BRAC 2005

Here's the list from Fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/appendix_c.pdf

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

And if you want it in detail, try here.

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/vol_...s_1_and_2.html

R / John

Rummy's axe is kind of dull, seems to me.
Walt BJ

he is stuck in the 1970s

Why do you say that?


he is stuck in the 1970s

In article . com,
on 13 May 2005 20:07:00 -0700,
WaltBJ attempted to say .....


Rummy's axe is kind of dull, seems to me.
Walt BJ

In what way ?


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

On 13 May 2005 20:07:00 -0700, "WaltBJ"
wrote:


Rummy's axe is kind of dull, seems to me.

Considering that we did not have enough military facilities to
adequately support the mobilization of National Guard troops back in
2003 - I suspect that there is nothing left that can be cut without
impairing the ability of the military to win wars.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message news
On 13 May 2005 20:07:00 -0700, "WaltBJ"
wrote:


Rummy's axe is kind of dull, seems to me.

Considering that we did not have enough military facilities to
adequately support the mobilization of National Guard troops back in
2003 - I suspect that there is nothing left that can be cut without
impairing the ability of the military to win wars.

Newflash, we are at the end of tolerance by the US Citizens on all of this.
I have yet to see tolerance go beyond 4 years and we are entering the fourth
year. Citizens give their permission through voting. In this case, they
give it through enlistments and retention which are failing badly.

The Administration is trimming the fat for the near future. Most of the
bases were pork ones. Why would we need a base for 6 Aircraft. Why have a
base for one squadron of anything.

As for the National Guard,. most states have a very bad problem of Guard
enlistment and retention. What was done was a short term fix and it broke
the system as it is. A new fix is in place now to attempt to fix the fix
which definately shows the system is more broke than before. The One year
and four months enlistments in the Army. Yes, not One year and 6 months so
they can get Veterans Benefits, but 2 months short, then they are reservists
if they seperate where they can be called up for the next X number of years
at the whims of the DOD. What's strange is, I haven't seen this little
tidbit covered by any of the NewsServices. They just print the PR from the
DOD and tell about the enlistment period. They don't cover how these people
will be shortchanged in the process.

I have also not seen any of the 404thk00ks say much on this subject either.
Could it be that you have egg on your faces?

In article ,
on Sun, 15 May 2005 20:08:35 -0700,
Colin Campbell attempted to say .....

On 13 May 2005 20:07:00 -0700, "WaltBJ"
wrote:


Rummy's axe is kind of dull, seems to me.

Considering that we did not have enough military facilities to
adequately support the mobilization of National Guard troops back in
2003 - I suspect that there is nothing left that can be cut without
impairing the ability of the military to win wars.

I'd say they are short on mobilization facilities already.


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

In article ,
on Fri, 13 May 2005 17:15:41 -0500,
John Carrier attempted to say .....

And if you want it in detail, try here.

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/vol_...s_1_and_2.html

That was my choice, given how poorly most media do in reporting.


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