Powell on the National Guard

D. Strang wrote:
"ArtKramr" wrote

we still don't have Iraq under control.


We're still deployed in Germany, Korea, Colombia, Bolivia,
and the Sinai, etc...

We are out of control then, right?

Speak for yourself.


Freedom costs money, and lives.

Perhaps. But in this case, "oil" costs money and lives.

Without it we would have someone like
Sadaam's son's shooting us and raping our relatives just for fun.

Or, in this case, we would be driving Tercels rather than Explorers.


If you have a problem with freedom, then vote Democrat, and join the
Communist goal of serfdom.

Normally, one pursues a goal. Are you a native speaker of English? If
not, you're doing quite well.

Cheers

--mike

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:53:23 GMT, Mike Dargan
wrote:

Perhaps. But in this case, "oil" costs money and lives.

Horseplop. How many barrels of oil could we have purchased for $87
billion?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Kevin Brooks wrote:

: "Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell stated
: shortly after the war that it "...could have not been fought without the
: Guard".

Isn't that army policy? I seem to remember reading that
the US Army is deliberately organized in such way that
any major conflict requires calling in the National Guard.
In part because this allows the professional regular troops
to concentrate on the more hich-tech tasks, and in part to
create a political hurdle the politicians have to jump
over first. Sending National Guard units into combat
requires a clear commitment, so this prevents the army
from being slowly dragged into a full-scale war -- no more
Vietnams.

Emmanuel Gustin

On 21 Feb 2004 18:21:37 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin"
wrote:

Isn't that army policy? I seem to remember reading that
the US Army is deliberately organized in such way that
any major conflict requires calling in the National Guard.
In part because this allows the professional regular troops
to concentrate on the more hich-tech tasks, and in part to
create a political hurdle the politicians have to jump
over first. Sending National Guard units into combat
requires a clear commitment, so this prevents the army
from being slowly dragged into a full-scale war -- no more
Vietnams.

Yes, that is exactly the case.

It's also an economy measure. Not every military engagement requires a
civil affairs or a bridge-building unit, for example. So why not
train reservists or Guards in those offbeat specialties?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

: "Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell stated
: shortly after the war that it "...could have not been fought without the
: Guard".

Isn't that army policy? I seem to remember reading that
the US Army is deliberately organized in such way that
any major conflict requires calling in the National Guard.
In part because this allows the professional regular troops
to concentrate on the more hich-tech tasks, and in part to
create a political hurdle the politicians have to jump
over first. Sending National Guard units into combat
requires a clear commitment, so this prevents the army
from being slowly dragged into a full-scale war -- no more
Vietnams.

Correct. It actually became DoD policy (Total Force), but the Army was the
biggest supporter (Total Army); credit Creighton Abrams for that during his
(short) tenure as C/S after he left MAC-V. Cancer took a good one away
before his time.

Brooks


Emmanuel Gustin

Subject: Powell on the National Guard
From: R. David Steele VE
Date: 2/21/04 7:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


| we still don't have Iraq under control.
|
|We're still deployed in Germany, Korea, Colombia, Bolivia,
|and the Sinai, etc...
|
|
|We marched into Germany and got the entire country under control in about 15
|minutes. Why can't we get Iraq under control? What thehell is going on here
?

It took over two years to get Germany under control. And longer
to rebuild. And we are still occupying Germany today.

Plus we had loyalists to the Nazi party doing hit and runs on our
troops for most of that two years.




Guess you weren't there, right?


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

Guess you weren't there, right?

And you haven't been to Iraq, yet you feel fully qualified to spout off. Your
"I've been there so I'm always right" crap really makes you look like a
desperate, foolish old man...it's sad, really, you have my pity.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"