PhreeZone 20 #26 May 14, 2005 QuoteAnd much of that reduction might be civil service personnel who administer base operations, rather than combat military personnel. The Airforce has just about closed off recruitment from the sounds of it. Navy has reached its capasity also. Both are offering early leave programs to encourage reduction in force counts. Some of the programs are kicking people into the reserves, others are just cutting them free. Navy is so willing to let people get out they have a "Blue to Green" program to transfer you right into the Army with your same rank and a nice cash bonus to boot. Only branches that are still recruiting are Army and Marines. Both as of last notice were behind numbers for almost every month so far this year. There is a reduction in the numbers of active and reserve conbat personal across the board already except in the Army.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #27 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGood. This will help reduce the deficit. Funny how those who scream the loudest about Govt. spending are the first ones to denounce any effort to get it under control. Gore any Golden Ox but mine. Quote I don't scream about gov spending. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteFurthermore, look at the title to the thread The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteRight, but you made inferrences that I was screaming about it and shouldn't post this thread. Maybe some on here scream about it, but not me. I have a bigger issue with the distribution of wealth the way it is, which lends to the argument of Fascism which no one has even tried to refute. First of all if I was accusing you of something I would have directed my statement at you. I was refering to the gathering storm of dissent which will occur soon. Second of all I don't think the reason nobody has disputed your claims of Fascism has anything to do with their inability to do so. In my case I haven't responded because it's such a stupid claim. QuoteThe sole purpose of this thread was to indicate that: A. The base closures of the 90's were initiated by Congress, signed by Clinton. Who controlled the House and Senate during the 90's during the 4 sessions? I think most of us were aware of that. QuoteB. Clinton was awarded blame for the closiures when he was a part of them, but not solely responsible. Clinton signed NAFTA after Bush 1 initiated it - is that all his doing/fault too? I thought you just said it was about base closings and referred us to the title of the thread. Now you are saying it's also about NAFTA? Thats not in the title. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteSo was it the same in the 90's when Congress initiated the base closures and Clinton signed it.... a step in the right direction? Or no, because you dislike Clinton, therefore offload the blame? Well, given your history, I should probably stop now, but I'll try one more time. With Clinton it wasn't about Base closings, it was about reduction in the number of Military personel which led to the closings. With Bush, it is consolidation and the only people losing their jobs are civilians ie cafeteria workers, janitors, house keeping etc. The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. QuoteBush can't reduce the size of the military due to his hobby in the Middle East. Which Democrats also signed on to. QuoteAgain, did Congress write and Clinton sign the reduction of force? I don't remember. It's your thread, why don't you tell me? Quote Also, what was the harm done to the military's reduction on force? Lack of personnel to fight a war if necessary. Why do you think we are depending so heavily on the Nat'l Guard? QuoteI was in the Air Force in the early 80's and there was a program called, "Palace Chase" that allowed full-timers to turn their active duty time into reserve time..... that was during the Reagan Admin. Part of the "Peace Dividend" brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union. First of all if I was accusing you of something I would have directed my statement at you. I was refering to the gathering storm of dissent which will occur soon. Second of all I don't think the reason nobody has disputed your claims of Fascism has anything to do with their inability to do so. In my case I haven't responded because it's such a stupid claim. 1. You're going to speak/write for everyone. 2. One word..... acquiescence..... noted. I think most of us were aware of that. Ok, then why does every dime store conservative blame Clinton for what I believe at best a bipartisan Congress did? I thought you just said it was about base closings and referred us to the title of the thread. Now you are saying it's also about NAFTA? Thats not in the title. It is about base closings and the blame associated with the president when it's a Congressional act. I can't use the NAFTA example as a legislative parallel? Sorry, didn’t mean to waive shiny keys at ya. Well, given your history,... This is a precursor to an Ad Hominem...... Why not answer the question with the merit of the question in mind as opposed to the author? ...I should probably stop now, but I'll try one more time. With Clinton it wasn't about Base closings, it was about reduction in the number of Military personel which led to the closings. With Bush, it is consolidation and the only people losing their jobs are civilians ie cafeteria workers, janitors, house keeping etc. Reduction in personnel, base closings.... didn't you read Pheezone’s post about this being a reduction as well? Furthermore, reductions is expenditure can be of people and/or of equipment or some combination of both. The military toys still continued to be built under Clinton, so what's your point? Another aspect of this is that of: who is out to get us now that the myth of Russia's Evil Empire is debunked. Reagan = Russia is Evil Empire Bush 2 = Saddam. OBL are Axis of Evil Do these guys have the same bullshit writer? Come on, give us some new material o at least new acronyms. Which Democrats also signed on to. Ok, so why do you continue to harp on this rhetoric about Clinton cutting military personnel and Bush cutting bases. Bush/Congress can't afford to cut people right now due to his hobby in the desert, so we would need to see what happens if this murder-fest ever ends. I don't remember. It's your thread, why don't you tell me? That was a rhetorical question; I believe the base reduction in the 90's started in Congress. I don't see that as a normal executive power. Lack of personel to fight a war if necessary. Why do you think we are depending so heavily on the Nat'l Guard? Because that is Bush's little tactic to retain full-timers and utilize guard and reservists when it is very unusual to do so. Part of the "Peace Dividend" brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Well if Reagan was so patriotic he would have retained all the full-timers he could. Here’s an interesting graph: http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf Looks like the downturn in active duty military personnel started in the late 80’s. Hmmmm, Bush 1 raised taxes and started cutting forces…….. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #28 May 14, 2005 Quote Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Perhaps if your noodle had 10% of the firsthand knowledge I do you might be a little less inclined to write crap like that. Now, they can use words/terms like: reconfigure, promote cooperation, changing threats and other flowery concepts, but whne they used terms like, "bese realignment" in the 90's it's the same thing. Consolidation and reduction have some of he same elements with different definitions. IOW's consoiidation is a form of reduction. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. Never supply information against your own argument. This is the crown jewel of my argument. Many people say that Clinton closed the bases, essentially by himself, when they were starting in the late 80's as posed by the graph I just posted in the previous post and this. NAFTA and base closures were a Bush 1 thing that Clinton went along with - that's my original argument with this thread. Don't you find it odd how Bush 1 and Clinton are now swapping spit in the media? They were more alike than we ever thought. -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. No reduction on military personnel???? -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. I worked on the B-1B in manufacturing and offsite for Rockwell at Ellsworth onthe Birdstrike mod for 6 months. I am well acquainted with all this stuff. I was in with many of the current and past crew chiefs of the B-1B, as we were B-52 crew chiefs together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #29 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuote Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Perhaps if your noodle had 10% of the firsthand knowledge I do you might be a little less inclined to write crap like that. Now, they can use words/terms like: reconfigure, promote cooperation, changing threats and other flowery concepts, but whne they used terms like, "bese realignment" in the 90's it's the same thing. Consolidation and reduction have some of he same elements with different definitions. IOW's consoiidation is a form of reduction. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. Never supply information against your own argument. This is the crown jewel of my argument. Many people say that Clinton closed the bases, essentially by himself, when they were starting in the late 80's as posed by the graph I just posted in the previous post and this. NAFTA and base closures were a Bush 1 thing that Clinton went along with - that's my original argument with this thread. Don't you find it odd how Bush 1 and Clinton are now swapping spit in the media? They were more alike than we ever thought. -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. No reduction in military personnel???? -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. I worked on the B-1B in manufacturing and offsite for Rockwell at Ellsworth onthe Birdstrike mod for 6 months. I am well acquainted with all this stuff. I was in with many of the current and past crew chiefs of the B-1B, as we were B-52 crew chiefs together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #30 May 14, 2005 The Military jobs you seem so upset about are not being lost. These are Military Personel who are being transferred to other Bases. The only "loss" is to the community. If you can't understand this, I'm done. In fact I'm done even if you can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #31 May 14, 2005 QuoteThe Military jobs you seem so upset about are not being lost. These are Military Personel who are being transferred to other Bases. The only "loss" is to the community. If you can't understand this, I'm done. In fact I'm done even if you can. It's a time of war; can you understand that? The venue for these soldiers to work is a temporary one, that is unless Bush has his way and has 100's of thousands stationed over there permanently. There are small cuts being made now, and as Phreezone stated the Marines and Army can't get enough, while the other branches are furloughing. The reason for this is obvious - we are at war and we need ground-pounders to fight hand-to-hand. Now, as for my assertion and website I posted as to whne we started the wind-down of military personnel, it started in the mate 80's per both your article and my site, which agree with each other. http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf During Korea and Viet Nam there was a spike in Army personnel, yet a decline or early decline in Air Force and Navy, much like we see now. My point for this entire thread is that the blame I continually hear against Clinton for weakening the military was actually started before he entered office by 3-4 years and they were initiated by Congress. I understand why you are done, you can't refute the arguments posted in this thread, or hell, even the ones I just summarized in this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BikerBabe 0 #32 May 14, 2005 Actually, there is a reduction in force going on. The Air Force, at least, is giving bonuses and "early outs" to encourage people to go, I know for a fact. My husband is making that decision now. I made that decision a year ago. And this: QuoteVirginia: Fort Monroe is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #33 May 14, 2005 QuoteActually, there is a reduction in force going on. The Air Force, at least, is giving bonuses and "early outs" to encourage people to go, I know for a fact. My husband is making that decision now. I made that decision a year ago. And this: QuoteVirginia: Fort Monroe is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone. Gravitymaster, Phreezone, Bikebabe and the articles posted by you and the graph posted by me all corroborate the fact that they are now proposing base closures and personnel reduction. Will you quit resisting the truth and answer these posts? Naw, just pretend you don't see them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sfzombie13 324 #34 May 14, 2005 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_reply_write;parent_post_id=1644948 just checking to see if i can make a clicky. i give up._________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #35 May 14, 2005 (url)http://www.dropzone.com(/url) If you replace the ( and ) with [ and ] that will be a clicky http://www.dropzone.com Also, go HERE to "get Markup Help" then go to the bottom of the page. It explains links.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #36 May 16, 2005 QuoteVirginia: Fort Monroe... is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone. The museum can remain. There are all kinds of old forts scattered around America. Just because there is history there, doesn't mean that the taxpayers should support it in perpetuity, even if there is no longer any current military value. Army bases are not welfare programs. We can keep the museum to preserve the history, and release the rest of it for a state park, private development, or whatever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
EBSB52 0 #28 May 14, 2005 Quote Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Perhaps if your noodle had 10% of the firsthand knowledge I do you might be a little less inclined to write crap like that. Now, they can use words/terms like: reconfigure, promote cooperation, changing threats and other flowery concepts, but whne they used terms like, "bese realignment" in the 90's it's the same thing. Consolidation and reduction have some of he same elements with different definitions. IOW's consoiidation is a form of reduction. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. Never supply information against your own argument. This is the crown jewel of my argument. Many people say that Clinton closed the bases, essentially by himself, when they were starting in the late 80's as posed by the graph I just posted in the previous post and this. NAFTA and base closures were a Bush 1 thing that Clinton went along with - that's my original argument with this thread. Don't you find it odd how Bush 1 and Clinton are now swapping spit in the media? They were more alike than we ever thought. -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. No reduction on military personnel???? -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. I worked on the B-1B in manufacturing and offsite for Rockwell at Ellsworth onthe Birdstrike mod for 6 months. I am well acquainted with all this stuff. I was in with many of the current and past crew chiefs of the B-1B, as we were B-52 crew chiefs together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #29 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuote Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Perhaps if your noodle had 10% of the firsthand knowledge I do you might be a little less inclined to write crap like that. Now, they can use words/terms like: reconfigure, promote cooperation, changing threats and other flowery concepts, but whne they used terms like, "bese realignment" in the 90's it's the same thing. Consolidation and reduction have some of he same elements with different definitions. IOW's consoiidation is a form of reduction. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. Never supply information against your own argument. This is the crown jewel of my argument. Many people say that Clinton closed the bases, essentially by himself, when they were starting in the late 80's as posed by the graph I just posted in the previous post and this. NAFTA and base closures were a Bush 1 thing that Clinton went along with - that's my original argument with this thread. Don't you find it odd how Bush 1 and Clinton are now swapping spit in the media? They were more alike than we ever thought. -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. No reduction in military personnel???? -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. I worked on the B-1B in manufacturing and offsite for Rockwell at Ellsworth onthe Birdstrike mod for 6 months. I am well acquainted with all this stuff. I was in with many of the current and past crew chiefs of the B-1B, as we were B-52 crew chiefs together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #30 May 14, 2005 The Military jobs you seem so upset about are not being lost. These are Military Personel who are being transferred to other Bases. The only "loss" is to the community. If you can't understand this, I'm done. In fact I'm done even if you can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #31 May 14, 2005 QuoteThe Military jobs you seem so upset about are not being lost. These are Military Personel who are being transferred to other Bases. The only "loss" is to the community. If you can't understand this, I'm done. In fact I'm done even if you can. It's a time of war; can you understand that? The venue for these soldiers to work is a temporary one, that is unless Bush has his way and has 100's of thousands stationed over there permanently. There are small cuts being made now, and as Phreezone stated the Marines and Army can't get enough, while the other branches are furloughing. The reason for this is obvious - we are at war and we need ground-pounders to fight hand-to-hand. Now, as for my assertion and website I posted as to whne we started the wind-down of military personnel, it started in the mate 80's per both your article and my site, which agree with each other. http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf During Korea and Viet Nam there was a spike in Army personnel, yet a decline or early decline in Air Force and Navy, much like we see now. My point for this entire thread is that the blame I continually hear against Clinton for weakening the military was actually started before he entered office by 3-4 years and they were initiated by Congress. I understand why you are done, you can't refute the arguments posted in this thread, or hell, even the ones I just summarized in this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BikerBabe 0 #32 May 14, 2005 Actually, there is a reduction in force going on. The Air Force, at least, is giving bonuses and "early outs" to encourage people to go, I know for a fact. My husband is making that decision now. I made that decision a year ago. And this: QuoteVirginia: Fort Monroe is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #33 May 14, 2005 QuoteActually, there is a reduction in force going on. The Air Force, at least, is giving bonuses and "early outs" to encourage people to go, I know for a fact. My husband is making that decision now. I made that decision a year ago. And this: QuoteVirginia: Fort Monroe is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone. Gravitymaster, Phreezone, Bikebabe and the articles posted by you and the graph posted by me all corroborate the fact that they are now proposing base closures and personnel reduction. Will you quit resisting the truth and answer these posts? Naw, just pretend you don't see them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sfzombie13 324 #34 May 14, 2005 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_reply_write;parent_post_id=1644948 just checking to see if i can make a clicky. i give up._________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #35 May 14, 2005 (url)http://www.dropzone.com(/url) If you replace the ( and ) with [ and ] that will be a clicky http://www.dropzone.com Also, go HERE to "get Markup Help" then go to the bottom of the page. It explains links.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #36 May 16, 2005 QuoteVirginia: Fort Monroe... is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone. The museum can remain. There are all kinds of old forts scattered around America. Just because there is history there, doesn't mean that the taxpayers should support it in perpetuity, even if there is no longer any current military value. Army bases are not welfare programs. We can keep the museum to preserve the history, and release the rest of it for a state park, private development, or whatever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gravitymaster 0 #30 May 14, 2005 The Military jobs you seem so upset about are not being lost. These are Military Personel who are being transferred to other Bases. The only "loss" is to the community. If you can't understand this, I'm done. In fact I'm done even if you can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #31 May 14, 2005 QuoteThe Military jobs you seem so upset about are not being lost. These are Military Personel who are being transferred to other Bases. The only "loss" is to the community. If you can't understand this, I'm done. In fact I'm done even if you can. It's a time of war; can you understand that? The venue for these soldiers to work is a temporary one, that is unless Bush has his way and has 100's of thousands stationed over there permanently. There are small cuts being made now, and as Phreezone stated the Marines and Army can't get enough, while the other branches are furloughing. The reason for this is obvious - we are at war and we need ground-pounders to fight hand-to-hand. Now, as for my assertion and website I posted as to whne we started the wind-down of military personnel, it started in the mate 80's per both your article and my site, which agree with each other. http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf During Korea and Viet Nam there was a spike in Army personnel, yet a decline or early decline in Air Force and Navy, much like we see now. My point for this entire thread is that the blame I continually hear against Clinton for weakening the military was actually started before he entered office by 3-4 years and they were initiated by Congress. I understand why you are done, you can't refute the arguments posted in this thread, or hell, even the ones I just summarized in this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #32 May 14, 2005 Actually, there is a reduction in force going on. The Air Force, at least, is giving bonuses and "early outs" to encourage people to go, I know for a fact. My husband is making that decision now. I made that decision a year ago. And this: QuoteVirginia: Fort Monroe is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #33 May 14, 2005 QuoteActually, there is a reduction in force going on. The Air Force, at least, is giving bonuses and "early outs" to encourage people to go, I know for a fact. My husband is making that decision now. I made that decision a year ago. And this: QuoteVirginia: Fort Monroe is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone. Gravitymaster, Phreezone, Bikebabe and the articles posted by you and the graph posted by me all corroborate the fact that they are now proposing base closures and personnel reduction. Will you quit resisting the truth and answer these posts? Naw, just pretend you don't see them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie13 324 #34 May 14, 2005 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_reply_write;parent_post_id=1644948 just checking to see if i can make a clicky. i give up._________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #35 May 14, 2005 (url)http://www.dropzone.com(/url) If you replace the ( and ) with [ and ] that will be a clicky http://www.dropzone.com Also, go HERE to "get Markup Help" then go to the bottom of the page. It explains links.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 May 16, 2005 QuoteVirginia: Fort Monroe... is truly sad. The oldest continually operating mlitary base in the US...there is so much history at Ft. Monroe...if you've never been to the museum there and you live close, I highly recommend a trip before it's gone. The museum can remain. There are all kinds of old forts scattered around America. Just because there is history there, doesn't mean that the taxpayers should support it in perpetuity, even if there is no longer any current military value. Army bases are not welfare programs. We can keep the museum to preserve the history, and release the rest of it for a state park, private development, or whatever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
