Did I hear ABC correctly?

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Yeff wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:33:51 -0600, No Spam! wrote:

Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
during the Clinton days,

Wrong. We were in an active draw-down at the same time we were
deploying
forces for Desert Shield. That was pre-Clinton.

It was not only pre-Clinton but, unless I'm mistaken, it started under
Reagan
after Gorby folded his tent and raised the economic white flag. That was
when
BRAC started along with force reduction. And I do recall widespread RIFs
at the
end of the Gulf War, which daddy Bush can take credit for.

I don't know what the Republicans would have done if Clinton hadn't come
along
for two terms and made himself available to be blamed for everything that
ever
went wrong in the world. Can you see them blaming one of their own, even
when
the evidence supported placing responsibility precisely there? Not very
damned
likely, especially when it would have required them to be honest about who
did
what to who.

George, you need to take your own advice to heart a bit. Yeah, the drawdown
started to gain steam under Bush, Sr. (but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
that term is normally used--neither was it a RIF under the Clinton
administration when it gained further steam). Great. Now, when was the last
time you found yourself able to humbly admit to one the very real mistakes
(from among many) of your hero Clinton? For example, under the Bush, Sr.
plan we did indeed draw down, but at least those remaining had training
funds--when your boy came along, those quickly evaporated to zilch (at one
point getting so bad such that we could not recruit individuals into certain
required MOS's because we lacked the funding to train them. Not good at all.
Or Clinton's handling of Somalia--Bush left him with a clear cut force
in-place to facilitate humanitarian support, and your little buddy took it
on himself to expand the mission while at the same time refusing the
requests of his commanders in the field for the few items they specifically
requested (like AC-130's and armor to support that wonderful, "Let's go get
Aidid" strategy that Clinton had laid on them) because he feared the "image"
they would create (but apparently the image of a couple of dozen or so US
KIA was just hunky-dory)? Or his vaunted promise that we'd be out of Bosnia
by 1997 (oops, we are still there, though GWB has pared that one to the
bone, and rightfully)? If you can't fess up to these Clintonian screw-ups,
then it would appear you are not much above those danged Republicans you are
squeaking about.

Brooks


George Z.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...


Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...





Supposedly this Stryker Force is supposed to be anywhere in the world in


96
hours ( I think that was the time quoted ) and that the Air Force wasn't up
to that.



I don't know what the hell a "Stryker Force" is, but if you are referring


to
the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the goal is 96 hours. As to whether or not
the USAF can manage that, it would largely depend upon the level of
committment it has to other requirements--if DoD says getting the SBCT into
the theater is the top priority, airframes will be made available one way or
another.




The complaints were that their troop transports are too heavy.






Ambiguous. The Stryker combat vehicle pushes (but does not exceed) the


capability of the C-130, but it does not tax that of the larger strategic
airlifters like the C-5 and C-17.




Not to mention they had to add 2 tons of anti RPG protection to each



machine causing their weight problems to increase.



Again, ambiguous. IIRC that is extra applique armor you are referring


to--it
could be airlifted in after the initial closure on the aerial port of
debarkation (APOD) if required. But if the method of transport is the C-5 or
C-17, it can travel with it already installed.





All the high tech stuff this Stryker Force has ain't gonna do much good


if

you can't get them there. Maybe the Army forgot to talk to the Air Force??



This stuff has been flung back and forth for a couple of years now. Simple


answer is that the SBCT is a hell of a lot lighter (and easier) to transport
than the next heavier asset (a heavy brigade combat team with its M1A2's,
M2A2's, M109A6's, etc.), while it packs substantially more ground maneuver
capability and protection than its next lighter component (the light
infantry brigade combat team). It is a good tool to have in the grand
toolbox of military operations for the US military--they were not quite
ready when the balloon went up for OIF (the first SBCT just became fully
operational this past year), so the Army had to try and get a heavy force
into Northern Iraq by air, resulting in IIRC about the equivalent of one
battalion task force (minus, again IIRC) (which is only one-third of a heavy
BCT) making it into that area by the time the units in the south made the
link up. Had they had a SBCT ready to go we would have seen the entire
brigade in the AO instead.

Brooks



My apologies if I offended you. I am not familiar with this stuff and I


wasn't taking notes while viewing the show. I'll try to do better next
time. My post was a way for me to seek information so that I could learn


more.



You did not offend me. I was not aware my response even insinuated that you
had, and upon rereading it again I am still scratchin' my noggin as to how
you got that idea. One piece of advice, though--if you are going to hang
around Usenet, thicken your skin a bit, because if you thought my response
was terse, you ain't seen nothin' yet. And I recommend you post in plain
text--makes it a bit easier on others.

Brooks




Didn't realize I wasn't posting in plain text. Maybe now?

The place where I got the idea was "I don't know what the hell a "Stryker Force" is...." comment.

Don't really care one way or another how anyone feels about me as I
don't come here to make friends ( or enemies for that matter. ) Just
trying to spread some manners and a little niceness, I don't have to
though. I'll just stick to doing that with my kids. Maybe they will
start a trend where folks can actually be courteous to each other
instead of the direction most kids ( an adults ) seem to be headed now.
Also trying to gain a little knowledge from this group. It never hurts
to learn, especially from history. Been lurking for quite a few years
now, so I know how various groups behave. I sleep well at night.

On a different note, I spent a nice couple of hours at Planes Of Fame
today with my little boy. It was nice watching the interest grow in him
from his surroundings! I did miss a chance to step into Picadilly Lilly
II. I waited too long and they close up the plane one hour before the
museum closes. Maybe another time. So I left the place listening to
them trying to start a heavy. Always start by checking for spark and
fuel.....

The USAF has had a shortage of AIRLIFT assets- all categories- since about
forever.

Of course no one ever has enough of anything. Curtis LeMay once
remarked that you could send a wing to Caribou, Maine, with absolutely
no mission, and within six months it would be radioing for
reinforcements.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

And I do recall widespread RIFs at the
end of the Gulf War, which daddy Bush can take credit for.

I don't know what the Republicans would have done if Clinton hadn't come
along
for two terms and made himself available to be blamed for

In a pre OIF interview, President Bush (41) said his last cuts, in '93, would
have been the end of his draw down. Both his Sec. of State (James Baker) and
SecDef (our current VP Cheney) backed this up. Clinton went much further, and
much faster than Bush (41) was prepared to go.


BUFDRVR

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

but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
that term is normally used

Uhh, that's the exact term that was used when thousands of officers were
involuntarily seperated in 1992. Twas an interesting time for a young 2nd Lt.


BUFDRVR

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

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...

Don't really care one way or another how anyone feels about me as I
don't come here to make friends ( or enemies for that matter. ) Just
trying to spread some manners and a little niceness, I don't have to
though. I'll just stick to doing that with my kids. Maybe they will
start a trend where folks can actually be courteous to each other
instead of the direction most kids ( an adults ) seem to be headed now.
Also trying to gain a little knowledge from this group. It never hurts
to learn, especially from history. Been lurking for quite a few years
now, so I know how various groups behave. I sleep well at night.

What a refreshing change to run into some folks who are capable of disagreeing
with you without being disagreeable about it. This is one of the few NGs where
you stand a fairly good chance of having exchanges with folks who might not see
things your way, but will still be able to get their point across without
feeling obliged to turning the air blue in order to make their points.

On some other NGs where alleged adults hang out, masculinity is measured by the
number of cuss words used per hundred, and the higher the batting average, the
more masculine you presumably are. Pretty sad that men old enough to be
grandparents are still behaving the way they obviously did when they were in
grade school, completely untouched by the maturation process.

Anyway, we don't have too many of that ilk around here, so make yourself at
home, and ask away.....especially about things aeronautical. You may or may not
always get answers to your questions, but we do have a pretty knowledgeable
group here on the subject of aviation, so you stand a pretty fair chance of
becoming enlightened, if that's your intent.

And, for whatever it's worth, stay away from politics.....it seems to bring out
the worst in everybody. (^-^)))

George Z.

