any country) you are effectively surrendering a large degree of your moral autonomy.

Yet at the same time, you may be demonstrating a higher degree of morality and sense of responsibility. Ironic, isn't it? :)

[Daylight]

Let me repeat, since you obviously missed this:

"Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."

:)

Oh I saw it.

That's why I gave you the homework assignment to educate yourself. You also might want to compare the the different decades and note how the 102 design evolved, from a safety point of view. :)

[kallsop]

If a person rises to a senior position in the military, that shows leadership. Is success there a good predictor of how that person will work with Congress and govern a nation? No. Obviously you need to be a half first term US Senator to be a good candidate for the highest office :)

[Jimbo07]

If a person rises to a senior position in the military, that shows leadership. Is success there a good predictor of how that person will work with Congress and govern a nation? No. Obviously you need to be a half first term US Senator to be a good candidate for the highest office :)

What is a senior position? Flag Rank? Colonel? Major (technically a 'senior' officer)?

There are matters of public record in which individuals holding these ranks have made mind-numbling poor choices...

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I do like to joke around, but I was pretty much serious in the point I made. By joining the military (in any country) you are effectively surrendering a large degree of your moral autonomy. If the military to which you sign up to is directed by people (politicians) of impeccable morality, then you may just get away with it. This, unfortunately, is almost never the case.

That argument is silly and smacks of the ignorant "military people are just taking orders!" stereotypes I've heard a thousand times. I could make this same argument about joining a company, or working in any government position, being a police officer, and so forth. Heck, I could make the same argument about living in a democracy, in which you are agreeing to accept decisions (laws) that you might not agree with. Referring to "moral" autonomy is a cop out. No organizations are run on "morality." Organizations are run on the basis of the laws of our society and on the specific rules of that organization. You no more lose "moral" autonomy when you join the military than when you join any other organization. If you, at some point, decide that your "morality" is superior to the laws, you face the consequences of that -- just as you would anywhere.


Thus military personnel willingly (if not always wittingly) put themselves in the position of implementing the immoral actions of their "superiors". This is just as true in the US or UK army as it was in the German army in WWII... the latter of which it was never subsequently accepted as a saving argument that "I vos just following ze orders."

A Nazi reference, how clever. Contrary to what you seem to think, most modern militaries are regulated by rule of law, which includes the duty to disobey any unlawful order. Does it take some courage to disobey a superior? Yes. It also takes courage to be a corporate whistleblower or to accuse a powerful figure of corruption. The funny thing is, you hit on the point in your last sentence. "Just following orders" is not an accepted "saving argument" -- in the military, or anywhere else. If you "just follow orders" and do something that violates the law, you are culpable. I won't attempt to speak for any other country, but at least in the U.S., military ethics, laws of warfare, and the duty to disobey unlawful orders are topics that are covered in quite a bit of detail.


So, yes. Joining any (real world) military organisation is, from a moral point of view, an act of gullibility and susceptibility to thought-control.
In some cases this can be rescued by subsequent conscientious objection, desertion, disobedience and the like.

There is no organization anywhere that can deprive a person of "moral autonomy." I am well aware of the nuances and ethical and "moral" problems of warfare as well as how the military fits into our particular system of government, and what it means to join the military. I didn't check my "morality" at the door when I joined.


Sieg Heil !

Classy.

[corplinx]

Bush doesn't have any military experience (his guard service or lack thereof is well documented) and look at the job he did. Clinton didn't either and to refresh you memory we had Al Shifa, yet another Haiti intervention that didn't fix the place, 8 years of military operations in Iraq, a surrender in Somalia, intervention in Kosovo (where we still have a presence) on his watch.

Can we afford yet another president who doesn't understand the military?

It seems to me that people who want to gloss over Obama's lack of credentials are the first to forget that the military presidential records of Bush and Clinton are dismal failures (even if they weren't personally their faults, the results are not good).

[BeAChooser]

Yep I'm sure.

Here's a cite that lists what happened to 655 of the 889 planes that were produced (220 list no info):

http://www.geocities.com/forgottenjets/F-102A.html

Now here are the crashes in that list:

7/20/1960: Crashed after a severe compressor stall 25 miles from Ramstein AB, West Germany.

8/22/1960: Crashed due to control problems in France. Pilot was killed.

4/26/1979: Crashed in Turkey.

6/5/1979: Crashed at Murted AB, Turkey.

7/18/1977: Crashed during a night flight near Eskisehir AB, Turkey. Pilot was killed.

4/30/1964: Crashed after a flame-out.

7/23/1974: Crashed after take-off from Balikesir AB, Turkey. Pilot was killed.

1/24/1964: Crashed after an engine flame-out 50 miles from Hahn AB, West Germany.

11/15/1969: Crashed after an engine flame-out into the Pacific Ocean 1/2 mile south of Barbers Point, Oahu, Hawaii.

4/2/1967: Crash landed after a flameout near Tan Son Nhut AB, South Vietnam.

7/19/1976: Crashed in Turkey.

4/7/1978: Crashed at Kizilcahamam AB, Turkey.

12/10/1966: Crashed after an uncontrollable spin.

2/27/1976: Crashed at Sariyar, Turkey.

8/29/1967: Crashed while landing.

5/31/1976: Crashed at Murted AB, Turkey.

7/22/1974: Crashed while attempting to land after running out of fuel on a road near Soke, Turkey.

8/4/1977: Crashed at Sogut AB, Turkey.

9/28/1973: Crashed at Murted AB, Turkey.

6/24/1969: Crashed due to an inflight fire.

3/21/1967: Crashed into the Pacific Ocean after an engine flame-out 1 mile west of Honolulu APT, HI.

5/20/1967: Crashed after an inflight fire.

4/12/1968: Crashed after a compressor stall while landing.

7/17/1968: Crashed after an engine failure near Bein Hoa AB, South Veitnam.

11/2/1962: Crashed after loosing altitude during heavy fog in Holland.

10/21/1969: Crashed due to an inflight fire.

2/25/1957: Crashed near Tenino, WA.

3/23/1971: Crashed after a flame-out.

6/21/1963: Crashed into the Pacific Ocean 50 miles southeast of Kokohead, Oahu, HI. Pilot was killed.

12/12/1963: Crashed after an engine flame-out 50 miles north-northwest of Zaragoza AB, Spain.

1/12/1961: Crashed on landing. Pilot was killed.

9/25/1961: Crashed on a night training mission near Zevenhoven, Holland.

1/7/1964: Crashed into the Pacific Ocean near Honolulu APT, HI. Pilot was killed.

2/16/1967: Crashed 9 miles northeast of Hahn AB, West Germany.

6/18/1961: Crashed after a hydraulic system failure 5 miles from Hahn AB, West Germany.

3/10/1971: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1095.

12/14/1965: Crashed 12 miles from Bernkastel, West Germany.

8/21/1966: Crashed after an engine flame-out.

3/20/1972: Crashed on landing.

5/24/1957: Crashed near Fort Lewis, WA. The pilot was killed.

5/17/1966: Crashed 5 miles southeast of Pforzheim, West Germany.

3/10/1971: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1065.

9/24/1970: Crashed after landing and burned.

8/20/1964: Crashed.

10/18/1964: Crashed after an inflight fire near Bitburg AB, West Germany.

11/27/1964: Crashed after an engine failure near Bien Hoa AB, South Vietnam.

5/13/1966: Crashed while landing at Spangdahlem AB, West Germany.

6/15/1973: Crashed on landing.

3/5/1968: Crashed after striking a house 1 mile southeast of Bobesheim, West Germany.

3/5/1963: Crashed near Illesheim Army Airfield, West Germany.

7/14/1969: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1263 near Ingweiler, France.

1/6/1961: Crashed 5 miles from Toul-Rossieres AB, France.

11/26/1960: Destroyed in a take-off accident at Bitburg AB, West Germany.

3/24/1970: Crashed in the Gulf of Mexico. Pilot was killed.

12/27/1967: Crashed in Alaska

6/4/1963: Crashed at Keesler AFB, MS.

9/14/1961: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1311 near Keesler AFB, MS.

2/4/1961: Crashed on take-off.

9/14/1961: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1307 near Keesler AFB, MS.

9/20/1966: Crashed after engine exploded inflight.

1/22/1973: Crashed into the Atlantic Ocean 17 miles from Keflavik AB, Iceland.

2/8/1964: Crashed into Crystal Peak, south of Port Angeles, WA. Pilot was killed.

10/11/1965: Crashed in the ocean. Pilot was killed.

3/16/1963: Crashed after an inflight fire.

post 1960 crashed after a mid-air collision over the Greenland Ice Cap.

