OBIT: Original Blue Angel pilot dies at age 86

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:08:28 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote:

After all, Cindy Sheehan will be protesting the Blue Angels September 10.

....You know, if some opposing group went upside her festering head
with a set of 2x4's, maybe that'll send a message to these so-called
"peace" groups that a) we're on to their attention-getting scam, and
b) they'd better go back to playing Bingo to get their kicks.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:53:59 GMT, (Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
Dale wrote:
Vietnam was treated like an abberation in the day-to-day life rather
than an all consuming role.

It's odd if that was the attitude of the military...

It was deliberate government policy, set in the Oval Office. LBJ was
adamantly opposed to making Vietnam an actual war -- with recruiting
drives, propaganda campaigns, bond rallies, the whole nine yards --
because that would have required political compromises that would have
derailed many of his social initiatives back home.

Ironically, though, he could have probably gotten support for an "actual
war" early on. A lot of the criticism I heard at the time (as a kid) was
centered on the fact that we hadn't declared war and gone all out to win.
I doubt he forsaw at the outset getting as bogged down in Vietman as we
did, with the consequences it would have for the Great Society. Not that
I think Vietnam lended itself very well to a military solution anyway.

Wars tend to do that; he'd seen it happen under FDR.

What social initiatives of FDR were derailed by WW2? Maybe the extension
of Social Security to Medicare and perhaps a full-blown National Health
Insurance scheme? I thought most of his social initiatives were aimed
at getting the economy back on its feet. The war did that pretty well.

Note, in particular, that despite all the fuss over the draft, Vietnam did
not see much mobilization of the reserves and National Guard. This was
deliberate policy: a lot of those folks were older and settled into
communities, so mobilizing them would disrupt things a lot more and bring
the war home to the voting public much more. Drafting college students
looked to have much less political impact.

A minor miscalulation But I'd still like to think that Johnson was as troubled
by the chant of "Hey, hey, LBJ- how many kids did you kill today?" as has been
suggested by some historians. LBJ is a fascinating figure.

(And in reaction to the botched mess that resulted from this approach, the
post-Vietnam military reorganized responsibilities -- notably, moving
important specialties entirely into the reserves -- specifically to make
it *impossible* to fight another war, even a small one, without mobilizing
the reserves.)

That doesn't seem to be working out too well with public opinion either.

Thanks, as always, for the education.

Dale

OM wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:08:28 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote:

After all, Cindy Sheehan will be protesting the Blue Angels
September 10.

...You know, if some opposing group went upside her festering head
with a set of 2x4's, maybe that'll send a message to these so-called
"peace" groups that a) we're on to their attention-getting scam, and
b) they'd better go back to playing Bingo to get their kicks.

There's an even better way - stop feeding the Reporters. Just have
the local Law Enforcement advise all the Roach-Coach drivers that if
they showed up at the "news"-site, they'd get special attention WRT
Code Enforcement & selling stuff they aren't supposed to. The News
Crews won't stick around if nobody feeds them.

(I've successfully applied the inverse of this tactic during the last
Presidential Primary. We've got strict rules about reporters &
activists being a certain distance from the polls, which a lot of the
Out-of-State (National, mainly, but we get remote crews from Podunk,
Iowa and Hahira Georgia, too.) tend to ignore. Rather than forcing
them back, we stationed catering trucks at the periphery of the
parking lots, well away from the poll entrances. Works like a
charm.)

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

Dale wrote:


What social initiatives of FDR were derailed by WW2? Maybe the extension
of Social Security to Medicare and perhaps a full-blown National Health
Insurance scheme? I thought most of his social initiatives were aimed
at getting the economy back on its feet. The war did that pretty well.



Some have suggested that was why the war occurred. I think that is
probably false, but FDR was one clever and sneaky politico, so who knows?

A minor miscalulation But I'd still like to think that Johnson was as troubled
by the chant of "Hey, hey, LBJ- how many kids did you kill today?" as has been
suggested by some historians. LBJ is a fascinating figure.



He may well show that a person that knows Congress backwards and
forwards might not be a good choice for president; LBJ knew exactly how
to get pretty much any piece of legislation through Congress he wanted
to- via procurable promises, arm twisting, and deal making.
Strange presidents come out of Texas, and lead the nation in strange
directions.



(And in reaction to the botched mess that resulted from this approach, the
post-Vietnam military reorganized responsibilities -- notably, moving
important specialties entirely into the reserves -- specifically to make
it *impossible* to fight another war, even a small one, without mobilizing
the reserves.)



That doesn't seem to be working out too well with public opinion either.



