From: Ida Heath (spike@defuniak.com)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 10:52:13 PDT
I agree fully but I think you left one important thing out, export every
single Muslim and not allow one more on our soil in addition to what you
said.
----- Original Message -----
From: J Travis <dagobert@ix.netcom.com>
To: Ida Heath <spike@defuniak.com>
Cc: Military Vehicles Mailing List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] Off Topic: Nat'l Guard Redeployment
> Reality? I guess it depends on where you stand when you look at it, but
> the way I see it, we're fighting this war with one hand tied behind our
> backs, much like Vietnam. We're so afraid of committing a "Political
> correctness crime" that we aren't allowing our troops to fight in the
> only way I see to end this insurrection. You want to see the enemy stop
> looping off the heads of everyone they get their hands on? Fine.
> They're so fond of issuing proclamations, maybe it's time we issue one
> of our own. The NEXT time they execute a POW or foreign national
> civilian, WE will not execute one of our prisoners, as this would simply
> make that prisoner a martyr. Instead, we will give 24 hours notice for
> non-combatants to evacuate, and then we will pick a Muslim holy site in
> the region- a mosque, etc., and we will first carpet bomb it into dust,
> and then unload enough DU shells into the soil to make it uninhabitable
> for the next 1000 years within a mile or two. Then every time they
> repeat their executions, we will repeat the same. Will this "offend"
> the other Muslims in the region? Oh, yeah. Maybe even enough so that
> they will quit smirking and celebrating in the streets every time their
> neighbors behead another "infidel", and motivate them to stop their
> insurgent brothers from committing such acts before their entire
> religious infrastructure becomes dust. They do not fear death, but they
> are rather attached to their shrines. Perhaps then, they will cease
> fire just long enough for us to be able to declare victory and come
> home, and then they can kill each other off in one tribal skirmish or
> another, as they had done before we came and will continue to do after
> we leave. As far as forcing "Democracy" on them, why bother? We're
> rapidly slipping from a Republic to an Empire under the Neocons anyway
> (we NEVER were a Democracy in the first place), so who are we to tell
> them how to run their country? If they decide they value freedom, let
> them fight for it as our ancestors did. We gave them the perfect chance
> at it, at a cost of many American and other Allied soliders' lives, and
> you see how much they care. If we're going to stay, then we need to
> fight to WIN, and if we are not, then we need to get out and come home,
> and clean up the mess our own Republic is in- starting with either
> reforming one of the two "major" political parties to reflect a
> non-globalist, non-socialist platform that they stick to after the votes
> are cast, or we need to get serious about funding and supporting a
> different party than either one, and electing it into power, before the
> Republicrat bonesmen manage to strip the last of our rights away
> completely, and we find ourselves having to fight that battle you
> mentioned here on our own streets- not against foreign terrorists in
> wars of mass distraction, but for our own freedom from tyrrany and
> oppression.
>
> Ida Heath wrote:
>
> >Steve,
> >
> >I agree with some of what you say but not all of it. Reality, you say
> >reality? Reality is that this country was attacked on 11 Sep 01.
Remember
> >that when more than three thousand died within an hour or so? and you say
> >"starting up a war" Come on Steve you can do better than that. Remember
who
> >refused to take bin laden when we had the chance?
> >
> >Maybe you would rather fight the war against terriorism right here on the
> >streets of your home of record, because if we don't fight it there we
will
> >definitely fight it here.
> >
> >War is just that, war. You ever read the contract or take the oath those
> >military personnel did? I have.
> >
> >I just wish and pray every day that out Commander in Chief will do more
of
> >those stunts you refer to as "carrier landing PR stunts"
> >
> >Are you familiar with all the items that Kerry voted against yet he voted
to
> >increase the UN budget by a cool 800% ?
> >
> >Just so this post is MV related for sure, I have three M37's and money
that
> >I want to trade for a Humvee in case anyone is interested.
> >sonny@defuniak.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Sonny
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Steve Grammont <islander@midmaine.com>
> >To: Military Vehicles Mailing List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> >Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 11:21 AM
> >Subject: Re: [MV] Off Topic: Nat'l Guard Redeployment
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Some comments...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Growing up my impression was that the Guard
> >>>was here to help with domestic problems and Possibly to relieve active
> >>>duty forces so that those forces could go fight an action..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>That is the main role of the NG, but now a days it is often more theory
> >>than practice. However, the fine print basically states that NG can be
> >>deployed anywhere at any time. I'm not exactly sure what the
limitations
> >>are, but judging by what has been going on for the past 2 years, there
> >>don't appear to be many that can't be overcome by the Pentagon.
