Was reading some of the posts regarding ships suffering collisions and
accidentally torpedoing themselves, and I was wondering about how such ships
were seen by their crews.  I also remember reading somewhere that the
U.S.S. Intrepid had the dubious nickname of the "Dry I" because she spent
a lot of time in drydock.  Does anyone know of any ships that had a reputation
for being very unlucky ships to be on?  What ships are/were considered
good/bad assignments?  Which historical ones would you have rather served on?
(Yeah I know, the ones that stayed afloat!  But bear with me here!)

For myself, hindsight being twenty-twenty, I guess I would have liked to have
been aboard U.S.S. Enterprise CV-6 during the Pac War.  She saw lots of
action, and managed to get throught almost the whole thing in (more or less)
one piece.

Any comments?

You can't forget the *&#$% USS Ranger, un-affectionately known throughout
PACFLEET as "Building 61".  Damn thing broke down as often as a Nash Rambler.

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

Well, it appears that the transfer of nuclear material began under LBJ and that
he
personally approved it.  The recipe for Welsh rabbit begins: "First catch a
rabbit."
The recipe for bombs requires nuclear grade material.
So it should be clear the US has not been neutral toward Israel's bomb.  We to
this
day do not acknowledge officially that Israel has a bomb.  The only reason I
know
of for Mordechai Vanunu to be in jail in Israel is that he spoke up.
RLA

In article <MPG.fda8a0455384649989...@news.netvision.net.il>,
p...@earthling.net.NOSPAM.PLEASE says...

Let's face it, the only reason Israel gets away with these atrocities is
because it controls the western media and Hollywood - ask Marlon Brando!
What I will never understand is how the average US citizen can stomach
his nation's name and prestige being subverted to support such a bunch
of thugs.

Still, let's look on the bright side. It may just be humanely possible
that the next Israeli Prime Minister will be even more vindictive,
revenge ridden and redolent of historical and hysterical hatreds than
the present incumbent. In which case perhaps you can use those two
hundred nuclear warheads of yours to gain final retribution for the
holocaust by totally destroying Germany. And wouldn't you just love to
do exactly that!

All of the above is a matter of your interpretation of facts.
The "country" could not be stolen since it never existed,
the "driven out of homes" canard is bull - it was a full scale
war that Arabs initiated in '48, bombed their refugee camps -
when you attack Israel, you should expect retribution for
the places from which attacks originate, shot down children -
you forget to add that the 16-20 year old "children" are attacking
soldiers with life-threatening weapons, and blatantly
broken every promise of peace - so far Arabs have not adhered
to even one of the Oslo requirements while Israel has given
up control of more and more land.

The posters to the argument below clearly had a predetermined point of view,
either Palestenian or Israeli, before they posted.  Those of us without an
emotional attachment to either side of the Palestenian-Israeli dispute can
learn something from these posts.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that we
should take great care to discerne each poster's point of view, and try to
separate the facts from the rhetoric in each post.

Grey Satterfield