letter to sons on Muslim terrorism 5/19/2004

This sobering memo takes about three minutes to read. If you have any

illusions that we are not in a war, I beg to differ. This was written by a

retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.

A LETTER TO MY SONS

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the

present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of

important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really

takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you

a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to

speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored,

I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre

and WWII (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have

without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international

conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President

Roosevelt - WWII: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy -

Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961);[1] eight presidents

(5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President

Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998).[2] So be sure you

read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we

know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which

includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact

that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and

even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States

is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following

attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;

Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to

New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran,

Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy

1998; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;

New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the

period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).[3]

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened

during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton

and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there

were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate

predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

4. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

5. What is the Muslim population of the World?

25%

6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the

predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the

dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no

difference. You either went along with the administration or you were

eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for

political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).

().

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the

6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of

anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world

focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in

his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German,

Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the

world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish,

French or anyone else.. [5] The point here is that just like the peaceful

Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many

peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the

terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by

their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the

peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So with whom are we at war?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the

Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing

this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't

clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We

can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major

reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to

the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great

many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the

troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as

far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will

not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us

dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have

produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.

The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and

submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of

reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot

help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be

increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage.

It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its

troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their

train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain

to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might

see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in

that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may

already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading

fast. See the attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel. [6]

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will

all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal

with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the

Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on

this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We

better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.

Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100%

of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100%

effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the

war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the

enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to

the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we

continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life

and death seriousness of this situation.

- President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.

Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by

Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to

allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?

This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the

civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to

lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose

all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We

gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them

after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame

President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political

Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict

and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war.

Get them out of your head.

- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the

Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us

lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is

because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that

conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and

weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media

regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps

exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving

the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our

military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago

were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands,

cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for

disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type

prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same

reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were

burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses

through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy

that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of

the beheading of an American prisoner they held. Compare this with some of

our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked

about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not

burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not

beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real? The

politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of

Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of

comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are

fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results

of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual

political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero

playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on

in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this

internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our

politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they

absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into

which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember,

the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates

into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the

world. We are the last bastion of defense.

- We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge

is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that

we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of

all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we

can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't.

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and

no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow

freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the

Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any

status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that

contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we

will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the

Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to

be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims

take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to

increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by

little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting

among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will

continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that

sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external

military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct

piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away

to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not

apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have

universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally

killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we

ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful

Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are

united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the

election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical

situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is

your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love,

Dad

[1] By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is really

not possible to discuss it. However, I think President Kennedy was correct.

He felt there was a communist threat from China, Russia and North Vietnam

to take over that whole area. Also remember that we were in a 'cold war'

with Russia. I frankly think Kennedy's plan worked and kept that total

communist control out, but try telling that to anyone now. It just isn't

politically correct to say so. Historians will answer this after cool

headed research, when the people closest to it are all gone.

[2] As you know, I am a strong President Bush supporter and will vote for

him. However, if Senator Kerry is elected, I will fully support him on all

matters of international conflict, just as I have supported all presidents

in the past.

[3] Source for statistics in Par. 1 is <

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html>

[4] The Institute of Islamic Information and Education. <

http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html>

[5] Note the attached article by Tom Segel referred to in footnote 6 infra,

the terrorist Muslim have already begun the havoc in France. (The note was

not attached to the E-mail I received. Gene) [nor I, Bat]

[6] I checked this article with two sources - Hoax Busters and Urban Myths.

It does not come up as a Hoax on either. I also then E-mailed Mr. Segel and

he confirmed the article was his.

[7] "I don't think the Army or any branch of service runs any type of war

any more. It's done by senators and congressmen. There are too many

civilians involved." Returning Iraq veteran, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Klees as

quoted in the Cedar Rapids, IA Gazette on May 13th, 2004.

[8] There are 64 Muslim countries. This does not count countries like Spain

that are controlled by the Muslim terrorists.

GOD BLESS THE USA & OUR WARRIORS IN HARMS WAY

Is preemptive offense Christian? 10/17/04

10/17/04 (7:00 AM)

Hi Don!

I’ve been studying your response for some time now,trying to marshall my thoughts together for your further valued consideration. First of all I am sure you agee how lucky, fortunate, or perhaps blessed we are that we can openly discuss and agree to disagree as the case may be. I use the word, “blessed”, cautiously as it might seem to relate to God giving us a gold star or particular commendation for making “right choices”. That may be subject for further discussion at a different time and I admit to the nagging thought some of the time that we may be Don Quixote jousting with wind mills.

At any rate I awakened this morning at 4:30--too early as far as getting enough sleep is concerned--and was exploring your thoughts as recorded, trying to get behind them or inside them to see if I might figure out from my standpoint where we might find some reasoned explanation for our separate conclusions. Such thinking on my part led me (perhaps pretty far out) to basic deliberation on the subject of Prevenient Grace as Bob Kaylor presented to us recently in the study of John Wesley’s beliefs.

As I understand it at the moment, Prevenient Grace is offered to us by God for the taking at our own will. (If you happen to have been raised in the Presbyterian tradition as was I, it has already been predestined as to whether or not you will accept Prevenient Grace!) I am thinking currently that a partially acceptable metaphor for Prevenient Grace may be the order in the universe that came with His creation of it. It is difficult for me to see the continual unveiling of more and more of the order in the universe (through what we learn through science or revelation) as anything but the hand of God at creation. Now how does all this rumination relate to our discussion at hand.

First of all, if we violate the order in the universe there is “Hell to Pay” until order is re-establised. A rather strained example may be what would happen if I should decide that I could fly on my own--and jumped off the roof to prove it. My violation of the law of gravity would come to an end when I hit the ground and “order” would be re-established. Man’s inhumanity toward man (such as war) is a violation of the order of God’s universe and it seems we need to come crashing down violently.

I agree with you in so many ways:

1) We should protect America from terrorism.

It is what and how we do it that matters.

2) The “People” of any country do not want terrorism.

The terrorists are a fringe group in any country.

3) Our goal is to work with all other countries to eliminate terrorism.

Our goal cannot be realized unless the people of other countries take it upon themselves to eliminate this cancer. Hopefully our leadership will encourage them and I think signs are positive.

4) People do not want a foreign occupational force in their country.

We are not an occupation force. We are a support to new governments with a great majority of “The People” behind them.

5) It is naive to think that we can win the war against terrorism -- regardless of how many troops and dollars we commit.

The other countries in the long run must do it themselves.

6) We should respond to humanitarian needs as best we can.

We can never do it all and perhaps should do much more.

7) We should not force democracy or elections on others.

We cannot hold elections for them but can help to make such possible. If they choose a non-democracy, we will accept it.

8) Perhaps a temporary peace can be realized through war but not a permanent peace.

History certainly proves this. When will there be such peace?

9) I wish I could vote for one who believes in the teaching of Christ.

I believe that both candidates believe “in the teaching of Christ” as it has been revealed to them--not necessarily as revealed to me.

10) The Christion church should take leadership in a peace movement.

Ecumenism beyond just Christianity has never been stronger.

Now where might I disagree with you to some extent. But first let me quote from the Baptismal Covenant which was read from our hymnal Sunday before last when a mother and two children were baptised by our pastor.

“On behalf of the whole church, I ask you: Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world and repent of your sin?

Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?”

Everyone anwers “I do” of course, but what does it mean? I am truly troubled by it. One person (whom I respect greatly) with whom I discussed this, does not believe it was a call for action, rather it only implies that we are given the freedom and the power if we should want to use it.

Were we wrong to take action in Afghanistan and Iraq? Use of the word, “invasion”, bothers me. I think it is an inaccurate connotation here when taken as something negative. I guess we invaded Italy and France during the Second World War but there was no intent to take over those countries any more than our desire to take over Afghanistan or Iraq.

I have difficulty finding a parallel between our revolution and the idea that when other countries want a change, they will do it just like we did in 1776. I don’t believe the people in Iraq or Afghanistan could possibly “rise up” and free themselves of such first-hand oppression as meted out by the Talaban or Saddam--nor could the people under Hitler or Stalin.

I think it is “Christian” for the USA to take action as best we can against such apparent evil. In this case I also believe that the best defense of our country is a stong pre-emptive offense (although it is really incorrect to use the word, “pre-emptive” in light of 9/11 and all the attacks against us in the several years prior when we wished it were not too serious).

I realize the world may always tend to resent the powerful until it is quite apparently in their best interest. But I hope I am properly humble in thinking that, like it or not, we have been handed the baton once again in my life time, to struggle overtly against “the forces of evil”---as no other nation has sufficient strength or will to act.

