A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Powell on the National Guard



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 21st 04, 05:32 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: Powell on the National Guard
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/21/04 8:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 21 Feb 2004 00:55:35 GMT,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

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

?



Arthur Kramer


Might want to reconsider that statement with a look at some history
books. First, we marched into Germany in about a year from D-Day to
the fall of Berlin. Then, it took nearly two years before the country
was stabilized and functional again. Follow that with about four more
years of occupation before it was self-governing (although divided).
Then, the reunification only took another forty years.

Conversely, we marched into Iraq and got the country under control in
three weeks. We lost less than one percent of the casualties we had in
the march into Germany in '44-'45. Now, we are less than one year from
the start of hostilities in Iraq, we less than a third of the troops
involved that were participants in the occupation of Germany and the
country is within four months of establishing a democratic
legislature. That's a pretty remarkable achievement.

It will take time to truly democratize the country, but failure to do
so will destabilize the Middle East and simply mean that we will have
to shed a lot more blood against a much more vigorous enemy in the
region at some future date.

I shouldn't be quoting to you what the effort was to take control of
Germany or what the conditions of the occupation were. You were there,
but our post above seems to indicate that you've forgotten the
magnitude of the effort.



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



I have forgotten nothing. Don't believe everything you read. We moved into
Germany days after VE day and we walked the streets unarmed without the
slightest fear of being attacked. The entire country was crawling with MP's
and everything was under control right off. Don't mix political and economic
issues with getting the military under control. These are totally unrelated
concepts. BTW, did you get to Nam via the National Guard? And if not why not?


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

  #22  
Old February 21st 04, 05:44 PM
Al Dykes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article dhLZb.9601$Ru5.5073@okepread03,
D. Strang wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote

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.


For every Gallon of Ethanol, you pay for it twice. Once for the subsidy to
farmers (in the form of welfare), and once again from the retail chain.


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. See

http://www.lecithin.com/info/p2.html


...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?


It's called an unfunded mandate. Think about it this way. If we gave GM and
Ford the same amount of money we ****ed away on the Shuttle and Space Station,
we would be floating in biodiesel, and no one would know who the Bin Laden
family was.




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


  #23  
Old February 21st 04, 05:52 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 21 Feb 2004 16:32:22 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:



I have forgotten nothing. Don't believe everything you read. We moved into
Germany days after VE day and we walked the streets unarmed without the
slightest fear of being attacked. The entire country was crawling with MP's
and everything was under control right off. Don't mix political and economic
issues with getting the military under control. These are totally unrelated
concepts. BTW, did you get to Nam via the National Guard? And if not why not?


Arthur Kramer


I don't understand your statement, "don't mix political and economic
issues with getting the military under control". If you mean getting
the military of the enemy defeated or under our control, then that has
been done in Iraq in much less time at much less cost than the
invasion, defeat and occupation of Germany. If you mean that there is
not a relationship between political and economic goals and the use of
military force, then I must vigorously disagree. The concepts are
inextricably intertwined.

As for you question of how I got to Vietnam, you already know that I
went by the active duty USAF route. Why? One, I wanted to fly
fighters. I only knew of the USAF as a route to pilot training and
then fighters. I knew that there was a Guard and Reserve air
component, but I didn't know that they had direct training slots. My
knowledge at the time was limited to the belief that Guard and Reserve
pilots came from active duty after an initial service commitment.

Second, I wanted to fly fighters (I know, I'm being redundant). I
lived in Chicago. The only Air Guard or Reserve unit I was aware of
was at O'Hare, flying KC-97s. Not my goal at all.

Third, I went into the AF with little or no knowledge of hostilities
in Vietnam. I was commissioned in June of '64 after four years of
AFROTC. The first deployments of F-100s were going to Thailand/Vietnam
about that time. Some of those units were ANG!!!!!!

Fourth, by the time I was in pilot training, my goal was more
specific: to fly F-105s. I still didn't know that there was a rapidly
intensifying combat operation going on. I did know that F-105s were
incredibly exciting aircraft and like all of the Century Series
fighters (including the F-102) could kill you quite nicely without the
benefit of an additional enemy.

Fifth, I didn't volunteer for combat. It came and got me. By the time
I was completing F-105 training, the entire production (nine every six
weeks) from the training course was going to Thailand and flying into
N. Vietnam. Within weeks of completing my training, the F-105 course
was modified to double the capacity (fifteen per class) and half the
duration (60 hours vice 120 flying hours). No more Lt's were
taken--only "experienced" pilots, although many were bomber, airlift,
training command and staff types.

Sixth, I did volunteer for my second combat tour in the F-4, nearly
six years later.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8
  #24  
Old February 21st 04, 07:11 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"George Z. Bush" writes:

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:gXJZb.9592$Ru5.1337@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.


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.


It's certainly not the case that a gallon of Etanol would displace a
gallon of Gasoline - Ethanol has an energy content much
lower than gasoline. (Roughly 55% of gasoline)
So, for an equivalent amaount of power, you have to burn twice as much
Ethanol. It's got some other problems as well - it doesn't atomize as
well in a fuel injector or carburator jet, and it tends to suck up
water, which leads to more problems with clogging injectors & jets.

It does have the advantage of having the detonation resistance of
about 150 Octane gasoline.

There are also heavy demands on energy in the agricuture producing
Ethanol. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I wouldn't be
surprised if it took more energy to make a gallon of Ethanol than it
does to make a gallon on gasoline.

It also has a tendency to eat various plastic components in many fuel
systems.

Hydrogen, BTW, is much, much worse. It takes a lot of electricity to
electrolytically separate it. That electricity has to come from
somewhere. If it's not going to be Nukes (Politically unpalatable,
especially to the Greenies), we're talking about comventional means,
with the concominant, inevitable environmental damage that that
causes. When was the last time a big hydroelectric dam was built in
the U.S. or Canada? I don't want to even think about the negatice
impact of the so-called Green Techs, Solar & Wind - on a partacal
commercial scale, you're talking all sorts of nasty effects.


What I'm talking about is the DOE funded Algae program. The NREL
is creating exciting Hydrogen fuel-cell ideas, and studies:

http://www.nrel.gov/

This organization can do real research with the money that NASA is
blowing, and no people were killed in the upper atmosphere over Dallas
to do it.


In the Packaged Power business, we used to refer to them as Fool
Cells. Again, you require something to feed it - you don't get
anything for nothing. WHile you may be able to convert Hydrogen &
Oxygen into water & electricity, (And the ones that aren't directly
using Hydrogen are cracking it out of something else, like Ethanol or
Methanol) you will still be requiring that the total cycle of, say,
making a vehicle move a mile will require more energy than is required
by using gasoline. There are some applications where thay are useful,
but they aren't going to be the magic bullet that some people believe.

Algae feeds on CO2, an Algae pond at every fossil power plant would
jump-start this oil producer.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...m_algae_es.pdf

There is a point where the production of biodiesel is profitable, and I

believe
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.


The answer is, actually, simple economics. The alternatives exist,
but they are too expensive at this point, and for the forseeable
future.All teh wonderhype and proclamations of "If we're so clever..."
can't change the Laws of Physics that govern how energy prodiction and
consumption work.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #25  
Old February 21st 04, 07:21 PM
Emmanuel.Gustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #26  
Old February 21st 04, 07:30 PM
Al Dykes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article ,
"George Z. Bush" writes:

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:gXJZb.9592$Ru5.1337@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.

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 just read something that said that Ethanol production on Iowa
returned about 35% more energy than that it took to make. It went on
to say that Iowa needed little irrigation, and in a dry state like
Nebraska artificial irrigation would require more energy input. I
think I read it in Economist.

