From: "Rich Gauszka" 

Huh? I suppose 875 is close to 2000

I think you meant Gary Britt. Your direct quote to Bob

"There are thousands of Generals Bob.  Almost 2000 active duty
generals, and must be thousands more retired."


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message news:4441b426$1{at}w3....
> Rich G posted the almost 2,000 Generals Number.  I just took him at his
> word.  Turns out as Mark posted there are many thousands in the relevant
> categories.
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:44418d4b$1{at}w3....
>>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_kn
ives_are_out_for_rummy;_ylt=A86.I2ELwT9EM18BjgT9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlY
wN5bnN1YmNhdA--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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