Marco and Rance,
A few questions remain unanswered. I know Marco is busy answering a multitude of comments so feel free to help out Rance. Surely you and Marco are in sinc with the Republican party line so either of you should be able to provide concise answers to these few questions.
A couple of questions for your consideration:
1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush would say?
2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
Remember, if you voted Republican in the last election YOU VOTED FOR THESE POLICIES AND THE RESULTING MESS.
Also the important Question that Our Great President seems unable to answer.
3. What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for in Iraq?
Now a new question. This administration has added preemptive nuclear attacks to our nuclear posture which is a significant change in policy.
4.. Do you believe we should use nuclear weapons in preemption? Remember we thought Sadam was on his way to deploying nuclear weapons so if we had this new policy we might have launched a nuke in stead of the invasion with the new policy.
Personally, I have never met a military person who thought launching a nuke was a good idea except in retaliation IAW MAD.
Joe
Questions without answers
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Questions without answers
Joe,
I think the pre-emption strategy is about bugs and gas, which we
have foresworn. So our deterrent for bugs and gas is...nukes. And
we reserve the right to bomb first (think bunker busters for really
deep/hard undergrounds where bugs/gas/C2 facilities might be). This
idea actually came in with Clinton's Harvard brain trust and the
counter-proliferation push - gotta really work on keeping more
nations from acquiring nukes (bugs/gas), but if/when diplomacy fails,
the only recourse is pre-emption. Simply not going to accept a world
where Guatemala has the bomb. Problem is that Bush has given counter-
proliferation a bad name... - Hugh
On 11 Sep 2005, at 20:42, Joe Schad wrote:
>
> Marco and Rance,
>
> A few questions remain unanswered. I know Marco is busy answering
> a multitude of comments so feel free to help out Rance. Surely you
> and Marco are in sinc with the Republican party line so either of
> you should be able to provide concise answers to these few questions.
>
>
> A couple of questions for your consideration:
>
> 1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that
> have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane
> Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush
> would say?
>
> 2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve
> Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
>
> Remember, if you voted Republican in the last election YOU VOTED
> FOR THESE POLICIES AND THE RESULTING MESS.
>
> Also the important Question that Our Great President seems unable
> to answer.
>
> 3. What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for
> in Iraq?
>
>
> Now a new question. This administration has added preemptive
> nuclear attacks to our nuclear posture which is a significant
> change in policy.
>
> 4.. Do you believe we should use nuclear weapons in preemption?
> Remember we thought Sadam was on his way to deploying nuclear
> weapons so if we had this new policy we might have launched a nuke
> in stead of the invasion with the new policy.
>
>
> Personally, I have never met a military person who thought
> launching a nuke was a good idea except in retaliation IAW MAD.
>
> Joe
>
I think the pre-emption strategy is about bugs and gas, which we
have foresworn. So our deterrent for bugs and gas is...nukes. And
we reserve the right to bomb first (think bunker busters for really
deep/hard undergrounds where bugs/gas/C2 facilities might be). This
idea actually came in with Clinton's Harvard brain trust and the
counter-proliferation push - gotta really work on keeping more
nations from acquiring nukes (bugs/gas), but if/when diplomacy fails,
the only recourse is pre-emption. Simply not going to accept a world
where Guatemala has the bomb. Problem is that Bush has given counter-
proliferation a bad name... - Hugh
On 11 Sep 2005, at 20:42, Joe Schad wrote:
>
> Marco and Rance,
>
> A few questions remain unanswered. I know Marco is busy answering
> a multitude of comments so feel free to help out Rance. Surely you
> and Marco are in sinc with the Republican party line so either of
> you should be able to provide concise answers to these few questions.
>
>
> A couple of questions for your consideration:
>
> 1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that
> have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane
> Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush
> would say?
>
> 2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve
> Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
>
> Remember, if you voted Republican in the last election YOU VOTED
> FOR THESE POLICIES AND THE RESULTING MESS.
>
> Also the important Question that Our Great President seems unable
> to answer.
