XPost: calgary.general, can.general, can.politics 
 XPost: edm.general 
 From: rweldon.spamblock@jrpspamblock.ca 
  
 "Jon Flamming"  wrote in message 
 news:20050116231957388-0700@news.telusplanet.net... 
 > In  Don Wagner wrote: 
 >> 
 >> "Jon Flamming"  wrote in message 
 >> news:20050116181504567-0700@news.telusplanet.net... 
 >>> In <1105911628.864007.140910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> 
 >>> bcpg@canada. 
 >>> com wrote: 
 >>>> "Press your nose and make a buzzer sound" Glen 
 >>>> 
 >>>> 
 >>>> The question was: "How many Presidents have fought in combat in the 
 >>>> last 200 years?" 
 >>>> .. 
 >>>> The answer is still "zero". No Presidents have *ever* been in 
 >>>> combat. 
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>> George Washington saw combat during the French and Indian War. Not 
 >>> the 
 >>> most successful part of his career, however. 
 >>> 
 >>> Andrew Jackson commanded troops at the Battle of New Orleans. 
 >>> 
 >>> U.S. Grant, during the Mexican War, commanded infantry in the field. 
 >>> 
 >>> Harry Truman commanded a tank regiment in WWI. 
 >> 
 >> Sorry, Harry was Artillery and as a Captain, was certainly shot at. 
 > 
 > Great photo of him standing on an early tank though. Must have been 
 > traded. Or, maybe I mixed him up with MacArthur. 
 > 
 > Artillery sees combat, but only if the other side's artillery shoots 
 > back. other than that, they're miles from where anyone can find them. 
 > 
  
 That may be true now, but in WWI, artillery was still pretty short range, 
 and was frequently used in the direct fire role in support of the infantry. 
 Their firing lines were usually placed at or just behind the front lines, 
 well within range of enemy sniper, mortar and rifle fire.  And as such, they 
 saw a lot of combat, as well as being shelled by enemy artillery and being a 
 prime target for aircraft raids. 
  
  
 Robert Weldon 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)