Instructors: is no combat better?

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.

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

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.

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.


I would have sought it out. wouldn't you have as well?


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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


e.

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.


I would have sought it out. wouldn't you have as well?


Let's say I had been in service.. My answer is probably not, and
thoughtfully, for the good of my country. My strongest skills are in
C3I -- I'm trained as both a network architect and as a strategic
intelligence analyst. Being able to combine the two helped, for example,
when I consulted on design of command posts at the joint command level.

As I've said before, some of my work involved personnel sensors for Viet
Nam. If some of the devices I worked on variously could tell a strike
pilot where troops were located under jungle canopy, I might save quite
a few pilots from flak traps. We worked on a system that was just in
prototype, but potentially could let you line up "peaceful" villagers
and find out which ones had recently handled Soviet-bloc weapons -- and
perhaps get them out of circulation before they ambushed you.

So am I going to do more good for my country in a cockpit or in a
laboratory? Quite probably the latter.

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 5:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


e.

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.


I would have sought it out. wouldn't you have as well?


Let's say I had been in service.. My answer is probably not, and
thoughtfully, for the good of my country. My strongest skills are in
C3I -- I'm trained as both a network architect and as a strategic
intelligence analyst. Being able to combine the two helped, for example,
when I consulted on design of command posts at the joint command level.

As I've said before, some of my work involved personnel sensors for Viet
Nam. If some of the devices I worked on variously could tell a strike
pilot where troops were located under jungle canopy, I might save quite
a few pilots from flak traps. We worked on a system that was just in
prototype, but potentially could let you line up "peaceful" villagers
and find out which ones had recently handled Soviet-bloc weapons -- and
perhaps get them out of circulation before they ambushed you.

So am I going to do more good for my country in a cockpit or in a
laboratory? Quite probably the latter.


Guess you are right. But I was an 18 year old kid and there was a war on and
there way no way in hell I was going to miss it no matter what my
qualifications were, You are obviously far more thoughtful and analytical than
I was. I wanted to go to war and nothing in hell was going to stop me. But I
guess that is theway we all were when we were 18. (sigh)


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