> >>
> >>The NG has been a part of external active duty military ops for probably
> >>as long as it has existed. Many of the initial field divisions of WWII
> >>were mobilized NG units. I'm not sure about Vietnam, but with the draft
> >>in place and the relatively small commitment (compared to WWII that is!)
> >>there wasn't as much need to scrounge up personnel as there is with
> >>today's "volunteer" army (it is much less that now than it was 2 years
> >>ago). Yes, the 1st Gulf War saw many NG units fully mobilized and
> >>deployed. In fact, Desert Storm was delayed in part due to inadequate
> >>readiness levels of some of those units. Meaning, until they had a
> >>couple more months of training they were deemed unfit for frontline
duty.
> >> Note that this isn't a criticism of the NG units, rather of starting up
> >>a war without inadequate troops at the ready (sound familiar?).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have found it really odd that the NG has been sent to Iraq to fight a
> >>>war when we have troops all over the world who ARE trained and equipped
> >>>to do so who have not been.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It is inadvisable, from a military strategy standpoint, to take all your
> >>1st line troops and lump them into one spot at one time. In fact it
> >>might be the first lesson in the course "How to Avoid Military Blunders
> >>101" :-) The US has many small, medium, and large military commitments
> >>all over the world and can not simply pack up all active army troops and
> >>replace them with those who are not familiar with the theater, tempo of
> >>active duty, 1st line equipment (remember many NG units use yesterday's
> >>Army castoffs), etc., etc. Redeployment is also very expensive.
> >>
> >>When Congress asked how many troops were needed for a possible war with
> >>Iraq the number given by then Secretary of the Army was deemed
"nonsense"
> >>by Rumsfeld. The reason is that number, roughly 3 to 4 times what we
> >>have in theater now, was absolutely impractical without a reinstatement
> >>of the draft or a large scale mobilization of NG troops. Since either
> >>one would have caused the American people to ask harder questions about
> >>why war was necessary, what the strategy was, and how the Powell Doctrin
> >>was going to be satisfied, Rumsfeld simply gave the boot to those who
> >>said it couldn't be done "on the cheap". Reality has already shown that
> >>Rumsfeld, and his deputies, were wrong and the military professionals
> >>were right. 130,000 troops is not enough to win the war (for it has not
> >>ended, despite the carrier landing PR stunt saying it was) and the
> >>military is not currently manned and resourced enough to sustain 130,000
> >>troops in high tempo active military ops along with Afghanistan and
other
> >>static theaters.
> >>
> >>Rumsfield, BTW, is a big supporter of small sized military forces. That
> >>theory works fine with a minimal active military agenda, but it
> >>completely falls apart when faced with wars in two vast countries with
> >>hostile populations at the same time. In the words of a LT COL friend
of
> >>mine at the Pentagon, "I can't believe how bad we are $*&%ing this up".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I know this is off topic, and apologize for it, but I've been wondering
> >>>about this since we went back into Iraq. And this list tracks military
> >>>matters closely. I have not seen anything about this in the press or
on
> >>>the radio. I know our forces were down sized tremendously but why are
NG
> >>>troops being killed when we have active duty troops available all
around
> >>>the world? And to get home and be 're-deployed'...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>The standard deployment rotations were well thought out in terms of
> >>logistics, morale, and expense. The failure of the initial Iraq war
> >>"plan" (if it can be called that) has necessitated that these very well
> >>founded principles be chucked out the window. I say failure of the Iraq
> >>war plan because we were supposed to have pretty much no troops in Iraq
> >>at this point and a passive, friendly populace. In reality, the force
> >>needs to be at least double its current size, if not triple as the
Army's
> >>initial estimates called for.
> >>
> >>Solutions? Withdraw from Iraq in military failure (not an option!),
drop
> >>the "my way or the highway" attitude so allies will cough up large
> >>numbers of troops so we don't have to, institute a limited draft, large
> >>scale mobilization of the NG (which is, in a sense, a draft), or back
out
> >>of long standing security commitments in other parts of the world so the
> >>resources there can be redeployed to the ME. Yup, none of these options
> >>are all that good, but that is what happens when politicians try to run
> >>wars instead of the military professionals.
> >>
> >>Steve
> >>
> >>
> >>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> >>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> >>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> >>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> >To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> >To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> >To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:33:49 PDT