12/1/1973: Crashed.

7/19/1965: Crashed after inflight engine failure.

11/10/1962: Disappeared while participating in a routine tactical evaluation flight out of Paine Field, WA. It was believed to have gone down somewhere in the southern Olympic Mountains. No trace of the F-102 or pilot has ever been found.

3/25/1968: Crashed after an engine failure 100 miles east of Keflavik AB, Iceland.

8/14/1964: Crashed after the engine seized up in flight.

9/15/1966: Crashed during a routine practice fly-by for a base open house at Keflavik AB, Iceland.

1/24/1964: Crashed after engine flamed-out 50 miles north-northeast of Hahn AB, West Germany.

1968: Damaged in a landing accident at Keflavik AB, Iceland and subsequently inactivated.

5/18/1967: Crashed after an inflight fire.

10/29/1962: Crashed after a flame-out on landing.

1/30/1976: Written-off after landing gear collapsed on a piloted landing at Crestview APT, FL.

5/31/1963: Crashed.

12/13/1962: Crashed at Goose Bay AB, Labrador.

11/3/1959: Crashed after hitting a towed target inflight. Pilot was killed.

8/21/1968: Crashed after exploding in flight.

2/23/1963: Crashed after exploding in flight.

9/29/1959: Crashed due to an electrical failure 50 miles east of Burlington, VT.

12/5/1972: Crashed after colliding with C-130 64-558 during a night training mission. Pilot was killed.

11/10/1967: Crashed after pilot became disoriented.

6/24/1971: Crashed after a flame-out.

1/24/1974: Crashed after a compressor stall.

1/28/1965: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1433.

Now Bush enlisted in 1968 and flew till 1972. Looking at the above list, we see there were 4 crashes in the 50's, 31 in the first half of 60's, 35 crashes shortly before and during Bush's service period, and 18 crashes thereafter. I fail to see the pattern you claim indicating that the plane was *really* safe during or after Bush's service. :D

[joobz]

Here's a cite that lists what happened to 655 of the 889 planes that were produced (220 list no info):

That's an interesting list. Although, it doesn't change the facts.
FACTS:
Kerry served and saw combat in Vietnam.
Bush didn't.

[Bikewer]

I have wondered about the correlation between "military service" conferring some sort of qualification to be Commander In-Chief as well.
I was in the army in the mid-60s. I was a medic in Germany and knocked around as part of an "alert" mechanized infantry outfit. We spent a lot of time in the field and shot a lot of blanks at "agressors".
Highest rank was E5.
Not much there to translate into Commander In-Chief creds...

McCain, war hero and all, was a pilot who was shot down and suffered dreadfully as a POW. As a combat pilot he might have had an inkling of strategy and "the big picture", but not necessarily. More likely combat pilots are told what they need to accomplish their particular mission and not much more, lest they be captured....

To my way of thinking, "Commander In Chief" implies a sound knowledge of not only strategy but the related aspects of diplomacy and so forth. Sure, the president and his cabinet (and hopefully congress) will decide on a goal to be accomplished, but then it's pretty much up to the generals and "war planners" to get the job done.

The president's military service would only be a qualification (to my way of thinking) if he were in a general officer's position; and one that was involved in war planning, strategy, or similar fields. (commander of a quartermaster unit would not be what I'm thinking of)

[Kestrel]

Bush doesn't have any military experience (his guard service or lack thereof is well documented) and look at the job he did. Clinton didn't either and to refresh you memory we had Al Shifa, yet another Haiti intervention that didn't fix the place, 8 years of military operations in Iraq, a surrender in Somalia, intervention in Kosovo (where we still have a presence) on his watch.

Can we afford yet another president who doesn't understand the military?

It seems to me that people who want to gloss over Obama's lack of credentials are the first to forget that the military presidential records of Bush and Clinton are dismal failures (even if they weren't personally their faults, the results are not good).

Actually Clinton's record in international affairs and use of military force should be held up as an example for future Presidents to follow. Calling his administration a dismal failure only shows you put partisan politics first.

[dirtywick]

The president's military service would only be a qualification (to my way of thinking) if he were in a general officer's position; and one that was involved in war planning, strategy, or similar fields. (commander of a quartermaster unit would not be what I'm thinking of)

McCain retired an O6.

[dirtywick]

Well anyway, an O6 typically is in command of a brigade, which is roughly 3500 people.