>
> 3. What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for
> in Iraq?
>
>
> Now a new question. This administration has added preemptive
> nuclear attacks to our nuclear posture which is a significant
> change in policy.
>
> 4.. Do you believe we should use nuclear weapons in preemption?
> Remember we thought Sadam was on his way to deploying nuclear
> weapons so if we had this new policy we might have launched a nuke
> in stead of the invasion with the new policy.
>
>
> Personally, I have never met a military person who thought
> launching a nuke was a good idea except in retaliation IAW MAD.
>
> Joe
>
Response to Joe
Joe,
You are a true patriot !!! ( no joke or pun intended). Glad to hear that you value the lives of our military men and women.
Now let me answer some of your questions.
you said: << 1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush would say?>>
Answer: I am not familiar with Fema's budget, but FEMA has never been a "rapid response" or "first responder" outfit. They usually show up a few days later and pass out water and food, and then checks for damages and rebuilding. A Cat 5 Hurricane clearly overwhelmed the system, at all levels, federal, state, county, and city. Remember the butter commercial: "It's not nice to fool with mother nature". Well, with 90,000 square miles (larger than all of England) of devastation, us mere humans were no match for "Momma N".
you said: << 2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?>>
Answer: I addressed this topic on another post. Hugh even had some interesting insight, from a Pentagon perspective, on this. Basically, Clinton used the "Peace Dividend" to drastically cut the Armed Forces during his tenure. Bush, upon taking office in 2001, was left with a depleted military force. So the use and alleged over-tasking of the Guard and Reserve ARE a result of bad policy and failed leadership......Bill Clinton's (primarily).
Osama even mentioned, in amazement, on a video that America was diminishing its armies despite the 8 separate terrorist attacks on US interests in the 1990's that occurred (again, under Clinton), encouraging him to believe, and indeed declare, that the US was a nothing more than "a paper tiger" (which, under Clinton, was probably true).
You said: <<3. What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for in Iraq?>>
Answer: Well, as Marc said, I've gone over this about 20 times. Basically, we got rid of Saddam for not following or obeying 17 UN Resolutions, and now we have to support the democratic forces in Iraq until they are self-sufficient. Two big elections are coming up in October and December,....we'll have a much clearer picture of where this whole thing is headed depending on how things work out from these crucial political steps.
You said: << 4.. Do you believe we should use nuclear weapons in preemption?>>
Answer: I wouldn't have a problem launching a "tactical" (not the 50,000 megaton) cruise missile nuke into Iran or N. Korea to wipe out their nuke programs and facilities....seems alot quicker and cost effective than having to invade them.
Marco
You are a true patriot !!! ( no joke or pun intended). Glad to hear that you value the lives of our military men and women.
Now let me answer some of your questions.
you said: << 1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush would say?>>
Answer: I am not familiar with Fema's budget, but FEMA has never been a "rapid response" or "first responder" outfit. They usually show up a few days later and pass out water and food, and then checks for damages and rebuilding. A Cat 5 Hurricane clearly overwhelmed the system, at all levels, federal, state, county, and city. Remember the butter commercial: "It's not nice to fool with mother nature". Well, with 90,000 square miles (larger than all of England) of devastation, us mere humans were no match for "Momma N".
you said: << 2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?>>
Answer: I addressed this topic on another post. Hugh even had some interesting insight, from a Pentagon perspective, on this. Basically, Clinton used the "Peace Dividend" to drastically cut the Armed Forces during his tenure. Bush, upon taking office in 2001, was left with a depleted military force. So the use and alleged over-tasking of the Guard and Reserve ARE a result of bad policy and failed leadership......Bill Clinton's (primarily).
Osama even mentioned, in amazement, on a video that America was diminishing its armies despite the 8 separate terrorist attacks on US interests in the 1990's that occurred (again, under Clinton), encouraging him to believe, and indeed declare, that the US was a nothing more than "a paper tiger" (which, under Clinton, was probably true).
