Thread
:
Instructors: is no combat better?
View Single Post
#
8
March 9th 04, 11:54 PM
Howard Berkowitz
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
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.
It makes sense in WWII. What doesn't make sense is that your posts often
characterize people by WWII standards. Things change.
As far as saying anything negative, I really don't want to go back into
the archives, but I'm fairly certain you sounded at least dubious about
how someone could rise to O-6 without combat, and suggested that he
should have sought it out.
Howard Berkowitz