From: Ida Heath (spike@defuniak.com)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 18:44:39 PDT
Mr. Bloom,
Did you catch my response to you're saying all those nasty things about me?
I thought we all had the right to freedom of expression. Thats all I did.
I received no warning from the operator of the forum about the content of my
posts. How do you feel that you can say those nasty things to anyone?
We can exchange emails privately if you wish. sonny@defuniak.com
Sonny
----- Original Message -----
From: m35products <m35prod@optonline.net>
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] Off Topic: Nat'l Guard Redeployment
> 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>
>
>
> ===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