From: Nigel Hay (Nigel@milweb.net)
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 22:09:25 PDT
Please please please no more of this - it is so boring and the Samaritans
number is busy........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ida Heath" <spike@defuniak.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] Off Topic: Nat'l Guard Redeployment
> Authur,
>
> You are right, I was wrong when I made that post, there are good people
from
> every country and religion in the world, I just get so irked when someone
> runs down our Commander in Chief especially since I believe that he is
doing
> his best and that he is a good Christian man. I apologize to the list for
> that post.
>
> Sonny
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: m35products <m35prod@optonline.net>
> To: Ida Heath <spike@defuniak.com>; 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