Sooner or later, the president is going to use the word "draft", and
shortly thereafter, the Republican Party is going to sew his mouth shut.
I always was in favor of downsizing the military, but wanted to do it
via removing most of our troops from Europe and other non-critical
overseas deployments...doing it via making anyone in their right mind
refuse to volunteer for the armed services is a whole different approach
to the matter.
Still, whenever this Iraq mess is over, we should have once again
learned the Vietnam lesson about sticking our nose into things that
aren't a direct threat to the U.S., and that Sun Tzu's concept that the
most successful way to fight a war is to achieve one's desired ends
without resorting to combat was very wise indeed.
That lesson will last for a couple of decades, then we will start
incrementally talking ourselves into doing it again.

Pat

Peter Stickney wrote:


There's an even better way - stop feeding the Reporters. Just have
the local Law Enforcement advise all the Roach-Coach drivers that if
they showed up at the "news"-site, they'd get special attention WRT
Code Enforcement & selling stuff they aren't supposed to. The News
Crews won't stick around if nobody feeds them.

(I've successfully applied the inverse of this tactic during the last
Presidential Primary. We've got strict rules about reporters &
activists being a certain distance from the polls, which a lot of the
Out-of-State (National, mainly, but we get remote crews from Podunk,
Iowa and Hahira Georgia, too.) tend to ignore. Rather than forcing
them back, we stationed catering trucks at the periphery of the
parking lots, well away from the poll entrances. Works like a
charm.)



That's downright Zen tactics! Brilliant idea. :-D

Pat

In article ,
Dale wrote:
...Drafting college students
looked to have much less political impact.

A minor miscalulation

Actually, I suspect LBJ called that one correctly. The college students
got a lot of media attention -- probably more than he expected -- but they
didn't have a lot of direct political clout. He'd have been in bigger
trouble sooner if he'd alienated the middle-aged voters by mobilizing
their friends and neighbors.

(And in reaction to the botched mess that resulted from this approach, the
post-Vietnam military reorganized responsibilities -- notably, moving
important specialties entirely into the reserves -- specifically to make
it *impossible* to fight another war, even a small one, without mobilizing
the reserves.)

That doesn't seem to be working out too well with public opinion either.

It was meant specifically to make presidents think twice about getting
into wars without really solid public support. But some presidents prefer
to listen to the people who tell them it'll all be over by Christmas...
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. |

"Dale" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:53:59 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

(And in reaction to the botched mess that resulted from this approach, the
post-Vietnam military reorganized responsibilities -- notably, moving
important specialties entirely into the reserves -- specifically to make
it *impossible* to fight another war, even a small one, without mobilizing
the reserves.)

That doesn't seem to be working out too well with public opinion either.

It worked out well in 90-91, but of course that war had limited objectives,
a limited duration, and the basic rational for it was consistent from day
one of the deployments. (Prevent Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia, and then
expell them from Kuwait.) There are a lot of guard and reserve units which
are deploying at nearly the same pace as the standing army, and it is really
hurting retention.

Ami Silberman wrote:

There are a lot of guard and reserve units which
are deploying at nearly the same pace as the standing army, and it is really
hurting retention.



The Army Reserve has a recruitment ad out in which they state that if
you join the Reserve you won't be called up unless you are needed...so I
figure new Army Reserve recruits may have two or maybe even three days
of easy duty before they are headed for Iraq.
What worries me is that we might have some sort of large-scale national
calamity (earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, Roseanne Barr getting a new TV
series) which we will want to call the National Guard up to deal
with...and the ones we will want to call up are busy in Baghdad.

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
There are a lot of guard and reserve units which
are deploying at nearly the same pace as the standing army, and it is really
hurting retention.

The Army Reserve has a recruitment ad out in which they state that if
you join the Reserve you won't be called up unless you are needed...so I
figure new Army Reserve recruits may have two or maybe even three days
of easy duty before they are headed for Iraq...

I'd bet on it being only two. :-) Reserve retention rates apparently have
absolutely gone through the floor, which is hardly surprising.

(The son-in-law of a family friend spent a fair chunk of his Reserve duty
in Iraq. Between the nasty situation on the ground, and the gross
mismanagement from on high, absolutely positively no way was he signing up
for a repeat.)
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. |

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Ami Silberman wrote:

There are a lot of guard and reserve units which
are deploying at nearly the same pace as the standing army, and it is
really
hurting retention.



The Army Reserve has a recruitment ad out in which they state that if
you join the Reserve you won't be called up unless you are needed...so I
figure new Army Reserve recruits may have two or maybe even three days
of easy duty before they are headed for Iraq.
What worries me is that we might have some sort of large-scale national
calamity (earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, Roseanne Barr getting a new TV
series) which we will want to call the National Guard up to deal
with...and the ones we will want to call up are busy in Baghdad.

Western states are already facing this with fire fighters.

And talking to a local Sheriff, he's having issues with staffing thanks to
this.


Pat