Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

[snip]

I don't recall anyone facing the assignment to missiles as being
particularly grateful nor viewing it as "fine duty." They did get
pretty polyester ascots, vinyl caps and a chance to get a Master's
degree during their days in the hole. And, other than cholesterol
build-up from chow hall food, the hazards during the Vietnam war were
minimal in the silo. Casualties were low and few POW's were taken.

Missileers were subject to some very rigorous pshychological
screening AIUI. I would imagine not wanting that particular
assignment would raise some red flags for the screeners as
would a surfeit of enthusiasm for the job.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Subject: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/17/2004 10:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:20:19 -0400, Peter Skelton
wrote:

when did this turn into alt.failed.polysci101?

Peter Skelton

I think it was with the arrival of Walt$49.95 and ACE,


Political Science is a contradiction in terms. If it is political it ain't
science. If it is science it ain't political.


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

"ArtKramr" wrote

Political Science is a contradiction in terms. If it is political it ain't
science. If it is science it ain't political.

You'll have to talk to Plato about it. You're both about the same age,
although not peers.

On 17 Jul 2004 17:59:09 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:


Political Science is a contradiction in terms. If it is political it ain't
science. If it is science it ain't political.


Arthur Kramer

While that is cute, it isn't very new and it also isn't correct.
Political Science is the study of politics, not the practice. In other
words, it is the observation of phenomena in the hope of understanding
it. It involves both traditional schools and behavioral.

The traditionalists tend to research history and attempt to understand
the political processess that led to successes or failures. For
example there has been a lot of study of the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban
Missile Crisis, the failures of the Vietnam War, the US success in the
Cold War, etc.

The behavioralists tend toward statistical analysis. Here you get
polling, measurement, focus groups, attempts at prediction,
measurement of public opinion, etc.

Now, your turn for another inanity.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Billy Preston wrote:

The damned rockets just sit there, until we get tired of
paying for them.

Are you insinuating neither the "rockets" nor the operators are serving, or
have served a purpose? Are you saying the ICBM has made no contribution to
national defense?




BUFDRVR

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I don't recall anyone facing the assignment to missiles as being
particularly grateful nor viewing it as "fine duty."

For the life of me Ed, I can't figure out why you impugn the service of
missileers. Did you have a run in with one at the O' Club? Honestly Ed, you
sound like Art Kramer every time you discuss the "dreaded missileer" and ICBM
duty.


BUFDRVR

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

"BUFDRVR" wrote
Billy Preston wrote:

The damned rockets just sit there, until we get tired of
paying for them.

Are you insinuating neither the "rockets" nor the operators are serving, or
have served a purpose? Are you saying the ICBM has made no contribution to
national defense?

Don't get your panties in a bunch, I was just trying to be funny...

I think MIRV ICBM's made more sense then a lot of bombers we fielded, but I
don't thing Lt Bush was interested much in rocketry.

Subject: Why didn't GWB join the U.S. Air Force ?
From: "sanjian"
Date: 7/17/2004 6:28 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: RmkKc.2440$fB4.1010@lakeread01

Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:


democratic and prepublican principles can exist side by side. they
are not in contra distinction.


There you've made a meaningless statement. Equally we might note that
democratic and communistic principles can exist side by side.


They can of course. we can democratically decide on our economic
system. equally dictatorships can be capitalistic. one does not
implicate the other.

However, certain political systems and economic systems are likely to see
grouped than others.


China today is an example of a communist capitalisic sytem Or it can be called
a capitalist dictatorship.


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

"ArtKramr" wrote

China today is an example of a communist capitalisic sytem Or it can be called
a capitalist dictatorship.

Thank you Professor...

From: (ZZBunker)


snip

A monarchy is not a government, since it's nothing but Kings
illegally giving stuff to Dukes. Since there has never
been a Monarchy in the entire history of Earth, that didn't
somehow also think that is was an Empire, graced by some
non-existent spirits in the woods, such as Robin Hood.

So monarchies aren't governments? I'm sure the UK would be surprised to hear
that. If you are referring to preparliamentary marnarchies they were in fact
governents in that the made law raised taxes and armies etc.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired