Change the rules for the National Guard.?

[ArtKramr]

How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes FIRST
before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get everyone
flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have been first
in line to join up.. 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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

> How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
FIRST
> before the regular troops. Great idea huh?

You been living under a rock or something? Guard troops have been in-theater
for these operations from the beginning. Infantry, engineers, transportation
and signal units--you name it. While some AC units were still stateside.

Think we would still get everyone
> flocking to the National Guard in that case?

There has not been a draft since about 1973. You need to get out and read a
bit more; try to keep up with current events (or at least keep current
within three *decades*).

I know Bush would have been first
> in line to join up.. Right?

Are you now claiming to possess a crystal ball, or the ability to read
peoples' minds?

Brooks


> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany

(and apparently the last time you bothered to read a newspaper was while you
were over there...)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 2/19/04 11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
>> How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
>FIRST
>> before the regular troops. Great idea huh?
>
>You been living under a rock or something? Guard troops have been in-theater
>for these operations from the beginning. Infantry, engineers, transportation
>and signal units--you name it. While some AC units were still stateside.
>
>Think we would still get everyone
>> flocking to the National Guard in that case?
>
>There has not been a draft since about 1973. You need to get out and read a
>bit more; try to keep up with current events (or at least keep current
>within three *decades*).
>
>I know Bush would have been first
>> in line to join up.. Right?
>
>Are you now claiming to possess a crystal ball, or the ability to read
>peoples' minds?
>
>Brooks
>
>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>
>(and apparently the last time you bothered to read a newspaper was while you
>were over there...)
>
>
>

Then you agree the Guard goes first 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

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

> Then you agree the Guard goes first right?

No more Vietnams.

[Stephen Harding]

ArtKramr wrote:

> How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes FIRST
> before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get everyone
> flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have been first
> in line to join up.. Right?

I don't think people are exactly flocking to the Guard any more,
given the rather lengthy, and sometimes consecutive, or round-robin
deployments.

Not certain people in the Guard really expected to be used so hard.
There have been a few "freeloaders" who were happy to collect their
check from Uncle when it only meant a few days a month and a "summer
camp" for a couple weeks, but suddenly felt it unfair when ordered
to pack up and head out for the desert. Overall though, I think the
Guard units have held up very well, with really minimal griping that
one might expect from "citizen soldiers".

I don't think the Secret Service would let Bush sign up for the Guard
right now. But hey, Kerry has combat experience as an officer, and
decorations! He'd probably be in demand for the current exercise in
Middle East democracy building, no?


SMH

[OXMORON1]

Art suggested:
>
>How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
>FIRST
>before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get everyone
>flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have been
>first
>in line to join up.. Right?
>
Okay Art, then be prepared to pay through the nose to pay for the additional
training time and equipment to get ALL guard units up to speed. You can't do it
just one State at a time, you'll have to upgrade all the States and all the
units.
The active components have already shoved all the functions they can off to the
Guard and Reserve, such as MP operations and Civil Affairs.
And where do we get all of the current equipment necessary to fully equip the
guard units on a front line basis? Pull it from the active components?
Get real Art, the Guard and Reserves are a backup to the active duty people, an
augmentation force that is a little faster than the draft.
Hell, while we're at it reinstiute the draft, everyone goes, no exclusions,
none. Objectors do forestry work, excess personnel do remedial work in the
slums or the backwoods. Physically unfit do their turn too, everyone goes.
Let's be fair.
Everyone keeps a firearm at home with their bicycle and other gear for more
rapid response.
Lets do away with active vs reserve, everyone gets a turn. Keep a cadre of
volunteers at the armory/airfield.
Let's pull out of all overseas bases while we are at it!
Everyone into the Militia, ages 18 through 65. Worked/works other places and
times.


Rick

[Tarver Engineering]

"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...

The Guard places America's attention on a war in the ways it affects those
at home.

What LBJ did by not using the Guard to it's capabilities was a part of what
created a quagmire.

If you want to know who killed JFK, just follow the money.

[Ragnar]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
FIRST
> before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get
everyone
> flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have been
first
> in line to join up.. Right?

What happened to not posting OT political crap, Art?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> ArtKramr wrote:
>
> > How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
FIRST
> > before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get
everyone
> > flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have
been first
> > in line to join up.. Right?
>
> I don't think people are exactly flocking to the Guard any more,
> given the rather lengthy, and sometimes consecutive, or round-robin
> deployments.
>
> Not certain people in the Guard really expected to be used so hard.

Since when? Guard deployments have been on the upswing since ODS, with their
assumption of first the SFOR mission and more recently KFOR. The old days of
units never expecting to be mobilized have been long gone, even before the
events following 9-11. The tempo since 9-11 has probably been greater than
many thought before, but the Guard and Reserves as a whole were much more
cognizant of the possibility of being mobilized now than they were twenty
years ago, when the most they could usually expect was maybe a three-week AT
to facilitate their participation in OCONUS training operations instead of
the normal two weeks.

> There have been a few "freeloaders" who were happy to collect their
> check from Uncle when it only meant a few days a month and a "summer
> camp" for a couple weeks, but suddenly felt it unfair when ordered
> to pack up and head out for the desert.

The fact is that the units, when activated, end up invariable demonstrating
an extremely high rate of participation; very few folks are not showing (a
big no-no in legal regards, for which they will inevitably pay later). Most
Guardsmen I know have not been too unduly upset over a single
activation/deployment, though some have been a bit disgruntled over being
mobilized to perform duties well outside their normal specilaties (ie.,
engineer units deployed to CONUS or European locations to beef up post/base
security); the bigger problem that is arising is the low-density
specialties, where troops are looking at their second or third mobilizations
over a period of just a few years. These guys and gals knew what they were
getting into when they volunteered, but asking someone to do repeated six to
twelve month active duty periods begins to challenge the whole concept of
"reserve" or "part-time" duty obligation. Those that are most upset will not
reenlist after their enlistment is up--and that is their right, once they
have completed their service obligation. We feared a major loss of veteran
troops after ODS, but it never really came to pass, at least not at the
scale it could have.

Overall though, I think the
> Guard units have held up very well, with really minimal griping that
> one might expect from "citizen soldiers".

They are really little different (a bit older, but also demonstrating a
wider experience base) from their active duty counterparts; as has been
commented by various AC senior leaders who have Guard units serving under
them.

Brooks

>
> I don't think the Secret Service would let Bush sign up for the Guard
> right now. But hey, Kerry has combat experience as an officer, and
> decorations! He'd probably be in demand for the current exercise in
> Middle East democracy building, no?
>
>
> SMH
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 2/19/04 11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard
goes
> >FIRST
> >> before the regular troops. Great idea huh?
> >
> >You been living under a rock or something? Guard troops have been
in-theater
> >for these operations from the beginning. Infantry, engineers,
transportation
> >and signal units--you name it. While some AC units were still stateside.
> >
> >Think we would still get everyone
> >> flocking to the National Guard in that case?
> >
> >There has not been a draft since about 1973. You need to get out and read
a
> >bit more; try to keep up with current events (or at least keep current
> >within three *decades*).
> >
> >I know Bush would have been first
> >> in line to join up.. Right?
> >
> >Are you now claiming to possess a crystal ball, or the ability to read
> >peoples' minds?
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >> 344th BG 494th BS
> >> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> >
> >(and apparently the last time you bothered to read a newspaper was while
you
> >were over there...)
> >
> >
> >
>
> Then you agree the Guard goes first right?

Obviously you did not bother to even read the response; hardly surprising,
given the evidence of your failure to read anything regarding military
developments over the past thirty years or so.

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
> FIRST
> > before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get
> everyone
> > flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have
been
> first
> > in line to join up.. Right?
>
> What happened to not posting OT political crap, Art?

He'll rejoin that rant when *someone else* posts something he deems to be
OT. The last time he brayed about that subject it was like a whole *day*
after he himself started that UCMG thread...

Brooks

>
>

[Brian Colwell]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> ArtKramr wrote:
>
> > How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
FIRST
> > before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get
everyone
> > flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have
been first
> > in line to join up.. Right?
>
> I don't think people are exactly flocking to the Guard any more,
> given the rather lengthy, and sometimes consecutive, or round-robin
> deployments.
>
> Not certain people in the Guard really expected to be used so hard.
> There have been a few "freeloaders" who were happy to collect their
> check from Uncle when it only meant a few days a month and a "summer
> camp" for a couple weeks, but suddenly felt it unfair when ordered
> to pack up and head out for the desert. Overall though, I think the
> Guard units have held up very well, with really minimal griping that
> one might expect from "citizen soldiers".
>
> I don't think the Secret Service would let Bush sign up for the Guard
> right now. But hey, Kerry has combat experience as an officer, and
> decorations! He'd probably be in demand for the current exercise in
> Middle East democracy building, no?
>
>
> SMH
>
On CNN the other night, they were visiting a high school that is adjacent to
a military base, I was somewhat surprised there were kids of single parents,
that were serving in Iraq, do the single parents in the Guards, that have
school age children, have the option of being excused oversea duties ?
BMC

[fudog50]

I'm active duty, so take this however you want.....

The first thing I thought about when I joined is, "What if we go to
war? What if I have to deploy for long periods?"

You are a moron, active or reserves if you can't figure out someday
you might have to go to war. Sure, you cross your fingers and hope it
never happens. But then you should be ready to go if the flag goes up.

Kevin said some pretty accurate things in his statements about some of
the military being along for the free ride then bitching when it comes
time to pay the dues.

I don't know about the Guard as far as single parents go,, but I'm
sure it's similar to active duty. They have to sign a "dependancy care
certificate", that gets approved by the command. It states what kind
of plan and who will take care of your dependants when you deploy.
Bottom line is EVERYONE must be fully deployable, (except for those
recovering from injury, illness etc. and are on temporary limited
duty). No exceptions, if they don't like it, they can go work
someplace else. This is only fair and equal treatment, you can't make
special exceptions for single parents period.


On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:12:47 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
>> FIRST
>> > before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get
>> everyone
>> > flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have
>been
>> first
>> > in line to join up.. Right?
>>
>> What happened to not posting OT political crap, Art?
>
>He'll rejoin that rant when *someone else* posts something he deems to be
>OT. The last time he brayed about that subject it was like a whole *day*
>after he himself started that UCMG thread...
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>
>

[William Hughes]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:57:10 GMT, in rec.aviation.military "Brian Colwell"
> wrote:
> >
> On CNN the other night, they were visiting a high school that is adjacent to
> a military base, I was somewhat surprised there were kids of single parents,
> that were serving in Iraq, do the single parents in the Guards, that have
> school age children, have the option of being excused oversea duties ?

No. They are required to make the appropriate arrangements for their children
while they are deployed.

Bill
Mississippi ANG 1981-1987
Texas ANG 1987-1991

[John Burson]

I love you Art and truly appreciate your service; but, you, like John Kerry,
have become a "professional veteran". BTW, before you strike back, I am
retired with 30 years active service, none admittedly approaching your level
of bravery and heroism, and I mean that sincerely.
"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
FIRST
> before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get
everyone
> flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have been
first
> in line to join up.. 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
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:12:47 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:


> You are a moron

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

Perhaps this will help:

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:12:47 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:


> You are a moron

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

Perhaps this will help:

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:12:47 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:


> You are a moron

[Kevin Brooks]

"William Hughes" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:57:10 GMT, in rec.aviation.military "Brian Colwell"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > On CNN the other night, they were visiting a high school that is
adjacent to
> > a military base, I was somewhat surprised there were kids of single
parents,
> > that were serving in Iraq, do the single parents in the Guards, that
have
> > school age children, have the option of being excused oversea duties ?
>
> No. They are required to make the appropriate arrangements for their
children
> while they are deployed.

Correct. On the ARNG and AC Army side, it is a reportable item on the Unit
Status Report; a soldier who does not have a completed "Family Care Plan" is
considered nondeployable until he/she completes it, and the command stays on
them to get it right so that it does not affect their deployable MOSQ rate.

Brooks

>
> Bill
> Mississippi ANG 1981-1987
> Texas ANG 1987-1991
>

[Leadfoot]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> The Guard places America's attention on a war in the ways it affects those
> at home.
>
> What LBJ did by not using the Guard to it's capabilities was a part of
what
> created a quagmire.

After Vietnam the Guard and Reserve were deliberately given missions that
made it IMPOSSIBLE to have a medium to major scale war without significant
callups.


>
> If you want to know who killed JFK, just follow the money.
>
>

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes FIRST
> before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get everyone
> flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have been first
> in line to join up.. Right?
>
> Arthur Kramer
>


Well Art, If we need to get bombers there fast I guess the Guard will
have to be first, since as far as I know, they are the folks who fly the
B1B.


Dave

[Kevin Brooks]

"Dave Holford" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ArtKramr wrote:
> >
> > How about we fix it so that in case of national emergency the guard goes
FIRST
> > before the regular troops. Great idea huh? Think we would still get
everyone
> > flocking to the National Guard in that case? I know Bush would have
been first
> > in line to join up.. Right?
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
> >
>
>
> Well Art, If we need to get bombers there fast I guess the Guard will
> have to be first, since as far as I know, they are the folks who fly the
> B1B.

Actually, that is not correct. The Guard *had* two B-1B outfits (Kansas and
Georgia ANG units, accounting for only a small portion of the total Bone
force), but they lost them a year or two back when the Bone force was cut
back and they retired the earliest production aircraft. One of those units
(from the GAANG) has instead become a "blended wing", with both AC and NG
personnel, and flies the E-8 JSTARS (another early deployer). The only RC
bomb unit still flying is a USAFR B-52 squadron.

Brooks

>
>
> Dave

[Cub Driver]

>After Vietnam the Guard and Reserve were deliberately given missions that
>made it IMPOSSIBLE to have a medium to major scale war without significant
>callups.

Just so. Take civil affairs, for example. During the 1980s, there was
no civil affairs unit in the U.S. Army. I believe the same was
(perhaps is) true of chemical warfare. The army got rid of these
specialist jobs to the guard, just as it got rid of KP to civilian
contractors.

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

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:03:36 +0900, "Ragnar" >
wrote:

>What happened to not posting OT political crap, Art?

Art seems to have lost his sense of perspective, some little time ago.
I kill-filed him because of one of his rants.

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >After Vietnam the Guard and Reserve were deliberately given missions that
> >made it IMPOSSIBLE to have a medium to major scale war without
significant
> >callups.
>
> Just so. Take civil affairs, for example. During the 1980s, there was
> no civil affairs unit in the U.S. Army. I believe the same was
> (perhaps is) true of chemical warfare. The army got rid of these
> specialist jobs to the guard, just as it got rid of KP to civilian
> contractors.

There were indeed chemical units in the AC during the 80's. One chem company
was assigned to each division; our seperate brigade a a smaller detachment
level organization. Focus for these units was on decon and smoke. Likewise,
while some 96% of the CA force was found in the USAR, there has indeed been
an AC unit in the structure--at one time it was the 95th CA Group, which was
stood down in the early seventies and replaced by the 96th CA Battalion at
Bragg, where it has been based ever since then, now under ARSOC.

Brooks

>
> 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

[Stephen Harding]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
>>I don't think people are exactly flocking to the Guard any more,
>>given the rather lengthy, and sometimes consecutive, or round-robin
>>deployments.
>>
>>Not certain people in the Guard really expected to be used so hard.
>
> Since when? Guard deployments have been on the upswing since ODS, with their
> assumption of first the SFOR mission and more recently KFOR. The old days of
> units never expecting to be mobilized have been long gone, even before the
> events following 9-11. The tempo since 9-11 has probably been greater than
> many thought before, but the Guard and Reserves as a whole were much more
> cognizant of the possibility of being mobilized now than they were twenty
> years ago, when the most they could usually expect was maybe a three-week AT
> to facilitate their participation in OCONUS training operations instead of
> the normal two weeks.

This may be so, but I certainly don't recall some of these repeat
deployments that some individuals, and Guard units are doing. At
least around here (W. Mass.). It may be a seeming bias produced
by news coverage, where individual, and especially families of
individuals are complaining of the length of the duty call, and
sometimes repeat calls. Even Ft. Campbell in Kentucky had families
of (unit??) members publicly complaining about this, and I don't
believe these were reserve or Guard.

When you are in the Guard, I think you are still entitled to put
family and job related concerns at a higher level. That's the
way it's always been and GWI or not, seems that was the prevalent
thinking, at least around here (we have a combat engineer unit
locally for Army, and a Warthog unit for the air).

When you're regular, you know you are GI, and family and you take
second row seats when Uncle has need of you.


SMH

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 2/20/04 7:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>
>>>I don't think people are exactly flocking to the Guard any more,
>>>given the rather lengthy, and sometimes consecutive, or round-robin
>>>deployments.
>>>
>>>Not certain people in the Guard really expected to be used so hard.
>>
>> Since when? Guard deployments have been on the upswing since ODS, with
>their
>> assumption of first the SFOR mission and more recently KFOR. The old days
>of
>> units never expecting to be mobilized have been long gone, even before the
>> events following 9-11. The tempo since 9-11 has probably been greater than
>> many thought before, but the Guard and Reserves as a whole were much more
>> cognizant of the possibility of being mobilized now than they were twenty
>> years ago, when the most they could usually expect was maybe a three-week
>AT
>> to facilitate their participation in OCONUS training operations instead of
>> the normal two weeks.
>
>This may be so, but I certainly don't recall some of these repeat
>deployments that some individuals, and Guard units are doing. At
>least around here (W. Mass.). It may be a seeming bias produced
>by news coverage, where individual, and especially families of
>individuals are complaining of the length of the duty call, and
>sometimes repeat calls. Even Ft. Campbell in Kentucky had families
>of (unit??) members publicly complaining about this, and I don't
>believe these were reserve or Guard.
>
>When you are in the Guard, I think you are still entitled to put
>family and job related concerns at a higher level. That's the
>way it's always been and GWI or not, seems that was the prevalent
>thinking, at least around here (we have a combat engineer unit
>locally for Army, and a Warthog unit for the air).
>
>When you're regular, you know you are GI, and family and you take
>second row seats when Uncle has need of you.
>
>
>SMH
>


The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want everyone to
think that you do. End of story.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 20 Feb 2004 16:24:32 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>
>The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want everyone to
>think that you do. End of story.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

You're not paying attention, Art. The Guard and Reserves today (that's
TODAY!!!) are very much a part of active operations. Joining the Guard
or Reserve has, for the last twenty or more years meant a very serious
obligation and a very real expectation that you will be in harm's way.

Things change over time and what might have been true long ago in a
galaxy far, far away is not necessarily still the fact.

You might also want to consider editing several hundred lines of
assembled previous thread messages, particularly when appending
non-sequitur, one-liners ala-Tarver. It makes scrolling so much less
tedious particularly for those of us who don't spontaneously kill-file
folks who often contribute good stuff.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
> >From: Stephen Harding
> >Date: 2/20/04 7:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> >> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>>I don't think people are exactly flocking to the Guard any more,
> >>>given the rather lengthy, and sometimes consecutive, or round-robin
> >>>deployments.
> >>>
> >>>Not certain people in the Guard really expected to be used so hard.
> >>
> >> Since when? Guard deployments have been on the upswing since ODS, with
> >their
> >> assumption of first the SFOR mission and more recently KFOR. The old
days
> >of
> >> units never expecting to be mobilized have been long gone, even before
the
> >> events following 9-11. The tempo since 9-11 has probably been greater
than
> >> many thought before, but the Guard and Reserves as a whole were much
more
> >> cognizant of the possibility of being mobilized now than they were
twenty
> >> years ago, when the most they could usually expect was maybe a
three-week
> >AT
> >> to facilitate their participation in OCONUS training operations instead
of
> >> the normal two weeks.
> >
> >This may be so, but I certainly don't recall some of these repeat
> >deployments that some individuals, and Guard units are doing. At
> >least around here (W. Mass.). It may be a seeming bias produced
> >by news coverage, where individual, and especially families of
> >individuals are complaining of the length of the duty call, and
> >sometimes repeat calls. Even Ft. Campbell in Kentucky had families
> >of (unit??) members publicly complaining about this, and I don't
> >believe these were reserve or Guard.
> >
> >When you are in the Guard, I think you are still entitled to put
> >family and job related concerns at a higher level. That's the
> >way it's always been and GWI or not, seems that was the prevalent
> >thinking, at least around here (we have a combat engineer unit
> >locally for Army, and a Warthog unit for the air).
> >
> >When you're regular, you know you are GI, and family and you take
> >second row seats when Uncle has need of you.
> >
> >
> >SMH
> >
>
>
> The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want
everyone to
> think that you do. End of story.

You are truly a disgusting, sad sack of horse excrement. Here are a few of
the DoD's press releases regarding the deaths of deployed Guardsmen and
Reservists over just the past couple of weeks:

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040217-0348.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040217-0351.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040210-0339.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040209-0335.html

Each of these folks gave a hell of a lot more than you did, despite your
repeated crowing about your own exploits. Care to visit their next of kin
and make that claim? Open a book, read a newspaper--just get a freakin'
clue, you sanctimonious SOB. Guardsmen from a single brigade deployed from
Florida had received over forty Purple Hearts in Iraq as of November; how
many did YOU get?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[OXMORON1]

Art wrote:
>The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want everyone
>to
>think that you do. End of story.

Art,
That was uncalled for and unmitigated Bull****!
I will grant you that at one time the State Militias were sort of "Old Boys
Clubs" and a place to go drink beer during summer camp, but that has not always
been the case. It is not the case now.
Times change and most people keep up with them, you do not.
By the way, the Guard was activated for WWII (your war, remember it?) before
you even got out of high school. The Guard was taking casualties long before
you got in the nose compartment of Willie and saved the world from the evil
Hun.
You owe some people an apology for that crack.

Rick Clark
Oxmoron1

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:10:18 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:


>>
>> Guardsmen from a single brigade deployed from
>Florida had received over forty Purple Hearts in Iraq as of November; how
>many did YOU get?
>
>Brooks
>

While I agree with all that you said in the snipped portion (except
for the gratuitous and scatological personal attack), I might simply
note that Purple Hearts are not a good measure of combat
effectiveness. While receipt of a PH is certainly a statement that you
were there, it doesn't mean that your contribution was particularly
effective.

I'd much rather see the regional national equivalent of the PH be
awarded to the military of the opposition.

I'm proud to say that I've got no Purple Hearts. Never particularly
aspired to one.



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

[Jarg]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want
everyone to
> think that you do. End of story.
>

What an amazing statement! It is demonstrably untrue now - see Iraq - and I
doubt it was ever true. I think you know this and are just being stubborn,
but if not it's time for you to start taking your senility pills.

Jarg

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 2/20/04 9:20 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art wrote:
>>The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want everyone
>>to
>>think that you do. End of story.
>
>Art,
>That was uncalled for and unmitigated Bull****!
>I will grant you that at one time the State Militias were sort of "Old Boys
>Clubs" and a place to go drink beer during summer camp, but that has not
>always
>been the case. It is not the case now.
>Times change and most people keep up with them, you do not.
>By the way, the Guard was activated for WWII (your war, remember it?) before
>you even got out of high school. The Guard was taking casualties long before
>you got in the nose compartment of Willie and saved the world from the evil
>Hun.
>You owe some people an apology for that crack.
>
>Rick Clark
>Oxmoron1


Then so does Colin Powell. He said exactly the same thing.


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]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/20/04 9:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 20 Feb 2004 16:24:32 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>
>>The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want everyone
>to
>>think that you do. End of story.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>You're not paying attention, Art. The Guard and Reserves today (that's
>TODAY!!!) are very much a part of active operations. Joining the Guard
>or Reserve has, for the last twenty or more years meant a very serious
>obligation and a very real expectation that you will be in harm's way.
>
>Things change over time and what might have been true long ago in a
>galaxy far, far away is not necessarily still the fact.
>
>You might also want to consider editing several hundred lines of
>assembled previous thread messages, particularly when appending
>non-sequitur, one-liners ala-Tarver. It makes scrolling so much less
>tedious particularly for those of us who don't spontaneously kill-file
>folks who often contribute good stuff.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Colin Powell said exactly the same thing. Often.


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

[OXMORON1]

Art wrote after I called his statement Bull****:

>Then so does Colin Powell. He said exactly the same thing.

Fine, please reference a source that I can look up.
You did not reference it as a quote in your intial post. Just because Powell
was a General Officer does not preclude him from uttering bull**** either.

Rick Clark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 2/20/04 11:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art wrote after I called his statement Bull****:
>
>>Then so does Colin Powell. He said exactly the same thing.
>
>Fine, please reference a source that I can look up.
>You did not reference it as a quote in your intial post. Just because Powell
>was a General Officer does not preclude him from uttering bull**** either.
>
>Rick Clark


I guess none of us are above uttering bull****.


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

[fudog50]

yeah that helps a lot?

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:59:58 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
>Perhaps this will help:
>
>"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:12:47 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>
>
>> You are a moron
>

[OXMORON1]

Art wrote:
>>Art wrote after I called his statement Bull****:
>>
>>>Then so does Colin Powell. He said exactly the same thing.
>>
>>Fine, please reference a source that I can look up.
>>You did not reference it as a quote in your intial post. Just because
>Powell
>>was a General Officer does not preclude him from uttering bull**** either.
>>
>>Rick Clark
>
>
>I guess none of us are above uttering bull****.

Correct Art, you got this one exactly correct!
Now, show us a reference that we can look up and read Mr. Powell's statement
and/or tell this group that you are quoting him verbatim.
I will still state that under current day situations that the statement is
bull**** and an apology is owed by whoever made such an ignorant statement.

Rick Clark
No I am not in the Guard

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 2/20/04 12:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art wrote:
>>>Art wrote after I called his statement Bull****:
>>>
>>>>Then so does Colin Powell. He said exactly the same thing.
>>>
>>>Fine, please reference a source that I can look up.
>>>You did not reference it as a quote in your intial post. Just because
>>Powell
>>>was a General Officer does not preclude him from uttering bull**** either.
>>>
>>>Rick Clark
>>
>>
>>I guess none of us are above uttering bull****.
>
>Correct Art, you got this one exactly correct!
>Now, show us a reference that we can look up and read Mr. Powell's statement
>and/or tell this group that you are quoting him verbatim.
>I will still state that under current day situations that the statement is
>bull**** and an apology is owed by whoever made such an ignorant statement.
>
>Rick Clark
>No I am not in the Guard
>
>


The statement is very well known as was quoted in this NG about a week ago.
I'll have to go into Google and dig it out for you. Hang in there.



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]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 2/20/04 11:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art wrote after I called his statement Bull****:
>
>>Then so does Colin Powell. He said exactly the same thing.
>
>Fine, please reference a source that I can look up.
>You did not reference it as a quote in your intial post. Just because Powell
>was a General Officer does not preclude him from uttering bull**** either.
>
>Rick Clark

Colin Powell was once outraged by elites who “wrangle slots in Reserve and
Guard units.” Now he defends George Bush, who wrangled himself into a Guard
unit.
By John Greeley


In his autobiography, Colin Powel is truly revealed as a man of honor.
Certainly his military career provides us an example of what is best in
American society and also in the man himself. His rise to the heights of
military command speaks volumes on both counts. This is especially true since
he is a man of color. Perhaps in no other country in the world could this
happen, and it should make us all proud.

In particular, one comment he makes in his autobiography comes to mind at this
time because of something he just said while giving testimony on Capitol Hill.
It was in response to some questions Rep. Brown, (Dem, Ohio), had concerning
the ongoing problem of President Bush and his Air National Guard attendance
record.

The Secretary of State fairly bristled at the comment that President Bush might
have been AWOL towards the end of his Air National Guard career and told the
Representative in no uncertain terms, “Don’t go there!” along with an
admonition that if the Representative wanted to turn this into a political
fight, there was a time and place for it.

From where I sat, it was a ferocious and threatening display of raw,
confrontational, Executive Branch power. It immediately reminded me of
something I had read in his autobiography in which he wrote:

I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed
to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units .... Of the many tragedies
of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to
the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to
their country (Colin Powell, My American Journey, p. 148)

We are all entitled, of course, to change our minds about important issues over
the course of our lifetimes. But there is the unmistakable ring of truth, I
think, in that quotation from his book. Here we have a man dedicated to the
honor and glory of the Army and the terrible sacrifices those who serve in it
must make. He is justly outraged at the prospect of wealth and privilege
trumping the need for sacrifice in the cause of this great nation. He reveals
himself as a genuine, life-long soldier. A man imbued with duty and honor.

Yet the face he shows as Secretary of State is entirely different. Here, he
defends his President from the slings and arrows of the political fray no
matter what the cost to him personally or to those ideals expressed above.
Perhaps if Colin Powell had done his duty in his capacity as Secretary of
State, that “allegiance to their country” he spoke of so eloquently might
have saved us from the unwarranted invasion of Iraq and thus preserved
thousands of lives. That failure certainly is “…damaging to the ideal that
all Americans are created equal…”

It must be hard to reconcile the two positions, but that is what happens at the
top of the pyramid where all power coalesces and moral clarity is sharpest. On
the day the invasion of Iraq began, there should have been resignations
tendered at the highest levels because those men, of all people, understood
what a betrayal of our basic American principles it was. To stay meant to
acquiesce in the lies and now there is nothing left to do but to bristle at the
criticisms, even the very timid ones such as Representative Brown offered, and
hope that is enough to save your job and your dignity.


John Greeley is a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam, a graduate of St. John's
University Law School and a contributing editor at Intervention. You can email
your comments to John at




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]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 2/20/04 12:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art wrote:
>>>Art wrote after I called his statement Bull****:
>>>
>>>>Then so does Colin Powell. He said exactly the same thing.
>>>
>>>Fine, please reference a source that I can look up.
>>>You did not reference it as a quote in your intial post. Just because
>>Powell
>>>was a General Officer does not preclude him from uttering bull**** either.
>>>
>>>Rick Clark
>>
>>
>>I guess none of us are above uttering bull****.
>
>Correct Art, you got this one exactly correct!
>Now, show us a reference that we can look up and read Mr. Powell's statement
>and/or tell this group that you are quoting him verbatim.
>I will still state that under current day situations that the statement is
>bull**** and an apology is owed by whoever made such an ignorant statement.
>
>Rick Clark
>No I am not in the Guard
>
>

Colin Powell was once outraged by elites who “wrangle slots in Reserve and
Guard units.” Now he defends George Bush, who wrangled himself into a Guard
unit.
By John Greeley


In his autobiography, Colin Powel is truly revealed as a man of honor.
Certainly his military career provides us an example of what is best in
American society and also in the man himself. His rise to the heights of
military command speaks volumes on both counts. This is especially true since
he is a man of color. Perhaps in no other country in the world could this
happen, and it should make us all proud.

In particular, one comment he makes in his autobiography comes to mind at this
time because of something he just said while giving testimony on Capitol Hill.
It was in response to some questions Rep. Brown, (Dem, Ohio), had concerning
the ongoing problem of President Bush and his Air National Guard attendance
record.

The Secretary of State fairly bristled at the comment that President Bush might
have been AWOL towards the end of his Air National Guard career and told the
Representative in no uncertain terms, “Don’t go there!” along with an
admonition that if the Representative wanted to turn this into a political
fight, there was a time and place for it.

From where I sat, it was a ferocious and threatening display of raw,
confrontational, Executive Branch power. It immediately reminded me of
something I had read in his autobiography in which he wrote:

I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed
to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units .... Of the many tragedies
of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to
the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to
their country (Colin Powell, My American Journey, p. 148)

We are all entitled, of course, to change our minds about important issues over
the course of our lifetimes. But there is the unmistakable ring of truth, I
think, in that quotation from his book. Here we have a man dedicated to the
honor and glory of the Army and the terrible sacrifices those who serve in it
must make. He is justly outraged at the prospect of wealth and privilege
trumping the need for sacrifice in the cause of this great nation. He reveals
himself as a genuine, life-long soldier. A man imbued with duty and honor.

Yet the face he shows as Secretary of State is entirely different. Here, he
defends his President from the slings and arrows of the political fray no
matter what the cost to him personally or to those ideals expressed above.
Perhaps if Colin Powell had done his duty in his capacity as Secretary of
State, that “allegiance to their country” he spoke of so eloquently might
have saved us from the unwarranted invasion of Iraq and thus preserved
thousands of lives. That failure certainly is “…damaging to the ideal that
all Americans are created equal…”

It must be hard to reconcile the two positions, but that is what happens at the
top of the pyramid where all power coalesces and moral clarity is sharpest. On
the day the invasion of Iraq began, there should have been resignations
tendered at the highest levels because those men, of all people, understood
what a betrayal of our basic American principles it was. To stay meant to
acquiesce in the lies and now there is nothing left to do but to bristle at the
criticisms, even the very timid ones such as Representative Brown offered, and
hope that is enough to save your job and your dignity.


John Greeley is a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam, a graduate of St. John's
University Law School and a contributing editor at Intervention. You can email
your comments to John at




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

[BUFDRVR]

>Correct Art, you got this one exactly correct!
>Now, show us a reference that we can look up and read Mr. Powell's statement
>and/or tell this group that you are quoting him verbatim.
>I will still state that under current day situations that the statement is
>bull**** and an apology is owed by whoever made such an ignorant statement.

It'll be a cold day in hell when Kramer answers *any* challenges put forth to
him. His wealth of WW II experience is wasted on this ng because of his
complete lack of knowledge about *anything* after 1946.


BUFDRVR

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

[OXMORON1]

Art came up with references to Mr Powell's biography/autobiography referencing
the statement that Art quoted/paraphrased.

After reading those quotes/references I will agree that Mr. Powell may have at
one time in his military career may have held or stated stated such opinions. I
will also agree at some points in Mr. Powell's career such statements contained
truth.
I still stand by by statement that in the current situation those statements
are not applicable and I have serious doubts that Mr. Powell would make the
same statement at this time or during his later career in the Pentagon.
In the current situation the statement that Art quoted/paraphrased is still
bull****. Circa 1965 to 1973 the statement would have been applicable in a lot
of circumstances, especially if you were a brown bar grunt Lt or an off the
street draftee.

Rick Clark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 2/20/04 1:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art came up with references to Mr Powell's biography/autobiography
>referencing
>the statement that Art quoted/paraphrased.
>
>After reading those quotes/references I will agree that Mr. Powell may have
>at
>one time in his military career may have held or stated stated such opinions.
>I
>will also agree at some points in Mr. Powell's career such statements
>contained
>truth.
>I still stand by by statement that in the current situation those statements
>are not applicable and I have serious doubts that Mr. Powell would make the
>same statement at this time or during his later career in the Pentagon.
>In the current situation the statement that Art quoted/paraphrased is still
>bull****. Circa 1965 to 1973 the statement would have been applicable in a
>lot
>of circumstances, especially if you were a brown bar grunt Lt or an off the
>street draftee.
>
>Rick Clark


Your apology is accepted.


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]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 2/20/04 1:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Correct Art, you got this one exactly correct!
>>Now, show us a reference that we can look up and read Mr. Powell's statement
>>and/or tell this group that you are quoting him verbatim.
>>I will still state that under current day situations that the statement is
>>bull**** and an apology is owed by whoever made such an ignorant statement.
>
>It'll be a cold day in hell when Kramer answers *any* challenges put forth to
>him. His wealth of WW II experience is wasted on this ng because of his
>complete lack of knowledge about *anything* after 1946.
>
>
>BUFDRVR

"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

I guess it is now a cold day in hell.


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

[OXMORON1]

Art wrote:
>Your apology is accepted.

I didn't apologize Art.

Under the current situation the statement, which you attributed to Powell
after the
fact, is still Bull**** and an apology is owed to those people currently
serving.

I personally don't need your apology because I am not in the Guard.

But you did spend your adult non-military career in advertising, didn't you?

Rick Clark

[OXMORON1]

Art wrote after quoting from Powell's book published in 1995:
>I guess it is now a cold day in hell.

Art, when did he say it, not the date it was published in the book?

And how cold is it in Las Vegas this afternoon?

Rick Clark

[Ed Rasimus]

On 20 Feb 2004 22:20:03 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>>From: (OXMORON1)
>>Date: 2/20/04 1:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Art came up with references to Mr Powell's biography/autobiography
>>referencing
>>the statement that Art quoted/paraphrased.

>>I still stand by by statement that in the current situation those statements
>>are not applicable and I have serious doubts that Mr. Powell would make the
>>same statement at this time or during his later career in the Pentagon.
>>In the current situation the statement that Art quoted/paraphrased is still
>>bull****. Circa 1965 to 1973 the statement would have been applicable in a
>>lot
>>of circumstances, especially if you were a brown bar grunt Lt or an off the
>>street draftee.
>>
>>Rick Clark
>
>
>Your apology is accepted.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I don't know if you've got the Powell book on your shelf. I do. You
might want to continue on to the next paragraph on p. 149 to see the
isolation of the comment to the bankrupt policies of the Johnson
administration. Powell was exactly right when referring to 1967-69 and
should be respected for calling a spade a spade. But, this discussion
is about: first, GWB's experience from 1970-74, and more importantly,
the state of the Guard/Reserve from post-Vietnam until today.

Clearly the record shows that the employment philosophy of the
Guard/Reserve components has changed drastically. Failure to note a
shift in policy over forty years is short-sighted and intellectually
bankrupt.

The Guard and Reserve are very active on the battlefields of America
and deserve the utmost respect.


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

[Sunny]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want
everyone to
> think that you do. End of story.

Do you still stand by your stupid statement ?
(without printing red herrings about Powell etc)
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to read about US "Guard" exploits in the War
against Terrorism.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:10:18 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Guardsmen from a single brigade deployed from
> >Florida had received over forty Purple Hearts in Iraq as of November; how
> >many did YOU get?
> >
> >Brooks
> >
>
> While I agree with all that you said in the snipped portion (except
> for the gratuitous and scatological personal attack),

Merited by Art's insult to those Guardsmen now serving, and those who have
recently been KIA.

I might simply
> note that Purple Hearts are not a good measure of combat
> effectiveness. While receipt of a PH is certainly a statement that you
> were there, it doesn't mean that your contribution was particularly
> effective.

It was intended to point out that Guardsmen are indeed serving under hostile
fire and contributing their fair share of the blood.

>
> I'd much rather see the regional national equivalent of the PH be
> awarded to the military of the opposition.
>
> I'm proud to say that I've got no Purple Hearts. Never particularly
> aspired to one.

Understandable. But I doubt you'd be so crass as to make the statement that
Art did. Art likes to play up the "look at the noble sacrifices we (I) made,
I deserve special accolades and reverence" crap; OTOH, he chooses to cast
slurs upon the dedication of those who are serving, and indeed those who
have actually shed more blood than he did. Even worse, he does this despite
repeated corrections from a number of people, you included. I know, it's
just another case of Art being the asshole he really is--but that does not
mean he gets to take free potshots at those who are demonstrating every bit
as much dedication to duty that he did, if not more (some of these guys have
been serving a lot longer years, with less appreciation demonstrated, than
Art ever experienced). Sorry if my "calling a spade a spade" in the case of
Art upsets you, Ed, but IMO he is reaping what he sows.

Brooks

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/20/04 3:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 20 Feb 2004 22:20:03 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>>>From: (OXMORON1)
>>>Date: 2/20/04 1:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>Art came up with references to Mr Powell's biography/autobiography
>>>referencing
>>>the statement that Art quoted/paraphrased.
>
>>>I still stand by by statement that in the current situation those
>statements
>>>are not applicable and I have serious doubts that Mr. Powell would make the
>>>same statement at this time or during his later career in the Pentagon.
>>>In the current situation the statement that Art quoted/paraphrased is still
>>>bull****. Circa 1965 to 1973 the statement would have been applicable in a
>>>lot
>>>of circumstances, especially if you were a brown bar grunt Lt or an off the
>>>street draftee.
>>>
>>>Rick Clark
>>
>>
>>Your apology is accepted.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>I don't know if you've got the Powell book on your shelf. I do. You
>might want to continue on to the next paragraph on p. 149 to see the
>isolation of the comment to the bankrupt policies of the Johnson
>administration. Powell was exactly right when referring to 1967-69 and
>should be respected for calling a spade a spade. But, this discussion
>is about: first, GWB's experience from 1970-74, and more importantly,
>the state of the Guard/Reserve from post-Vietnam until today.
>
>Clearly the record shows that the employment philosophy of the
>Guard/Reserve components has changed drastically. Failure to note a
>shift in policy over forty years is short-sighted and intellectually
>bankrupt.
>
>The Guard and Reserve are very active on the battlefields of America
>and deserve the utmost respect.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


He wasn't critisizing the guard for christsakes. He was critisizing those weak
bellied *******s who go there to hide. Y'know, the intellectually bankrupt you
are talking about.



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

[Ron]

>"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
>
>I guess it is now a cold day in hell.

Just because some chose the guard, is not an indictment of the guard itself.
Probably more of the process and those individuals.



Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (Ron)
>Date: 2/20/04 5:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>"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
>>
>>I guess it is now a cold day in hell.
>
>Just because some chose the guard, is not an indictment of the guard itself.
>Probably more of the process and those individuals.
>
>
>
>Ron
>Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>

Exactly.


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

[BUFDRVR]

>"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

I fail to see where Powell said; "The guard is where you go when you don't want
to go to war but want everyone to think that you do." You're taking some great
liberties and putting words in the current Sec. of State's mouth if you believe
you've accurately paraphrased him. Like I said, it'll be a cold day in hell...


BUFDRVR

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

[Ron]

>>Just because some chose the guard, is not an indictment of the guard itself.
>
>>Probably more of the process and those individuals.
>>
>>
>>
>>Ron
>>Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>>
>
>Exactly.

But I will also assert that applying for ANG military pilot duty is not
avoiding anything. 2 years of active duty for training, and then learning to
fly an F-102 is not exactly something for the risk averse, or for one looking
for a guarantee to avoid combat. Sure, there are those that look back and say
how that unit did not see combat, but that was in the cold war, and the balloon
could have gone up...Luckily it did not.

I can say that if I had been in that situation, you can bet your ass I would
have accepted a guard pilot slot. Strapping on an F-102 is certainly more to
most peoples likeing then strapping on an M-16. Probably a whole hell of a lot
more fun too.




Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (Ron)
>Date: 2/20/04 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>>Just because some chose the guard, is not an indictment of the guard
>itself.
>>
>>>Probably more of the process and those individuals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ron
>>>Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>>>
>>
>>Exactly.
>
>But I will also assert that applying for ANG military pilot duty is not
>avoiding anything. 2 years of active duty for training, and then learning to
>fly an F-102 is not exactly something for the risk averse, or for one looking
>for a guarantee to avoid combat. Sure, there are those that look back and
>say
>how that unit did not see combat, but that was in the cold war, and the
>balloon
>could have gone up...Luckily it did not.
>
>I can say that if I had been in that situation, you can bet your ass I would
>have accepted a guard pilot slot. Strapping on an F-102 is certainly more to
>most peoples likeing then strapping on an M-16. Probably a whole hell of a
>lot
>more fun too.
>
>
>
>
>Ron
>Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>


In WW II your chances of survival were better in the tank corps than in the
air. Know when you have it good and don't do anything dumb..It's the high
price of glamour.


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

[D. Strang]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> In WW II your chances of survival were better in the tank corps than in the
> air. Know when you have it good and don't do anything dumb..It's the high
> price of glamour.

In Vietnam your chances of survival were better in the tank corps than in
the Infantry. But there's worse things than being dead.

There's a reason the tank corps are always fully staffed, and slots are never
available.

The bad part about the tank corps, was that many went crazy and were all
sectioned out after their brains boiled in the heat of those things. Most before
their year was up.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: "D. Strang"
>Date: 2/20/04 7:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>In WW II your chances of survival were better in the tank corps than in the
>> air. Know when you have it good and don't do anything dumb..It's the high
>> price of glamour.

>n Vietnam your chances of survival were better in the tank corps than in
>the Infantry. But there's worse things than being dead.

Yeah. I remember a few moments like that.


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

[fudog50]

What would really help Tarver, is if you stay the hell out of subjects
you know absolutely zero about and quit spouting off.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:59:58 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
>Perhaps this will help:
>
>"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:12:47 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>
>
>> You are a moron
>

[Cub Driver]

>The bad part about the tank corps, was that many went crazy and were all
>sectioned out after their brains boiled in the heat of those things.

Sergeant Brown, my training sergeant in US Army ComZ, was a military
policeman in Tokyo in June 1950. When he arrived with all the other
fat and happy garrison troops in Korea, he was told: "We don't need no
MPs. Everybody's going in the same direction: South."

So they put him in a tank. His face blistered so badly that eight
years later it was still pockmarked.

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

[Stephen Harding]

ArtKramr 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

You seem to be merging two different questions.

Powell stating the "wangling" of Reserve/Guard slots during
the Vietnam War, and whether GWB was hiding in the Guard
for this purpose or not.

From what I've heard, Powell was correct about the practice,
but I'm not at all certain that just because GWB was the son
of a "powerful and well-placed" person, that this was the
case for him.

Given his background and personal integrity, I'm not at all
certain Dad would have cooperated in such a move. Certainly
no evidence that I'm aware of that this was the case.

So we simply end up with another "guilt by association" charge.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> Understandable. But I doubt you'd be so crass as to make the statement that
> Art did. Art likes to play up the "look at the noble sacrifices we (I) made,

Art was right on the money as to how the Guard one time was as
far as I can tell.

My father always said if he had gone into the Mass Air Guard
after retirement from the USAF, he'd have left it a General.
This would have been mid 60's through early 70's. Vietnam War
period. He regarded it merely as a "boys club" where most
effort made was sharpening your drinking skills. Correct or
not, that was his view at that time.

> I deserve special accolades and reverence" crap; OTOH, he chooses to cast
> slurs upon the dedication of those who are serving, and indeed those who
> have actually shed more blood than he did. Even worse, he does this despite
> repeated corrections from a number of people, you included. I know, it's

Everyone here plays this game to varying degree. There's a NG
hierarchy. At the bottom, are the types with no personal
military experience beyond bratdom. At the top are the combat
flyers, of which Art is one.

One group can always shut down the group below him by demanding
"what's your experience?" For Art trashing you, it might be
"How many bullets have whizzed by your head?" For you to trash
the level below you, mere ask "Tell us exactly what your military
experience might be?"

> just another case of Art being the asshole he really is--but that does not
> mean he gets to take free potshots at those who are demonstrating every bit
> as much dedication to duty that he did, if not more (some of these guys have
> been serving a lot longer years, with less appreciation demonstrated, than
> Art ever experienced). Sorry if my "calling a spade a spade" in the case of
> Art upsets you, Ed, but IMO he is reaping what he sows.

Well I think it does give him the right. And of course, you
have the right to correct or update him. If he doesn't take
to the correction, it's just a loss of some keystrokes.

Yeah he's a crotchety, cantankerous type. No use getting bent
out of shape over it. You're not the defender of the Guard,
called to do battle over its honor when maligned.

Quite frankly, I admire Art's no nonsense, no compromise
attitudes. Could probably exercise it in a less argumentative
way, but that's just a matter of style. As I've said before,
Art's a "time capsule" of a period of American history now
seemingly gone, where a nation was united as never before, and
accepted no mitigation of its fury toward an enemy. Todays
more mild or PC or outright revisionism doesn't go over well.

Doesn't mean he's correct in what he says all time, or even
most of the time. Keep him in context and keep your Me 109
well away from his B-26, even in todays skies!


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> What would really help Tarver, is if you stay the hell out of subjects
> you know absolutely zero about and quit spouting off.

I was in the ANG, dip****.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 2/21/04 7:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> Understandable. But I doubt you'd be so crass as to make the statement that
>> Art did. Art likes to play up the "look at the noble sacrifices we (I)
>made,
>
>Art was right on the money as to how the Guard one time was as
>far as I can tell.
>
>My father always said if he had gone into the Mass Air Guard
>after retirement from the USAF, he'd have left it a General.
>This would have been mid 60's through early 70's. Vietnam War
>period. He regarded it merely as a "boys club" where most
>effort made was sharpening your drinking skills. Correct or
>not, that was his view at that time.
>
>> I deserve special accolades and reverence" crap; OTOH, he chooses to cast
>> slurs upon the dedication of those who are serving, and indeed those who
>> have actually shed more blood than he did. Even worse, he does this despite
>> repeated corrections from a number of people, you included. I know, it's
>
>Everyone here plays this game to varying degree. There's a NG
>hierarchy. At the bottom, are the types with no personal
>military experience beyond bratdom. At the top are the combat
>flyers, of which Art is one.
>
>One group can always shut down the group below him by demanding
>"what's your experience?" For Art trashing you, it might be
>"How many bullets have whizzed by your head?" For you to trash
>the level below you, mere ask "Tell us exactly what your military
>experience might be?"
>
>> just another case of Art being the asshole he really is--but that does not
>> mean he gets to take free potshots at those who are demonstrating every bit
>> as much dedication to duty that he did, if not more (some of these guys
>have
>> been serving a lot longer years, with less appreciation demonstrated, than
>> Art ever experienced). Sorry if my "calling a spade a spade" in the case of
>> Art upsets you, Ed, but IMO he is reaping what he sows.
>
>Well I think it does give him the right. And of course, you
>have the right to correct or update him. If he doesn't take
>to the correction, it's just a loss of some keystrokes.
>
>Yeah he's a crotchety, cantankerous type. No use getting bent
>out of shape over it. You're not the defender of the Guard,
>called to do battle over its honor when maligned.
>
>Quite frankly, I admire Art's no nonsense, no compromise
>attitudes. Could probably exercise it in a less argumentative
>way, but that's just a matter of style. As I've said before,
>Art's a "time capsule" of a period of American history now
>seemingly gone, where a nation was united as never before, and
>accepted no mitigation of its fury toward an enemy. Todays
>more mild or PC or outright revisionism doesn't go over well.
>
>Doesn't mean he's correct in what he says all time, or even
>most of the time. Keep him in context and keep your Me 109
>well away from his B-26, even in todays skies!
>
>
>SMH
>

Thanks for understanding.. I don't get much around here. But at my age I don't
give a damn. I'll say what I like whenever I like.When I was a kid I
volunteered for the Army Air Corps. Me and a million other guys. I was called
up the day I was 18 and rushed ino training as the war raged. My greatest fear
was that the war would end before I got there and I would miss the entire
thing. I had nothing to worry about. It seemed as though 15 minutes after I was
called up I was 10,000 feet over Germany, which is exaclty where I wanted to
be. I didn't join the guard. I didn't join the reserves. I wanted to go to war
so I joined the Army Air Corp. Back then the reserve and the guard were
pathetic jokes and laughing stocks for all of us. As I have said before, if you
want to go to war, then go to war and don't hand us this reserve or National
Guard stuff. Tell a member of the 101st fighting for his life at Bastogne what
a great job the reserve is doing to defend our country sitting in the USA
nice and safe while he may not live to see the end of this day.


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

[George Z. Bush]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> ArtKramr 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
>
> You seem to be merging two different questions.
>
> Powell stating the "wangling" of Reserve/Guard slots during
> the Vietnam War, and whether GWB was hiding in the Guard
> for this purpose or not.
>
> From what I've heard, Powell was correct about the practice,
> but I'm not at all certain that just because GWB was the son
> of a "powerful and well-placed" person, that this was the
> case for him.
>
> Given his background and personal integrity, I'm not at all
> certain Dad would have cooperated in such a move. Certainly
> no evidence that I'm aware of that this was the case.

The Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives calls a highly placed official
in the Texas ANG and the application of a son of a Congressman possessing only
marginal aptitudes miraculously rises to the top of the lengthy waiting list.
It did not require that overt contact be made with the Speaker, either in
writing, in person or by phone. The Speaker only needed to know that there was
an application pending in order to make certain that the right result ensued.
It's not that it happened only to Bush....the same treatment was afforded to the
sons of Gov. Connelly and other notables.

But it did in fact happen, and it happened only because of who Bush was related
to and not because of anything else.

George Z.
>
> SMH
>

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 20 Feb 2004 16:24:32 GMT,
ArtKramr attempted to say .....

>
> The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want everyone to
> think that you do. End of story.
>

Screw you art,
I joined the guard off active duty to be able to coninue to serve.




--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[fudog50]

Ok Tarver,

You call me moron for my opinions about military personnel having to
deploy, now I'm a dip**** for biting at the bait you threw at me.

First of all, resorting to namecalling is really immature.

Second of all, you obviously don't read what I have to say,,, and I
totally think everything you post is argumentative and arrogant.

I'll make you a deal, here is the "olive branch". I'll ignore
everything you say (no matter how stupid, moronic and lame it is) and
stay out of your business, and you do the same to me??? Deal?


On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 07:47:09 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>> What would really help Tarver, is if you stay the hell out of subjects
>> you know absolutely zero about and quit spouting off.
>
>I was in the ANG, dip****.
>

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 21 Feb 2004 00:50:41 GMT,
ArtKramr attempted to say .....

>
>
> He wasn't critisizing the guard for christsakes. He was critisizing those weak
> bellied *******s who go there to hide. Y'know, the intellectually bankrupt you
> are talking about.
>

So how about you stop characterizing anyone in the Guard that way ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> Ok Tarver,
>
> You call me moron for my opinions about military personnel having to
> deploy, now I'm a dip**** for biting at the bait you threw at me.

I was calling Kevin Brooks a moron by reposting your message.

> First of all, resorting to namecalling is really immature.

It is your post calling someone a moron.

If I wrote to you that you knew nothing about a thread about your Service, I
doubt you would have been so generous as I was.

[George Z. Bush]

Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article >,
> on 21 Feb 2004 00:50:41 GMT,
> ArtKramr attempted to say .....
>
>>
>>
>> He wasn't critisizing the guard for christsakes. He was critisizing those
>> weak bellied *******s who go there to hide. Y'know, the intellectually
>> bankrupt you are talking about.
>>
>
> So how about you stop characterizing anyone in the Guard that way ?

I don't think anyone is characterizing members of the Guard in that way these
days. They obviously are called upon and do their things quite often these days
right alongside and with their Reserve and Regular brethren.

However, things were a bit different 35 years ago, as those of us who are old
enough to have been around then can attest. Even then, it obviously would not
have been fair to paint the guys who volunteered to go to places where a hot war
was being fought with the same brush as those who signed up and said they'd be
available for crowd control duty if there was a riot in the state capitol. Some
members of the Guard, but certainly not all, used their Guard membership as a
means of trying to keep from being drafted for service in those hot places. It
wasn't rare, and it did happen.

George Z.

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 09:42:57 -0500, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

> From what I've heard, Powell was correct about the practice,
>but I'm not at all certain that just because GWB was the son
>of a "powerful and well-placed" person, that this was the
>case for him.

Sure it was (to the extent that he thought about it one way or
another). More power to him! What Vietnam veteran would have expected
him to do otherwise?

By the time you're ending your last year of college, you damned well
ought to be smart enough to know that it is better to fly a fighter
plane out of Ellington AFB than to carry an M-16 through the paddy
fields.

Bush served more time on active duty (okay: Active Duty for Training)
than most draftee Vietnam veterans did, and his service was spread
over five and one-half years instead of two.

Both ways of serving are honorable. Being on active duty in Vietnam is
no doubt a dite more honorable, but not enough so that I would be
tempted to vote for Mr. Kerry.

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: Tank Fixer
>Date: 2/21/04 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> on 20 Feb 2004 16:24:32 GMT,
> ArtKramr attempted to say .....
>
>>
>> The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want
>everyone to
>> think that you do. End of story.
>>
>
>Screw you art,
>I joined the guard off active duty to be able to coninue to serve.
>
>
>

How brave of you. I am awed by your courage. I wish I had had the guts to join
the guard. Being the coward I am I just went to war instead.





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

[OXMORON1]

Art wrote in reply to:
>>Screw you art,
>>I joined the guard off active duty to be able to coninue to serve.
>>
The following..............
>
> How brave of you. I am awed by your courage. I wish I had had the guts to
>join
>the guard. Being the coward I am I just went to war instead.

Art read what the heck he said before pounding your chest!
He joined the Guard "off" active duty, that means after he completed his active
duty tour he joined the Guard. Not instead of active duty!

Rick Clark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 2/21/04 5:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Art wrote in reply to:
>>>Screw you art,
>>>I joined the guard off active duty to be able to coninue to serve.
>>>
>The following..............
>>
>> How brave of you. I am awed by your courage. I wish I had had the guts to
>>join
>>the guard. Being the coward I am I just went to war instead.
>
>Art read what the heck he said before pounding your chest!
>He joined the Guard "off" active duty, that means after he completed his
>active
>duty tour he joined the Guard. Not instead of active duty!
>
>Rick Clark
>

I read what he said. Every word of it. Big deal. I am waiting for him to tell
us how bad the flak was in the guard. Yeah, I know, war is hell.


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

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 21 Feb 2004 23:07:59 GMT,
ArtKramr attempted to say .....

> >Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
> >From: Tank Fixer
> >Date: 2/21/04 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> > on 20 Feb 2004 16:24:32 GMT,
> > ArtKramr attempted to say .....
> >
> >>
> >> The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want
> >everyone to
> >> think that you do. End of story.
> >>
> >
> >Screw you art,
> >I joined the guard off active duty to be able to coninue to serve.
> >
> >
> >
>
> How brave of you. I am awed by your courage. I wish I had had the guts to join
> the guard. Being the coward I am I just went to war instead.

When I came off active duty there wasn't a war.

Why are you so bent on denigrating those that still serve ?



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 22 Feb 2004 01:26:48 GMT,
ArtKramr attempted to say .....

> >Subject: Re: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
> >From: (OXMORON1)
> >Date: 2/21/04 5:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Art wrote in reply to:
> >>>Screw you art,
> >>>I joined the guard off active duty to be able to coninue to serve.
> >>>
> >The following..............
> >>
> >> How brave of you. I am awed by your courage. I wish I had had the guts to
> >>join
> >>the guard. Being the coward I am I just went to war instead.
> >
> >Art read what the heck he said before pounding your chest!
> >He joined the Guard "off" active duty, that means after he completed his
> >active
> >duty tour he joined the Guard. Not instead of active duty!
> >
> >Rick Clark
> >
>
> I read what he said. Every word of it. Big deal. I am waiting for him to tell
> us how bad the flak was in the guard. Yeah, I know, war is hell.
>

I don't know, but it sure was cold on the DMZ in Korea.

You know what Art, next time you have a flood or forrest fire don't come
whining for help then.





--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:58:59 -0500,
George Z. Bush attempted to say .....

> Tank Fixer wrote:
> > In article >,
> > on 21 Feb 2004 00:50:41 GMT,
> > ArtKramr attempted to say .....
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> He wasn't critisizing the guard for christsakes. He was critisizing those
> >> weak bellied *******s who go there to hide. Y'know, the intellectually
> >> bankrupt you are talking about.
> >>
> >
> > So how about you stop characterizing anyone in the Guard that way ?
>
> I don't think anyone is characterizing members of the Guard in that way these
> days. They obviously are called upon and do their things quite often these days
> right alongside and with their Reserve and Regular brethren.
>
> However, things were a bit different 35 years ago, as those of us who are old
> enough to have been around then can attest. Even then, it obviously would not
> have been fair to paint the guys who volunteered to go to places where a hot war
> was being fought with the same brush as those who signed up and said they'd be
> available for crowd control duty if there was a riot in the state capitol. Some
> members of the Guard, but certainly not all, used their Guard membership as a
> means of trying to keep from being drafted for service in those hot places. It
> wasn't rare, and it did happen.


I understand that, I wish Art could tell teh differance between the few
that used the Guard in that manner and those of the rest of us who serve
there out of the same sense of duty he had in the 1940's


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[BUFDRVR]

>Doesn't mean he's correct in what he says all time, or even
>most of the time.

His tremendous lack of knowledge on *everything* (aviation, military, politics)
after 1946, and damn near half of everything prior is a more accurate
statement. Just a glance at the current thread regarding Iraq occupation has
Art's ignorance on full display. He doesn't know what's going on in Iraq now
and didn't know what was happening on the ground in Germany from 1945-1947,
although he claims he was there for 16 months following the war.


BUFDRVR

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

[BUFDRVR]

>As I have said before, if you
>want to go to war, then go to war and don't hand us this reserve or National
>Guard stuff.

So in Art Kramer's (scarry) world, there are no National Guardsmen or
Reservists because no one would join such dishonerable organizations.
Interestingly enough, in Art Kramer's world social security and medicare are
funded four times what they are now as are several hundred other welfare
programs. Seems money is abundant in Art Kramer's world, since without a
National Guard or Reserves, active duty strength would need to be increased at
least 1 for every 4 guardsmen or reservists. You're talking about a lot of
money there.


BUFDRVR

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > Understandable. But I doubt you'd be so crass as to make the statement
that
> > Art did. Art likes to play up the "look at the noble sacrifices we (I)
made,
>
> Art was right on the money as to how the Guard one time was as
> far as I can tell.

You like blanket statements, huh? When I went into the Guard after my active
duty tour was over, there were still a few of the guys around who had joined
up during the early and mid-fities. Rememebr that during the early fifties
Guard units *were* being called up and sent to Korea. Some of them had
expereinced activation during the Berlin Crisis. They stayed in the Guard
throughout the Vietnam War. Some went full-time and manned the Nike Hercules
batteries we had in our state. They were joined sometimes by guys like my
brother, who came home from Vieetnam and went straight into the Guard. Or my
former teacher (and part-time boss), who volunteered for active duty, went
through jump school, completed the special forces qualification course,
served with the 7th SFG, and when offered an early-out (because they were
already ramping down the SF organization as Vietnam petered out), found
himself serving out the remainder of his obligated service in the Guard. But
under your definition they were all dodging the draft, right? Blanket
statements are dangerous, aren't they?

>
> My father always said if he had gone into the Mass Air Guard
> after retirement from the USAF, he'd have left it a General.
> This would have been mid 60's through early 70's. Vietnam War
> period. He regarded it merely as a "boys club" where most
> effort made was sharpening your drinking skills. Correct or
> not, that was his view at that time.

OK. Did he have any thoughts about the ANG fighter groups from Colorado,
Iowa, New mexico, etc., that got activated and sent over to Vietnam in 1968,
and of which the following has been noted:
"The Air Force commander in Vietnam, testifying before a Senate committee,
summed up the combat record of these five squadrons:

"I had ... five F-100 Air National Guard squadrons ... Those were the five
best F-100 squadrons in the field. The aircrews were a little older, but
they were more experienced, and the maintenance people were also more
experienced than the regular units. They had done the same work on the
weapon system for years, and they had stability that a regular unit doesn't
have." "

www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/sidebar600.asp

Hell of a "drinking club", huh?


>
> > I deserve special accolades and reverence" crap; OTOH, he chooses to
cast
> > slurs upon the dedication of those who are serving, and indeed those who
> > have actually shed more blood than he did. Even worse, he does this
despite
> > repeated corrections from a number of people, you included. I know, it's
>
> Everyone here plays this game to varying degree. There's a NG
> hierarchy. At the bottom, are the types with no personal
> military experience beyond bratdom. At the top are the combat
> flyers, of which Art is one.
>
> One group can always shut down the group below him by demanding
> "what's your experience?" For Art trashing you, it might be
> "How many bullets have whizzed by your head?" For you to trash
> the level below you, mere ask "Tell us exactly what your military
> experience might be?"

Excuse me, but this is a case of Art claiming *his* combat experience
somehow merits swooning and adulation from all, while the combat experience
of these Guardsmen, about fifty of whom have been *killed* during this most
recent deployment, is of no import. Big difference from the usual "mine is
bigger than yours" arguments you reference.

>
> > just another case of Art being the asshole he really is--but that does
not
> > mean he gets to take free potshots at those who are demonstrating every
bit
> > as much dedication to duty that he did, if not more (some of these guys
have
> > been serving a lot longer years, with less appreciation demonstrated,
than
> > Art ever experienced). Sorry if my "calling a spade a spade" in the case
of
> > Art upsets you, Ed, but IMO he is reaping what he sows.
>
> Well I think it does give him the right. And of course, you
> have the right to correct or update him. If he doesn't take
> to the correction, it's just a loss of some keystrokes.
>
> Yeah he's a crotchety, cantankerous type. No use getting bent
> out of shape over it. You're not the defender of the Guard,
> called to do battle over its honor when maligned.

We all should be the defender of those who are currently serving and
suffering the sacrifices.

>
> Quite frankly, I admire Art's no nonsense, no compromise
> attitudes.

My opinion of your judgement just went down correspondingly.

Could probably exercise it in a less argumentative
> way, but that's just a matter of style. As I've said before,
> Art's a "time capsule" of a period of American history now
> seemingly gone, where a nation was united as never before, and
> accepted no mitigation of its fury toward an enemy. Todays
> more mild or PC or outright revisionism doesn't go over well.

If Art is a time capsule, and his opinions of inestimable worth, then what
does that say about someone like my father, another WWII bomber crew combat
vet? I relayed a couple of Art's "opinions" regarding the service of those
vets from WWII who did not fly into combat, like the ground crews, the mess
personnel, the guys stuck guarding the ammo dumps, etc., to him. He turned
eighty today, and I do believe that given half a chance he'd knock Art on
his kiester for mouthing such horsecrap. You have your "hero" in Art; I'll
stick with the rest of the guys who did their duty and have not repeatedly
asked for fawning adulation.

Brooks

>
> Doesn't mean he's correct in what he says all time, or even
> most of the time. Keep him in context and keep your Me 109
> well away from his B-26, even in todays skies!
>
>
> SMH
>

[George Z. Bush]

Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article >,
> on Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:58:59 -0500,
> George Z. Bush attempted to say .....
>
>> Tank Fixer wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> on 21 Feb 2004 00:50:41 GMT,
>>> ArtKramr attempted to say .....
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He wasn't critisizing the guard for christsakes. He was critisizing those
>>>> weak bellied *******s who go there to hide. Y'know, the intellectually
>>>> bankrupt you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So how about you stop characterizing anyone in the Guard that way ?
>>
>> I don't think anyone is characterizing members of the Guard in that way these
>> days. They obviously are called upon and do their things quite often these
>> days right alongside and with their Reserve and Regular brethren.
>>
>> However, things were a bit different 35 years ago, as those of us who are old
>> enough to have been around then can attest. Even then, it obviously would
>> not have been fair to paint the guys who volunteered to go to places where a
>> hot war was being fought with the same brush as those who signed up and said
>> they'd be available for crowd control duty if there was a riot in the state
>> capitol. Some members of the Guard, but certainly not all, used their Guard
>> membership as a means of trying to keep from being drafted for service in
>> those hot places. It wasn't rare, and it did happen.
>
>
> I understand that, I wish Art could tell teh differance between the few
> that used the Guard in that manner and those of the rest of us who serve
> there out of the same sense of duty he had in the 1940's

I no longer share views with Art. I learned long ago that he had a streak of
intolerance in his makeup that interfered with most exchanges of logical thought
with just about anybody. I can read his war stories, which are usually well
done and interesting, but I can't discuss anything with him involving our
differing opinions. That's the way it is with him.

George Z.

[BUFDRVR]

>Why are you so bent on denigrating those that still serve ?

Because he's a bitter old man that obviously isn't getting the personal
attention in the real world he feels he deserves. They say the last stages of
life are similar in all aspects to the first stages. Seems Art longs for some
praise and attention and feels the only way he can get is by telling *everyone*
else they stink. I haven't thought very highly of Art for sometime now, but
he's been going down hill fast since Christmas.


BUFDRVR

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>
> Thanks for understanding.. I don't get much around here. But at my age I
don't
> give a damn. I'll say what I like whenever I like.When I was a kid I
> volunteered for the Army Air Corps. Me and a million other guys. I was
called
> up the day I was 18 and rushed ino training as the war raged. My greatest
fear
> was that the war would end before I got there and I would miss the entire
> thing. I had nothing to worry about. It seemed as though 15 minutes after
I was
> called up I was 10,000 feet over Germany, which is exaclty where I wanted
to
> be. I didn't join the guard. I didn't join the reserves.

Idiot. There was NO Guard for you to join--it had already been mobilized (in
toto) before you finished high school, and depending upon the date in
question, Guardsmen were already fighting and dying. The big mobilization in
1940 ring a bell?


I wanted to go to war
> so I joined the Army Air Corp. Back then the reserve and the guard were
> pathetic jokes and laughing stocks for all of us.

Really? Was the 116th Infantry a "pathetic joke" at Normandy? How about the
elements of the 32nd ID in the southwest pacific campaigns? "Bloody Buna"
ring a bell?

As I have said before, if you
> want to go to war, then go to war and don't hand us this reserve or
National
> Guard stuff. Tell a member of the 101st fighting for his life at Bastogne
what
> a great job the reserve is doing to defend our country sitting in the
USA
> nice and safe while he may not live to see the end of this day.

It was bad enouigh that you were completely clueless in regard to the
activities of the modern reserve components, but that you were so badly
wrong as to the Guard/Reserve during your own war is unbelievable.

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
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Tank Fixer wrote:
> > In article >,
> > on 21 Feb 2004 00:50:41 GMT,
> > ArtKramr attempted to say .....
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> He wasn't critisizing the guard for christsakes. He was critisizing
those
> >> weak bellied *******s who go there to hide. Y'know, the intellectually
> >> bankrupt you are talking about.
> >>
> >
> > So how about you stop characterizing anyone in the Guard that way ?
>
> I don't think anyone is characterizing members of the Guard in that way
these
> days. They obviously are called upon and do their things quite often these
days
> right alongside and with their Reserve and Regular brethren.

You don't? Art has not only critisized the Guard and Reserve members who are
serving in combat today, but also those who were mobilized and were in many
cases aleady in combat while he was going through his own ninety day wonder
course during WWII.

Brooks

[OXMORON1]

Mr Kramer wrote:
>I read what he said. Every word of it. Big deal. I am waiting for him to
>tell
>us how bad the flak was in the guard. Yeah, I know, war is hell.
>

Mr Kramer,
You are a bitter and obstinate old man. It is too bad that you have no
tolerance or understanding that the world changes and you have not kept up with
it.
Your lack of these traits causes me to question any of your stories.

Rick Clark

[Mike Marron]

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
>>TankFixer wrote:

>>Why are you so bent on denigrating those that still serve ?

>Because he's a bitter old man that obviously isn't getting the personal
>attention in the real world he feels he deserves. They say the last stages of
>life are similar in all aspects to the first stages. Seems Art longs for some
>praise and attention and feels the only way he can get is by telling *everyone*
>else they stink. I haven't thought very highly of Art for sometime now, but
>he's been going down hill fast since Christmas.

Actually, he hit bottom around September when the final meltdown
occurred and came up with his cute "Autocollimator" imaginary RAM
playmate. Took me only a few days to figure out that Autocollimator
was really Kramer, but I figured it was only fitting to wait until
Halloween.....

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am the great and
powerful OZ!"

[fudog50]

And still you never answered my question, which shows me you don't
read or comprehend what was said...

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:16:45 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>> Ok Tarver,
>>
>> You call me moron for my opinions about military personnel having to
>> deploy, now I'm a dip**** for biting at the bait you threw at me.
>
>I was calling Kevin Brooks a moron by reposting your message.
>
>> First of all, resorting to namecalling is really immature.
>
>It is your post calling someone a moron.
>
>If I wrote to you that you knew nothing about a thread about your Service, I
>doubt you would have been so generous as I was.
>

[D. Strang]

"OXMORON1" > wrote
>
> Your lack of these traits causes me to question any of your stories.
>
> Rick Clark


Rick,

You've now realized the truth. Art's life ended in 1945. His brain stopped
working, and he has been on welfare ever since. He doesn't like any
President who is a Capitalist, and believes in freedom. He longs for
Roosevelt and a bigger New Deal, or a maybe a Johnson Great Society
program. One where he can keep golfing, and real men have to work
and young men and women have to fight overseas.

[Tarver Engineering]

I don't see a question mark in your post.

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> And still you never answered my question, which shows me you don't
> read or comprehend what was said...
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:16:45 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"fudog50" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Ok Tarver,
> >>
> >> You call me moron for my opinions about military personnel having to
> >> deploy, now I'm a dip**** for biting at the bait you threw at me.
> >
> >I was calling Kevin Brooks a moron by reposting your message.
> >
> >> First of all, resorting to namecalling is really immature.
> >
> >It is your post calling someone a moron.
> >
> >If I wrote to you that you knew nothing about a thread about your
Service, I
> >doubt you would have been so generous as I was.
> >
>

[fudog50]

You must be reading the wrong one then because I counted
four....forget it.


On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:03:00 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>I don't see a question mark in your post.
>
>"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>> And still you never answered my question, which shows me you don't
>> read or comprehend what was said...
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:16:45 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"fudog50" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Ok Tarver,
>> >>
>> >> You call me moron for my opinions about military personnel having to
>> >> deploy, now I'm a dip**** for biting at the bait you threw at me.
>> >
>> >I was calling Kevin Brooks a moron by reposting your message.
>> >
>> >> First of all, resorting to namecalling is really immature.
>> >
>> >It is your post calling someone a moron.
>> >
>> >If I wrote to you that you knew nothing about a thread about your
>Service, I
>> >doubt you would have been so generous as I was.
>> >
>>
>

[KeithK]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want everyone to
think that you do. End of story.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
>
> I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ...
managed
> to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units .... Of the many tragedies
> of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to
> the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to
> their country (Colin Powell, My American Journey, p. 148)


"The only thing we regulars are good for is to keep the guns clean for
your reserves, and to lead you into battle."

Chesty Puller, General, USMC

[Brian]

"KeithK" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> The guard is where you go when you don't want to go to war but want
everyone to
> think that you do. End of story.

We don't need to prove he's clueless, it just comes out of him naturally.

Hey Art, of all the Guard members, what percentage do you think actually
served on Active Duty? It's well above 70%. The Air Guard routinely
slaughters Active units in exercises. Sounds like you took the easy road by
getting out altogether. Where were you for Korea?