Powell on the National Guard

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Powell on the National Guard
From: "Brian"
Date: 2/21/04 4:32 PM Pacific Standard Time

Remember, Art flew over Germany and didn't stay. Once the war was over,
they
got to go home. There was no CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. to

I did an 16 month stay in the Army of occupation once the war was over. I
was
in the streets and spoke to the people on a daily basis. I'll take my
first
hand experience over what you saw or read in the news.

That is the problem with depending solely upon one individual's "first hand
experience"--it is not statistically representative of the whole. One would
think that someone who made his living trying to dupe people into paying
money for products they may very well not need would understand the concept
of a "representative sample"...

Brooks



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

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

In article ,
R. David Steele wrote:

| "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed
|managed to
| wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units." -- Colin
|Powell, My
| American Journey, 1995
|
|Colin Powell quoted regarding the Guard after ODS:
|
|"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".
|
|http://www.calguard.ca.gov/250thmi/A...ory_usarng.htm
|
|Brooks
|
|
| Arthur Kramer
|
|
|
|
|Of course not. It was being fought on the cheap and there weren't enough
|regular troops to do the job and so the guard had to be called in.
It is still
|being fought on the cheap and we still don't have Iraq under control.

Thank Clinton for gutting the military in the '90s. He basically
cut the military in half.

In graph form, for those who can not read (ie grad students)
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf
In table form
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf

Army Navy Marines Af
1990 732,403 579,417 196,652 535,233
2000 482,170 373,193 173,321 355,654

1990 2,043,705
2000 1,384,338

this was a 46% reduction in force over 10 years. The famous
"peace dividend" which was taken out of Army and AF for the most
part.


And a bunch of the headcount was contracted out to KBR. I suspect
that the budget didn't go down in proportion to headcount. I know
that the budget did a steep uptick in Clinton's last year.

Remember that The Afgani war was fought with Clinton's military.
Even in the best of circumstances Rummy's changes couldn't
have kicked it by late 2001.





--
Al Dykes
-----------

I stand corrected. Talked to anyone returning from Iraq?


Art doesn't need to, he saw it on TV or read it in the newspapers....which is
only acceptable if you're Art Kramer.


BUFDRVR

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

R. David Steele wrote:
Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of
another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell.

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us
who still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being
depleted without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling
gas-guzzling SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our
roads to be able to get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license
plate.

In any case, our current energy policy was put together by a commission
appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President, whose
membership seems to be a secret, along with the minutes of the meetings they
may have had that evolved into our national policy. It's not even clear
what the policy actually is, much less the reasons for it, since everything
about that commission has been kept secret by the Vice President, who is now
or shortly will be defending himself against a lawsuit before the Supreme
Court which was filed to force the administration to make public the details
of the commission's proceedings.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our
energy policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests
first, rather than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of
these days.

George Z.

Because the UAW has a huge influence on such policies. I gather
that you want millions of common folks without jobs?

Those SUVs put money in the common man's pocket.

I guess that non-sequitor is about as much as I could expect by way of an
answer.

George Z.

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"

R. David Steele wrote:


| Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
| until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of
| another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell.
|
| We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.
|
|Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us who
|still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
|without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling gas-guzzling
|SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able to
|get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.
|
|In any case, our current energy policy was put together by a commission
|appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President, whose membership
|seems to be a secret, along with the minutes of the meetings they may have had
|that evolved into our national policy. It's not even clear what the policy
|actually is, much less the reasons for it, since everything about that
|commission has been kept secret by the Vice President, who is now or shortly
|will be defending himself against a lawsuit before the Supreme Court which was
|filed to force the administration to make public the details of the commission's
|proceedings.
|
|It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our energy
|policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first, rather
|than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.
|
|George Z.

Because the UAW has a huge influence on such policies. I gather
that you want millions of common folks without jobs?

Those SUVs put money in the common man's pocket.

Stupid pig. Stupid, fat, careless, reckless, feckless yankee Pig.
All too typical. May Amerika fall soon, God most Willing.

Grantland

George Z. Bush wrote:

"D. Strang" wrote in message

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into
your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need,
because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has to
do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for
some reason, it never caught on with consumers.

I like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother
when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in
abundance.

But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very
good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from
corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas?

It's a net energy loss IIRC.

it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the
current technology in algae production would be able to match that price,
with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology
improves.

