From Mon Jun 09 17:12:40 1997
>Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 17:11:26 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Prof Stein’s comments about The USS Liberty Home Page
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Here are U-Conn Prof Stein’s current web site comments about The USS
>Liberty Home Page:
>
>”Set up by Jim Ennes. Jim was present to experience that tragic mistake
>in the middle of a chaotic war. I take everything he writes with a grain
>of salt. Much of what he purports to be fact does contain a degree of
>truth; on the other hand, I have difficulty agreeing with many, if any,
>of his inferences and innuendos. He also seems to be rather sensitive to
>criticism; I have more than once personally been on the receiving end of
>harrassment he’s orchestrated. He reminds me of Pat Buchanan, to whom I
>felt William Buckley was being extremely generous in merely concluding
>that statements of Buchanan were anti-semitic rather than concluding
>that Buchanan himself was anti-semitic. Ennes has even instigated
>complaints to my University in order to stifle the application of
>certain adjectives to him and I have at times heard from other Jews that
>they have also been subject to similar harrassment.”
>
>What’s missing is any data or analysis about the subject, the Liberty
>incident. The above is merely an ad-hominem attack. From my first-hand
>experience, by “criticism” Prof Stein means “my practice of calling
>researchers anti-semitic.”
>
>I give him credit for providing a link to The USS Liberty Home Page. But
>with fewer than 1300 hits on his web site since January 1996, he can’t
>been the source of much traffic.
>
>–

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon Jun 09 22:56:11 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom2.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 00:55:24 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom2.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk, mahan@microwrks.com
>cc: “Louis R. Coatney”
>Subject: IlliniCon’97 debriefing: BISMARCK survives, HOOD *sunk*, >beautiful, Russian girl.
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>I got to Illinicon in Champaign-Urbana at 3:30 PM. Gregg H. had the
> 1ST ALAMEIN tournament scheduled for 3:30, so it worked out nicely.
>
>Noone entered the tournament. A lot of people stopped by the table, to
> look over 1ST ALAMEIN and the new Russian Front game’s map and units,
> though. I went up to my room, took a nap, and prepared for my 1:700
> “Battle for the Malayan Shore.”
>
>We had 6 other guys in the game, which had its own special room and
> viewing area.
>
>I SANK THE HOOD! — which I had stayed up all Friday night
> trying to finish … the (Tamiya) kit is *beautiful* … but all those
> pieces … and all that detail to paint around! — in the 1:700 “Battle
> for the Malayan Shore” game-on-the-floor, Saturday night.
>
>Of course, I *was* commanding HMAS PERTH and HMS JUPITER … but I did
> get that Japanese destroyer I was aiming JUPITER’s 10 torpedoes at …
> umm … too. (After all, HOOD was already heavily damaged. I was just
> anticipating the scuttling order, you see.
>
>Any other good rationales I could offer at my Board of Inquiry hearing?)
>
>It is intriguing: Computer games are far more “realistic” than manual
> games with models/miniatures … but there is just something about the
> models themselves … especially the larger-scale 1:700, 1:600 models
> … that fascinates people. While there were only 7 of us actually
> down on the floor “pushing boats,” Saturday night, half the
> conventioneers must have dropped in — we set up a viewing gallery —
> to watch, at one time or another.
>
>NAVAL ACTION — my miniatures rules — was *not* “finalized,” as it turned
> out. Coupled with the “plunging-fire-against-old-battleship-deck-armor
> rule,” the sinking possibility became 33%! against the battlecruisers
> — wayyyy too much. … and PRINCE OF WALES executed HARUNA, ATAGO,
> and TAKAO in short order … with the help of our battleship commander’s
> INCREDIBLE die rolling! (He had already sunk KONGO with HOOD, before
> … ) Soooo … the Royal Navy *saved* Malaya! 🙂
>
>When I got onto the elevator to go down to the game, I encountered 6
> Russian students: 4 guys and 2 girls. One girl is *tall*, dark-haired,
> and STATUESQUE. We’ll see if she looks up the poem on my webpage. 🙂
>
>Sunday morning, we did the “Rescue of the BISMARCK” game with CinC’s
> superb 1:4800s. “Kurt” wanted to be the BISMARCK captain. Tim …
> our unbelievably lucky battleship admiral from the night before …
> wanted to be Vian’s 4th Destroyer Division, hectoring BISMARCK.
> (There were 5 of us, but a shapely wargamerette left for a fantasy
> game she had pre-committed to.)
>
>BISMARCK’s heading determination is random, of course, and Kurt rolled
> luckily and evaded Tim’s opening barrage of torpedoes in the one
> direction he could. After expending his torpedoes, Tim moved over
> to harrass SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU, when the came on the tabletop
> under *my* command.
>
>We played 11 turns. In one of the final rounds, Kurt … who had had
> amazing “damage control” luck (Good-type), scored a 1:216 roll on
> KING GEORGE V, heavily damaging it. As we broke up, I had the
> fellows with damaged ships go ahead and roll away, to find out the
> ships’ fate. BISMARCK survived, albeit heavily damaged. KGV did
> not! We won! 🙂
>
>It was getting late, so the one fellow signed up to play my new
> Russian Front game was ready to call it a day … too. He *did*
> seem to like the map, though.
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
> www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/ … for your free game of 1ST ALAMEIN and
> your free cardstock model U.S. Destroyer Escort (plan)

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue Jun 10 10:56:31 1997
>X-Sender: jim@mail.halcyon.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 10:16:01 -0700
>To: swrctmo@iamerica.net, mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Jim Ennes
>Subject: USS Liberty
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>At 10:59 AM 5/30/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >Louis R. Coatney wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 29 May 1997, Bill Riddle wrote:
> >> > The best hypothesis I have seen is in Jim Ennes’ book. He has a
>time
> >> > line that puts Liberty’s arrival in context with IDF operations.
> >> >
> >> > Specifically the Golan Heights campaign which was actually
>delayed for
> >> > 24 hours, until AFTER Liberty was not available to monitor
>events. He
> >> > quotes LBJ’s book in which LBJ states that he told the Israeli
> >> > ambassador that the US would stand with Israel ONLY if Israel did
>not
> >> > initiate hostilities. As the IDF was in fact going to occupy the
> >> > Golan without waiting for a Syrian event to which they could react,
> >> > Ennes’ assertion is that Israel did not want Liberty to provide LBJ
> >> > with the evidence.
> >>
> >> I think I can remember this suggestion, from times past, but it
> >> is literally crazy to think that an attack on an American ship
> >> would somehow avert American protest/disapproval of an Israeli
> >> attack on the heights. Could anyone be so tactically tunnel-
> >> visioned (politically)? Is anyone suggesting Dayan was …
> >> irrational?
> >>
> >> There *must* be something else.
>
>No one has suggested that Israel’s attack on the Liberty was intended to
>”avert American protest/approval of an Israeli attack on the Heights”.
>That idea reflects a complete misunderstanding of the issue. Israel
>was not trying to blackmail the US. That’s silly. They wanted the
>Liberty gone and were willing to do whatever it took to make
>that happen.
>
>The most knowledgeable people with whom I have discussed this,
>including then-JCS Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer and
>then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk and intelligence experts from
>several areas feel that the most likely reason for the attack was to
>remove the Liberty — an obvious intelligence platform — from the
>area because they did not want us watching the war. They had no
>idea of our capabilities and probably had an exaggerated idea of
>what we could detect and a paranoid vision of what we were there
>for.
>
>The most common view is that they feared the US might learn of the
>invasion of the Golan Heights before the Heights were in Israeli
>hands.
>
>Remember, this was only 11 years after the Suez War. At that time,
>Israel had captured much of the Sinai and was approaching the Suez
>Canal when Eisenhower threatened to disallow tax deduction for
>contributions to Israel and take other steps unless Israel ceased
>its advance and withdrew to its own borders. They promptly did
>just that, but they resented it deeply and remained very angry at
>Eisenhower and the United States.
>
>Now they were planning to capture the Golan Heights, a major
>objective of the war, and they did not want more US
>interference. At the very least, they wanted to have the Golan
>under Israeli control before the US could launch an effective
>protest. They wanted to face the US with a fait accompli.
>
>So when the Liberty appeared along the coast just two hours
>before the invasion was to start, they postponed the invasion
>for 24 hours, attacked the Liberty, got us out of the area, and
>invaded and captured the Golan the next day.
>
>True, the US did know that preparations were being made, so the
>invasion was hardly a great surprise, but Washington was
>doing all in its power to stop the Golan invasion.
>
>Dean Rusk personally told me that he spent the entire night of
>June 7/8 on the phone to Israel urging them not to invade.
>Rusk’s main fear was that an invasion might bring the Soviets
>into the war.
>
>Rusk may or may not have known at the time that Soviet Echo II
>submarine K-172 was lying off the Syrian coast with orders to
>fire six nuclear tipped cruise missiles into Israel if Israel
>”and/or the US established a beachhead in Syria”. Did the
>Golan Heights fall under that definition? No one knows. Was
>Rusk aware that a Golan invasion might cause the Soviet
>submarine to start WWIII? No one knows. But it is reasonable to
>suppose that Rusk was aware and had these things in mind.
>
>It is also interesting that in just the past few days reports have
>come from Israel admitting that the Golan was no threat to
>Israel and was not needed for security. They wanted the Golan
>for the WATER. So they sent bulldozers deeper and deeper into
>Syrian territory until someone finally fired at them, then used
>that “attack” as an excuse to call in aircraft for “massive
>defense action” to neutralize and eventually to capture the
>Golan Heights. Perhaps these were among the things that
>the Israelis did not want the Liberty to discover.
>
>Another possible reason, which I covered in an article
>several months ago in the Washington Report, was the
>execution of Egyption POWs. Several reports in the Israeli
>press, including eyewitness reports from senior Israeli
>officers and reporters, are that the Israeli Defense Force
>executed up to 1,000 Egyptian POWs at El Arish during
>the morning of June 8, 1967, while the Liberty was just
>15 miles away. We were in a position to hear any radio
>traffic concerning this crime, and might even have been
>able to see it if we had trained our telescopes in the
>right direction.
>
>Again let me say, they had no way or knowing our
>capability. All they had was their paranoia and their
>fear that we might learn more than they wanted us to
>know.
>
>Jim Ennes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>—-
>Join The USS Liberty Email Discussion Conference
>Email LISTSERV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>With SUBSCRIBE USS_LIBERTY As The Text
>http://www.ussliberty.org/jim/ussliberty/

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue Jun 10 21:25:26 1997
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 23:24:38 -0500
>From: Brooks A Rowlett
>Reply-To: brooksar@indy.net
>Organization: Apparently Not.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>To: Mahan Naval History Mailing List
>Subject: [Fwd: USS Constitution Update…]
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Update from Andrew
>Return-Path:
>Received: from smtp.WPI.EDU (root@smtp.WPI.EDU [130.215.24.62])
> by green.indy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA07799
> for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:00:13 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from reno.WPI.EDU (root@reno.WPI.EDU [130.215.24.65])
> by smtp.WPI.EDU (8.8.6.Beta5/8.8.6.Beta5) with ESMTP id UAA23583;
> Tue, 10 Jun 1997 20:00:59 -0400
>Received: from localhost (elmer@localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by reno.WPI.EDU (8.8.6.Beta5/8.8.6.Beta5) with SMTP id UAA20752;
> Tue, 10 Jun 1997 20:00:58 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 20:00:58 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Andrew Toppan
>To: Brooks Rowlett , Sandy McClearn ,
> Chris Cavas ,
> MARHST List
>Subject: USS Constitution Update…
>Message-ID: >MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
>1) Her spanker is now on, so she set 4 sails during Monday AM’s sail
>training. No sign of headsails yet, however.
>
>2) The city of Marblehead is refusing to allow Consitution to visit there
>on July 20th unless the Navy pays the city’s costs (presumably crowd
>control and the like). As we know, Constitution is supposed to go to
>Marblehead under tow on July 20, then sail home on July 21st. The Navy’s
>response to this is unknown…..I think they should just bypass the
>stuck-up folks in Marblehead and go to Gloucester instead 🙂
>
>
>
>—
>Andrew Toppan — elmer@wpi.edu
>Rail, Sea and Air InfoPages and FAQ Archive (Military & TC FAQs)
>[http://www.membrane.com/~elmer/] mirror [http://www.announce.com/~elmer/]
> “Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine”

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed May 28 10:53:55 1997
>Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 10:52:27 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: Sri Lankan warships kill 21 guerrillas in sea battle
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Sri Lankan warships kill 21 guerrillas in sea battle
>____________________________________________________
> Copyright © 1997 Nando.net
> Copyright © 1997 The Associated Press
>
> COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (May 28, 1997 07:25 a.m. EDT) — Sri Lankan
>warships and planes sank seven gunboats today in a Tamil rebel convoy
>carrying reinforcements against a major army offensive. At least 21
>guerrillas were killed, military officials said.
