what kind of car was this? (NMC)

To Pat and Bruce: classy finish by both!
Houston is about 65 and sunny at the moment!

Chris
99BBB

"Chuck" > wrote in message
newsU7nf.17196$Mi5.5816@dukeread07...
> Actually, AAA using radar should not be able to hit an F-15E at altitude
> if
> the F-15's electronics are up and running properly.
> Chance and AAA barrage should account for almost all the hits. It's hard
> to
> not get hit if a plane happens into a AAA barrage box.
>
> "pws" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BRUCE HASKIN wrote:
>> > Well Pat, you might have a hard sell on that subject of not hitting
>> > them
>> > from the ground. The first day he was out on "Southern Watch", he had a
>> > 100 MM AAA go off right near them at 30,000 ft. The only reason thet
>> > weren't hit is because the Irages wouldn't use their radar to target
>> > the
>> > AAA. My son also came back one day with "frag" holes from a "Roland"
>> > that went off right behind him!
>> > OH, they could reach the F-15E's very easy !!!
>> >
>> > Bruce RED '91
>> >
>>
>>
>> How many of our bombers were shot down in Desert Storm? How many have
>> been shot down in this current fiasco?
>>
>> I think that driving the freeway in my miata is probably more dangerous
>> than dropping bombs on brown people at 30,000 feet after taking out
>> their radar.
>> Out of the 2000+ U.S. military personnel killed there so far, how many
>> have been bomber pilots doing their runs? As far as I know, the number
>> is zero. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>> The aircraft that are being shot down are helicopters and drones, not
>> manned bombers flying at 30,000 feet, unless I have been missing the
>> news, because I can not remember even one story of a bomber being taken
>> down from 30,000 feet since we got into this mess.
>>
>> My daughter's stepfather was shot down in a Kiowa Warrior helicopter by
>> the Russian equivalent of the Stinger. He survived, his 25 year old
>> female captain did not.
>> He was going to receive a medal until a review board determined that he
>> was negligent and partially responsible for the death of his captain.
>> That kinda changes everything.
>>
>> Pat
>
>

"pws" > wrote in message
...
> BRUCE HASKIN wrote:
>> Well, you are kind'a correct. The 335th FS lost a F-15E on the second
>> night of OIF ! Two in it were killed. They were on a bomb run up North
>> of Bagdad. The weather was very bad. The number two ship saw the flash,
>> but could not see the A/C. The investigation showed "Lost in Action".
>> Just a note. The pilots wife was an "Intel. Officer" on duty at the time
>> and heard the whole thing. I'm sure she would like to hear that, " No
>> bombers have been lost. " The Iraq troops ("the little Brown People" )
>> on the ground, found the crash site and took the body parts to their
>> commanders and tried to collect the $1,000,000 price that was put on ALL
>> Pilots!
>> ( do you have a bounty of $1,000,00 on your head as Miata (Pilot) driver
>> ? I think you stand "corrected" ! :-)
>>
>> Bruce RED '91
>
> I warned you. Better stop now or don't complain. ;-)
>
>
>
> Bruce, I figured that you would know. What has it been, over a year now
> since that happened? And the total number is one plane/two pilots? Out of
> how many bombing runs? And it wasn't even shot down but lost in bad
> weather? It kinda helps when we wipe out their radar first, eh?
>
> BTW, I never said "little brown people". I said "brown people", because
> that is who we bomb, countries with brown people that could not possibly
> defeat us. It makes us feel good, take out the dictator, instill
> democracy, rah-rah.
> You don't see us bombing China, do you? Their human rights record is so
> much better than Iraq's, (insert sarcasm).
> They could actually fight back. It would be very, very bad.

Since this is posted publicly, I have a right to respond as well. And I do
not promise to give you the last word. Let's think your remarks through
logically. Suppose there are two equally horrible tyrannical governments
that oppress their people and threaten their neighbors (hypothetically,
remember, I'm not speaking of Iraq). Suppose we can agree that if the
tryants can be overthrown their populations would be better off and the
world would be safer. Not impossible to imagine, is it? Now suppose that
one of the tyrants is a very weak defense against our forces and the other
has several thousand (or one) deliverable nuclear weapons. What would you
do? The answer, by construction, is to overthrow the weak tyrant and
negotiate with the strong.

So all that business about brown people who can't fight back is really just
a smokescreen for your particular opposition to the Iraq war, your arguments
against which can be made in a reasonable way, making a reasonable case in
the process. But blathering on about bombing brown people and wanting us to
engage in a fair fight or no fight at all is either not well thought out, or
dishonest, or both.

Frank Berger wrote:

> Since this is posted publicly, I have a right to respond as well. And I do
> not promise to give you the last word. Let's think your remarks through
> logically. Suppose there are two equally horrible tyrannical governments
> that oppress their people and threaten their neighbors (hypothetically,
> remember, I'm not speaking of Iraq). Suppose we can agree that if the
> tryants can be overthrown their populations would be better off and the
> world would be safer. Not impossible to imagine, is it? Now suppose that
> one of the tyrants is a very weak defense against our forces and the other
> has several thousand (or one) deliverable nuclear weapons. What would you
> do? The answer, by construction, is to overthrow the weak tyrant and
> negotiate with the strong.
>
> So all that business about brown people who can't fight back is really just
> a smokescreen for your particular opposition to the Iraq war, your arguments
> against which can be made in a reasonable way, making a reasonable case in
> the process. But blathering on about bombing brown people and wanting us to
> engage in a fair fight or no fight at all is either not well thought out, or
> dishonest, or both.
>
>

You are absolutely correct, you have completely changed my mind. Wow! I
didn't think it was possible with a usenet argument, but now we think
alike, it is simply amazing!

So, now that we have that out of the way, what kind of miata do you
drive? ;-)

I just got in from a 40 mile run with the top down, not a cloud in the
sky and just over 70 degrees. I am just about to make the return trip
out through the hill country. The mid-December days like this make up
for the nasty Texas summer.

Work today? I think not. :-)

Pat

In article >,
"Frank Berger" > wrote:

<snip most of it>

> wanting us to engage in a fair fight or no fight at all

....is sheer stupidity.

When it comes to the point where violence is involved, the only - And I
do mean *THE* *ONLY* - "fair fight" is the one that ends with "the other
guy" either unwilling or unable to continue fighting. The methods used
to acheive this goal are irrelevant. Likewise for "the other guy's"
health and well-being at the end of the process, so long as the goal is
indeed achieved. Fight to win, even if that means "fighting dirty" (as
if there was such a thing in my book) or don't fight at all. Anything
else is just plain stupidity.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

"pws" > wrote in message
...
> Frank Berger wrote:
>
>> Since this is posted publicly, I have a right to respond as well. And I
>> do not promise to give you the last word. Let's think your remarks
>> through logically. Suppose there are two equally horrible tyrannical
>> governments that oppress their people and threaten their neighbors
>> (hypothetically, remember, I'm not speaking of Iraq). Suppose we can
>> agree that if the tryants can be overthrown their populations would be
>> better off and the world would be safer. Not impossible to imagine, is
>> it? Now suppose that one of the tyrants is a very weak defense against
>> our forces and the other has several thousand (or one) deliverable
>> nuclear weapons. What would you do? The answer, by construction, is to
>> overthrow the weak tyrant and negotiate with the strong.
>>
>> So all that business about brown people who can't fight back is really
>> just a smokescreen for your particular opposition to the Iraq war, your
>> arguments against which can be made in a reasonable way, making a
>> reasonable case in the process. But blathering on about bombing brown
>> people and wanting us to engage in a fair fight or no fight at all is
>> either not well thought out, or dishonest, or both.
>
> You are absolutely correct, you have completely changed my mind. Wow! I
> didn't think it was possible with a usenet argument, but now we think
> alike, it is simply amazing!
>
> So, now that we have that out of the way, what kind of miata do you drive?
> ;-)
>

'96 Montego Blue, with a power steering pump that's acting up, I think.

Frank Berger wrote:

> '96 Montego Blue, with a power steering pump that's acting up, I think.


Well,
I have a '96M that is being parted out ever so slowly. The power
steering was working fine when the car died at 75,000 miles. I might be
able to help you out if that ends up being your problem. I am finally
making some real progress on parting out these 3 miatas, and shipping to
Dallas would be very inexpensive.

Miatas are more important to me than our different political viewpoints.

Monday off, perfect weather, lots of spirited driving. Sorry, I gotta
rub it in a little. :-)

Pat

Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> To Pat and Bruce: classy finish by both!
> Houston is about 65 and sunny at the moment!
>
> Chris
> 99BBB

I think that is the first time I have ever had the term "classy"
associated with me, Thanks!

But you are wrong, it is not over yet. A bout of fisticuffs will soon
need to take place between myself and Bruce to settle this.

All of r.a.m.m. is invited to watch Bruce open up a can of whoop-ass on
me. ;-)

I hope you got to get out today.


Pat

> But you are wrong, it is not over yet. A bout of fisticuffs will soon
> need to take place between myself and Bruce to settle this.
>
> All of r.a.m.m. is invited to watch Bruce open up a can of whoop-ass on
> me. ;-)

How about a game of Miata-chicken? first person to swerve loses the
argument?
(Just kidding)
Squat

I think you guys have this all wrong !

Pat and I are not angry with each other. We do have our views and
opinions, but that is why we can do and say what we want ! Here in the
USA, it's funny about how that works. My family and I fought to have it
that way. Many of my friends died to have it that way. Bottom line is,
I'm sure Pat feels that way too. We don't need to agree on all pionts of
life. I sure as hell have not been angry or mad at Pat, we just have
different points of view.

We do however, love and enjoy the same kind of car! :-)

Bruce RED '91

BRUCE HASKIN wrote:
> I think you guys have this all wrong !
>
> Pat and I are not angry with each other. We do have our views and
> opinions, but that is why we can do and say what we want ! Here in the
> USA, it's funny about how that works. My family and I fought to have it
> that way. Many of my friends died to have it that way. Bottom line is,
> I'm sure Pat feels that way too. We don't need to agree on all pionts of
> life. I sure as hell have not been angry or mad at Pat, we just have
> different points of view.
>
> We do however, love and enjoy the same kind of car! :-)
>
> Bruce RED '91
>


We are just having fun. I guess the fisticuffs is off? That is a relief,
though I did have a few bets that I placed against myself.
I am not sure that you can make Bruce angry anyway. ;-)

I would consider the suggestion of "miata chicken", but that could
destroy two red '91's at once, we can't have that.

Yes, the exact same kind of car, though mine is a modified nightmare and
his is probably a more reasonable machine to drive. :-)

"I may not agree with what you say, but I would fight to the death to
protect your right to say it".

Pat