That's all well and good, but 25+ years after they started looking into the
possibilities, there is still nothing available that is cost-effective enough to
put on the market. Since no one denies that we ought to be able to rub our
bellies and scratch our heads at the same time, why haven't they created greater
demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously
reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and
stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources?
That's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure you know the answer as well as I.

Because oil is what drives the economy, and because no satisfactory
alternative is anywhere on the horizon, with the possible exception
of hydrogen driven fuel cell technology in perhaps 20 years.

The infrastructure is set up for oil and whatever replaces oil should
fit that same infrastructure for best effect.

The idea you're going to "stick it" to oil companies with some new
technology is naive. The oil companies will become the "hydrogen
companies", or "solar companies" or "wind companies" of the future.
They're not going away and until fusion nukes come along, energy is
always going to be a hard to come by, costly resource.


SMH

George Z. Bush wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

George Z. Bush wrote:


"D. Strang" wrote in message

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling gas-guzzling
SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able to
get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.

In any case, our current energy policy was put together by a commission
appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President, whose membership
seems to be a secret, along with the minutes of the meetings they may have had
that evolved into our national policy. It's not even clear what the policy
actually is, much less the reasons for it, since everything about that
commission has been kept secret by the Vice President, who is now or shortly
will be defending himself against a lawsuit before the Supreme Court which was
filed to force the administration to make public the details of the commission's
proceedings.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our energy
policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first, rather
than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.

You think this is new to GW Bush???

Get real! It's been our policy almost since we became an
oil driven economy.

How many miles do you put in on the bicycle, or on foot?

I don't own a bicycle, and hardly get out of my yard without a cane. What;s
that got to do with anything?

Much of the world does meets its transportation needs by bike
or foot. No Buick required.

These vehicles get *exceptionally* good oil based fuel economy,
and have the added benefit of being health promoting, reducing
longer term medical costs.

How many mpg does your vehicle get?

My 92 Taurus gets 27 and my 01 Buick gets 28. I wish they could both get more,
but I don't build cars, I just use what's available.

There are those who might say you're driving the wrong car then.
There are cars getting well into the 40 mpg range and above. A
real purist would not own a Buick or Taurus if it doesn't regularly
carry more than a couple people or "stuff".

Have you bought an electric car yet?

No, and I live in a town with some 400 other residents, and I haven't seen a
single one around. I think it's safe to conclude that they aren't what you
would call on the market yet.

Yes they're out on the market, but outrageously expensive. There
are hybrids starting to appear though. They can get towards 60 mpg.

Modified your car to run on propane or cow manure (methane)?

Not yet. I'm waiting for all those people whose vehicles get them 10 or 13 mpg
to get theirs up to 27 or 28 mpg before I start looking into it.

Not certain you'll find too many vehicles under 10 years old getting
10-13 mpg unless it's a pickup truck towing something or hauling a
heavy load. Mid sized sedans are pretty close to 30 mpg (highway)
and smaller cars up into the 30's and even a Cadillac DeVille is
listed at 27.

Converted your oil run house heat?

My house heat runs mostly on electricity, and partially on natural gas. I think
we were talking about cars before you changed the subject, undoubtedly hoping I
wouldn't notice.

No we were really talking about energy policy and energy in the
form of oil! Did you forget?

Cars are only a part of that.


SMH

Al Dykes wrote:

For "farmers" substitute "ADM, Inc" ("Archer Daniels Midland"), far
and away the single biggest beneficiary of the subsidies, and a huge
campaign donor to both parties. See Cato Institute's

"Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html

Cato describes itself as a conserviative think tank, which they
indeed are.

ADM has been CONVICTED AND FINED in what was at the time the biggest
antitrust fine in history. Corn-related in that there is a byproduct
of corn-ethanol production a valuable industrial byproduct; Lecithin.
Because of the subsidies ADM was able to produce and lecithin for
free, and undercut all the competition.

Actually, I think there are three primary companies farmers
sell their crops to. ADM is one, the names of the other two
elude me at the moment.

Big agribusiness companies that increasingly, don't even own the
huge amount of land they "farm". The farmer owns the land, takes
all the risks in producing the crop, then hands it over to company.
No shopping around for a best price.

Farming: It's a tough business!


SMH