> Another 16 rebels were killed on the ground in areas recently
>captured by the government, they said.
> The gunboats — which were protecting other ships carrying troops
>– were destroyed in a battle off the Kokkilai beach in the northeastern
>district of Mullaittivu, the military officials said, speaking on
>condition of anonymity.
> There were no casualties on the government side in the clash 155
>miles northeast of Colombo, the Sri Lankan capital, according to the
>officials.
> The rebels are fighting for a homeland for minority Tamils, who
>make up 18 percent of Sri Lanka’s 18 million people. They accuse the
>majority Sinhalese of widespread discrimination in education and jobs.
> The fighting has killed more than 48,000 people since 1983.
> Currently, about 20,000 Sri Lankan soldiers are fighting for
>control of the 55-mile highway from Vavuniya to Kilinochchi, which would
>open a land route from the government-held south through rebel territory
>to the northern tip of Sri Lanka on the Jaffna Peninsula.
> Tanks, jet bombers, helicopter gunships and artillery are
>supporting the army’s advance.
> The military says it has lost 89 soldiers since the offensive began
>May 13. The military claims at least 230 rebels have been killed, a
>figure the guerrillas say is inflated.
>
>By NIRESH ELIATAMBY, The Associated Press

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Fri May 30 10:22:17 1997
>X-Sender: jim@mail.halcyon.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
>Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:20:08 -0700
>To: mike.potter@artecon.com, mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Jim Ennes
>Subject: Re: USS Liberty: draft article
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>At 10:02 AM 5/30/97 -0700, Mike Potter wrote:
> >Last year I contacted a pro-Israeli partisan who supposedly could
> >discuss USS =Liberty= (AGTR 5). He provided no information and assailed
> >me personally as anti-Semitic for raising the issue. (I have,
> >incidentally, a Jewish relative by marriage who perished in the
> >Holocaust, probably at Auschwitz-Birkenau; his daughter is my aunt.) Try
> >it: e-mail your questions to Prof Alan Stein at the University of
> >Connecticut, stein@math.uconn.edu. His apparently publicly-funded web
> >site, http://www.math.uconn.edu/~stein, also calls (or did last year)
> >Jim Ennes an anti-Semite. I thought scholars were supposed to be
> >open-minded. Anyway, this situation could explain why list masters might
> >discourage discussion of the =Liberty= incident.
>
>FYI, I was advised to sue for damages for that anti-Semite charge.
>Instead I asked the university to have the remark removed. The
>University forwarded my letter to the State Attorney General who
>advised the appropriate people at the University that (1) the remark
>should be removed and (2) Professor Stein’s use of the publicly owned
>server exceeds the purpose for which it is authorized and that Stein’s
>web site should be removed.
>
>Instead, Stein made some minor changes to the language, still
>suggesting falsely that there are some anti-Semitic motives. His
>web site remains.
> >
> >In =Assault on the Liberty= Jim Ennes hypothesized that Israel attempted
> >to “dispatch” her so that she could not discover the plan to take the
> >Golan Heights. Since communications interception is passive, Israel
> >could be sure that =Liberty= was deaf only after her antennas were
> >submerged. But Israeli forces ended their attack before that point.
>
>Submerged or cut off. The first targets of the jets appeared to be the
>antennas. They fired aircraft missiles at every one, disabling them
>all. The only reason we got a message out was that one of my
>ETs (I was electronic materiel officer) managed to repair one.
>
>Jim

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Mon May 19 21:56:11 1997
>X-Sender: tcrobi@pop.mindspring.com
>Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 23:59:11 -0500
>To: Dave Riddle
>From: Tom Robison
>Subject: Re: Mahan and LISTSERV
>
>Hi, Dave
>
>The intent of my message was not to fish for an offer to host our genealogy
>list… but secretly I was hoping you’d offer.
>
>Still, for future reference, is there any single site where one can go and
>see where the existing LISTSERV Servers are, and how to contact them?
>
> >We are looking at setting up another List Server on one of our UNIX boxes
> >and if we do so we will be likely be using listserv. We are also looking at
> >using a different list server on our NT machines that operates in much the
> >same way as LISTSERV (digest, etc.) but which comes with a web interface to
> >subscribe etc. I let you know – we will probably be doing something this
> >week and if we do I would be willing to host it for you.
