From: "Robert G Lewis" 

I can add quite well, but that has nothing to do with your  statements. I
see you are totally unable or unwilling  to back up your statement of
"2000 active duty generals" . According to the Department of
Defense that is incorrect. I would hope that the DOD knows how many active
duty Generals and Admirals there are.

If they are retired they are not active duty so why add them in ? Why not
just add all the colonels in as well ? Totally irrelevant to the statement
that YOU made.

For there to be almost 2000 active Generals and Admirals  10% of the Guard
and reserve that has been called up would have to be Generals and Admirals,
As Many as the full time Military. which has a far greater number of full
time soldiers and sailors.  That is if you believe ( which you apparently
don't) the numbers the Department of Defense publish, or the laws that the
US congress has passed authorizing the levels of active duty Generals and
Admirals.

If you have any credible source for your numbers I would welcome it.

I guess that you prefer insults to producing anything to back what you say.



"Gary Britt"  wrote in message news:444189a7$1{at}w3....
> What you can't add?  Makes it more than thousands.  Then add in the
> retired and it makes it more than thousands again.  So 4 or 5 guys out of
> thousands have something to say.  Odds are 4 9r 5 out of thousands believe
> the moon is made of blue cheese as well.
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:44414897{at}w3....
>> Really. What happens when the reserves are called up - They are on active
>> duty. I read what Rumsfield said ( the transcript is online). I also gave
>> you the DOD numbers from Feb of this year.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:44414169$1{at}w3....
>>> Your link shows total active duty personnel by rank with generals at
>>> just under 1000.  Today's military is designed to be composed of not
>>> just active duty but reserve personnel.  That will put generals over
>>> 1000. When you total active duty, reserves, national guard, and retired,
>>> its thousands Bob. Rumsfeld was correct.  You should have kept
>>> listening.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote
in message
>>> news:44412ac4$1{at}w3....
>>>> http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm
>>>>
>>>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in
message news:444129c3{at}w3....
>>>>> There are thousands of Generals Bob.  Almost 2000 active duty
>>>>> generals, and must be thousands more retired.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:44411aec$1{at}w3....
>>>>>> Rumsfeld also said there are thousands of
generals/admirals, which I
>>>>>> know is exaggerated to say the least, and I
stopped listening to him
>>>>>> after that.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message news:44411a0a{at}w3....
>>>>>>> Generals brings us back to the change adverse
whiners and
>>>>>>> incompetents and passed over for promotion
people who are speaking
>>>>>>> out to hawk books and to promote their
feelings against the military
>>>>>>> reformation that Don Rumsfeld has been pushing
since coming into
>>>>>>> office.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:443ffe69{at}w3....
>>>>>>>> So none of the Generals have any experience either?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1842182&page=1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Batiste is one of six retired generals
demanding Rumsfeld step
>>>>>>>> down, breaking a long tradition of the
military steering clear of
>>>>>>>> politics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We have nothing to gain by this.
There's no political agenda at
>>>>>>>> all," Batiste said. "We've been
loyal subordinates. This is all
>>>>>>>> about soldiers - service men and women -
and their families."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Batiste led the First Infantry Division in
Iraq in 2004 and 2005.
>>>>>>>> He retired from the military in November
2005, passing up a third
>>>>>>>> star and a chance to be second in command in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:443ff67c$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't say anything in there about
having any defense
>>>>>>>>> department/military operations and
strategy expertise now does it.
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't even indicate interest in
military stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:443ff261$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>>>>> Gee Gary  I would have thought the
Lexington Institute your cup
>>>>>>>>>> of tea. It's not the liberals that
are turning
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.asp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Lexington Institute believes
in limiting the role of the
>>>>>>>>>> federal government to those
functions explicitly stated or
>>>>>>>>>> implicitly defined by the
Constitution. The Institute therefore
>>>>>>>>>> actively opposes the unnecessary
intrusion of the federal
>>>>>>>>>> government into the commerce and
culture of the nation, and
>>>>>>>>>> strives to find nongovernmental,
market-based solutions to
>>>>>>>>>> public-policy challenges. We
believe a dynamic private sector is
>>>>>>>>>> the greatest engine for social
progress and economic prosperity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:443fe9ee$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>>>>>>I bet he understands it a hell
of a lot better than Loren
>>>>>>>>>>>Thompson and the entire
Lexington Institute.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If a general thinks a policy
is so wrong that it puts his troops
>>>>>>>>>>> in needless and senseless
danger, then he should have the
>>>>>>>>>>> courage of his convictions;
resign his commission publicly and
>>>>>>>>>>> make known at that time the
specific reasons for his
>>>>>>>>>>> resignation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise its just money
hungry book hawking and change adverse
>>>>>>>>>>> and/or disgruntled EX
employees of the military.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:443fe058$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Bushies will have to
purge the officer corps soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20060414/cm_rcp/the_kniv
es_are_out_for_rummy;_ylt=A86.I2ELwT9EM18BjgT9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN
5bnN1YmNhdA--
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But Loren Thompson, a
military analyst of the Lexington
>>>>>>>>>>>> Institute, told the
Christian Science Monitor that while some
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the rancor towards
Rumsfeld can be attributed to his well
>>>>>>>>>>>> publicized efforts
transform the military, "much of the officer
>>>>>>>>>>>> corps thinks he simply
doesn't understand technology or
>>>>>>>>>>>> operations in sufficient
depth to grasp the consequences of his
>>>>>>>>>>>> policies, and yet he
routinely uses his position to quash
>>>>>>>>>>>> dissent."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:443fcfcd$1{at}w3....
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine that Monte has
absolutely no clue of the psychology of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bureaucracies and the
petty grudges of people who don't want
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their bureaucracy
changed. Anyone with a brain whose ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> worked in a large
organization knows full well and first hand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how change adverse
some people can be.  Rumsfeld has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reforming and changing
the military, its operations, its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> budgeting, its
programs, its structure, etc. since first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming to office.  If
he didn't make a few change adverse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generals upset then
THAT would be something to worry about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over the past 5 years
100's and 100's of generals have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> retired, been passed
over, been pushed out of the military and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 4 or 5 out of
these 100's come forward to bitch when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is in their own
pecuniary and petty interests to so do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a non-nuanced
imbecile (i.e. Monte et al) would consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these people anything
but petty change adverse, passed over
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for promotion,
bureaucrats. Seeking revenge on the guy who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't as milk toasty
as the incompetent defense secretary's to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whom they grew
accustomed under Clinton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't reply Monte, we
know you have no defense to these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Monte
Davis"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
news:glcv32db4qtplkv84l9fnm2g6nmgr5t85e{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mark"
 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Imagine that,
as we crossed the Rhine...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine that
neither Victor nor Mark has a clue about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between WWII and Iraq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Or, more likely,
that they do -- but find it ideologically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore them)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5