Change the rules for the National Guard.?

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

Subject: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
From: Tank Fixer
Date: 2/21/04 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t

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

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

Subject: 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

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

Subject: Change the rules for the National Guard.?
From: Tank Fixer
Date: 2/21/04 12:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t

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.

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

Subject: 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.

In article ,
on Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:58:59 -0500,
George Z. Bush am 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.

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"

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"

"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