It might have been true of the A-7 as well, but the term “Ensign Eliminator” came from, and was originally applied to, a different “Corsair” - the Vought F4U Corsair, the WWII naval fighter. (The one with really cool gull wings.) The F4U had the cockpit set way back from the nose, which made forward visibility during landings extremely difficult, rendering the plane excessively difficult to land on a carrier, hence the name.
You can see how the Corsair’s long nose could be a problem by looking at a picture of an F4U Corsair, in taxiing position, as opposed to a picture of the more successful Navy fighter, the F6F Hellcat. Why the Corsair would be difficult to land on a carrier deck should be immediately obvious.
The Navy ended up abandoning the Corsair as a carrier-based fighter; the Marines continued to use it from land bases, where it could be landed with far greater levels of safety.
D’oh! That’s right. The A-7 was called “Man Eater” or (this is what I was thinking of) “Crew Chief Killer.”
Oh, I almost forgot the B-26 Marauder. The B-26 was designed with fairly small wings and a deep fuselage, earning it the nickname “Baltimore Whore” (Martin, the company that built them, was based in Baltimore, and judging by the size of the wings, it had no visible means of support.)
A great list of international aircraft nicknames is located here, or for a shorter list (American only), try this.
Only the last line is a direct quote from the Bible. The father was really, really drunk at the time, and the daughters initiated the sexual contact.
At least according to Genesis 19:30-38. Considering what Lot said about his daughters in verse 8 of the same chapter, it is safe to say that this may have been a family with some boundary issues.
Zen I doubt very much that this MOAB has anything to do with the Bible. As I posted before, it is far more likely a play on Saddam’s Mother of All Battles (or perhaps that MOAB was a biblical reference as well?)
Also, do you really think a Bush administration official makes up names for bombs?
I share the doubt that the name MOAB had any deliberate Bible reference, but I also share Zen’s concern that an “end times” mentality is influencing the White House. After all, a lot of the opposition to the UN from the Right comes from the belief that it represents the Antichrist. (just do a search with “united nations” + antichrist)
Don’t forget the fact that it also had the most powerful engine and largest prop at the time. Another reason for the “eliminator” nickname was attributed to the difficulty in landing the plane because of the high torque that the engine produced.
In fact, the MOAB designation was a desperation decision after rejecting many alternatives (much as George I came to settle on J. Danforth Quayle as his VP). Among the rejected alternatives:
Baric-Advanced Aerial Liquidator
Supreme Active Target Aero Nebulizer
Jelled Exo-Spray Ultrathermic Soundblaster
Emphatic Neural-Destruct Thermo-Intensified Mega-Eliminator
Target Optimizing Integral Long-Effect Terrablator
Practical Enabled Precise Scorch Instigator
Blast Upheaval Troop Terrorizer
Original Sin Atomic-Munitions Alternative
Burnt Undergarments Surrender-Helper
Georeactive Wimp-Baking-Impulse Nerve Obliterator 4
Yowling Enemy Resistance-Nullifying Ergal-eXtreme Thunderer
Thanks, but my point is that the current administration seems to have few qualms about incorporating Biblical references into a lot of their public media. Whether they named the bomb or not I would have hoped they might have been more sensitive to the polarizing use of such labels. They have not done anywhere near enough to avoid the perception that this is a Christian versus Muslim campaign.
As to the “end times” mentality, the Saudis have already voiced their concerns about this and I find it particularly chilling. The use of Biblical terminology merely reinforces this perception, and it is not a healthy one.
Read on, though–the Navy later worked the bugs out, and again used it as a carrier-based fighter (late in WWII and then in Korea). My dad flew Corsairs from carriers in Korea.
The fuel-air explosive uses ethylene oxide or propylene oxide as the fuel. These gases disperse rapidly and are toxic and carcinogenic as well as highly flammable.
The daisy cutter uses a polystyrene slurry in addition to the ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder. The polystyrene is flammable and sticks to everything.
Got a cite for that? As far as I can tell, there’s no such thing as freedom from religion. In fact, the same place that guarantees freedom of religion goes on to say that no law can be made to prohibit the free exercise thereof. Has there been an amendment passed while I wasn’t looking?