You said: <<3. What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for in Iraq?>>
Answer: Well, as Marc said, I've gone over this about 20 times. Basically, we got rid of Saddam for not following or obeying 17 UN Resolutions, and now we have to support the democratic forces in Iraq until they are self-sufficient. Two big elections are coming up in October and December,....we'll have a much clearer picture of where this whole thing is headed depending on how things work out from these crucial political steps.
You said: << 4.. Do you believe we should use nuclear weapons in preemption?>>
Answer: I wouldn't have a problem launching a "tactical" (not the 50,000 megaton) cruise missile nuke into Iran or N. Korea to wipe out their nuke programs and facilities....seems alot quicker and cost effective than having to invade them.
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Specific answers please to the question posed.
Marco. Please answer the question?
2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
You blamed Bill Clinton for the overtasking of the Guard and Reserve forces that is currently going on for the war in Iraq. What year is this? George Bush is the president and he is the one running the war and the tasking not Bill Clinton. If George believes that Clinton left him with too small a military why has he not asked for a larger military? He has not so he must believe we have the military we need.
Now is the Guard and Reserve over tasked in for the war in Iraq. Lets not hear that you don't have the data to answer the question.
Nuclear premption: So you think it would just be fine to nuke Iran's nuclear plant or something similar? I cannot think of a more insane idea. You seem to believe Nukes are just a larger bomb of some sort and nothing more. Your logic and thought processes and that of you conservative republican party is what is so dangerous for all of us and humanity in general.
A couple of questions for your consideration:
1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush would say?
2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
Remember, if you voted Republican in the last election YOU VOTED FOR THESE POLICIES AND THE RESULTING MESS.
Also the important Question that Our Great President seems unable to answer.
3. What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for in Iraq?
Now a new question. This administration has added preemptive nuclear attacks to our nuclear posture which is a significant change in policy.
4.. Do you believe we should use nuclear weapons in preemption? Remember we thought Sadam was on his way to deploying nuclear weapons so if we had this new policy we might have launched a nuke in stead of the invasion with the new policy.
A couple of questions for your consideration:
1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush would say?
2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
Remember, if you voted Republican in the last election YOU VOTED FOR THESE POLICIES AND THE RESULTING MESS.
Also the important Question that Our Great President seems unable to answer.
3. What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for in Iraq?
Now a new question. This administration has added preemptive nuclear attacks to our nuclear posture which is a significant change in policy.
4.. Do you believe we should use nuclear weapons in preemption? Remember we thought Sadam was on his way to deploying nuclear weapons so if we had this new policy we might have launched a nuke in stead of the invasion with the new policy.
2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
You blamed Bill Clinton for the overtasking of the Guard and Reserve forces that is currently going on for the war in Iraq. What year is this? George Bush is the president and he is the one running the war and the tasking not Bill Clinton. If George believes that Clinton left him with too small a military why has he not asked for a larger military? He has not so he must believe we have the military we need.
Now is the Guard and Reserve over tasked in for the war in Iraq. Lets not hear that you don't have the data to answer the question.
Nuclear premption: So you think it would just be fine to nuke Iran's nuclear plant or something similar? I cannot think of a more insane idea. You seem to believe Nukes are just a larger bomb of some sort and nothing more. Your logic and thought processes and that of you conservative republican party is what is so dangerous for all of us and humanity in general.
A couple of questions for your consideration:
1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush would say?
2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
Remember, if you voted Republican in the last election YOU VOTED FOR THESE POLICIES AND THE RESULTING MESS.
Also the important Question that Our Great President seems unable to answer.
3. What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for in Iraq?
Now a new question. This administration has added preemptive nuclear attacks to our nuclear posture which is a significant change in policy.
4.. Do you believe we should use nuclear weapons in preemption? Remember we thought Sadam was on his way to deploying nuclear weapons so if we had this new policy we might have launched a nuke in stead of the invasion with the new policy.
A couple of questions for your consideration:
1. Are you proud of the Republican policies and funding cuts that have contributed to FEMA's problems in handling the hurricane Katrina situation? Or is it all still Bill Clinton's fault as Rush would say?
2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
Remember, if you voted Republican in the last election YOU VOTED FOR THESE POLICIES AND THE RESULTING MESS.
Also the important Question that Our Great President seems unable to answer.
3. What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for in Iraq?
Now a new question. This administration has added preemptive nuclear attacks to our nuclear posture which is a significant change in policy.
4.. Do you believe we should use nuclear weapons in preemption? Remember we thought Sadam was on his way to deploying nuclear weapons so if we had this new policy we might have launched a nuke in stead of the invasion with the new policy.
Questions without answers
On nuking Iran or North Korean nuclear sites: easier said than done
- we don't know where they all are. Also gotta think about the
downside of international opinion - and I'm not talking about the
limp-wristed Europeans. Given our porous borders, if we go around
lobbing nukes and killing lots of innocent people, we are liable to
have one come in by sailboat or similar (upon returning from Bermuda,
my captain, speaking in his heavy Russian accent, called Coast Guard
in Norfolk by radio to check in; they waived him on to Baltimore, no
questions asked).
What I actually said about the defense drawdown of the '90s was that
it didn't go far enough. We still had enough money to waste on
inappropriate systems. The peace dividend was how Clinton balanced
the budget, yielding the boom of the '90s. Not a bad thing. Bush/
Rumsfeld want to downsize further or at least hold the line so as to
recapitalize the equipment. Requirement for manpower-intensive
counter-insurgency is a countervailing requirement.
The military needs more committed and enthusiastic people like you,
Marco. I urge you to enlist. They've raised the maximum age. Joe
and I are too old even for that - having already served in the
military for many years. If you are too old also, perhaps you have a
son or daughter of military age to send. My son's in the Marine
Corps Reserve. C'mon Marco, put some skin in the game! - Hugh
On 18 Sep 2005, at 00:51, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> You are a true patriot !!! ( no joke or pun intended). Glad to
> hear that you value the lives of our military men and women.
>
> Now let me answer some of your questions.
>
> you said: >
>
> Answer: I am not familiar with Fema's budget, but FEMA has never
> been a "rapid response" or "first responder" outfit. They usually
> show up a few days later and pass out water and food, and then
> checks for damages and rebuilding. A Cat 5 Hurricane clearly
> overwhelmed the system, at all levels, federal, state, county, and
> city. Remember the butter commercial: "It's not nice to fool
> with mother nature". Well, with 90,000 square miles (larger than
> all of England) of devastation, us mere humans were no match for
> "Momma N".
>
> you said: >
>
> Answer: I addressed this topic on another post. Hugh even had
> some interesting insight, from a Pentagon perspective, on this.
> Basically, Clinton used the "Peace Dividend" to drastically cut the
> Armed Forces during his tenure. Bush, upon taking office in 2001,
> was left with a depleted military force. So the use and alleged
> over-tasking of the Guard and Reserve ARE a result of bad policy
> and failed leadership......Bill Clinton's (primarily).
> Osama even mentioned, in amazement, on a video that America was
> diminishing its armies despite the 8 separate terrorist attacks on
> US interests in the 1990's that occurred (again, under Clinton),
> encouraging him to believe, and indeed declare, that the US was a
> nothing more than "a paper tiger" (which, under Clinton, was
> probably true).
>
> You said:
>
> Answer: Well, as Marc said, I've gone over this about 20 times.
> Basically, we got rid of Saddam for not following or obeying 17 UN
> Resolutions, and now we have to support the democratic forces in
> Iraq until they are self-sufficient. Two big elections are coming
> up in October and December,....we'll have a much clearer picture of
> where this whole thing is headed depending on how things work out
> from these crucial political steps.
>
> You said: >
>
> Answer: I wouldn't have a problem launching a "tactical" (not the
> 50,000 megaton) cruise missile nuke into Iran or N. Korea to wipe
> out their nuke programs and facilities....seems alot quicker and
> cost effective than having to invade them.
>
> Marco
>
- we don't know where they all are. Also gotta think about the
downside of international opinion - and I'm not talking about the
limp-wristed Europeans. Given our porous borders, if we go around
lobbing nukes and killing lots of innocent people, we are liable to
have one come in by sailboat or similar (upon returning from Bermuda,
my captain, speaking in his heavy Russian accent, called Coast Guard
in Norfolk by radio to check in; they waived him on to Baltimore, no
questions asked).
What I actually said about the defense drawdown of the '90s was that
it didn't go far enough. We still had enough money to waste on
inappropriate systems. The peace dividend was how Clinton balanced
the budget, yielding the boom of the '90s. Not a bad thing. Bush/
Rumsfeld want to downsize further or at least hold the line so as to
recapitalize the equipment. Requirement for manpower-intensive
counter-insurgency is a countervailing requirement.
The military needs more committed and enthusiastic people like you,
Marco. I urge you to enlist. They've raised the maximum age. Joe
and I are too old even for that - having already served in the
military for many years. If you are too old also, perhaps you have a
son or daughter of military age to send. My son's in the Marine
Corps Reserve. C'mon Marco, put some skin in the game! - Hugh
On 18 Sep 2005, at 00:51, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> You are a true patriot !!! ( no joke or pun intended). Glad to
> hear that you value the lives of our military men and women.
>
> Now let me answer some of your questions.
>
> you said: >
>
> Answer: I am not familiar with Fema's budget, but FEMA has never
> been a "rapid response" or "first responder" outfit. They usually
> show up a few days later and pass out water and food, and then
> checks for damages and rebuilding. A Cat 5 Hurricane clearly
> overwhelmed the system, at all levels, federal, state, county, and
> city. Remember the butter commercial: "It's not nice to fool
> with mother nature". Well, with 90,000 square miles (larger than
> all of England) of devastation, us mere humans were no match for
> "Momma N".
>
> you said: >
>
> Answer: I addressed this topic on another post. Hugh even had
> some interesting insight, from a Pentagon perspective, on this.
> Basically, Clinton used the "Peace Dividend" to drastically cut the
> Armed Forces during his tenure. Bush, upon taking office in 2001,
> was left with a depleted military force. So the use and alleged
> over-tasking of the Guard and Reserve ARE a result of bad policy
> and failed leadership......Bill Clinton's (primarily).
> Osama even mentioned, in amazement, on a video that America was
> diminishing its armies despite the 8 separate terrorist attacks on
> US interests in the 1990's that occurred (again, under Clinton),
> encouraging him to believe, and indeed declare, that the US was a
> nothing more than "a paper tiger" (which, under Clinton, was
> probably true).
>
> You said:
>
> Answer: Well, as Marc said, I've gone over this about 20 times.
> Basically, we got rid of Saddam for not following or obeying 17 UN
> Resolutions, and now we have to support the democratic forces in
> Iraq until they are self-sufficient. Two big elections are coming
> up in October and December,....we'll have a much clearer picture of
> where this whole thing is headed depending on how things work out
> from these crucial political steps.
>
> You said: >
>
> Answer: I wouldn't have a problem launching a "tactical" (not the
> 50,000 megaton) cruise missile nuke into Iran or N. Korea to wipe
> out their nuke programs and facilities....seems alot quicker and
> cost effective than having to invade them.
>
> Marco
>
Reply to Joe
Joe posted: << 2. Do you like the gross over tasking of the Guard and Reserve Forces? Extremely bad policy and failed leadership don't you think?
You blamed Bill Clinton for the overtasking of the Guard and Reserve forces that is currently going on for the war in Iraq. What year is this? George Bush is the president and he is the one running the war and the tasking not Bill Clinton. If George believes that Clinton left him with too small a military why has he not asked for a larger military? He has not so he must believe we have the military we need. >>
Didn't Rumsfield say that you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you "wish" you had.
Let me say that I am not a military expert by any means. It is my understanding that there are around 1.5 million servicemen in uniform for the US, approximately. I'm not sure why the military cannot send "full time" soldiers to Iraq, instead of these reserves and guard units. As far as increasing the # of troops, I believe that the recruiting numbers have increased the past few years. Perhaps Hugh can give some input as to why it is necessary to use the guard and reserves in this manner.
Hugh stated previously that we should have invaded Iraq with 350,000 soldiers or more. Do we have these soldiers available to us, and if so , where are they and why can't we use them now?
I can't give ya a better, informed answer because I really don't know enough details of military allocations and availability.
Hugh appears to think, however, that I would have a positive impact on the war if I enlisted. I am honored, but I doubt the army would want my sorry-ass 49 year old body in one of their uniforms. Between my bad knees and weak eyes, I doubt I'd even pass the physical. If I could get all those terrorists to spend their time online arguing with me instead of blowing up innocent women and children, then perhaps I could have an impact on the outcome of the war. But, I don't think this is a very likely scenario either. If they need a guy who can fly a hanglider with a Mosquito, I'd be happy to help out.
Marco
PS: Is anyone planning on attending the Anti-War or Pro-War rallies this weekend ?
You blamed Bill Clinton for the overtasking of the Guard and Reserve forces that is currently going on for the war in Iraq. What year is this? George Bush is the president and he is the one running the war and the tasking not Bill Clinton. If George believes that Clinton left him with too small a military why has he not asked for a larger military? He has not so he must believe we have the military we need. >>
Didn't Rumsfield say that you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you "wish" you had.
Let me say that I am not a military expert by any means. It is my understanding that there are around 1.5 million servicemen in uniform for the US, approximately. I'm not sure why the military cannot send "full time" soldiers to Iraq, instead of these reserves and guard units. As far as increasing the # of troops, I believe that the recruiting numbers have increased the past few years. Perhaps Hugh can give some input as to why it is necessary to use the guard and reserves in this manner.
Hugh stated previously that we should have invaded Iraq with 350,000 soldiers or more. Do we have these soldiers available to us, and if so , where are they and why can't we use them now?
I can't give ya a better, informed answer because I really don't know enough details of military allocations and availability.
Hugh appears to think, however, that I would have a positive impact on the war if I enlisted. I am honored, but I doubt the army would want my sorry-ass 49 year old body in one of their uniforms. Between my bad knees and weak eyes, I doubt I'd even pass the physical. If I could get all those terrorists to spend their time online arguing with me instead of blowing up innocent women and children, then perhaps I could have an impact on the outcome of the war. But, I don't think this is a very likely scenario either. If they need a guy who can fly a hanglider with a Mosquito, I'd be happy to help out.
Marco
PS: Is anyone planning on attending the Anti-War or Pro-War rallies this weekend ?
Re: Reply to Joe
Now THERE's the most brilliant plan I've heard so far! We've just GOT to pipe you into the Al Jazeera network. Get this little nuisance cleared up in about 3 weeks.Marco Zee wrote: If I could get all those terrorists to spend their time online arguing with me instead of blowing up innocent women and children, then perhaps I could have an impact on the outcome of the war.
Marco
Brian Vant-Hull
Questions without answers
More troops on the day we occupied Baghdad would have squelched the
looting and left no opportunity for an organized resistance. It's
too late now to send them in. No number of troops we could muster
without reinstituting the draft could do it - and we would have to
use draconian methods (collective punishment, summary executions,
decimation, torture, crucifixions, selling whole populations into
slavery - see Roman occupation of Palestine) which are out of the
question.
1.5% million uniformed personnel includes about 400,000 each in the
Navy and Air Force - not much use in Baghdad. We could probably
still put 350,000 troops (active and reserve) in the field for a
short war - problem is keeping such a large force deployed
indefinitely. This isn't WW II where everybody was in "for the
duration" - which was about three years. They have to be rotated in
and out. Also, many specialized support units are mostly or even
exclusively in the reserves/guard - the Army designed it that way,
after Vietnam, so no president could get away with sending in just
the active force without backing from the Congress - and eventually
the population, because the "citizen-soldiers" are a lot closer to
home-town America than the professional force. The complaints you
are hearing from the reservists who are being overused is symptomatic
of the disconnect between the American people and President Bush: he
has failed to articulate a rationale for this war that holds up 3
years later. The soldiers were tired in 1945 and didn't want to die
invading Japan (hence the use of the bomb) but they understood that
Japan had to be finished off and there was a credible strategy for
doing it. Bush doesn't have a strategy that anyone can believe is
going to work - except Marco. That's OK if you can't pass the
physical - Titan or one of the other contractors will hire you and
pay $300,000 a year to go to Iraq - the first $75,000 is tax free!
