From: m35products (m35prod@optonline.net)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 13:25:39 PDT
Mr. Heath:
I have sat back and listened to your verbal diarrhea without remark, because
most of it did not justify the dignity of a rebuttal.
There are thousands of American-born Muslims. There are Muslims on this and
other lists. There are Muslims in our military, serving faithfully. There
are Muslims in my circle of friends. There are Muslims working away, every
day, making this country thrive.
Perhaps you have confused this forum with some other hate group. Now,
please, I beg you, shut up and go away.
Arthur P. Bloom
Christian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ida Heath" <spike@defuniak.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] Off Topic: Nat'l Guard Redeployment
> 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>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> ===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