Why did Bush join the national guard?

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 9/5/2004 6:13 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

ubject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (B2431)
Date: 9/5/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: "Bob Coe"

snip

You signed-up to ride
around in an airplane at the governments expense, take the cash, and the
heated barracks, and lay around like a ****ing queen, while real men
fought.

Bob, that was uncalled for. Whatever else Art is he did serve in real combat
in
the air. It was nothing like the ground war I experienced in Viet Nam, but
it
was war.

No need to stoop to his level.

Besides, not all AAF crews slept in barracks, many stayed in unheated tents.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Unheated tents all the way including the bitter cold winter of 1944-45
outside
Bastogne. Note that Coe never fought at all. Just like a neocon. The cowards
attack the soldiers.



Arthur Kramer

Art, you have done way more bashing of soldiers and other servicemen in this NG
than anyone else.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Bob Coe"
Date: 9/5/2004 7:15 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: %_N_c.18426$ni.4304@okepread01

"ArtKramr" wrote

Note that Coe never fought at all. Just like a neocon.

How would you know? What's a neocon?


Art has no idea what a neocon is. He thinks it's a cutsey word so he uses it on
everyone who disagrees with him or points out his hypocracies and lies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 9/5/2004 7:10 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (B2431)
Date: 9/5/2004 3:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 9/5/2004 2:26 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 9/5/2004 11:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

How come you didn't join the Marines and volunteer for the Pacific?


The Army Air Corps was a tougher outift that took higher losses.

When you joined this was not only uncertain, but being touted as highly
unlikely, so don't give us this line of crap about joining because you
knew
where the toughest action was going to be. The USAAF may have taken more
caualties in gross numbers, but the USMC in the Pacific had a much higher
percentage rate. Do a google on Tarawa.


BUFDRVR


Get back to me after you have fought in a real war. You are all ****ed up.
The
Army AIr Corps had the highest percentage But you fought in neither the AAC
or
the Mairnes. so what the hell do you know about anything?

.
Arthur Kramer


You weren't in the AAC either, art. It went out of business in 1941. You
were
in the USAAF.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Bull****. I have in front of me my report of separation of service dated 16
August 1946 and under Branch it is clearly marked Army Air Corps. Can't you
get anything right?


Arthur Kramer

Maybe they did, but the USAAF was established 20 June 1941.

http://www.af.mil/history/overview.asp

Unless you want to say they are liars and neocons too.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

How the Hell would you know Art - you obviously don't have any direct
experience with history books...

Jack G.


A very distant and impersonal route to knowledge.



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

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 9/5/2004 6:16 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: (B2431)
Date: 9/5/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 9/5/2004 3:56 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 9/5/2004 1:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Jack G wrote:
OK Art, tell that to a combat Marine - face to face. If all that
happens is
he asks you where you fought - and then laughs in your face when you
tell
him you will be a very lucky man.
Jack G.

Just for the record, Jack, during WWII, the 8th Air Force sustained more
casualties over Europe than the entire United States Marine Corps did
world-wide
throughout the entire war. If you don't believe me, just ask Google the
right
questions and they'll provide the same answer that I just did....I know
because
I've already done it.

You must have done it wrong. "Half of the U.S. Army Air Forces' casualties
in World War II were suffered by Eighth Air Force (more than 47,000
casualties with more than 26,000 dead)."
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/usaf/8af.htm )

USMC casualties for the war totalled some ninety thousand, out of some
669K
who served in the USMC. Last I heard 90K was more than 47K. True, more 8th
AF personnel *died* in combat than Marines, but that is not what you said.

Your use of "casualty" is normally inclusive of wounded, deaths due to
other
than combat causes, and MIA.

Brooks


George Z.




And exactly what is your combat experience wannabee? Marines? Air Corps? A
desk
in the states? Anything at all?




Arthur Kramer

I get it now, being a passenger on a B-26 makes you an expert on WW2
casualties
and an expert on all things 8th AF? Get over yourself, art, the facts and
figures in print are derived from official records.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



The guys who wrote the records weren't there. And neither were you..



Arthur Kramer

The guys who wrote the records WERE there. They were admin personnel is your
unit and all the other units that served.

Do you seriously suggest all the records, forms and documents that exist from
those units were made up by people who weren't there?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 9/5/2004 6:14 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

ubject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 9/5/2004 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

It wasn't an opinion. Anybody that knows anything about the Martin B-26
knows it had the lowest loss rate. But don't take my word for it, look it
up yourself. Any B-26 reference will show it.


You are confusing losses in combat and losses in training.


I'm not confusing anything. Obviously you're no expert on the B-26. Why,
you're just a wannabe!


Neocon logic.


Arthur Kramer

It's the same logic you use. Are you a neocon?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: Why did Bush join the national guard?
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 9/5/2004 2:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: et


"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
. ..

And as far as I know, nobody was flying B26's during the Vietnam era.


Well, not Martin B-26s.


And the highest rate of killing its crews.One a day in Tampa Bay. The
widowmaker, The B-dash-Crash.The flying Prostitute, The Flying Coffin. Got it
now wannabee?

Art, The Army Air Force Statistical Digest disagrees with you. While
the Martin B-26 had the highest accident rate of any _Medium_ Bomber
(Medium being the B-25, B-26, and the Lockheed B-34), it never
approached the accident rate of the A-20, which had roughly twice teh
number lost per 100,000 Flight Hours, and all of the various
Fighter/Pursuit types.

Those aren't subjective impressions - they're hard facts, backed up by
the cold, unfeeling numbers.

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

Why did you join the Army Air Corps instead of the infantry, Navy, Coast
Guard, or Marines?

ArtKramr wrote:
Why did Bush join the National Guard instrae do the Army, Navy or Air Force?
why?


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

"Bob Coe" wrote in message
news:tVN_c.18423$ni.10541@okepread01...
"ArtKramr" wrote

Neocon logic.

What's a neocon?



Has he ever answered that?

"Bob Coe" wrote in message
news:bhO_c.18433$ni.15821@okepread01...
"ArtKramr" wrote

Everything about Bush is a non issue right? How about everything about
Kerry?
Also a non issue? You can't have it both ways.

As far as their service to the country 35 years ago, yes, it's a
non-issue,
you are correct.


It is of course a non issue. Or at least it should be. Unfortunately, Kerry
chose to make his three months in Vietnam the foundation of his campaign, so
here we are discussing things that have basically no bearing on todays
world. I am far more interested in what Kerry did in the senate for the last
20 years, but I have yet to hear him mention that in any kind of detail even
once. Kinda makes one think he has something to hide, no?