>
> >Is there a need to
> >host a Riddle family surname list?
>
>I don’t know right off hand if there was a Riddle list before, I’ll look
>into it.
>
>Thanks much for your response, I look forward to hearing from you.
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>Tom Robison
>Ossian, Indiana
>tcrobi@mindspring.com

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed May 28 14:02:11 1997
>Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 12:55:18 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: USN surface ship ASW armament changes
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Corrections to recent and even current naval reference books:
>
>In the early 1990s the US Navy removed all ASW capability from former
>DLG/DLGN cruisers, at least other than (possibly) the =Virginia= (CGN
>38)
>class.
>
>ASRoc launchers were physically dismounted and ASRoc reloading hatches
>were welded closed. It seems less widely known that the Mk 32 torpedo
>tubes too were dismounted. Sonar domes presumably were left in place but
>all sonar electronic equipment was decommissioned. All sonar technicians
>(STG rating) were transferred from these ships.
>
>Many of these cruisers made their final deployments without ASW systems
>before the ships themselves were decommissioned in the mid-1990s.
>
>On USS =California= (CGN 36), the former torpedo room (which had fixed
>twin Mk 32 tubes mounted as in the =Knox= class frigates) now is a gym.
>The ship carries SLQ-25 anti-torpedo decoys as her only undersea warfare
>equipment.
>
>The Navy is still updating =Spruance=-class destroyers’ hull-mounted
>sonars to AN/SQS-53C. This upgrade reportedly had been cancelled, but
>either it wasn’t or it has been restored.
>
>–

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 20 13:30:21 1997
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 13:29:21 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>Subject: Strategy or honor
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>MacArthur was fully aware from his service as US Army Chief of Staff in
>the early 1930s that any real defense of the Philippines was
>unaffordable. US strategy was to mobilize if and when war broke out, and
>then to drive across the central Pacific to defeat Japan by siege.
>Victory would liberate all Japanese-occupied areas.
>
>FDR thought MacArthur might lead a fascist movement in the US and wanted
>to keep him inside the tent. He had been retired for years before FDR
>recalled him. I don’t know about Marshall’s regard for MacArthur.
>
>Simply fighting per se didn’t help either the US or the Philippines, as
>US actions in 1941-42 at Bataan and Corregidor proved. Strategists must
>choose where to fight so as to attain strategic objectives and to avoid
>futile actions. Honor is nice and you need “some” for motivation. But
>fighting is costly, so that eventually fighting for the sake of honor
>becomes dangerously costly.
>
>MacArthur’s southwest Pacific front was almost irrelevant because action
>there contributed to US strategic objectives only to the degree that it
>diverted Japanese forces from the central Pacific front. MacArthur had
>more resources than his front required for defense, its only strategic
>mission. It would be interesting to analyze whether diverting Army
>resources from MacArthur’s front to Europe would have helped there.
>
>
> > >IMHO: MacArthur’s appointment was pure politics by FDR to keep the GOP’s
> > >right wing behind the war effort. His strategic contribution was minor,
> > >which was inevitable since his theater was almost irrelevant. He was
> > >there to keep him on the team in a position where he could not damage
> > >things too badly.
> >
> > Well, the theatre was only irrelevant if one feels that American national
> > honour isn’t worth preserving. The ONLY inhabited major American
> > possession occupied for a significant period of time during the War was the
> > Philippines. MacArthur argued that the recovery of these islands should be
> > our primary war aim, and argued this well. He had inadequate resources and
> > poor support from all but Marshall (who was terrified of MacArthur) and
> > Leahy.
> >
> > Still, he DID liberate the Philippines. And, for this, he is owed the
> > thanks of two nations.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 20 13:48:05 1997
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>Subject: Re: MacArthur’s “fascist movement” ??
>To: mahan@microwrks.com, milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu,
> consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 15:45:47 -0500 (CDT)
>Cc: mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Louis R. Coatney),
> mfwda@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William D. Anderson)
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Mike,
>
> I’ve been hearing these allegations … that MacArthur (and
>Patton! ?!) had been conspiring some sort of “fascist movement”/
>takeover … on other channels by leftish members.
>
> Is there *any* truth to this at *all*? Any sources??
>
> … or is this just another vicious anti-military rumor
>long overdue for squelching?
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous