European military prowess

[Cub Driver]

There was a post recently extolling the war-fighting ability of the
Germany army. Alas, it's gone from my screen.

However, I must point out the whatever the German army adopts in the
line of technological wonders, it will remain a joke at its present
size and budget. No doubt it could overwhelm Belgium, whose idea of a
military force is its marching band, and perhaps it could also deal
with Luxembourg.

I mention these two nations for a purpose: Germany, Belgium, and
Luxembourg constitute three out of the four nations making up the
proposed European strike force.

The fourth nation, of course, is France. Not long ago I posted to the
effect that of all the democracies in the world, outside the United
States, only Britain had a military worth speaking about. I stupidly
overlooked France, which does indeed have a serious military force.

(I also overlooked Israel, but for a reason. Israel is fully occupied
with its 100-year war against its Arab neighbors.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

[Denyav]

>However, I must point out the whatever the German army adopts in the
>line of technological wonders, it will remain a joke at its present
>size and budget. No doubt it could overwhelm Belgium, whose idea of a
>military force is its marching band,

However,Germans are, unlike US,an advanced nation not an advanced country.

[Chris Mark]

>From: Cub Driver look

>I mention these two nations for a purpose: Germany, Belgium, and
>Luxembourg constitute three out of the four nations making up the
>proposed European strike force.

This propose force will have to have public support to gain enough funding to
make it credible. According to the latest German Marshall Fund of the US
survey of Transatlantic trends, 71 percent of Europeans favor military
"superpower" status for the European Union. But only about 51 percent express
willingness to spend the money to make it so.

A summary of the report (with a link to the complete report), which deals with
a variety of security topics, can be found at:

http://www.gmfus.org/apps/gmf/gmfwebfinal.nsf/$UNIDviewAll/DB6E3FB8A75A3C7
F85256D96007A1583?opendocument&K1E73ABE2


Chris Mark

[Mike]

"Chris Mark" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >From: Cub Driver look
>
> >I mention these two nations for a purpose: Germany, Belgium, and
> >Luxembourg constitute three out of the four nations making up the
> >proposed European strike force.
>
> This propose force will have to have public support to gain enough funding
to
> make it credible. According to the latest German Marshall Fund of the US
> survey of Transatlantic trends, 71 percent of Europeans favor military
> "superpower" status for the European Union. But only about 51 percent
express
> willingness to spend the money to make it so.
>
You're right.That's our problem...


> A summary of the report (with a link to the complete report), which deals
with
> a variety of security topics, can be found at:
>
> http://www.gmfus.org/apps/gmf/gmfwebfinal.nsf/$UNIDviewAll/DB6E3FB8A75A3C7
> F85256D96007A1583?opendocument&K1E73ABE2
>
>
> Chris Mark

[Tuollaf43]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> There was a post recently extolling the war-fighting ability of the
> Germany army. Alas, it's gone from my screen.
>
> However, I must point out the whatever the German army adopts in the
> line of technological wonders, it will remain a joke at its present
> size and budget. No doubt it could overwhelm Belgium, whose idea of a
> military force is its marching band, and perhaps it could also deal
> with Luxembourg.
>
> I mention these two nations for a purpose: Germany, Belgium, and
> Luxembourg constitute three out of the four nations making up the
> proposed European strike force.
>
> The fourth nation, of course, is France. Not long ago I posted to the
> effect that of all the democracies in the world, outside the United
> States, only Britain had a military worth speaking about. I stupidly
> overlooked France, which does indeed have a serious military force.
>
> (I also overlooked Israel, but for a reason. Israel is fully occupied
> with its 100-year war against its Arab neighbors.)
>

India???

[SuperBLUE]

>71 percent of Europeans favor military
> "superpower" status for the European Union. But only about 51 percent
express
> willingness to spend the money to make it so.

While your USA tax money is traveling right into someones pocket (Dick
Chaneys for example),
Europeans are not spending their money for dumb military projects.
Also, we have all of the technology that you have and we have many things
that are not and will never be available to you.

[Stephen Harding]

SuperBLUE wrote:

> >71 percent of Europeans favor military
> > "superpower" status for the European Union. But only about 51 percent
> express
> > willingness to spend the money to make it so.
>
> While your USA tax money is traveling right into someones pocket (Dick
> Chaneys for example),

Who's pocket is your tax money going into? Do you even know?

> Europeans are not spending their money for dumb military projects.

They sure as hell aren't! They don't seem to be spending it on non-dumb
projects either.

> Also, we have all of the technology that you have and we have many things
> that are not and will never be available to you.

A really good Bordeau has been very elusive in this country, that's true.


SMH

[Cub Driver]

>> Europeans are not spending their money for dumb military projects.
>
>They sure as hell aren't! They don't seem to be spending it on non-dumb
>projects either.

Touche.

A while ago there was a thread here, decrying the fact that the U.S.
was spending half the world's military budget. I was dismayed by this
news. Who exactly was spending the other half?

It would be great news if the Europeans (including Britain on the west
and "new Europe" on the east) could pony up a miitary budget
approaching that of the United States on a GNP basis. Then Europe
could be responsible for its own defense, instead of relying on the
U.S., and perhaps to handle brush fires in such threatening spots as
the former Yugoslavia.

We would even be delighted to hand over the Middle East as a European
responsibility, if we could be reassured that its first action
wouldn't be to start a new Holocaust in Israel.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

[Cub Driver]

>Europeans are not spending their money for dumb military projects.
>Also, we have all of the technology that you have and we have many things
>that are not and will never be available to you.

But what will you do if Romania invades? Call out the Dutch marching
band?

Of course I jest. We know what you'll do: call on the United States to
do all the heavy lifting, just as you did when you wanted to put down
Serbia.

Serbia! One small piece of the former Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia!

Pathetic.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

[Nele_VII]

To: Cubdriver

If You have a clue what Yugoslavia (Including Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro,
Slovenia, B&H and macedoniawas before the war You wouldn't be so pathetic
Yourself.

If You have known how much blood has been spilled in the above mentioned
states, Especially in Croatia and Kosovo, would it still be "pathetic" for
You?

You are insulting entire region of former Yugoslavia because
subsequent countries are small, so I assume that You are including Croatia
in "pathetic" countries, too, thus insulting my Motherland.

I had a respect for You, Sir, but now I see that You are blunt and ignorant
uptooth.

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA


Cub Driver wrote in message ...
>
>>Europeans are not spending their money for dumb military projects.
>>Also, we have all of the technology that you have and we have many things
>>that are not and will never be available to you.
>
>But what will you do if Romania invades? Call out the Dutch marching
>band?
>
>Of course I jest. We know what you'll do: call on the United States to
>do all the heavy lifting, just as you did when you wanted to put down
>Serbia.
>
>Serbia! One small piece of the former Yugoslavia.
>
>Yugoslavia!
>
>Pathetic.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: European military prowess
>From: "Nele_VII"
>Date: 10/25/03 11:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>To: Cubdriver
>
>If You have a clue what Yugoslavia (Including Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro,
>Slovenia, B&H and macedoniawas before the war You wouldn't be so pathetic
>Yourself.
>
>If You have known how much blood has been spilled in the above mentioned
>states, Especially in Croatia and Kosovo, would it still be "pathetic" for
>You?
>
>You are insulting entire region of former Yugoslavia because
>subsequent countries are small, so I assume that You are including Croatia
>in "pathetic" countries, too, thus insulting my Motherland.
>
>I had a respect for You, Sir, but now I see that You are blunt and ignorant
>uptooth.
>
>--
>
>Nele
>


UPTOOTH ? WHAT IS AN UPTOOTH?

[Nele_VII]

Upitty person, not uptooth.

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[Cub Driver]

>If You have known how much blood has been spilled in the above mentioned
>states, Especially in Croatia and Kosovo, would it still be "pathetic" for
>You?

Not nearly so much blood as was spilled by Saddam Hussein's regime.

And it's not Yugoslavia that's pathetic, but the European Union that
couldn't rescue the situation without the American Air Force to do all
the heavy lifting.

Plonk!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

[David Nicholls]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >If You have known how much blood has been spilled in the above mentioned
> >states, Especially in Croatia and Kosovo, would it still be "pathetic"
for
> >You?
>
> Not nearly so much blood as was spilled by Saddam Hussein's regime.
>

Which is dwafed in timeframe by the 1 million people killed in 100 days in
Rwanda (Africa) as an act of genocide in 1995 (?) while UN, EU and USA
looked the other way as it was only an African problem (1 US life = 10 other
white lives = 1000+ African lives).

David

> And it's not Yugoslavia that's pathetic, but the European Union that
> couldn't rescue the situation without the American Air Force to do all
> the heavy lifting.
>
> Plonk!
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Which is dwafed in timeframe by the 1 million people killed in 100 days in
>Rwanda (Africa) as an act of genocide in 1995 (?) while UN, EU and USA
>looked the other way as it was only an African problem (1 US life = 10 other
>white lives = 1000+ African lives).

Gosh, did you count them yourself?

I'm sure that many more people than 1 million died in Saddam's
adventures, though to be sure he may have been more leisurely about
them.

I for one would certainly prefer to see 10 or 1,000 lives lost, rather
than one American life. Not everyone feels this way. More of the Good
People would rather lose American lives to any other--they know
perfectly well that their own sons won't be in danger--but only if the
U.S. had absolutely nothing to gain from the encounter.

Which war would you omit--Rwanda or Yugoslavia? Would you have fought
both, or none?

Having made that decision, put Iraq into the mixer. Would you have
fought three, two, one, or none?

Now add Afghanistan.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Nele_VII]

So, if I understood correctly the person is not an American, his/hers loss
of life is "pathetic".

What kind of -THING- are you? Do You wear a swastika over an American flag?

I wish my American friend (SpecOps) was here to count your teeth, because he
respects -EACH- human life, unlike you.

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Cub Driver wrote in message ...
>
>>Which is dwafed in timeframe by the 1 million people killed in 100 days in
>>Rwanda (Africa) as an act of genocide in 1995 (?) while UN, EU and USA
>>looked the other way as it was only an African problem (1 US life = 10
other
>>white lives = 1000+ African lives).
>
>Gosh, did you count them yourself?
>
>I'm sure that many more people than 1 million died in Saddam's
>adventures, though to be sure he may have been more leisurely about
>them.
>
>I for one would certainly prefer to see 10 or 1,000 lives lost, rather
>than one American life. Not everyone feels this way. More of the Good
>People would rather lose American lives to any other--they know
>perfectly well that their own sons won't be in danger--but only if the
>U.S. had absolutely nothing to gain from the encounter.
>
>Which war would you omit--Rwanda or Yugoslavia? Would you have fought
>both, or none?
>
>Having made that decision, put Iraq into the mixer. Would you have
>fought three, two, one, or none?
>
>Now add Afghanistan.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[BUFDRVR]

>(1 US life = 10 other
>white lives = 1000+ African lives).
>

Interesting. Whats the European equation? Similar I would guess.


BUFDRVR

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

[Nele_VII]

Thanks God for someone sane in this discussion... I should have bet it would
be a "combat vet".

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
BUFDRVR wrote in message >...
>>(1 US life = 10 other
>>white lives = 1000+ African lives).
>>
>
>Interesting. Whats the European equation? Similar I would guess.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Cub Driver wrote:

>>Europeans are not spending their money for dumb military projects.
>>Also, we have all of the technology that you have and we have many things
>>that are not and will never be available to you.
>>
>
> But what will you do if Romania invades? Call out the Dutch marching
> band?
>

Could you please explain what you mean by `the Dutch marching band'?

Ralph Savelsberg


> Of course I jest. We know what you'll do: call on the United States to
> do all the heavy lifting, just as you did when you wanted to put down
> Serbia.
>
> Serbia! One small piece of the former Yugoslavia.
>
> Yugoslavia!
>
> Pathetic.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>

[Cub Driver]

>Could you please explain what you mean by `the Dutch marching band'?

The most impressive and best-financed part of the Dutch military.
(Actually, there are many of these bands. They are proof against any
effort to transfer the money to combat arms.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:20 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg > wrote:

>
>
>Cub Driver wrote:
>
>>>Europeans are not spending their money for dumb military projects.
>>>Also, we have all of the technology that you have and we have many things
>>>that are not and will never be available to you.
>>>
>>
>> But what will you do if Romania invades? Call out the Dutch marching
>> band?
>>
>
>Could you please explain what you mean by `the Dutch marching band'?
>
>Ralph Savelsberg

He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.

Al Minyard

[Ron]

>>Ralph Savelsberg
>
>He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.
>
>Al Minyard

Not at all...The Dutch (H)Air Force is rather competent and capable for the
size of a nation it is.They have added KC-10 and AH-64s to their military in
recently years, not the mention the MLU for their F-16s.

They supported us on Iraq, and I believe they have troops in Iraq currently.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Tex Houston]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >>Ralph Savelsberg
> >
> >He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.
> >
> >Al Minyard
>
> Not at all...The Dutch (H)Air Force is rather competent and capable for
the
> size of a nation it is.They have added KC-10 and AH-64s to their military
in
> recently years, not the mention the MLU for their F-16s.
>
> They supported us on Iraq, and I believe they have troops in Iraq
currently.
>
>
> Ron
> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Ron,

I spent two years in a RNLAF wing and found them very professional. Enjoyed
the tour very much.

Regards,

Tex Houston

[Marcus Andersson]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Could you please explain what you mean by `the Dutch marching band'?
>
> The most impressive and best-financed part of the Dutch military.
> (Actually, there are many of these bands. They are proof against any
> effort to transfer the money to combat arms.)
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:


Let's see.... I've gotten the impression Dan Ford a.k.a. Cub Driver
is from the United States... which hasn't got any military forces at
all, unless you count those "old guards" and whatnot they have for
shows.

But when it comes to fighting a_real_war, I'm sure the Dutch are
significantly more competent. I'm sure the Dutch train for actual
warfare, unlike that girl scout camp the U.S. military calls "boot
camp". (where they btw must have so low demands so that noone fails,
since they need every single volunteer. For those who didn't know, the
U.S. "military" has big recruiting problems.)

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:20 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Cub Driver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Europeans are not spending their money for dumb military projects.
>>>>Also, we have all of the technology that you have and we have many things
>>>>that are not and will never be available to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>But what will you do if Romania invades? Call out the Dutch marching
>>>band?
>>>
>>>
>>Could you please explain what you mean by `the Dutch marching band'?
>>
>>Ralph Savelsberg
>>
>
> He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.
>
> Al Minyard
>


Just because you're laughing doesn't mean it's funny or true for that
matter.
It's small, but what can you expect from a country with 15 million
people? Just like the military of most countries in NATO (including the
US) the force level has dropped since the end of the Cold War, but there
have been a lot of investments in new equipment (including the MLU
upgrade for the F-16s, the acquisition of Tanker aircraft and the
introduction of Chinook, Apache and Cougar helicopters into the AIr
Force, for instance)
The Army has got a tarnished reputation because of what happened in
Srebrenica in the FRY, although if you take circumstances there into
account, the view becomes quite a bit more nuanced.
The navy has a good, professional reputation, as does the Air Force.
Both are small but well-equipped and well-trained.
Your countryman, General Wesley Clark, had very good things to say about
the Dutch Air Force's participation during Allied Force. He actually
called it `one of the A-team players'.
The Dutch AF has operated over Afghanistan for over a year supporting
troops (including from the US) on the ground. The Dutch army together
with the Germans' have lead the international stabilisation force there
for several months. Dutch Marines, supported by the army and air force
are currently active in Iraq.

There is no basis for your statement other than your own misconceptions.

As for Cub Drivers' opinion: I'll leave explaining that to himself if
you don't mind.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Alan Minyard]

On 29 Oct 2003 01:07:46 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>>>Ralph Savelsberg
>>
>>He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>Not at all...The Dutch (H)Air Force is rather competent and capable for the
>size of a nation it is.They have added KC-10 and AH-64s to their military in
>recently years, not the mention the MLU for their F-16s.
>
>They supported us on Iraq, and I believe they have troops in Iraq currently.
>
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Ron, equipment does not make an Air Force, people do. Having pilots high
on drugs, ground crew that go on strike, etc makes me believe that they
are incompetent.

Al MInyard

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> On 29 Oct 2003 01:07:46 GMT, (Ron) wrote:
>
>
>>>>Ralph Savelsberg
>>>>
>>>He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.
>>>
>>>Al Minyard
>>>
>>Not at all...The Dutch (H)Air Force is rather competent and capable for the
>>size of a nation it is.They have added KC-10 and AH-64s to their military in
>>recently years, not the mention the MLU for their F-16s.
>>
>>They supported us on Iraq, and I believe they have troops in Iraq currently.
>>
>>
>>Ron
>>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>>
>
> Ron, equipment does not make an Air Force, people do. Having pilots high
> on drugs, ground crew that go on strike, etc makes me believe that they
> are incompetent.
>
> Al MInyard
>

Indeed, equipment doesn't make an airforce, though there's little sense
in having one without decent equipment.
As for the people:

Pilots being high on drugs? I'm sorry, but that's a load of bull. Where
do you get these things from? Is it that you think that since the Dutch
drug policy is so liberal everybody (including pilots) gets `high'
regularly? That would also be a load of bull. BTW, if pilots being `high
on drugs' is a reason to call an Air Force incompetent or a joke, you
shouldn't forget the USAF's use of amphetamines to keep some of its
pilots going. I'd hardly call the USAF incompetent or a joke.
And ground crews that go on strike? When did that happen?
I'm dying to read what the `etc' you mention is.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Ron]

>Ron, equipment does not make an Air Force, people do. Having pilots high
>on drugs, ground crew that go on strike, etc makes me believe that they
>are incompetent.
>
>Al MInyard

I have known some Dutch military pilots, and they are nothing like that. They
have been just as professional and competent as any others I have known.
Regarding Dutch pilots high on drugs, well that sounds rather silly to me. In
fact there was an USAF pilot discharged for marijuana usage and possession
earlier in the year.

The Dutch have been among our most reliable and steadfast allies..
Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Mike Marron]

> (Ron) wrote:

>I have known some Dutch military pilots, and they are nothing like that. They
>have been just as professional and competent as any others I have known.
>Regarding Dutch pilots high on drugs, well that sounds rather silly to me. In
>fact there was an USAF pilot discharged for marijuana usage and possession
>earlier in the year.

Marijuana? (We oughta' legalize it!)

>The Dutch have been among our most reliable and steadfast allies..
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

The Chief Pilot from my last Part 135 outfit I flew with was
originally from Dutch Guyana. Had a successful family-owned
charter/cropdusting bidnez down there in South America 'till
the unpleasantries chased him off and he relocated to Tampa.
Had tens of thousands of hours in his logbook and was *almost*
a good as me when it came to shooting Can't See **** IFR
approaches. ;))

[av8r]

> Ron, equipment does not make an Air Force, people do. Having pilots high
> on drugs, ground crew that go on strike, etc makes me believe that they
> are incompetent.
>
> Al MInyard

And their earings and hairnets getting snagged in thick brush too!!!

Cheers...Chris

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:20 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg <ralph_sa
> wrote:
>>Could you please explain what you mean by `the Dutch marching band'?

>He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.

The Dutch Marines are not to be despised. Of course, that's just the
opinion of the British Royal Marines...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[[email protected]]

(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

>
>But when it comes to fighting a_real_war, I'm sure the Dutch are
>significantly more competent. I'm sure the Dutch train for actual
>warfare, unlike that girl scout camp the U.S. military calls "boot
>camp". (where they btw must have so low demands so that noone fails,
>since they need every single volunteer. For those who didn't know, the
>U.S. "military" has big recruiting problems.)

<snort> When you fail at trolling you're a failure indeed...

You don't need to worry about suicide, you'd almost certainly
fail...
--

-Gord.

[BUFDRVR]

>He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.

The only "joke" about the Dutch military is their grooming standards and
decidely different customs and courtesies. Beyond that, if I were a pilot of an
agressor state, I would not mess with Dutch F-16AM units. The Dutch were great
allies during Allied Force and *both* Iraqi conflicts.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>BTW, if pilots being `high
>on drugs' is a reason to call an Air Force incompetent or a joke, you
>shouldn't forget the USAF's use of amphetamines to keep some of its
>pilots going.

I've never taken them, but have seen plenty of people who have. I wouldn't say
that the "go pill" makes you "high", unless you believe alertness after being
up for 24 hours is feeling "high".


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>Let's see.... I've gotten the impression Dan Ford a.k.a. Cub Driver
>is from the United States... which hasn't got any military forces at
>all, unless you count those "old guards" and whatnot they have for
>shows.
>
>But when it comes to fighting a_real_war, I'm sure the Dutch are
>significantly more competent. I'm sure the Dutch train for actual
>warfare, unlike that girl scout camp the U.S. military calls "boot
>camp". (where they btw must have so low demands so that noone fails,
>since they need every single volunteer. For those who didn't know, the
>U.S. "military" has big recruiting problems.)


You're as ignorant of the US military as he was of the Dutch.


BUFDRVR

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

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:34:20 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg <ralph_sa
> > wrote:
> >>Could you please explain what you mean by `the Dutch marching band'?
>
> >He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.
>
> The Dutch Marines are not to be despised. Of course, that's just the
> opinion of the British Royal Marines...

Whom also are not to be despised...

[Ralph Savelsberg]

BUFDRVR wrote:

>>Let's see.... I've gotten the impression Dan Ford a.k.a. Cub Driver
>>is from the United States... which hasn't got any military forces at
>>all, unless you count those "old guards" and whatnot they have for
>>shows.
>>
>>But when it comes to fighting a_real_war, I'm sure the Dutch are
>>significantly more competent. I'm sure the Dutch train for actual
>>warfare, unlike that girl scout camp the U.S. military calls "boot
>>camp". (where they btw must have so low demands so that noone fails,
>>since they need every single volunteer. For those who didn't know, the
>>U.S. "military" has big recruiting problems.)
>>
>
>
> You're as ignorant of the US military as he was of the Dutch.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>

I wasn't quite sure whether he was displaying sarcasm or merely
stupidity, so decided not to respond.

Ralph Savelsberg

[Ralph Savelsberg]

BUFDRVR wrote:

>>BTW, if pilots being `high
>>on drugs' is a reason to call an Air Force incompetent or a joke, you
>>shouldn't forget the USAF's use of amphetamines to keep some of its
>>pilots going.
>>
>
> I've never taken them, but have seen plenty of people who have. I wouldn't say
> that the "go pill" makes you "high", unless you believe alertness after being
> up for 24 hours is feeling "high".
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"
>
I don't really know how to define `high' in this respect. In any case the use of amphetamines

was an issue in connection with the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan in which two USAF F-16s

bombed Canadian troops. I must admit I don't know the outcome of that. Has there been a conclusion?


Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Marcus Andersson]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >Let's see.... I've gotten the impression Dan Ford a.k.a. Cub Driver
> >is from the United States... which hasn't got any military forces at
> >all, unless you count those "old guards" and whatnot they have for
> >shows.
> >
> >But when it comes to fighting a_real_war, I'm sure the Dutch are
> >significantly more competent. I'm sure the Dutch train for actual
> >warfare, unlike that girl scout camp the U.S. military calls "boot
> >camp". (where they btw must have so low demands so that noone fails,
> >since they need every single volunteer. For those who didn't know, the
> >U.S. "military" has big recruiting problems.)
>
>
> You're as ignorant of the US military as he was of the Dutch.


How do you mean?
Not even the U.S. government or military are trying to make anyone
believe they have materiel good for use in a real war.

Just look at the fighter planes, which wouldn't survive for 10 minutes
on an air base. I'm not saying the USAF should get rid of them though,
since they are completely adequate for their needs. Any country would
envy the US, which can choose which wars they want to fight. And when
you know you can park your planes out of reach for the enemy, they can
be as fragile as for instance the F-16 is.

[Marcus Andersson]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
> (Marcus Andersson) wrote:
>
> >
> >But when it comes to fighting a_real_war, I'm sure the Dutch are
> >significantly more competent. I'm sure the Dutch train for actual
> >warfare, unlike that girl scout camp the U.S. military calls "boot
> >camp". (where they btw must have so low demands so that noone fails,
> >since they need every single volunteer. For those who didn't know, the
> >U.S. "military" has big recruiting problems.)
>
> <snort> When you fail at trolling you're a failure indeed...
>
> You don't need to worry about suicide, you'd almost certainly
> fail...

If you tried to take a look at the real world, you would possibly not
make such a big fool out of yourself in the future. Hopefully.

[Seraphim]

Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in
:

> Pilots being high on drugs? I'm sorry, but that's a load of bull.
> Where do you get these things from?

Most likely he is refering to the "friendly fire" incident where the USAF
bombed a group of Canadians in Afghanistan, and the fact came to light
that the US piolts were takeing drugs to keep themselves alert.

[Seraphim]

>

[Marcus Andersson]

Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in message >...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >>Let's see.... I've gotten the impression Dan Ford a.k.a. Cub Driver
> >>is from the United States... which hasn't got any military forces at
> >>all, unless you count those "old guards" and whatnot they have for
> >>shows.
> >>
> >>But when it comes to fighting a_real_war, I'm sure the Dutch are
> >>significantly more competent. I'm sure the Dutch train for actual
> >>warfare, unlike that girl scout camp the U.S. military calls "boot
> >>camp". (where they btw must have so low demands so that noone fails,
> >>since they need every single volunteer. For those who didn't know, the
> >>U.S. "military" has big recruiting problems.)
> >>
> >
> >
> > You're as ignorant of the US military as he was of the Dutch.
> >
> >
> > BUFDRVR
> >
>
> I wasn't quite sure whether he was displaying sarcasm or merely
> stupidity, so decided not to respond.
>
> Ralph Savelsberg


Well Ralph, everything is relative, you know.
Compare the US with Sweden for instance. Swedish troops who've had to
work together with U.S. one sare quite tired of them, since the Swedes
always have to bodyguard the US "soldiers". In case you didn't know,
it is against the regulations for US soldiers to expose themselves for
danger.

But the Americnas should not be ashamed of that, quite the contrary.
They should be envied of their extremely favourable geopolitical
situation, plus the are members of NATO, so they don't have to fear
being dragged into a real war.

Swedes on the other hand, have their constant enemy Russia next door +
they are not members of NATo, so they *must* have the ability to fight
a real war.

[Marcus Andersson]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 29 Oct 2003 01:07:46 GMT, (Ron) wrote:
>
> >>>Ralph Savelsberg
> >>
> >>He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.
> >>
> >>Al Minyard
> >
> >Not at all...The Dutch (H)Air Force is rather competent and capable for the
> >size of a nation it is.They have added KC-10 and AH-64s to their military in
> >recently years, not the mention the MLU for their F-16s.
> >
> >They supported us on Iraq, and I believe they have troops in Iraq currently.
> >
> >
> >Ron
> >Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>
> Ron, equipment does not make an Air Force, people do. Having pilots high
> on drugs, ground crew that go on strike, etc makes me believe that they
> are incompetent.
>
> Al MInyard


Do read the text properly before you reply.
He wasn't talking about the USAF, but the Dutch one. Not all countries
have the drugs tradition and strikes tradiitons the US does.

[Marcus Andersson]

Seraphim > wrote in message >...
> Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in
> :
>
> > Pilots being high on drugs? I'm sorry, but that's a load of bull.
> > Where do you get these things from?
>
> Most likely he is refering to the "friendly fire" incident where the USAF
> bombed a group of Canadians in Afghanistan, and the fact came to light
> that the US piolts were takeing drugs to keep themselves alert.


Now *tha's* what I call undebatable evidence of the superb quality of the USAF.

[Marcus Andersson]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >He means the Dutch "military", which is an international joke.
>
> The only "joke" about the Dutch military is their grooming standards and
> decidely different customs and courtesies. Beyond that, if I were a pilot of an
> agressor state, I would not mess with Dutch F-16AM units. The Dutch were great
> allies during Allied Force and *both* Iraqi conflicts.
>

yeah... I hope those who think that soldier quality lies in grooming
standards etc don't have to fight any enemies... for their own
sake...

[BUFDRVR]

> In case you didn't know,
>it is against the regulations for US soldiers to expose themselves for
>danger.

Damn, I've violated that regulation dozens of times. Can you please site said
regulation so that I may avoid this in the future?


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>In any case the use of amphetamines
>
>was an issue in connection with the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan in
>which two USAF F-16s
>
>bombed Canadian troops.

It was an issue for the defense lawyers. Doubtful if it was a real issue.

>I must admit I don't know the outcome of that. Has there been a conclusion?

Non-judicial punishment was ordered against both pilots. One pilot accepted
the non-judicial punishment, the other requested a court martial to attempt to
fully clear himself. The trial has not yet begun.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>How do you mean?

I mean you have little knowledge of US military forces or their capabilities.

>Not even the U.S. government or military are trying to make anyone
>believe they have materiel good for use in a real war.
>

Hmm, if the F-15E, F-16 and B-52H (to name just a few) and the weapons they
carry have no "material good for a real war", can you give me an example of
aircraft and ordnance that are?

>Just look at the fighter planes, which wouldn't survive for 10 minutes
>on an air base.

Can you give me an example of an aircraft that can survive a direct attack
while its parked on a ramp?

>And when
>you know you can park your planes out of reach for the enemy, they can
>be as fragile as for instance the F-16 is.

See above.


BUFDRVR

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

[Ralph Savelsberg]

Marcus Andersson wrote:

> Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in message
> >...
>
>> BUFDRVR wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Let's see.... I've gotten the impression Dan Ford a.k.a. Cub
>>>> Driver is from the United States... which hasn't got any
>>>> military forces at all, unless you count those "old guards"
>>>> and whatnot they have for shows.
>>>>
>>>> But when it comes to fighting a_real_war, I'm sure the Dutch
>>>> are significantly more competent. I'm sure the Dutch train
>>>> for actual warfare, unlike that girl scout camp the U.S.
>>>> military calls "boot camp". (where they btw must have so low
>>>> demands so that noone fails, since they need every single
>>>> volunteer. For those who didn't know, the U.S. "military" has
>>>> big recruiting problems.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're as ignorant of the US military as he was of the Dutch.
>>>
>>>
>>> BUFDRVR
>>>
>>>
>> I wasn't quite sure whether he was displaying sarcasm or merely
stupidity,
>> so decided not to respond.
>>
>> Ralph Savelsberg
>>
>
>
> Well Ralph, everything is relative, you know. Compare the US with
> Sweden for instance. Swedish troops who've had to work together
> with U.S. one sare quite tired of them, since the Swedes always
> have to bodyguard the US "soldiers". In case you didn't know, it is
> against the regulations for US soldiers to expose themselves for danger.
>

>
> But the Americnas should not be ashamed of that, quite the contrary. They
> should be envied of their extremely favourable geopolitical situation,
> plus the are members of NATO, so they don't have to fear being
> dragged into a real war.
>
> Swedes on the other hand, have their constant enemy Russia next door
> + they are not members of NATo, so they *must* have the ability to
> fight a real war.
>
Though some of the american posters might disagree with me, not every
piece of equipment and (obviously) not all of their soldiers are the
best in the world (by whatever definition). However, I think it is
impossible to deny that they have very good armed forces, in many
respects the best in the world, with some fantastic equipment and
impressive training. As for US soldiers exposing themselves to danger
being against regulations: the simple fact that they're over in Iraq
right now, doing a very tough job and sadly some losing their lives
shows that your remark is rather silly. I might disagree with the
reasons for them being sent there but these men and women whose duty it
is to go to a foreign country to `do the right thing' and possibly die
in the process certainly impress me, no matter where they're from.
In any democracy the loss of life of one of its soldiers is not looked
upon lightly: not in the US, nor in The Netherlands, nor in Sweden. The
very fact that the US has been a major part of NATO for a long time
means that they actually stood a pretty big chance of getting dragged
into a very real war.
Just like Mr. Minyard's, your posts could use a little more thought and
nuance.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

[Alan Minyard]