Ethanol subsidies is pork barrel politics of the highest order, and
that's saying something given the obsecne subsidies we give Big Sugar
(mostly in Flordia). Remind me, what's the Fla Govener's name again ?
We also protect Peanut and Tobacco growers. There are only a handful
of companies that get Peanut money. Tobacco is more of a small
indy-farmer business, I'm told. ADM gets most of the ethanol
subsidy and lots of other agricicultural pork.



It's certainly not the case that a gallon of Etanol would displace a
gallon of Gasoline - Ethanol has an energy content much
lower than gasoline. (Roughly 55% of gasoline)
So, for an equivalent amaount of power, you have to burn twice as much
Ethanol. It's got some other problems as well - it doesn't atomize as
well in a fuel injector or carburator jet, and it tends to suck up
water, which leads to more problems with clogging injectors & jets.

It does have the advantage of having the detonation resistance of
about 150 Octane gasoline.

There are also heavy demands on energy in the agricuture producing
Ethanol. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I wouldn't be
surprised if it took more energy to make a gallon of Ethanol than it
does to make a gallon on gasoline.

It also has a tendency to eat various plastic components in many fuel
systems.

Hydrogen, BTW, is much, much worse. It takes a lot of electricity to
electrolytically separate it. That electricity has to come from
somewhere. If it's not going to be Nukes (Politically unpalatable,
especially to the Greenies), we're talking about comventional means,
with the concominant, inevitable environmental damage that that
causes. When was the last time a big hydroelectric dam was built in
the U.S. or Canada? I don't want to even think about the negatice
impact of the so-called Green Techs, Solar & Wind - on a partacal
commercial scale, you're talking all sorts of nasty effects.


What I'm talking about is the DOE funded Algae program. The NREL
is creating exciting Hydrogen fuel-cell ideas, and studies:

http://www.nrel.gov/

This organization can do real research with the money that NASA is
blowing, and no people were killed in the upper atmosphere over Dallas
to do it.


In the Packaged Power business, we used to refer to them as Fool
Cells. Again, you require something to feed it - you don't get
anything for nothing. WHile you may be able to convert Hydrogen &
Oxygen into water & electricity, (And the ones that aren't directly
using Hydrogen are cracking it out of something else, like Ethanol or
Methanol) you will still be requiring that the total cycle of, say,
making a vehicle move a mile will require more energy than is required
by using gasoline. There are some applications where thay are useful,
but they aren't going to be the magic bullet that some people believe.

Algae feeds on CO2, an Algae pond at every fossil power plant would
jump-start this oil producer.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...m_algae_es.pdf

There is a point where the production of biodiesel is profitable, and I

believe
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.


The answer is, actually, simple economics. The alternatives exist,
but they are too expensive at this point, and for the forseeable
future.All teh wonderhype and proclamations of "If we're so clever..."
can't change the Laws of Physics that govern how energy prodiction and
consumption work.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster



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


  #28  
Old February 21st 04, 10:53 PM
Mike Dargan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #29  
Old February 21st 04, 11:53 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


In 1975, Aristotle Onassis wanted to build an oil refinery in the town
in which I live. We believed, and went around saying, that this was
utterly stupid because in 25 years we would have run out of oil (and
this wasn't something we made up, but was a serious forecast) and we
would be stuck with a rusting shell.

So here it is, four years after the apocalypse, and there are more
proven reserves in the world today than there were in 1975.

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
  #30  
Old February 21st 04, 11:57 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


No one knows what a dollars
worth, but we know that as the Euro goes up, the dollar goes down, and 70%
of our dollars are overseas. We are about as set-up as we were before the
depression hit.


Huh?

The euro goes up, the euro goes down. It's been down for years and is
now up a bit from its day-of-issue exchange rate.

The Great Depression was mostly brought on by beggar-thy-neighbor
tariffs, notably the Smoot-Hawley trade bill. In other words, if you
want a depression, you're more likely to get one if you vote for one
of the current crop of Democratic contenders.

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 09:38 PM
GWB and the Air Guard JD Military Aviation 77 March 17th 04 11:52 AM
Colin Powell on National Guard ArtKramr Military Aviation 12 February 23rd 04 02:26 AM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.