I'll use the same subject line when you
learn to not add absurd indentations.

Tracy M. Johnson
TRW Automotive Electronics
Sensors & Components

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metzger, Phil (COMPRINT S) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 3:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Spin Off: Army Definitions [was: OT
> by AU's ! :
> Militia Defin itions]?Originally OT Re...
>
>
> Please use the full qualified subject line so that we can all
> recognize the
> absurdity of these comments, while bearing in mind their origin.
>
> -fil
>
>
>                 -----Original Message-----
>                 From:   Johnson, Tracy
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>                 Sent:   Wednesday, July 12, 2000 1:19 PM
>                 To:     [log in to unmask]
>                 Subject:        Re: Spin Off: Army
> Definitions [was: OT by
> AU's ! : Militia Definitions]
>
>                 No that is not so.  It says to "raise and
> support Armies"
>                 and it does NOT say that any such Armies need to be
>                 the standing variety.  It even stipulates that no
>                 funding for an Army can be for longer that two years.
>                 (Hence which is why there is always a new funding bill
>                 for the Army.)  One can infer then that Armies
>                 were originally intended to be of a temporary nature.
>                 (hehehehe.)
>
>                 It DOES say to provide and maintain a Navy, however,
>                 nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
>
>                 Hypothetically, it IS therefore possible that a U.S.
>                 Army can have a "drawdown" to zero, but not the U.S.
>                 Navy.
>
>                 Ironically, also appears there can be more than
>                 one U.S. Army, because the word usage is in the
>                 plural.
>
>                 Tracy M. Johnson, USNR
>                 TRW Automotive Electronics
>                 Sensors & Components
>
>                 > -----Original Message-----
>                 > From: Art Bahrs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>                 >   As for a standing Army?  hmmm....
> Remember Congress
>
>                 > mandates this... and
>                 > how many soldiers will be in the Army...
> Does the term
>                 > "Drawdown" ring any
>                 > bells for anyone?   And actually the current
> administration
>                 > and Congress are
>                 > quietly kicking around the idea of
> reactivating the draft
> if voluntary
>                 > enlistments don't increase soon...
>
>