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
that term is normally used

Uhh, that's the exact term that was used when thousands of officers were
involuntarily seperated in 1992. Twas an interesting time for a young 2nd
Lt.

Well, I don't recall that happening on the US Army side of the house. I do
recall the various voluntary searation programs, including the bonus and
annuity options, and I know we got one rather fresh academy grad into our
Guard unit at that time well before his normal time because he took
advantage of the situation and requested early release. I also recall the
Army cut its requirement for *new* 2LT assessions for a short while (and
were soon right back to begging folks to come on active duty), but i just
plain don't recall any involuntary separations, especially of regulars. It
was threatened if the volunatary efforts came up short, but as I recall that
did not happen.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

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

George Z. Bush wrote:

"Mark and Kim Smith" wrote in message
...



Don't really care one way or another how anyone feels about me as I
don't come here to make friends ( or enemies for that matter. ) Just
trying to spread some manners and a little niceness, I don't have to
though. I'll just stick to doing that with my kids. Maybe they will
start a trend where folks can actually be courteous to each other
instead of the direction most kids ( an adults ) seem to be headed now.
Also trying to gain a little knowledge from this group. It never hurts
to learn, especially from history. Been lurking for quite a few years
now, so I know how various groups behave. I sleep well at night.



What a refreshing change to run into some folks who are capable of disagreeing
with you without being disagreeable about it. This is one of the few NGs where
you stand a fairly good chance of having exchanges with folks who might not see
things your way, but will still be able to get their point across without
feeling obliged to turning the air blue in order to make their points.

On some other NGs where alleged adults hang out, masculinity is measured by the
number of cuss words used per hundred, and the higher the batting average, the
more masculine you presumably are. Pretty sad that men old enough to be
grandparents are still behaving the way they obviously did when they were in
grade school, completely untouched by the maturation process.

Anyway, we don't have too many of that ilk around here, so make yourself at
home, and ask away.....especially about things aeronautical. You may or may not
always get answers to your questions, but we do have a pretty knowledgeable
group here on the subject of aviation, so you stand a pretty fair chance of
becoming enlightened, if that's your intent.

And, for whatever it's worth, stay away from politics.....it seems to bring out
the worst in everybody. (^-^)))

George Z.



Thanks George! That's my intent, to learn a little and pass it along to
my kids. I'm tired of watching too many parents not get involved with
their kids upbringing and maybe I can break the cycle in my little part
of the world. BTW, my boy has spent the past two days "flying" his F4U
model. He knows enough to put the wheels up for flight and down for a
landing, although sometimes he does a belly landing. Not bad for a two
year old. Gotta start them out right!

No problem about politics. I believe what I believe and it's not really
my job to try to change anybody's mind, so I don't. I try to teach my
kids to study up, to understand that everyone else has their own twist
or vision, and to formulate their own idea whether others agree or
don't. Thanks again!

BUFDRVR wrote:

In a pre OIF interview, President Bush (41) said his last cuts, in
'93, would have been the end of his draw down.

He also said "no new taxes." It's very easy for Bush to say *now* that he
would have not cut further, but there's no way to be sure what would have
actually happened in the event. Congress was certainly pushing for more
cuts. They wanted (and got) a balanced budget. Defense was the most
obvious bill-payer.

I'm inclined to believe that Bush would have run into the same basic
financial constraints in a notional second term. I suspect they probably
would have reassessed their plans and made further cuts.

Both his Sec. of State
(James Baker) and SecDef (our current VP Cheney) backed this up.

Clinton went much further, and much faster than Bush (41) was
prepared to go.

Right, and they have no reason to be anything but totally frank. Granted
you can't prove a counterfactual, but what people say they would have done
is not always the same as what they would have actually done.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"George Z. Bush" wrote:


And, for whatever it's worth, stay away from politics.....it seems to bring out
the worst in everybody. (^-^)))

George Z.

Jesus yes!! especially that @#$%^&*()_+ GeorgeZ guy...



--

-Gord.