[BeAChooser]

Actually Clinton's record in international affairs and use of military force should be held up as an example for future Presidents to follow. Calling his administration a dismal failure only shows you put partisan politics first.

ROTFLOL!

International affairs? What was her name?

Use of military force? Kosovo was a travesty that Clinton used to put Chinagate on the back page of the papers.

[Daylight]

Here's a cite that lists what happened to 655 of the 889 planes that were produced (220 list no info):

http://www.geocities.com/forgottenjets/F-102A.html

Now here are the crashes in that list:

7/22/1974: Crashed while attempting to land after running out of fuel on a road near Soke, Turkey.

3/10/1971: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1095.

3/10/1971: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1065.

3/5/1968: Crashed after striking a house 1 mile southeast of Bobesheim, West Germany.

7/14/1969: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1263 near Ingweiler, France.

9/14/1961: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1311 near Keesler AFB, MS.

9/14/1961: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1307 near Keesler AFB, MS.

2/8/1964: Crashed into Crystal Peak, south of Port Angeles, WA. Pilot was killed.

post 1960 crashed after a mid-air collision over the Greenland Ice Cap.

11/3/1959: Crashed after hitting a towed target inflight. Pilot was killed.

12/5/1972: Crashed after colliding with C-130 64-558 during a night training mission. Pilot was killed.

11/10/1967: Crashed after pilot became disoriented.

1/28/1965: Crashed after a midair collision with 56-1433.

Are the above the result of an issue with the airframe? ;)

Of the ones listed in your original list which are safety issues and which are air/ground crew issues?

Now Bush enlisted in 1968 and flew till 1972. Looking at the above list, we see there were 4 crashes in the 50's, 31 in the first half of 60's, 35 crashes shortly before and during Bush's service period, and 18 crashes thereafter. I fail to see the pattern you claim indicating that the plane was *really* safe during or after Bush's service. :D

Unfortunately for the list used

This is a work in progress and any help would be appreciated. Information on these planes is rather difficult to locate online and this work will remain incomplete unless you the readers offer to help me. I will give due credit, of course, so feel free to pass along any information (nmdecke@hotmail.com) that you might have.


Also see above. So you need something more accurate to go by.

Ask yourself this. What made it an unsafe aircraft compared to others flying at the time? Stability issues? Controllability issues? CG moment issues? Faulty hardware? Hot dog pilots that went outside the envelope?

Then ask what changes the MFG/Airforce did to address these issues? And did they work?

Compare to the F-104 and F-8.

[corplinx]

Actually Clinton's record in international affairs and use of military force should be held up as an example for future Presidents to follow. Calling his administration a dismal failure only shows you put partisan politics first.

I didn't impugn his non-military foreign affairs policies. Nafta was a big success.

But yes, militarily he was a failure. Of the conflicts he presided over:
1. Somalia: cut and run
2. Haiti: invaded it, tried to nation build, failed
3. Bosnia 1995: Air strikes used to coerce two sides into talks
4. Bosnia 1999: We had to go back and invade, still have a presence
5. Al Shifa: A medicine plant is destroyed based on fault CIA intelligence, estimated thousands die from lack of medicine
6. Iraq: for the 8 years of the clinton administration we maintained a military presence in Iraq and maintained no-fly zones
7. Rwanda: do i even need to go there?

I don't think anyone here needs a refresher in Bush military history since were still in active operations in Afghanistan and peace keeping in Iraq.

[Travis]

When I hear this sort of comment I'm forced to wonder whether dropping bombs or having bombs dropped on oneself provides the better qualification.

Which experience would provide the kind of first-hand knowledge we want a President to have?

The late Kurt Vonnegut survived quite a few bombs, I thought the experience gave him very valuable insights into the practical and ethical value of killing people you can not see.

Had Kurt Vonnegut run for President I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.

I don't know, a President that is unstuck in time might not be a good idea...........oh shoot! There I go confusing fiction with reality again.

[Kestrel]

I didn't impugn his non-military foreign affairs policies. Nafta was a big success.

But yes, militarily he was a failure. Of the conflicts he presided over:
1. Somalia: cut and run
2. Haiti: invaded it, tried to nation build, failed
3. Bosnia 1995: Air strikes used to coerce two sides into talks
4. Bosnia 1999: We had to go back and invade, still have a presence
5. Al Shifa: A medicine plant is destroyed based on fault CIA intelligence, estimated thousands die from lack of medicine
6. Iraq: for the 8 years of the clinton administration we maintained a military presence in Iraq and maintained no-fly zones
7. Rwanda: do i even need to go there?

I don't think anyone here needs a refresher in Bush military history since were still in active operations in Afghanistan and peace keeping in Iraq.

Judging by your list, you are a rather dogmatic isolationist. The fact that we still have a presence in Bosnia is a disaster to you. It doesn't matter that it's only a few hundred troops as part of a NATO force, and that the operation was a success. You still listed it as a failure.

Your comments about Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan make your isolationist views even more clear.

Then you list Rwanda as if we should have intervened?

Can you explain what you consider the proper use of military force?

[corplinx]

Judging by your list, you are a rather dogmatic isolationist.

You got me. Everyone on this forum knows me to be a isolationist.

[Tricky]

You got me. Everyone on this forum knows me to be a isolationist.
Hardly. Most of them have you on "ignore".:p

[shuize]

The importance of military experience varies. In years where Democratic candidates have none, it is less important. Clinton's lack of military experience (as well as his unwillingness to register for the draft) was downplayed. When their candidates do, however, such as in Kerry's failed bid in the last time around, it is a central theme of the campaign. (John Kerry's corny "reporting for duty" line, etc.) Now that Obama is running against McCain, I'm sure it will become less important again.

[BeAChooser]

Are the above the result of an issue with the airframe? ;)

Of the ones listed in your original list which are safety issues and which are air/ground crew issues?

I didn't list irreparable damage that occurred on the ground except as a result of landing or takeoff. I didn't list aircraft lost to enemy fire. I also didn't include mid-air collisions (although one or two might have slipped into my list). But maybe I should have, since the danger in flying a particular aircraft is more than just a matter of a defect in the airframe. Some planes are just hard to fly and make pilot mistakes more likely. And no matter how you try to massage/spin that data, the conclusion is inescapable. There is not a trend toward fewer aircraft losses with later models of the aircraft as you claimed. In fact, the peak for when aircraft were being lost was in the period when Bush decided to join the ANG, trained to fly the F102 and then did fly the F102A. And the F102A was one of the most dangerous aircraft this country has flown.

This is a work in progress and any help would be appreciated.

I didn't hide the fact that the list is incomplete. But there is nothing to indicate that the 200 or so planes for which they found no data would have statistics any different than the 500 or so they did find data on. You are just spinning, Daylight ... just to avoid admitting that you were completely wrong in claiming that the version of the aircraft that Bush flew had a much better safety record than early versions. :D

[BeAChooser]

Clinton's lack of military experience (as well as his unwillingness to register for the draft) was downplayed.

It was more than mere unwillingness? Clinton wrote a letter at the time saying the "despised" the military. :)

[Texas]

Actually Clinton's record in international affairs and use of military force should be held up as an example for future Presidents to follow. Calling his administration a dismal failure only shows you put partisan politics first.
That's funny. One of the gripes about Bush is that he attacked a nation, without UN approval, that posed no danger to the US. However; Bill Clinton set the president for "preemptive" war when he attacked, without UN approval, Serbia and deposed it's president who later died during trial for war crimes. He also invaded and deposed another president in Haiti, and then tried and failed to depose another dictator in Somalia but surrendered after taking loses. So if that is the model for future presidents then GWB is only two thirds of the way there. He has yet to surrender in the face of losses.

[Daylight]

I didn't list irreparable damage that occurred on the ground except as a result of landing or takeoff. I didn't list aircraft lost to enemy fire. I also didn't include mid-air collisions (although one or two might have slipped into my list). But maybe I should have, since the danger in flying a particular aircraft is more than just a matter of a defect in the airframe. Some planes are just hard to fly and make pilot mistakes more likely. And no matter how you try to massage/spin that data, the conclusion is inescapable. There is not a trend toward fewer aircraft losses with later models of the aircraft as you claimed. In fact, the peak for when aircraft were being lost was in the period when Bush decided to join the ANG, trained to fly the F102 and then did fly the F102A. And the F102A was one of the most dangerous aircraft this country has flown.



I didn't hide the fact that the list is incomplete. But there is nothing to indicate that the 200 or so planes for which they found no data would have statistics any different than the 500 or so they did find data on. You are just spinning, Daylight ... just to avoid admitting that you were completely wrong in claiming that the version of the aircraft that Bush flew had a much better safety record than early versions. :D

Which was more dangerious to fly, the YF-102 or the 1970's updated F-102A? And do you know why?

