IAP Political Forum

It seems that all the family were highly involved with mafia world, Mc Cain would be nothing without Bonfmans support since his father beer industry:

interesting report

http://www.mikepiperreport.com/Articles_Archive/AmericanFreePress/AFP2008_01-06/Michael_Collins_Piper_AFP20080204_McCain's_Career_Financed_by_Mob_Money.html

Oh dear God...

LMAO, what's next Obama is Muslim? Oh wait... :D

the word muslim is becoming an insult !!! shame

I was just joking , I was just mocking the other side's extreme conspiracy theories as well.

When good muslims don't stand up and speak out against the radicals, it can happen.

unlike in Obama's case, Muslim is not an insult in yours but sad reality.

When Americans got hi-tech like Motorola, Intel and Microsoft, you Muslims got prayers and primitive explosives that Russians shown you how to use but still there are cases when you self explode during construction. How do you expect to fool a nation with hi-techs while being donkey-tech by yourself?

Better off go to milk some goat so your 20 sisters and brothers will have a dinner!

Plenty of people are to blame for that...people like you for example.

Name:  The Patriot
Posts:  36 (0.610 per day)
Position:  Newbie
Karma:  +1/-28 
Date Registered:  June 17, 2008, 01:56:11 PM
Last Active:  Today at 03:34:52 PM
_____________________________________________

The IQ average to number of IAP members ratio has just dropped a hundred points.

I wonder why you started reading the Mike Piper Report, Untouchables  :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_Piper

I wonder why you started reading the Mike Piper Report, Untouchables  :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_Piper

My oh my, those conspriracy theorists who assisted Corsi and the Swiftboaters to dispose of John Kerry are at it again, but of all places for them to show up with this. The freepers. Don't tell me people at AIP aren't familiar with the FreeRepublic.com. They're at it again, but this time this one is after John McCain.  No way I would vouch for any of this stuff, but it's out there and has been for years.

All in the Family (Who is the real John McCain?)
Earl Hopper's Viet Nam Veterans Against John McCain ^ | February 14, 2000 | Edward Zehr
Posted on February 4, 2008 9:50:23 AM PST by spacejunkie

JOHN McCAIN Who is the real John McCain?

McCain dumped his first wife after she had been disabled in an auto accident. Although this woman had worked tirelessly to get him released from captivity as a POW in Vietnam, he did not hesitate to betray her with other women upon finding her crippled when he returned home. In fact, McCain developed a serious reputation as a womanizer during the years following his release. Finally, he acquired a fortune through his second marriage and settled down with his second wife, Cindy. According to the Phoenix Gazette of May 19, 1987, "the bulk of McCain's assets (now) consist of stock in Hensley & Co., a beer distributorship headed by his father-in-law; Western Leasing Co., which leases trucks and equipment; and Eagle Enterprises, which invests in real estate and stock."

As it turns out, the senator married the daughter of one of the richest men in Arizona. It seems that McCain married into a family that already had quite a reputation in that state. Cindy (Hensley) McCain’s father had been sent to jail when fifty-two of the employees of Quiq Marley were convicted of running afoul of federal liquor laws. When Hensley emerged from the slammer (some think for “taking the fall” for Marley), Marley rewarded him with a Budweiser distributorship which is now worth $200+ million, (even though Hensley was prohibited from working in the liquor industry for the remainder of his days). As an only child, Cindy (and, now, John) McCain will inherit this fortune.

Thus, John McCain got his start in politics through the powerful political machine run by aforementioned Kemper Marley. Clearly, Cindy’s family had their eyes on high office for some time. Richard Scheffel, a lobbyist for Anheuser-Busch, boasted that Sen. McCain's father-in-law used him as a conduit to funnel money to politicians, saying that, "Cars, homes and bank accounts of 18 people, including eight state legislators, were confiscated in a civil racketeering lawsuit that paints a portrait of lawmakers eager to sell their influence for as little as $660 and as much as $750,000." Although Scheffel was not targeted in the civil suit, he is said to have been paid $20,000 to approach legislators who showed an interest in selling their votes for hard cash, as part of an apparent sting operation, according to the Phoenix Gazette of February 6, 1991. The same newspaper identified Jim Hensley as "a financial godfather to hosts of lobbyists" in a story that appeared on March 16 the same year.

In other words, Sen. McCain has not always been an ardent advocate of campaign finance "reform." A Phoenix Gazette editorial published on December 8, 1987 asked: "So why has Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., gone to unprecedented lengths to block reform of the Senate campaign finance system? Why does he oppose letting this important matter even come to a vote? Perhaps it's because he is a prime beneficiary of the special interest funding of congressional elections. McCain raised over $2.5 million for his 1986 election . . . more than $760,000 of his campaign funds came from political action committee (PACs) . . . especially disturbing are the contributions to McCain's campaign coffers from PACs outside of Arizona."

But, that was then. As soon as the opportunity opened up for him to curry favor with the mainstream media by backing the "reform" measure he had so steadfastly opposed all along, he changed his view.

Why did Sen. McCain help Mr. Charles Keating fight off federal regulators? The Arizona Republic reported on October 8, 1989, that "John McCain contends there was no conflict in his helping Keating battle federal regulators." And yet, the same article says, "Documents show that Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, and father-in-law, James W. Hensley are the largest investors in Fountain Square Shopping Center. Their partnership is managed by subsidiaries of American Continental Corp., run by Charles H. Keating, Jr."

In other words, the senator's wife and father-in-law, the source of all his wealth, were the biggest investors in a business run by a man who John McCain was helping by keeping federal investigators at bay. When an Arizona Republic reporter asked McCain about business ties between his wife, Cindy, and Keating," the senator snarled, "That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot."

"You do understand English, don't you?" McCain explained in the same conversation. The Republic article continued, "Not content with just bullying reporters, McCain tried belittling them: 'It's up to you to find that out, kids.'

But “Cindy’s investments” were not the whole story. The Arizona Republic reported on October 8, 1989 that:

"Sen. John McCain had more than a constituent relationship with Charles H. Keating, Jr. prior to 1987 . . . the McCains -- sometimes with their daughter and baby sitter -- made at least nine trips at Keating's expense from August 1984 to August 1986 aboard either Keating's American Continental Corporation's jet or chartered planes and helicopters owned by Resorts International. Three of the trips were for vacations at Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas."

Somehow McCain survived the “Keating Five” scandal, even though it was clear to most that he’d been deeply involved in the S&L scandal that cost the American taxpayer $billions. By this time, Cindy, had had to admit that she’d been "addicted to the painkillers Percocet and Vicodin" from 1989 to 1992. Worse, she’d been caught stealing the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team. She’d used her position as president of this charitable organization to continue her habit. Following her confession, newspapers carried an article that revealed that one of the former employees of the medical team had "accused her of demanding that he commit perjury in adoption proceedings for her daughter, Bridget."

It is difficult to see how John McCain would ever have made it to Congress without Kemper Marley's approval. Apparently nobody from Arizona made it to Congress without his approval -- and that included Barry Goldwater. John McCain, like a lot of others, made his Faustian bargain in order to have a career in politics. It wasn't the first he had made, nor was it his last. Kemper Marley, the Arizona godfather, certainly didn't lack for connections. In 1948, when so many of his employees were sent to prison, Marley had a slick mouthpiece who kept him in the clear. The lawyer's name is William Rehnquist, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. There’s nothing wrong with lawyers keeping their clients out of prison, even if the clients are guilty. The point is that Marley was very well connected with the power elite.

Marley was often connected scandalous or illegal activity, but was never directly implicated in any of it, although strong suspicions persist even to the present day, particularly with regard to the murder of an Arizona Republic reporter named Don Bolles. According to Michael Wendland, who belonged to a group of journalists known as the "Investigative Reporters and Editors" that set up shop in Arizona to investigate the slaying, the group concluded that Marley was behind the killing of the Don Bolles.

Some stories involving John McCain’s mob ties can be traced back to Eugene Hensley, the brother of McCain's father-in-law, who had done five years in a federal prison for skimming profits from a business venture. Thus, Sen. McCain has been seen in the company of Arizona Mafia bosses. At one time, the Hensley brothers, boss, Kemper Marley had been directly connected with the Capone mob operating the Transamerica Wire Service, used by bookies throughout the country.

Perhaps all of this amounts to nothing more than guilt by association. But how can John McCain who aspires to be President of the United States consort with known criminals? He married into a family with a long history of criminal activity and mob ties. This may put in some perspective the news clip from the January 17, 1995, Arizona Republic:

"About 300 guests turned out Saturday night to celebrate the 90th birthday of Joseph 'Joe Bananas' Bonanno, retired boss of New York's Bonanno crime family. He retired to Tucson in 1968. . . John McCain, R-Ariz., and Gov. Fife Symington sent their regards by telegram."

Of course, Fife Symington was too crooked even for Arizona and was forced to resign as governor after being convicted on six counts of fraud in connection with corrupt real estate dealings. He was subsequently sentenced to two and one-half years in prison. Symington and McCain had been close associates prior to the governor's run-in with the law, sharing attorneys and political consultants.

It seems that John McCain has never had to play on a level field. As a junior officer in the Navy he avoided being washed out of flight school (despite a documented lack of ability) because his father was a high-ranking admiral. And, as already mentioned, as soon as he saw an opportunity to rise in political and financial circles in Arizona, he dumped his disabled wife for influence with a well-connected crime-family that ran the state at that time. And, he played off his father's position as Admiral while he was a POW in order to get special treatment, according to other POW’s.

When the "mainstream" media proposed supporting him in the presidential primaries in return for his backing of campaign finance "reform," McCain jumped at the opportunity. Naturally, this alienated Republicans who knew that his legislation (McCain-Feingold) would deprive his own party of a way to be heard in future political campaigns and would give the leftist media a monopoly on political discourse.

Such treachery comes naturally to McCain. Ask the families of the POW/MIAs who backed McCain when he first ran for Congress only to find themselves abandoned by him when he no longer found them useful. McCain even had them investigated by the Justice Department on trumped-up charges (where they were exonerated on all counts). Truth be known, John McCain has been mediocre his whole life and would never have succeeded on a level playing field. Indeed, he was fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. He racked up three life threatening "Dangerous Downs" at flight school -- the last one for flying his aircraft into the sea while asleep -- enough to get anyone without political influence as an Admiral’s son, bounced. As for his record as a senator, other than selling out his fellow POWs, promoting the interests of Communist Vietnam, sealing up forever all records relating to his treacherous behavior, sponsoring McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman (all disastrous pieces of legislation) it’s hard to think of anything he’s accomplished.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1964762/posts

BTW, the website for the bunch this time around who have changed from Kerry to McCain
is here:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/index.htm

Is any of this stuff along with Corsi's new book anymore credible than in 2004? I'll leave it
to others to decided. I thought it was crap then and more now, except for some of this stuff
is actual fact. 

This forum is filled with:
(http://www.dan-dare.org/FreeFun/Images/CartoonsMoviesTV/LooneyTunesWallpaper800.jpg)

Totino, if you read on the other accidental thread on this issue, you'll find an article written by Jerome Corsi, the swiftboat author of Kerry and now Obama little different about McCain and his involvement with the Mafia.

But on the neat Looney Tunes pic, not to take away from your personal patriotism, but some might suggest you also fit well here.  Those who have better sense or those who value their live and limbs than to volunteer to serve in the while a deadly occupation continues in Iraq and the war Dubya dumped on NATO in Afghanistan, is almost out of control.   

I guess you've never heard of selflessness. You're just lucky other people in this world have that quality. Without it you wouldn't have the right to spew trash out of your mouth (like you just did).

Actually Totino, I feel little, but concern and pity for you, having observed way too many like you, though few were volunteers, but participants, not of their choice in an earlier war in SE Asia, not all that different from Iraq. A war
based on lies, for the benefits of those who chose it and their cronies the war profiteers.  Maybe Patton could tell
you what war wounds look like or explain to me after all these years how to remove the smell of burned human flesh once you've experienced it from your cognition.  I wish you good luck if and when you're deploye, if your are, and hope you return with both life and limbs.

Little fella we've had this conversation before. You appear to have learned no polite way to respond to one who doesn't share you opinions.  By now I thought maybe the Army would have taught you how to say a polite, Ma'am.

LOL, I note your indoctrination has taken well. But please don't waste your time attempting to convince me, you're
protecting my right to speak.  It's just one more BS factor of indoctrination. 

I have no reason to respond to you politely when you feel the need to tarnish those who serve this country.

If you act like a lady, maybe you'll be treated as such.

I've never said I have directly given you your right to speech. But let us see here.... If we were attacked by another country tomorrow, who will protect you? The military. And in the past, who caused the US to have freedom? The military. Regardless of what you think about Iraq, you cannot deny that the military has given you your rights and currently protects them. Maybe you need a history lesson? Who knows.

Tot Cass doesn't need you to give her the right to free speech. The military never "caused" the US to have freedoms ...the constitution grants us those. The best that could be said is that the military is the last line of enforcement ...that is all.

Lol. How do you think the US even had the ability to create and keep a constitution? The military. It's a direct result buddy.

 If you are talking about the war for independance ...that war won us independance  ...again the constitution gives us freedom.
 Not war.

Once again, it is a direct result of war. There is no freedom without war

 They did a good job of brainwashing you Tot. You conflate freedom with war /war with freedom.

 War does not result in freedom. Freedom does not require war to exist. War can allow freedom to occur if it is being suppressed by force, but it is far from being the direct result.
 I understand that this is what you have been indoctrinated to believe, that war will always result in freedom. That belief takes away the need to question the war you fight.  Soldiers that analyze are not what they want or need.

That I don't believe.

Canada and Switzerland are pretty free while still remaining non-violent.

Brainwash? I've always said this long before the military. It is in the same vein as there cannot be peace without war. And I'm not alone in this thinking.
"We make war that we may live in peace" Aristotle
"It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war" JFK
"Let him who desires peace prepare for war" Vegetius
"The purpose of all wars is peace" St. Augustine

It is a direct result. You cannot secure your peace or freedom without a military force to defend it.

That is current day now that they have their freedom.

Switzerland was taken over by France in in late 1790. They did not gain independence until Russia invaded Switzerland and fought off France. Finally causing Napoleon to straighten up. They were not official until I believe the congress of Vienna.

 Case in point Brax... Most war is fought for control, repression, financial stability, political influence or competition. Very, very, seldom to enable freedom. But the warrior finds comfort in the belief that war = freedom. It allows him to do the horrible things he is asked to do.
 As far as the Greeks and Romans go they had to keep their forces from thinking as well. They were just as likely to be persuaded to kill for glory as freedom.

Yeah, because Aristotle played a GIANT role in the military. AHAHA. That's sarcasm for all of you kiddies at home.

Independence is often gained from war. It is as simple as that. Why would you fight for independence? Obviously because you want FREEDOM.

Switzerland hasn't been to war since 1815 and has been free to determine it's own goverment since the ratification of it's constitution in 1848... and before then it was a Confederacy (SOURCE: Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland)).

So Switzerland hasn't had to fight for its freedoms since the 19th century and Canada... just got lucky, or something?

C'mon... you can do better then that...

I'm not pissing in your eye or anything or saying as a soldier you don't do anything. I'm just rejecting the premise that freedom isn't possible without war.

Wow. You missed the point. How did they GAIN their freedom and independence? THROUGH WAR. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

They have not fought a war since (even though Germany had plans to invade them). That's awesome. But it doesn't change the fact that their independence and thus freedom was gained from war in the early 1800s.

 Now INDEPENDANCE is OFTEN gained from war? Thats quite a softening of your previous position that "freedom is a direct result of war".
 Did I get you thinking Tot?

That is not a change of opinion mate....

I forgot to add that while Canda has not fought for its own independence recently, it has fought in numerous other wars to secure freedoms for OTHER countries.

History repeats itself. Maybe down the line we'll have a repeat Hitler on the otherwise of the world and Canada/US will have to try to gain independence again. Who the hell knows bro.

 Do you believe that the Iraq war was a war for freedom?

They did it through conflict... not war.

Something like 100 people died.

And furthermore, Switzerland has been able to STAY free without war.


You said freedom is the result of war.

I disagreed with that premise.


It's not... but it's a more refined opinion.

While this discussion has wandered way OT, maybe it's time I step in here and ask Totino a questions, as he decided to use Canada for an example of how freedom is achieved. Maybe while choosing that specific nation as an example he should ask himself why Canada chose not to be a participant in the conflict in Vietnam and also chose not to be a member of the "coalition of the willing" for the purpose of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  On the other hand because they are a member of NATO they have served honorably and continue to do so, having lost a number of their finest, even when a number were killed by U.S. so-called "friendly fire?" 

While I believe, as other have suggested Totino has a right to express his opinion on this forum,  I share the belief it is he who is lacking a good grounding in U.S. history, most particularly Constitutional history. In addition, I firmly believe if he chooses to risk his life and limb to support what is more than clearly a invasion and occupation based on lies with the only purpose for it hegemony over one nation in the Middle East and the "black gold" beneath the surface there, that is his choice.

But I reiterate, I remain concerned for him and nothing more, because though I have never seen a day of combat, I have seen more of the results than I hope he never sees and live 24/7 with one who has seen more than his share, and btw, a man that shares my feelings as I share his.  Maybe when Totino sees his first mangled body of one of those  people who is his comrade in arms, he may see more of the truth of war and even worse, wars of choice.

Until that time, should it ever come, I wish him the best though I personally believe him a fool. And with that statement I leave it to others to continue a rather the forum war. 

So you suggest to have world banking system at any country to keep it away from trouble?

 My contention is that wars are fought for many reasons and that freedom is the justification but NOT the motivation. The commonly held belief by all sides in any conflict is that they are fighting for freedom. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter has more to do with point of view than a definition of actions. It would be difficult to get people to lay down their lives for economic reasons but it is quite easy to convince people to march to their death for freedom.
 Aggressors can almost always justify aggression by calling it defense of freedom. Those who participate are quick to accept without question.
 
  --

Seems while you think I need a history lesson, you need an English lesson. I did not bring out Canada. Abraxas brought up Canada and Switzerland, I simply went off of the two.

And nothing else here really needs to be addressed as you made no points. You just flung around low key insults.

They won it through conflict? Negative. From your own source it clearly states:
"When war broke out between France and its rivals, Russian and Austrian forces invaded Switzerland. In 1803 Napoleon organised a meeting of the leading Swiss politicians from both sides in Paris. The result was the Act of Mediation which largely restored Swiss autonomy and introduced a Confederation of 19 cantons. Henceforth much of Swiss politics would concern balancing the cantons' tradition of self-rule with the need for a central government."

It was gained through war.

And that was the last one they were in... and yet they remain a free state.

See my point?

You don't have a point. It doesn't matter if they don't have to fight in a war 24/7 to gain freedom. I never stated anyone was in constant war for freedom. I simply stated war = freedom. And in the case of Switzerland, it is true. In the case of the states, it is true. etc etc etc

If you have crawl back 200 years to prove your point, fine, but I think their continued neutrality through 2 World Wars and a host of brush fires kinda proves it's possible to remain free without conflict.

I don't have to crawl back 200 years. How about WWII? The only reason Switzerland didn't have to fight in WWII is because we took out Hitler before he put his plan against Switzerland into action. It was only a matter of time.

And of course you can always use WWII as an example for other countries who had to fight IE: France, etc

Your entire argument is based on "Well they are not in war right now!". So the hell what. History has proven itself. And you have no idea what the future will hold.

Trying to make a comparison of the US to Switzerland, or stating a rhetorical question as to why we can't be like them is rather silly......

Switzerland is not the anchor to ANY defensive treaty.

We have plans to invade Canada. Do you think we will?

We don't what would have happened if Hitler wasn't stopped when he was.


Yes, my entire argument is they're still free and haven't been in war for 200 years.

Why do you so nonchalantly disregard this fact? It's in direct contrast to the idea that, "freedom is the direct result of war."


I didn't say anything about the US, merely the premise of Tot's original statement.

I believe his first "premise" was related to the US.....war "freed" us from Britain.

After that....bringing up countries that are in no way comparable to the US was made.

Why?

Obviously the great majority of this thread Patton has little to do in any way with the topic. Maybe you can explain to those who have not had the experience nor been subjected to the process of indoctrination of those who choose to sign their name on the dotted line.  My experience is totally Air Force though in a former life I did reside for a while on Lackland AFB, in San Antonio, TX where my first spouse was assigned and do have some familiarity with the AF basic process. 

Let's face it. Long before he managed to get a waiver to be allowed to volunteer for the Army he was already militarist to the core.  It isn't surprising he would respond to the suggestion he might not have made the correct
decision, but I believe it was his choice and none other to make. Apparently, his indoctrination has carried him
above and beyond though he has yet to see combat nor the results. 

Maybe without in any way detracting from his patriotism you could explain concept of both unit cohesion and the necessity to never question orders  to provide the ability to accept the fact that it is really all about either killing or being killed. The recruiters never seem to provide that information.  Somehow, I suspect Totino will make a
true lockstep troop at least until he observes the real thing as you have and as I have in our different ways.

The military "indoctrination" is the same for all....Jimmy Carter, Wesely Clark, JPN, Toaster, and the one who gives you the privelege of wheeling your scoot-n-go down the aisles of the commissary so you can buy your cigarettes at a discount.

Without the loaded words, I would be interested in this Patton.  My son is looking at the Air Force, and he wants to study nursing.  I have concerns in that he is as much a rebel against authority that I am.  Maybe a new thread?  I would value your opinions.

Check PM

Your comparison of US plans and Nazi Germany plans are way off mate. You know that is a ridiculous comparison....

Because it doesn't freaking matter if they have not had to fight for their freedoms again! They originally gained them from war, and have not had a challenge to their freedoms since. This really is not a very hard concept to grasp. My premise never had anything to do with a constant war. It was a very simple statement.


And Patton, that was gold.

Thanks Patton. While listing those who have also undergone basic training indoctrination, you
failed to list the factors I requested.  Nice shot at the guy who spent a number of years hauling out the wounded and the dead from Nam as those like him are now hauling them out
of Iraq and Afghanistan so they have an opportunity to survive.  Obviously, he won't be a
factor if Totino should end up needing his ass hauled out of either location, but if he should there will be new AF personnel and planes still doing that job.

Maybe the Übermensch patriots like Totino, are able to avoid IEDs and other really hideous actions troops are still being subjected to in both locations.  Course today it was the 10 French troops that paid the ultimate price in Afghanistan, that operation Dubya cut out on for most practical purpose and neglected to have his oil war and war profiteer war in Iraq.   Wonder if the term "freedom fries" remains a popular one among the GOP?

BTW, any news on that report about Sill and the hospital there?

 

Half the time it's difficult for anyone to figure what you're requesting since you bounce all over the place in a pathetic mumble....you babble on about where you've lived, Canada,Vietnam, Iraq, NATO, frienly fire, history of the Constitution, oil, your lack of combat experience but experience in sleeping with someone who has seen dead people, unit cohesion, following orders...and then call people "fools"


See.....you're doing it again.


Nothing other than what the MSM is reporting....who are you trying to pin this on that probably has never set foot on Ft Sill?

Patton, my bad it isn't the hospital, it is the barracks set up to house wounded troops.

It is here:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/08/gns_sill_mold_081808/

here:

http://www.wellness.com/newsfeed.asp?id=20080818/20080818SoldiersRoomsinfestedbymold.xml&storyId=18245207

Or with the standard denial of the troops claims here

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56838

As well as an expanded discussion of military and VA medical on Vet Voice Here:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1786&view=print


And a list a number of pages very long on google. I stated I heard it on Olberman, last night.

BTW, when you've spent a great majority of your life totally, more than either spouse served
singlely, as what you might prefer, since you're always so complimentary to military wives,
as a "legal camp follower,"  you tend to get around a lot. 

A list would include during the active duty time, Bergstrom AFB, TX (twice) High Wycombe Air Station, UK, Carswell AFB, TX Dow AFB, ME, Lackland AFB, TX,  Yokota AFB, Japan, Travis AFB, CA  that is the last one.

But then there were also the Congressional staff trips.  The Pentagon, Randolph AFB, TX., Ft Sam,TX  and the last official trip for official testimony once after retirement to Andrews AFB.  btw home station of AF One.  Amusingly, all it took to get on to Andrews, in a POV was an DD Form 1173. Oh I forgot, I presently primarily do my shopping at the closed McClellan AFB,  Sacramento, CA.  :laugh:  I forgot I lived for a time on Ft. Hood when my mother was a PX asst. manger. And grew up not that far in Central
Texas.

Traveled with a sick child a number of times and she had surgery at Burderop Park, UK and later care at Tachikawa, AF hospital Japan, just down the road from Yokota, but lived at Johnson former U.S. AFB, Japan, turned over to the Japanese AF, except for the housing and some other U.S. facilities.  BTW, in England I lived in Marlow on the Thames . LOL, as a member of the Yokota "kitchen pot," softball team I also traveled to Camp Zama, Army hospital, Japan where we won the all Japan championship. Only ordinary "housewives" playing against mostly military personnel. Ever been to Yokota, in your travels? The triage unit there now is a new one built before I left.  Much nicer than the old one, where I used to volunteer with the air evacs from Nam. 

More than you ever wanted to know I'm sure. If you're familiar with the AF you would know  spouse one was "Sacemcized" as was spouse two, except for tours in PACAF until he went on the "heavies. Spouse one's tour in Korea was before I knew him and spouse two's two tours in Nam was the same.  As I said one tends to get around as surely you might know if you were active duty, but as you've stated you've been around a bit yourself.

I'm sure it is very disconcerting to hear there are those who are not in agreement with your militarist views, but let me assure you, though spouse one is deceased, what I state about the view of spouse two are his and mine, though he doesn't join on forums, and out here in the third highest region of the nation for numbers of military retirees, we're not alone.   And of course I never saw a day of combat. I was only married to the deceased and current retired warriors.

But family members learn a bit about the military even if they don't go to combat with them.  And retired Congressional caseworkers learn a bit too.