Go for it, Marco! Here's a chance to do well while doing good! - Hugh
On 23 Sep 2005, at 01:47, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Joe posted: >
>
> Didn't Rumsfield say that you go to war with the Army you have, not
> the Army you "wish" you had.
>
> Let me say that I am not a military expert by any means. It is my
> understanding that there are around 1.5 million servicemen in
> uniform for the US, approximately. I'm not sure why the military
> cannot send "full time" soldiers to Iraq, instead of these reserves
> and guard units. As far as increasing the # of troops, I believe
> that the recruiting numbers have increased the past few years.
> Perhaps Hugh can give some input as to why it is necessary to use
> the guard and reserves in this manner.
> Hugh stated previously that we should have invaded Iraq with
> 350,000 soldiers or more. Do we have these soldiers available to
> us, and if so , where are they and why can't we use them now?
>
> I can't give ya a better, informed answer because I really don't
> know enough details of military allocations and availability.
>
> Hugh appears to think, however, that I would have a positive
> impact on the war if I enlisted. I am honored, but I doubt the
> army would want my sorry-ass 49 year old body in one of their
> uniforms. Between my bad knees and weak eyes, I doubt I'd even pass
> the physical. If I could get all those terrorists to spend their
> time online arguing with me instead of blowing up innocent women
> and children, then perhaps I could have an impact on the outcome of
> the war. But, I don't think this is a very likely scenario
> either. If they need a guy who can fly a hanglider with a
> Mosquito, I'd be happy to help out.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Is anyone planning on attending the Anti-War or Pro-War
> rallies this weekend ?
>
looting and left no opportunity for an organized resistance. It's
too late now to send them in. No number of troops we could muster
without reinstituting the draft could do it - and we would have to
use draconian methods (collective punishment, summary executions,
decimation, torture, crucifixions, selling whole populations into
slavery - see Roman occupation of Palestine) which are out of the
question.
1.5% million uniformed personnel includes about 400,000 each in the
Navy and Air Force - not much use in Baghdad. We could probably
still put 350,000 troops (active and reserve) in the field for a
short war - problem is keeping such a large force deployed
indefinitely. This isn't WW II where everybody was in "for the
duration" - which was about three years. They have to be rotated in
and out. Also, many specialized support units are mostly or even
exclusively in the reserves/guard - the Army designed it that way,
after Vietnam, so no president could get away with sending in just
the active force without backing from the Congress - and eventually
the population, because the "citizen-soldiers" are a lot closer to
home-town America than the professional force. The complaints you
are hearing from the reservists who are being overused is symptomatic
of the disconnect between the American people and President Bush: he
has failed to articulate a rationale for this war that holds up 3
years later. The soldiers were tired in 1945 and didn't want to die
invading Japan (hence the use of the bomb) but they understood that
Japan had to be finished off and there was a credible strategy for
doing it. Bush doesn't have a strategy that anyone can believe is
going to work - except Marco. That's OK if you can't pass the
physical - Titan or one of the other contractors will hire you and
pay $300,000 a year to go to Iraq - the first $75,000 is tax free!
Go for it, Marco! Here's a chance to do well while doing good! - Hugh
On 23 Sep 2005, at 01:47, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Joe posted: >
>
> Didn't Rumsfield say that you go to war with the Army you have, not
> the Army you "wish" you had.
>
> Let me say that I am not a military expert by any means. It is my
> understanding that there are around 1.5 million servicemen in
> uniform for the US, approximately. I'm not sure why the military
> cannot send "full time" soldiers to Iraq, instead of these reserves
> and guard units. As far as increasing the # of troops, I believe
> that the recruiting numbers have increased the past few years.
> Perhaps Hugh can give some input as to why it is necessary to use
> the guard and reserves in this manner.
> Hugh stated previously that we should have invaded Iraq with
> 350,000 soldiers or more. Do we have these soldiers available to
> us, and if so , where are they and why can't we use them now?
>
> I can't give ya a better, informed answer because I really don't
> know enough details of military allocations and availability.
>
> Hugh appears to think, however, that I would have a positive
> impact on the war if I enlisted. I am honored, but I doubt the
> army would want my sorry-ass 49 year old body in one of their
> uniforms. Between my bad knees and weak eyes, I doubt I'd even pass
> the physical. If I could get all those terrorists to spend their
> time online arguing with me instead of blowing up innocent women
> and children, then perhaps I could have an impact on the outcome of
> the war. But, I don't think this is a very likely scenario
> either. If they need a guy who can fly a hanglider with a
> Mosquito, I'd be happy to help out.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Is anyone planning on attending the Anti-War or Pro-War
> rallies this weekend ?
>
Titan Contact Info
Hey Hugh,
Were you serious when you said : <<Titan or one of the other contractors will hire you and pay $300,000 a year to go to Iraq - the first $75,000 is tax free! Go for it, Marco! Here's a chance to do well while doing good! - Hugh>>
What job are you being asked to perform to earn $300,000? That's a lot of money. Must be a "high risk" job description.
Just think of all the new hanggliding equipment you could buy with that !!!
Do they have a website with a list of job offerings? Or a phone #?
Marco
Were you serious when you said : <<Titan or one of the other contractors will hire you and pay $300,000 a year to go to Iraq - the first $75,000 is tax free! Go for it, Marco! Here's a chance to do well while doing good! - Hugh>>
What job are you being asked to perform to earn $300,000? That's a lot of money. Must be a "high risk" job description.
Just think of all the new hanggliding equipment you could buy with that !!!
Do they have a website with a list of job offerings? Or a phone #?
Marco
Questions without answers
Try Titan or Wackenhut, there are a couple of others. Mostly
security, riding shotgun (actually more like .50 cal. machine gun) in
convoys. There's a real wild west aspect to it with all these hired
guns. Since they can't tell a bomb vehicle from a family going to
visit grandma, they enforce a buffer around their convoys. If a
vehicle gets too close, they give one shot into the ground in front
of it, then fire for effect. There are no rules of engagement for
private security guards; if they hit an innocent vehicle, they just
drive on. Uniformed troop behavior is not a lot different - they are
just trying to survive. Not winning a lot of hearts and minds... - Hugh
On 28 Sep 2005, at 22:24, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hey Hugh,
>
> Were you serious when you said :
>
> What job are you being asked to perform to earn $300,000? That's a
> lot of money. Must be a "high risk" job description.
>
> Just think of all the new hanggliding equipment you could buy with
> that !!!
>
> Do they have a website with a list of job offerings? Or a phone #?
>
> Marco
>
security, riding shotgun (actually more like .50 cal. machine gun) in
convoys. There's a real wild west aspect to it with all these hired
guns. Since they can't tell a bomb vehicle from a family going to
visit grandma, they enforce a buffer around their convoys. If a
vehicle gets too close, they give one shot into the ground in front
of it, then fire for effect. There are no rules of engagement for
private security guards; if they hit an innocent vehicle, they just
drive on. Uniformed troop behavior is not a lot different - they are
just trying to survive. Not winning a lot of hearts and minds... - Hugh
On 28 Sep 2005, at 22:24, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hey Hugh,
>
> Were you serious when you said :
>
> What job are you being asked to perform to earn $300,000? That's a
> lot of money. Must be a "high risk" job description.
>
> Just think of all the new hanggliding equipment you could buy with
> that !!!
>
> Do they have a website with a list of job offerings? Or a phone #?
>
> Marco
>