Last time I checked, Joe_Cool, America wasn’t a theocracy, at least, not yet. (Despite Shrub’s best efforts.) We have no state religion and therefore one’s right to be an atheist or agnostic is equally protected by the constitution. I have every right to protest any form of goverment sanctioned religion that might be thrust upon me. I call that freedom from religion.
Your “free exercise of religion” means that not only are you free to profess Christianity, but also that you can’t be forced to perform Emperor-worship (even if was claimed that you were still being left free to otherwise profess Christianity in the process). The “no religious establishment” clause further protects your free exercise of religion by mandating that the state cannot force you to contribute to the support of other religions; more generally, the state cannot be hijacked on behalf of any religion, even if you aren’t being forced to contribute anything material for that cause. (Thus, a courthouse or city hall or capitol building cannot be converted into a pagan temple, even if the funds to do this are raised by private donations.)
Just as Christians’ freedom of religion is protected by their not being forced to profess or support idolatry, so atheists’ freedom of religion is protected by their not being forced to profess or support theism. For atheists, freedom of religion is freedom from religion, and this is protected to the same extent that the freedom from idolatry of Christians is protected.
Free exercise of atheism does not give one the right to suppress expressions of religion.
Anyway, what’s your point? How does the fact that President Bush is a Christian force anybody else to profess or support any religion? The President is free to hold whatever religious views he chooses, AND EXPRESS THEM. That does not in any way indicate an establishment of religion.
Unless you can point to an executive order forcing a religion on somebody?
An Act of Congress proclaiming that the United States as a nation is Christian and accepts the Lordship of Jesus Christ would not “force” Christianity on anyone in the “put them on the rack and burn them at the stake” sense. An Act of Congress proclaiming that George Washington was a God incarnate and that all American citizens should worship him as such, and renaming the month of February “Washington”, with February 22 the officially proclaimed national “Festival of the Holy Incarnation of Washington, Deus Pater Patriae”, wouldn’t force pagan idolatry on anyone, but I don’t imagine Christians would be any too happy about it. Fortunately, the first clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution–“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”–has been held to prevent any such things.
This is not to say that the President making a reference to his religion in a public speech is unconstitutional, although it may be inappropriate. But insisting on the separation of church and state is not suppressing anyone’s expression of religion.
(Not that I think the “MOAB” is an official expression of religion. First of all, U.S. weapons have had “pagan” names in the past, and I think it would be awfully silly for Christians to get worked up about “Thor” or “Atlas” missiles. Second, “Moab” is an odd name if it’s interpreted as a Biblical name–in the Bible it’s not a mighty all-destroying dragon, it’s a kingdom, and usually is portrayed in rather unflattering terms in the Bible–“Those Moabites are gonna get it, just you wait!” I’d expect a Christian theocracy to give its bomb or missile a name more like “Sword of the Lord” or something. Finally, there are two non-Biblical explanations for the name; the official “Massive Ordnance Air Blast” and the unofficial “Mother Of All Bombs”; plus you can pronounce MOAB–“Mo-ab”, I presume–which is always a plus.)
Shall we start with “The Office of Faith Based Giving?”
My point is that Bush spends so much time trumpeting his Christian faith that he, by default, ends up portraying our country as a Christian nation. A quick word from the oval office would have instantly stifled the naming of the MOAB bomb. The slightest protest issuing forth from same right now would have that effect as well. Do you for one moment think that the White House press office did not have advance notice of what this bomb would be named? The administration’s routine utilization of Christian based iconography exacerbates terrorist animosity and invites future attack.
Just as we have a right to be free from religion, our nation deserves to be free of all such ill considered and utterly inappropriate type casting. It is treasonous that Shrub persists in it. I do not want to take this thread too far off topic but the MOAB bomb is a sterling example of such idiocy.
I’m still looking for support on the “freedom from religion” issue. The freedom from religious coercion is not freedom from religion iteself. You do not have the right to stifle religious expression (no matter whose) based on your personal dislike of it. There is no such right as freedom from religion, since the very concept implies the suppression of others’ expressions, which is expressly forbidden in Amendment I.