How does the safety record compare to the F-104 and F-8? Were they more dangerous to fly?

[patnray]

While success in military commands may provide some measure of executive skills, I think military service also has a downside. I believe both Bush's and McCain's experience causes them to unquestionably accept the lie that terrorism is a problem that can be solved by military action. Thus they are unable to see how morally reprehensible it was to initiate a war against a country that was at best a remote threat, and kill thousands of innocent people, based on the unproven theory that it would make the world safer.

[Jimbo07]

I think military service also has a downside.

That's an interesting point. From the beginning, I've been merely questioning whether or not it is an asset.

Could military experience be a political liability? (It is in my country, but we're all panty-waists anyway! :D)

ETA: Not really, but Canadian culture doesn't have the same relationship with its military as the U.S. I should say that historically (and currently), militarily, body-for-body we give better than we get... we're just so darned small...

[Kestrel]

That's funny. One of the gripes about Bush is that he attacked a nation, without UN approval, that posed no danger to the US. However; Bill Clinton set the president for "preemptive" war when he attacked, without UN approval, Serbia and deposed it's president who later died during trial for war crimes.

Serbia did not pose a direct threat to the US, but it did pose a problem for our NATO allies. It wasn't Bill Clinton attacking, it was a NATO operation.

It also wasn't a precedent to anyone with a knowledge of history. Did Grenada pose a clear and present danger to the US when Ronald Reagan attacked in 1983?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

While success in military commands may provide some measure of executive skills, I think military service also has a downside. I believe both Bush's and McCain's experience causes them to unquestionably accept the lie that terrorism is a problem that can be solved by military action.

Aside from the fact that you labeling a valid debate a "lie," what does military experience have to do with that? There are many people in the military or with military experience who have a much more nuanced view of "solving" the problem of terrorism. Like me, for example. And I am pretty sure there are many, many people with with no military experience who think that the solution to terrorism is "bomb anything and everything in the Middle East."


Thus they are unable to see how morally reprehensible it was to initiate a war against a country that was at best a remote threat, and kill thousands of innocent people, based on the unproven theory that it would make the world safer.

This quote should go down as a textbook example of begging the question. In any event, speaking of "unproven theories," again, what does their military service have to do with whether or not they agree with the invasion of Iraq?

[patnray]

There are many in the military (and ex-military) who can see beyond the narrow military viewpoint, and I did not mean to demean them. I only stated that I think both Bush and McCain overestimate the ability of military action to solve these problems, and that this is probably because of their military experience.

And I stand by my claim that it is morally reprehensible to initiate a military campaign, in the absence of an immanent threat, based on unproven theories about making the world safer.

[patnray]

Aside from the fact that you labeling a valid debate a "lie," what does military experience have to do with that?
Give me one example where military action has caused any group to renounce terrorism as a method for advancing their goals?

Not an action to prevent or punish a terroist act, but one that caused a group that promotes terroism to change its policy...

[BeAChooser]

Serbia did not pose a direct threat to the US, but it did pose a problem for our NATO allies.

Iraq did pose a direct threat (through support of global terrorism) AND a problem for our Middle Eastern allies.

[BeAChooser]

I only stated that I think both Bush and McCain overestimate the ability of military action to solve these problems, and that this is probably because of their military experience.

Did Bill Clinton because of his lack of military experience? Why he even despised the military but used it multiple times (albeit mostly as a means of distracting the public from little matters like Chinagate). :)

[BeAChooser]

Give me one example where military action has caused any group to renounce terrorism as a method for advancing their goals?

Not an action to prevent or punish a terroist act, but one that caused a group that promotes terroism to change its policy...

Libya.

[patnray]

Did Bill Clinton because of his lack of military experience? Why he even despised the military but used it multiple times (albeit mostly as a means of distracting the public from little matters like Chinagate). :)

Clinton's use was far more limited than our invasion and occupation of Iraq. I was refering to the mindset that terrorism, as a global problem, can be solved militarily. I believe Clinton's military adventures were of a more limited scope (not that I agree they were always appropriate).

As for Libya, it is the Pot Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy to claim that Libya renounced terrorism because of our invasion of Iraq. Libya had backed away from support of terrorism long before the Iraq war because of international pressure and compelling domestic problems. While the Iraq war may have been the final catalyst for their formal renunciation of terrorism, it was not the only factor that brought them to a more civilised posture.

Iraq was, at best, an indirect threat.

[BeAChooser]

Clinton's use was far more limited than our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The US military fired nearly every conventionally armed cruise missile in the US inventory during the Kosovo conflict. We lost more aircraft to enemy action than we did in the Iraq invasion. We were preparing to invade.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/jul/18/balkans1 " The dramatic surrender by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic last month came only three days after Britain and the US finalised plans for a massive ground invasion of Kosovo - code-named B-Minus - to be launched in the first week of September. Britain had agreed to contribute the largest contingent of 50,000 troops to the 170,000-strong force - 'almost the entire British Army'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/sept99/airwar19.htm " From the start of the 78-day air war in the Balkans, President Clinton publicly ruled out a ground campaign. Nevertheless, secret preparations for an invasion of Kosovo were extensive, and progressed much further than has been previously disclosed. ... snip ... By mid-May, Clark had come up with a preliminary plan for an attack from the south by 175,000 troops, mostly through a single road from Albania. At the White House, it was called "the Wes plan." NATO charts called it the "B-Minus" option, reflecting its position on a hypothetical scale that began with an all-out invasion of Belgrade."

The only reason we didn't is because war planners were telling Clinton to expect tens of thousands of body bags and given the state of the Serb army in Kosovo as witnessed during its withdrawal ... after the 78 day air campaign, that was probably a good estimate. The only reason we didn't need to invade is because Serbia's leaders weren't as crazy as Iraq's and placed more value on their country's citizens so they surrendered when the US and NATO committed the war crime of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure.

As for Libya, it is the Pot Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy to claim that Libya renounced terrorism because of our invasion of Iraq.

Libya first began to back away from terrorism when Kaddafi was shown he and his family were vulnerable to US air attack. The capstone was probably seeing Saddam being dragged out of a hole in the ground.

Iraq was, at best, an indirect threat.

Tell that to the US citizens who were in the US embassy in Amman, target of a terrorist attack whose roots lay in Iraq. If Saddam had supplied terrorists with WMD, or disrupted oil supplies like he tried to do in 1991, that would have been a direct threat. Just as Iraqi participation in the 1991 World Trade Center bombing (which we often forget was intended to topple the towers and kill 30000) was a direct threat.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Give me one example where military action has caused any group to renounce terrorism as a method for advancing their goals?

As for Libya, it is the Pot Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy to claim that Libya renounced terrorism because of our invasion of Iraq. Libya had backed away from support of terrorism long before the Iraq war because of international pressure and compelling domestic problems. While the Iraq war may have been the final catalyst for their formal renunciation of terrorism, it was not the only factor that brought them to a more civilised posture.

I'm not particularly interested in engaging in this debate here, as it is quite a derail, but I will say you are presenting a false dichotomy. I don't think anyone -- even George W. Bush -- has claimed that military action by itself brings an end to terrorism as a whole. There is a huge difference between that and believing that well thought-out military action can be necessary to deal with terrorism or with specific terrorist groups. Whether our actions in Iraq and elsewhere have been well thought-out is, again, a whole other debate that would take a different thread.


Not an action to prevent or punish a terroist act, but one that caused a group that promotes terroism to change its policy...

Again, different topic and too big of a derail. But I'm pretty sure the U.S. didn't invade Afghanistan with the intent of forcing Al Qaeda to "change its policy."



There are many in the military (and ex-military) who can see beyond the narrow military viewpoint, and I did not mean to demean them. I only stated that I think both Bush and McCain overestimate the ability of military action to solve these problems, and that this is probably because of their military experience.

I appreciate you restating your position. Still, I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion that their support of military action must be because they served in the military, when there are plenty of people who have served and are reluctant to use the military, and people who have not served who seem very eager to use the military. It seems unlikely that the simple fact of having served in the military (and 30 years ago, no less) is a very good explanation for a presidential candidate's attitude toward foreign policy. Indeed, it is hard to tell at all since only 11 Presidents didn't serve in the military, and of them, 2 were wartime Presidents (Wilson & Roosevelt), one was instrumental in starting a war (Adams), one was a Secretary of War (Taft), and another used the military quite a bit (Clinton). By contrast, Eisenhower ended the Korean war, Teddy Roosevelt and Carter both won the Nobel Peace Prize, one signed the Helsinki Accords (Ford), etc. etc.

Of course, none of that proves anything which is my point -- it's tough to argue that support for or against military intervention in general has much to do with having served in the military.

[Darth Rotor]

Can we afford yet another president who doesn't understand the military?
Like LBJ? ;)

[senorpogo]

Give me one example where military action has caused any group to renounce terrorism as a method for advancing their goals?

Well, we haven't had any Sioux attacks in a while. And the Brits got a handle on the Boers eventually, though I'm guessing your definition of "terrorism" may not include such examples.

[Darth Rotor]

As for Libya, it is the Pot Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy to claim that Libya renounced terrorism because of our invasion of Iraq. Libya had backed away from support of terrorism long before the Iraq war because of international pressure and compelling domestic problems. While the Iraq war may have been the final catalyst for their formal renunciation of terrorism, it was not the only factor that brought them to a more civilised posture.



If you go back a few weeks to Newsweek, you'll find an interesting article on the source of many suicide bombers in Iraq: Lybia. It didn't find a link to any government sanction, not did the reporter appear to be trying to find one.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132938



DR

[Daylight]

This is false. Or don't you considering being in the National Guard service? I'm sure a great many of those in Iraq would be surprised to hear you say that. And by the way, Bush flew one of the most dangerous planes to fly in US inventories at the time.

FAIL

Gave you a chance to connect the dots. FAIL You're seem to be just a cut and paste bot.

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-102a-ops.htm


The small number of aircraft committed to SEA air defense before 1965 tripled by the end of 1966. At that time 12 F-102s stood alert in South Vietnam (6 at Bien Hoa and 6 at Da Nang) and another 10 in Thailand (6 at Udorn and 4 at Don Muang). Little change occurred in 1967 and 1968, the Air Force keeping a minimum of 14 F-102s on 5 minute alert with the remainder of the force on 1 hour call. F-102 operations in SEA ended in December 1969 (The last F-102 squadron at Clark was inactivated. However, a few F-102s remained at the Royal Thai Air Base of Don Muang until the summer of 1970.) with a remarkable safety record. In almost 10 years of flying air defense and a few combat air patrols for SAC B-52s, just 15 F-102s were lost.

The F-102A's overall safety record (including all SEA losses) was also impressive. In more than 14 years of operation, only 16 percent of the F-102A total force, or less than 140 aircraft were lost in flying accidents. A minimal number of ground accidents occurred, bringing total F-102A operational losses to 141 as of 30 June 1971.

[Darth Rotor]

I do like to joke around, but I was pretty much serious in the point I made. By joining the military (in any country) you are effectively surrendering a large degree of your moral autonomy.
There is that effectively usage again, used to promote a falsehood.

Come on, PJ, you don't need to do that.

So, yes. Joining any (real world) military organisation is, from a moral point of view, an act of gullibility and susceptibility to thought-control.

I don't think you'ver served with very many Gunnery Sergeants, nor many sailors. Thus, you speak from ignorance when you attempt to paint this charicture.

DR

[Delvo]

From the beginning, I've been merely questioning whether or not it is an asset.

Could military experience be a political liability?It might be for McCain. His performance record was bad, and as a Senator he's repeatedly fought to downsize and down-equip the military services, including personally submitting a bill just within the last couple of years to get rid of the F-22. So it not only exposes an area of embarrassing failure and incompetence in his record, but also brings up a subject on which he's been flip-floppy at best and could easily be exposed as a fake if he tried to start acting pro-military now.

[BeAChooser]

A minimal number of ground accidents occurred, bringing total F-102A operational losses to 141 as of 30 June 1971.

So as of June 1971 141 out of the 889 that were produced had been lost flying or ground ACCIDENTS. That's 16%. At the time when Bush was learning to fly. Regardless of whatever safety record it held after that. And 16% losses due to accident made it a very dangerous aircraft. As numerous sources pointed out.

Now I don't know about you, but aerospaceweb.org seems like a reasonable source to use when evaluating aircraft. More so than globalsecurity.org. And it states (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml ) "According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, and the rate was especially high during the early years of the plane's service. ... snip ... Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots."

And note that I also showed earlier that the rate of accidents was not improving during the period that Bush trained and flew the F102. Contrary to what you claimed.

Based on all that, I think any effort to claim that flying the F-102 was a safe cushy assignment for Bush only shows one's political biases. In which case, it's not I who has FAILED to connect dots. :)