I do not think other countries have a valid “reason” to fear us. They may rightly expect reaction from us but I believe history will show that our support of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan was anything but a colossal blunder but to the contrary, was a major deterrant against the spread of the obscenity that is terroriism.

Praying for Peace 1/31/2003

2723 Gallivan Loop

Park City, Utah 84060

January 31, 2003

To the Editor

The Park Record

P. O. Box 3688

Park City, Utah 84060

Dear Sirs:

Praying For Peace

I applaud the patriotic citizens of Park City who made their voices heard in a protest against war, standing on the corners of Park City in spite of the weather. It is a blessed freedom given to us by God, as intimated by President Bush in his State of the Union address.

I also applaud those patriotic citizens who are willing to stake their lives and fortunes to protect us from the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) by those who would destroy America if they could. After 9/11 can anyone honestly doubt that there are other terrorists who would willingly attach themselves to the WMD’s, giving their lives to kill thousands of Americans?

The underlying reason for attacking Iraq, if it should become necessary, is to prevent WMD’s from reaching willing hands. Unseating Saddam is the route to that end, not the principal end itself. Perhaps a more “moral” way will yet turn up through pressure from other dictators in neighboring countries, that will cause Saddam to be deposed in one way or another. Perhaps in due course “he may be converted and LIVE”, as our highly respected clergyman so earnestly postulates. In the meantime I believe our elected leaders have a great moral obligation to act before it is too late.

Now for some spin on the world situation, particularly the potential war with Iraq. We are all entitled to "spin". Goodness knows it bombards us all the time. That is one of the benefits of a free society. I am afraid that there are many people in other nations that do not

understand this freedom that we have and think that the anti-war demonstrations in our country prove that we will not go to war regardless of reason. There seems to me still to be a chance that Saddam will step down but my “spin” is that all the anti-war demonstrations in this country have augmented similar outcries against the US in countries around the world--people who do not understand the freedom to protest in this country and think that our demonstrations reflect the majority opinion here and will cause us to back down. To my mind there is a bit of unintentional "aiding and abetting" the enemy in all this that has very likely prevented Saddam from yielding so far. Let's hope and pray he may still give in.

Are we at war? 118,2002

2723 Gallivan Loop

Park City, Utah 84060

November 8, 2002

To the Editor

The Park Record

P.O. Box 3688

Park City, Utah 84060

Dear Sirs:

A Lesson in History -- Indeed!!

How sad it was last Wednesday (November 6) in a letter to the Editor that someone felt compelled to make even a distant association between our President and Hermann Goering--even if only words by the latter. As a veteran of WW ll, I found it very repugnant.

But then assuming the writer felt the need of some sensationalism to help make his point, what was he trying to say? Apparently it is his belief that we have not been attacked--that 9/11, Lebanon, and elsewhere were either fabrication or not really acts of war against the United States. Surely what we have learned in the last several months about terrorism world wide

points to a real enemy existing in several countries. Our President indicated we have no choice but to clearly state that countries that are willing to harbor terrorists are our enemies too. It may not be a pretty picture but neither is the specter of blindness to reality and impractical idealism that could lead to another Munich--Peace in Our Time!

Sincerely,

Ralph Gates

tel: 645-8136

Songs of WW l and ll

Songs for book

The songs that were new during the two wars were certainly different. remember singing in the car on our trips from Nashville to Onaway (Waupaca, Wisconsin) during the 1930's. "There's a silver lining, through the dark clouds shining, turn the dark clouds inside out, 'til the boys come home" was one of Mother's favorites. "It's a long, long way to Tipperary, farewell Leicester Square, but my hearts right there" was another. "There's a long, long trail awinding, into the land of my dreams, where the nightin'gales are singing and the bright moon beams. There's a long, long night awaiting until my dreams all come true, 'til the day that I'll be gain' down that long, long trail with you." Of course Irving Berlin's songs were the hits of the time during the war, like "Over there, over there, send the word, send the word over there, that the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming, the drums rum tumming everywhere. Send the word, we're coming over and we won't be back 'til its over over there." One of my favorites was, "K--.k--, Katie, beautiful Katie, you're the only g--, g---, girl that I adore." I"m not sure if it were a World War song or not, but I always loved singing," Lindy, Lindy, sweet as the sugar cane, Lindy, Lindy, say you'll be mine. When the moon am shining, then my heart am pine-ing, meet me pretty Lindy by the water mellon vine".

By the time WW II started for America, the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville had become the seat for much of the people's music. So many new country songs relating to the war effort become popular. Most of them didn't last very long but I'll never forget "There'll be smoke on the water, on the land and the sea, when our Army and Navy overtake th enemy" and "Get up mule, we're not through, got a lot of plowing to do, so it's haw to the left and gee to the right, we gotta plow to win this fight". One of the real tear jerkers at the time was "I'm writing this letter from a trench, Mom, and it fills my poor heart with pain". Perhaps the Broadway type songs were more lasting, like "The Boogie Woogie Bugler Boy from Company B", "I'll walk alone, but to tell you the truth I am lonely, but my heart tells me true that you're lonely too. There are dreams I must gather, etc". And of course, "Rosie the Riveter" was a big hit. "The White Cliffs of Dover", "A Nightingale Sang in

Berkely Square" and one I thought was particularly poingent, "My Sister and I remember still, a tulip garden and an old Dutch mill and we think of our friends who had to stay, but we don't talk about that". This last one was from a young person who had been fortunate enough to have been evacuated from Holland to England before the German occupation. Another hit of the time was, "They're either too young or too old, they're either too gray or too grassy green, What's good is in the Army, what's left will never

harm me."

When I finally got in the service I went through Infantry Basic Training,

fully expecting to head for Europe and the Battle of the Bulge which was raging at the time. The Navy had its songs like "Anchors Away Me Boys, Anchors Away", the Marines had "From the Shores of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli" and the Air Corps (not yet separate from the Army) had its "Up we go, into the wild blue yonder, up we go into the sky. Down we go, spouting our flame from under, off with one hell of a roar. We live in fame, go down in flame, nothing can stop the Army Air Corps". The Army did have its old WW I song, " And the caissons keep rolling along" but I really felt teary when a true infantry song came out--namely, The Ballad of Roger Young. "On the island of New Georgia in the Solomons, just grenades against machine guns in the gloom, 'til this one of twenty riflemen volunteered to meet his doom. Volunteered, Roger Young, fought and died for the men he marched among. To the everlasting glory of the Infantry, shines the name, shines the name of Roger Young".

From Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 until I went in the Army in September 1944, several of our close neighbors on Fairfax Avenue in Nashville were lost. First to go was Harry Denham who lived next door, older brother to my closest friend, Jimmy Denham. Harry was tough as nails and it was not surprising that he joined the Marines early on. He was not a big guy but when he was barely sixteen years old he made the head lines in the Nashville papers by chasing down and well-throtelling an older and larger man who had snatched the purse of his aunt with whom he was walking in downtown Nashville. Harry established his fame in the Nashvile paper at the time by becoming, "Harry Halloran Shankafoot, purse snatchthief catcher Denham". I sadly remember the day when Jimmy came over from next door, crying, to tell me his mother had just received word that Harry had been killed on the island of Tarawa. There was liitle doubt in· our 1 6 year old minds at the time that he surely had taken at least 20 Japs with him when he went down

About a year later we heard that Johnny Ozier living next door on the other side of us had gone down in his B-1 7 over Germany. Then we heard that Conrad Jamieson, living on Acklin Avenue directly behind us, had been killed in Europe. Conrad was also a young man, not to be tampered with. I remeber his trying to get me to box with him as preparation for his trying out for Golden Gloves in Nashville. I took a couple of sharp blows to the head which I felt rather forcefully, even through the well padded boxing

gloves, and begged off any further assistance in his plans.

Some of mother's closest friends were the Manchesters, across the street and down four houses. Dr. Manchester was a professor at Ward Belmont College. They had two sons, Tom and John. Tom was a medical doctor who survived the war. Unfortunately, John was a Navy pilot who failed to return to his aircraft carrier in the Pacific after a mission. I expect that he was lost in the Battle of Midway when so many flyers were lost in the most significent Navy engagement in the Pacific. That battle was the turning point in Japan's surpremacy although it took 3 more years before the final surrender. My current good friend, C. W. "Moose" Smith, had graduated from the Naval Academy in 1939 and was at sea, but not in that particular engagement, when the Navy put out a call for volunteers to become pilots- presumably to replace all those lost at Midway. Moose became a pilot on a carrier several months later but says that there were no more true combats with Japanese pilots other than trying to ward off the Kamikazi attachs. His combat flying experiences off a small carrier were mainly as support for combat landings on the Pacific islands.