On 30 Oct 2003 22:53:34 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>> In case you didn't know,
>>it is against the regulations for US soldiers to expose themselves for
>>danger.
>
>Damn, I've violated that regulation dozens of times. Can you please site said
>regulation so that I may avoid this in the future?
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Yes, that one would have come in handy on several occasions. Of course our
desire to complete the mission would have ended up with us being court martialed
for violating it :-)

Al Minyard

[Marcus Andersson]

Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in message >...
> Marcus Andersson wrote:
>
> > Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> >> BUFDRVR wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Let's see.... I've gotten the impression Dan Ford a.k.a. Cub
> >>>> Driver is from the United States... which hasn't got any
> >>>> military forces at all, unless you count those "old guards"
> >>>> and whatnot they have for shows.
> >>>>
> >>>> But when it comes to fighting a_real_war, I'm sure the Dutch
> >>>> are significantly more competent. I'm sure the Dutch train
> >>>> for actual warfare, unlike that girl scout camp the U.S.
> >>>> military calls "boot camp". (where they btw must have so low
> >>>> demands so that noone fails, since they need every single
> >>>> volunteer. For those who didn't know, the U.S. "military" has
> >>>> big recruiting problems.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You're as ignorant of the US military as he was of the Dutch.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> BUFDRVR
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I wasn't quite sure whether he was displaying sarcasm or merely
> stupidity,
> >> so decided not to respond.
> >>
> >> Ralph Savelsberg
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well Ralph, everything is relative, you know. Compare the US with
> > Sweden for instance. Swedish troops who've had to work together
> > with U.S. one sare quite tired of them, since the Swedes always
> > have to bodyguard the US "soldiers". In case you didn't know, it is
> > against the regulations for US soldiers to expose themselves for danger.
> >
>
> >
> > But the Americnas should not be ashamed of that, quite the contrary. They
> > should be envied of their extremely favourable geopolitical situation,
> > plus the are members of NATO, so they don't have to fear being
> > dragged into a real war.
> >
> > Swedes on the other hand, have their constant enemy Russia next door
> > + they are not members of NATo, so they *must* have the ability to
> > fight a real war.
> >
> Though some of the american posters might disagree with me, not every
> piece of equipment and (obviously) not all of their soldiers are the
> best in the world (by whatever definition). However, I think it is
> impossible to deny that they have very good armed forces, in many
> respects the best in the world, with some fantastic equipment and
> impressive training. As for US soldiers exposing themselves to danger
> being against regulations: the simple fact that they're over in Iraq
> right now, doing a very tough job and sadly some losing their lives
> shows that your remark is rather silly.

<snip>

Yeah I guess facts are rather silly... but I aint the inventor of
those facts... don't shoot the messenger, as it were.

Have you ever worked together with U.S. troops? They must always have
bodyguards from other countries when going from place A to place B.

Do you know that the U.S. sends U.N. observers to some places? I have
no clue what the point of that would be, since they are not allowed to
move outside of their camp unarmed. And U.N. observers are always
unarmed. I have met a couple of other observers who were pretty fed up
with that...

[Peter Kemp]

On or about 31 Oct 2003 11:53:29 -0800,
(Marcus Andersson) allegedly uttered:

>Yeah I guess facts are rather silly... but I aint the inventor of
>those facts... don't shoot the messenger, as it were.
>
>Have you ever worked together with U.S. troops?

Yes, I have.

> They must always have
>bodyguards from other countries when going from place A to place B.

No, they don't. The only time the chaps I worked with had a foreign
bodyguard was when I accompanied them to a bar, and to be honest I
don't make much of a bodyguard, being unarmed and untrained.

>Do you know that the U.S. sends U.N. observers to some places? I have
>no clue what the point of that would be, since they are not allowed to
>move outside of their camp unarmed. And U.N. observers are always
>unarmed. I have met a couple of other observers who were pretty fed up
>with that...

Crap. UNFIL are armed, UNMIK was armed, the UN presence in Cyprus are
armed etc etc.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[R]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> > In case you didn't know,
> >it is against the regulations for US soldiers to expose themselves for
> >danger.
>
> Damn, I've violated that regulation dozens of times. Can you please site
said
> regulation so that I may avoid this in the future?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

I believe it is against the regulations for US soldiers are to expose
themselves.

I don't know if it applies to Marines, Navy or the Air Force.

Red Rider

[Cub Driver]

>However, I think it is
>impossible to deny that they have very good armed forces, in many
>respects the best in the world, with some fantastic equipment and
>impressive training.

Since soldiers are the topic, here is my take on the current lot:

There is no army in the world that comes close to the U.S. Army, with
these caveats:

Nobody could defeat China in a ground war. I was fascinated to read, a
few months ago, that the PLA was reducing the size of its forces,
after having seen the American success in Iraq, in hopes of getting
some of that punch into its own divisions. Typical of the blinkered
world view of the U.S. press, I've seen nothing more about this.

The British army is redoubtable, though of course it is small. It
would be interesting to see how the SAS and other commando-type forces
stack up on a unit basis, US versus UK. Their approach seems to be
utterly different. The Americans like to go into a town (hey diddle
diddle, straight up the middle) while the Brits, from their experience
in Ireland, would rather surround it and let it simmer.

On some lesser level--battalion? company?--the French army is likewise
to be treated with respect. For all its sanctimonious talk about the
rights of man in the UN Security Council, France is the country that
has had its boots all over equatorial Africa in recent years. (And,
not so recently, giving Libya a black eye farther north.) I suppose
but don't know that a lot of that work is done by the Foreign Legion,
as in the past. (When the Legion evacuated Haiphong in 1954, the song
they sang as they marched up the gangway was "Lili Marlene", and not
in English :)

Then there is the Israeli army, which has been at war, off and on, for
55 years. However, it's a very specialized kind of combat. Dunno how
they'd fare if taken out of their own environment.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Cub Driver]

>I believe it is against the regulations for US soldiers are to expose
>themselves.

I should hope so!

Especially the women!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>>I believe it is against the regulations for US soldiers are to expose
>>themselves.
>
>I should hope so!
>
>Especially the women!
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford

You just did a no-no Dan. Would have been ok if you hadn't added
that period there...shame sir.
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:39:52 GMT, "R" > wrote:

>
>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>> > In case you didn't know,
>> >it is against the regulations for US soldiers to expose themselves for
>> >danger.
>>
>> Damn, I've violated that regulation dozens of times. Can you please site
>said
>> regulation so that I may avoid this in the future?
>>
>>
>> BUFDRVR
>>
>> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
>harelips
>> everyone on Bear Creek"
>
>I believe it is against the regulations for US soldiers are to expose
>themselves.
>
>I don't know if it applies to Marines, Navy or the Air Force.
>
>Red Rider
>
You are an idiot, there is no such regulation, never was, never will be.
Take your anti-American rants elsewhere.

PLONK

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 06:12:58 -0500, Cub Driver > wrote:

>Nobody could defeat China in a ground war. I was fascinated to read, a
>few months ago, that the PLA was reducing the size of its forces,
>after having seen the American success in Iraq, in hopes of getting
>some of that punch into its own divisions. Typical of the blinkered
>world view of the U.S. press, I've seen nothing more about this.
>
Of course we would not be stupid enough to fight the PRC in a "ground
war". We would utterly destroy their command and control, their
air force etc. Then we could plink tanks to our hearts content.

Think GW III here, with the PRC playing the Iraqi part.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 06:14:16 -0500, Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>>I believe it is against the regulations for US soldiers are to expose
>>themselves.
>
>I should hope so!
>
>Especially the women!
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Dang, I missed that one!! :-)

Al Minyard

[Chris Mark]

>From: Alan Minyard

>f course we would not be stupid enough to fight the PRC in a "ground
>war". We would utterly destroy their command and control, their
>air force etc.

Interesting article on the Chinese air forces in issue 119 of Policy Review.
Excerpt:

"China now has the second largest defense budget in the world, with
expenditures to boost its intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal and
acquire nuclear submarines and destroyers. Yet the Chinese air force remains
very weak, with capabilities dramatically inferior to the U.S.’s. The
arsenals of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (plaaf) and Naval Air
Force (planaf) consist mostly of fighter planes (used primarily for defensive
purposes) imported from Russia. The scarcity of bombers (used for offensive
purposes) and China’s continued reliance on foreign planes pose a puzzle to
U.S. defense planners. Apparently content to rely on missiles to project power,
China’s doctrine contrasts sharply with American ideas about the importance
of air superiority.

"Following the successful air campaigns of the 1991 Gulf War, Chinese defense
analysts tuned in to the American debate over the possibility of relying on air
power alone and the connection between the use of air power and avoiding
friendly military and foreign civilian casualties. In recent publications,
generals from China’s military academies have treated air power-related
themes — including what America’s strategic air advantage consists in and
how it might be mitigated or neutralized — at length. Chinese observers also
noted how the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan confirmed American faith in the
increasing efficacy of air power in light of dramatic technological advances."

Complete article at:

http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/newmyer.html


Chris Mark

[Cub Driver]

>The scarcity of bombers (used for offensive
>purposes) and China’s continued reliance on foreign planes pose a puzzle to
>U.S. defense planners.

Well, I suppose it's possible that here is a nation with no offensive
intentions! (And apart from Taiwan, I suppose that's true.)

Let's face it: China has been very good at getting what it wants,
short of war. The only significant combat it's fought outside its
borders, the Korean War, began a result of a significant threat to its
borders.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

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

[BUFDRVR]

>Yeah I guess facts are rather silly... but I aint the inventor of
>those facts...

That's obvious, you just make up your "facts".

>Have you ever worked together with U.S. troops? They must always have
>bodyguards from other countries when going from place A to place B.

Hogwash. The only time I've been protected by other than US forces was at
Fairford where British MoD forces guarded the perimeter and US forces the
interior. This arrangement was required because US forces have no arrest
authority outside of the fence. The same arrangement is in place throughout
the world, its a legal matter genius.

>Do you know that the U.S. sends U.N. observers to some places?

That would be interesting since the US, nor any single country, has the
authority to "send" UN forces anywhere.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>Yes, that one would have come in handy on several occasions. Of course our
>desire to complete the mission would have ended up with us being court
>martialed
>for violating it :-)

Yeah, but if you going to violate a military regulation, I always found it
useful to know exactly which one you were "bending" ;)


BUFDRVR

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

[Alan Minyard]

On 02 Nov 2003 14:20:57 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>Yes, that one would have come in handy on several occasions. Of course our
>>desire to complete the mission would have ended up with us being court
>>martialed
>>for violating it :-)
>
>Yeah, but if you going to violate a military regulation, I always found it
>useful to know exactly which one you were "bending" ;)
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Roger that :-)

Al Minyard

[WaltBJ]

Mentioning grooming standards reminded me of that superior officer who
made the Special Forces guys shave their beards and cut their hair in
Afghanistan, immediately blowing their cover. Another example of a
careerist 'garritrooper'.
Bet he never ever left the compound except to go home to the ZI.
Walt BJ