Here's a good article for you col.

According to some pundits and political hustlers, free trade has led to a loss of "good manufacturing jobs." Let's look at it, but before doing so, let's first see whether we should work ourselves into a tizzy over other job losses. In 1900, 41 percent of the U.S. labor force was employed in agriculture. Now, only two percent of today's labor force works in agricultural jobs. If declining employment is used as a gauge of an industry's health, agriculture is America's sickest industry. Let's not stop with agriculture. In 1970, the telecommunications industry employed 421,000 workers in good-paying jobs as switchboard operators. Today, the telecommunications industry employs only 78,000 operators. That's a tremendous 80 percent job loss. What happened to all those agriculture and switchboard operator jobs? Were they exported to China and India by rapacious businessmen? The easy and correct answer is that our agricultural sector has seen massive gains in productivity as a result of advances in farm machinery, innovation and technology. There have also been spectacular advances in telecommunications. In 1970, those 421,000 switchboard operators annually handled 9.8 billion long-distance calls. Now 100 billion long-distance calls a year require only 78,000 switchboard operators. What's more is, the cost of making a long-distance call is a fraction of what it was in 1970. Here's my question to you: Should Congress do something to restore all of those jobs lost in agriculture and telecommunications, and what might that something be?

The job loss and the trade policies are linked. I have admitted that the trade policies that Clinton followed were a failure all eight years of his administration. What did Bush do with that failure staring him in the face? He not only continued a policy that had failed for the eight previous years but expanded it with China and now Central America. Why would anyone continue a policy that you pointed out was a failure? Care to answer that question?

Hey Gene,

How about this from USA Today, from 2004!!! ( a MSM source God help me)
Among the changes the Army is making:

• More weapons training. Recruits will be taught to fire weapons other than the M-16, the standard rifle for foot soldiers. New troops will learn how to fire other weapons commonly found in the U.S. arsenal, including a variety of machine guns.

• New training on how to identify and counter remote-controlled bombs known as IEDs, or improvised explosive devices. Those bombs have killed dozens of soldiers in Iraq and are a weapon of choice for guerrilla fighters.

• Convoy tactics. For the first time, recruits will ride in convoys and face simulated ambushes. They will learn how to place sandbags inside vehicles to protect against bombs, grenades and machine guns.

• Urban combat. Soldiers will learn tactics for fighting enemies who blend in with civilians.

• Increased first-aid training. Officials say it is important for all soldiers to have better lifesaving skills, because troops are traveling in smaller groups and can be ambushed without a medic or doctor nearby.

The changes added lessons will not lengthen basic training, but recruits will drill more on Sundays, which has been traditionally a light training day.

The last major change in basic training was in 1997, when the Army began teaching values such as courage and honesty. It came after a scandal at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, where drill sergeants forced female trainees to have sex with them.

Sgt. 1st Class Donovan Manley, a Fort Benning drill sergeant, says the new program will make a big difference in preparing young soldiers for guerrilla warfare.

"We don't have the luxury of time right now. We graduate soldiers, and a short time later they are deploying," he says. "This will save lives."

And Gene since you say your were in so long and have so many things on your wall, don't yo ever remember MOUT training?? Its been around since the 1980's and before. For those non-military types thats Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain. Just what they are doing now in Iraq. Darn in fact I was even trained in MOUT and that was back in the early 80's.

Last time I checked, one of the Army's motto's was "adapt and overcome" Seems to be what they are doing.

Oh and Gene, being the military man you are how about a few famous quotes:

Never tell people how to do things.
Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
- General George Patton Jr

"A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances."
- General George S. Patton, Jr

Maybe this one should read Col.
"I am convinced that the best service a retired general (Col??) can perform is to
turn in his tongue along with his suit and to mothball his opinions."
- General Omar N. Bradley

And one of my favorites:
Age wrinkles the body. Quitting wrinkles the soul.
- General Douglas MacArthur

Never tell people how to do things.
Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
- General George Patton Jr.

This is the one Bush and Rummy did not know when they told the Military Experts what troop levels would be required to CONTROL Iraq after Saddam was deposed. The HOW should have left to the people that KNEW not Bush and Rummy that had no idea! Most of our deaths and injuries are because Bush did not allow the military to do the HOW. He and Rummy TOLD them!

Most of our deaths and injuries are because Bush did not allow the military to do the HOW.

Amazing how you make such outrageous statements with nothing to back them up with.

slandDog

It is a fact the VAST MAJORITY of the deaths and injuries took place AFTER, "Mission Accomplished". They are a direct result of the sectarian violence that was allowed to develop after Saddam fell. If the military had been allowed to make the MILITARY decisions about the resources NEEDED to control Iraq, the sectarian violence would not have been allowed to develop. We created a POWER VACUUM and we were unable to replace the control Saddam exercised with our military when the Iraq Government fell because we DID NOT HAVE THE FORCE LEVELS NEEDED to prevent the violence from developing.

Almost every senior military general admits that we DID NOT control Iraq and that was because we did not have the needed man power. That is BUSH and his minion Rummy that FORCED those choices on the military!