Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is when
you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against people
that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
environments.


What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but
only
"appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward?

Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have
suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission
in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense.

You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again,
he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold
War turned hot.

I think if you re-read the post you will find out that I made no criticism of
Rumsfeld. I was simply pointing out that he was an instructor with no combat
experience Then I asked if that was usual these days. I said nothing negative
about him at all. The subject was qualifications to instruct, not Rumsfeld per
se. You can understand that being trained in WW II the idea of an instructor
who had never been to combat was just a but strange, Very strange.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer