ATTENTION all Republican fuckwits: The US Military is a fraud
conn...@hotmail.com
by Jacob G. Hornberger
How often do we hear the claim that American troops "defend our
freedoms"? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed
far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper
columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It's even a
common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.
Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In fact, the situation is the exact
opposite - the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both
our freedoms and well-being are threatened.
Let's examine the three potential threats to our freedoms and the
role that the troops play in them:
1. Foreign regimes
Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a
foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has
the military capability of invading and conquering the United States.
Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not
anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer
and "pacify" the entire nation would take millions of foreign
troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them
across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such
resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the
foreseeable future.
After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most powerful military
force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such a
small country as Iraq because of the level of domestic resistance to a
foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that would be
needed to conquer and "pacify" a country as large and well-armed as
the United States.
I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the
United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away
our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our
freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
2. Terrorists
Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that
terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government,
and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of
people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to
subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.
Equally important, while the troops claim that they are protecting us
from "the terrorists," it is the troops themselves - or, more
precisely, the presidential orders they have loyally carried out -
that have engendered the very terrorist threats against which the
troops say they are now needed to protect us.
Think back to 1989 and the years following - when the Berlin Wall
fell, East and West Germany were united, Soviet troops withdrew from
Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was dismantled. The Pentagon
didn't know what to do. Unexpectedly, its 50-year-old "official
enemy" was gone. (The Soviet Union had previously been America's
"ally" that had "liberated" Eastern Europe from Nazi Germany.)
With the fall of the Soviet empire (and, actually, before the fall),
the obvious question arose: Why should the United States continue to
have an enormous standing army and spend billions of dollars in
taxpayer money to keep it in existence?
The Pentagon was in desperate search for a new mission. "We can be a
big help in the war on drugs," the Pentagon said. To prove it, U.S.
military forces even shot to death 18-year-old American citizen
Esequiel Hernandez in 1997, as he tended his goats along the
U.S.-Mexican border. "We'll help American businesses compete in the
world." "We'll readjust NATO's mission to protect Europe from
non-Soviet threats." "We'll protect us from an unsafe world."
Then along came the Pentagon's old ally, Saddam Hussein, to whom the
United States had even entrusted weapons of mass destruction to use
against the Iranian people, and gave America's standing army a new
raison d'être. Invading Kuwait over an oil-drilling dispute, Saddam
provided the Pentagon with a new official enemy, one that would last
for more than 10 continuous years.
Obeying presidential orders to attack Iraq in 1991, without the
constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the troops
ended up killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Obeying Pentagon orders
to attack Iraq's water and sewage facilities, the troops accomplished
exactly what Pentagon planners had anticipated - spreading deadly
infections and disease among the Iraqi people. Continuing to obey
presidential orders in the years that followed, the troops enforced
what was possibly the most brutal embargo in history, which ended up
contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children,
deaths that U.S. officials said were "worth it." Obeying
presidential orders, the troops enforced the illegal "no-fly zones"
over Iraq, which killed even more Iraqis, including children. Obeying
presidential orders, the troops established themselves on Islamic holy
lands with full knowledge of the anger and resentment that that would
produce among devout Muslims. Obeying presidential orders, the troops
invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required
congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands
of innocent Iraqis - that is, people whose worst "crime" was to
resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign power.
All that death and destruction - both pre-9/11 and post-9/11 - have
given rise to terrible anger and hatred against the United States,
which inspired the pre-9/11 attacks, such as the 1993 attack on the
World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks on
overseas U.S. embassies, the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorist threats
our nation faces today.
Through it all, the Pentagon simply echoed the claims of the president
- that all the death and destruction and humiliation that the U.S.
government had wreaked on people in the Middle East, as well as its
unconditional military and financial foreign aid to the Israeli
government, had not engendered any adverse feelings in the Middle East
against the United States. Instead, the president and the Pentagon
claimed, the problem was that the terrorists simply hated America for
its "freedom and values."
If the American people had dismantled the nation's standing army when
the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have
lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East
with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones,
bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have
been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a "war on
terrorism" for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT
Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine,
and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.
Finally, but certainly important, despite being the most powerful
standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to
protect Americans from terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two
terrorist attacks on the same target - the World Trade Center, first
in 1993 and then again in 2001.
3. The federal government
As our Founding Fathers understood so well, the primary threat to our
freedom lies with our own government. That's in fact why we have the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights - to protect us and our freedoms
from federal officials. If the federal government did not constitute
such an enormous threat to our freedoms, there would be no reason to
have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Yet, what is the primary means by which a government takes away the
freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer:
its military forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers
opposed a standing, professional military force in America - they
knew not only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in
costly, senseless, and destructive wars abroad but also that government
officials would inevitably use the troops to ensure a compliant and
obedient citizenry at home.
Consider the words of James Madison:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be
safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger
have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans
it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the
pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Here's how Patrick Henry put it:
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands
of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be
punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match
for a disciplined regiment?
Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to deploy against the
American people and take away our freedoms?
There is no doubt about it. Of course they would, especially if the
president told them that our "freedom and national security"
depended on it, which he would.
As I suggested in my article, "The Troops Don't Support the
Constitution," in the United States the loyalty of the troops is to
the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the
Constitution. Recent evidence of this point, as I observed in my
article, was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders
to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to
secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.
What if the president ordered the troops to deploy across the United
States and to round up "terrorists" and incarcerate them in
military camps, both here and in Cuba? Again, there can be no doubt
that most of the troops would willingly obey the president's orders,
especially in the middle of a "crisis" or "emergency" because
they view themselves as professional soldiers whose job is to serve the
president and not to question why but simply to do or die.
Another good example of the allegiance that the troops have toward the
president involves the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Labeling
Padilla a "terrorist," the president ordered the troops to take him
into military custody, deny him access to an attorney, and punish him
without a trial and due process of law. The troops obeyed without
question. Do you know any troops who have publicly protested the
Padilla incarceration or who have resigned from the army in protest?
How many have publicly announced, "I refuse to participate in the
Padilla incarceration because I took an oath to support and defend the
Constitution"?
Indeed, how many of the troops resigned in protest at the president's
orders to set up a prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, knowing that
the reason he and the Pentagon chose Cuba, rather than the United
States, was precisely to avoid the constraints of the Constitution?
If the troops didn't protest with respect to Iraq or Padilla or
Gitmo, what is the likelihood they would protest when their commander
in chief ordered them to arrest 100 other Americans "terrorists,"
or 1,000?
I repeat: The troops, from the Pentagon on down, would not disobey
orders of the president to disarm and arrest American "terrorists,"
especially in the midst of a "crisis" or "emergency."
And even if some were to protest, they would be quickly shunted aside
(probably punished as well) and replaced with those troops whose
allegiance and loyalty to the president would be unquestioned.
Now it's true that soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders,
but as a practical matter most of the troops are not going to overrule
the judgment of their commander in chief as to what is legal or not.
After all, how many troops involved in the torture and sex-abuse
scandal refused to participate in the wrongdoing, especially since they
thought that it was approved by the higher-ups? Again, how many refused
orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that there was no
constitutionally required congressional declaration of war?
Imagine that the president issues the following grave announcement on
national television during prime time: "Our nation has come under
another terrorist attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at
stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately
take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been
identified by the FBI as having conspired to commit this dastardly
attack or who have given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also
ordered the JCS to take all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate
weapons in the areas where these terrorists are believed to be hiding.
These weapons will be returned to the owners once the terrorist threat
has subsided. I am calling on all Americans to support the troops in
these endeavors, just as you are supporting them in their fight against
terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will prevail. God bless
America."
Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would disobey the orders of
the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked and
terrified Americans and the mainstream press were endorsing his
martial-law orders?
The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would not consider it their
job to determine the constitutionality of the president's orders.
They would leave that for the courts to decide. Their professional
allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would trump
all other considerations, including their oath to "support and defend
the Constitution."
Therefore, if the federal government is the primary threat to our
freedom, then so are the troops: their unswerving loyalty to their
commander in chief makes them the primary instrument by which the
federal government is able to destroy or infringe the rights and
freedoms of the citizenry.
The solution
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president
wields, albeit unconstitutionally, the omnipotent power to send the
entire nation into war against another nation - and that he has the
means - a loyal and obedient army - to exercise that power.
President Bush made his position clear prior to his invasion of Iraq,
when he emphasized that while he welcomed the support of Congress in
the event he decided to wage war on Iraq, he didn't need its
approval. His position was reconfirmed by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, who informed Congress on October 19, 2005, that the
commander in chief's position was that he did not need the consent of
Congress to send the nation into another war, this time against Syria.
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in which the president
claims the omnipotent power to jail and punish any American citizen
whom the president labels a "terrorist," denying him due process of
law, trial by jury, and other constitutional guarantees - and that he
has the means - a loyal and obedient army - to exercise that power.
Thus, as a practical matter the troops serve not as a defender of our
freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of
the president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands.
It is an army that stands ready to obey the president's orders to
deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and
attack, kill, and maim any "terrorist" who dares to resist the U.S.
invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready to
obey the president's orders to take into custody any American whom
the commander in chief deems a "terrorist" and to punish him
accordingly.
There is one - and only one - solution to this threat to our
freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the warning of
our Founding Fathers against standing armies before it is too late, and
to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago: dismantle the
U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the
troops home, discharging them into the private sector, where they would
effectively become "citizen-soldiers" - well-trained citizens
prepared to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of
a foreign invasion of our country. And for the American people to heed
the warning of President Eisenhower against the military-industrial
complex, by shutting down the Pentagon's enormous domestic military
empire, closing domestic bases, and discharging those troops into the
private sector.
"Oh, my gosh, if we did all that, how would our freedoms be
protected?"
Protected from what? Again, there is no threat of a foreign invasion.
And again, terrorism is not a threat to our freedom. Moreover,
dismantling the standing army would remove the primary means by which
presidents have succeeded in engendering so much anger and hatred
against our nation - anger and hatred that in turn have given rise to
the threat of terrorism against our nation. And finally, the worst
threat to our freedom is our own government, and by dismantling the
standing army we would reduce that threat significantly.
What would happen if a foreign nation ever began constructing thousands
of ships and planes and mobilizing millions of people to invade the
United States? The answer to that threat was also provided by our
Founding Fathers: the foreign nation in question would be met by a
nation of free well-armed citizens who would be prepared and willing to
rally quickly to oppose any invasion and conquest of our nation.
Invading a United States filled with well-trained, free men and women
would be much like invading Switzerland - like swallowing a
porcupine. Don't forget that the men and women who currently serve in
the U.S. armed services wouldn't disappear; instead they would join
the rest of us as citizen-soldiers, people whose fighting skills could
be depended on in the unlikely event our nation were ever threatened by
invasion by a foreign power.
We should also keep in mind the tremendous economic prosperity that
would result from the dismantling of America's enormous standing
army. Not only would all the taxpayer money that is being used to fund
the standing army be left in the hands of the citizenry for savings and
capital, but all those new people in the private sector would be
producing as well, instead of living off the IRS-provided fruits of
other people's earnings. Thus, the economic effect would be doubly
positive, and, while weakening the federal government, it would make
our nation stronger.
What about foreign monsters, tyrants, oppressors, and conquerors? The
answer to that was also provided by our Founding Fathers: Our
government would no longer go abroad in search of monsters to destroy,
but foreigners suffering oppression and tyranny would know that there
would always be at least one nation that would accept them - the
United States of America. Rather than police the world, Americans would
focus on producing the freest and most prosperous society in history as
a model for the world and to which those who escaped tyranny and
oppression could freely come.
Of course, those Americans who would nonetheless wish to leave their
families and jobs to help oppressed people overseas would still be free
to do so.
We should also bear in mind the perverse results of the federal
government's military empire and overseas interventions. World War I
brought World War II, which brought the Soviet communist occupation of
Eastern Europe, which brought the Cold War, the Korean War, and the
Vietnam War, along with an enormous standing army in our country. The
Middle East interventions and meddling have brought us terrorism, the
war on terrorism, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Padilla doctrine, military
torture and sex abuse, and CIA kidnappings and "renditions" to
foreign countries for the purpose of proxy torture.
By their fruits, you shall know them.
One vision - the vision of militarism and empire - will bring
America more violence, death, destruction, impoverishment, and loss of
freedom. The other vision - the vision of a limited-government,
constitutional republic with citizen-soldiers - would put our nation
back on the right road of peace, prosperity, harmony, and freedom.
October 22, 2005
Jacob Hornberger [send him mail] is founder and president of The Future
of Freedom Foundation.
Copyright © 2005 Future of Freedom Foundation
redc1c4
(mercy snipage occurs)
> Jacob Hornberger [send him mail] is an idiot.
redc1c4,
this is the Cliff Notes version..... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
conn...@hotmail.com
redc1c4 is a loser.
RM
> considerable watching."
>
> Army Officer's Guide
Isnt this contradictory? Stupid but cunning and sly?
Douglas Berry
the following on 14 Feb 2006 11:20:35 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms
>by Jacob G. Hornberger
>1. Foreign regimes
(snip)
>I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the
>United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away
>our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our
>freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
Let's pretned for a moment. It's 1920. And I tell you that Germany
will, in about 20 years be able to not only attack its neighbors but
overwhelmthem with such speed and ferocity that all of Europe will be
under its sway in under two years.
What would you say to that? German was beaten, defeated, broken in
1920. The idea that German could be a threat was ridiculous.
So to assume that just because there is no threat today means there
will never be one is just stupid.
>2. Terrorists
>
>Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that
>terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government,
>and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of
>people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to
>subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.
>
(snip)
That's not their goal. And after 9/11 it was the military that routed
the Taliban and al Qaeda from their safe haven in Afghanistan.
>Then along came the Pentagon's old ally, Saddam Hussein, to whom the
>United States had even entrusted weapons of mass destruction to use
>against the Iranian people, and gave America's standing army a new
>raison d'ętre. Invading Kuwait over an oil-drilling dispute, Saddam
>provided the Pentagon with a new official enemy, one that would last
>for more than 10 continuous years.
The US fought two wars against Germany. They are now a valued ally.
Things change. As long as Saddam was attacking Iran, he was useful.
He attacked Kuwait, threatening our allies inh Saudi Arabia, he became
a threat.
>Obeying presidential orders to attack Iraq in 1991, without the
>constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the troops
>ended up killing tens of thousands of Iraqis.
So, when the joint houses of Congress voted to authorize Bush to use
force in the Gulf on January 12th, 1991, that was chicken feed? Show
me the Constitutional definition of a declaration of war.
>Obeying
>presidential orders, the troops established themselves on Islamic holy
>lands with full knowledge of the anger and resentment that that would
>produce among devout Muslims.
Funny, but we negotiated those Saudi bases (none of which are within
500 miles of Mecca or Medina) with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
>Obeying presidential orders, the troops
>invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required
>congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands
>of innocent Iraqis - that is, people whose worst "crime" was to
>resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign power.
War sucks. And again, both houses of Congress voted to authorize the
invasion.
>All that death and destruction - both pre-9/11 and post-9/11 - have
>given rise to terrible anger and hatred against the United States,
>which inspired the pre-9/11 attacks, such as the 1993 attack on the
>World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks on
>overseas U.S. embassies, the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorist threats
>our nation faces today.
Those attacks were launched by a group whose stated goal is to force
Islam on the entire world - a fundamentalist version of Islam that
would crush liberty under the heel of the mullahs.
>
>Through it all, the Pentagon simply echoed the claims of the president
>- that all the death and destruction and humiliation that the U.S.
>government had wreaked on people in the Middle East, as well as its
>unconditional military and financial foreign aid to the Israeli
>government, had not engendered any adverse feelings in the Middle East
>against the United States. Instead, the president and the Pentagon
>claimed, the problem was that the terrorists simply hated America for
>its "freedom and values."
I've lived there. They do hate our freedoms, especially freedom of
religion. They hate the fact that we have p-lenty, while they live in
poverty. They hate the fact that we keep winning, while they can't
even beat the damn Israelis.
>If the American people had dismantled the nation's standing army when
>the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have
>lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East
>with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones,
>bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have
>been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a "war on
>terrorism" for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT
>Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine,
>and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.
Bullshit. You think that the hatred comes because of standing army?
That is quite possibly the most simple-minded thing I have ever seen
on Usenet.
>Finally, but certainly important, despite being the most powerful
>standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to
>protect Americans from terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two
>terrorist attacks on the same target - the World Trade Center, first
>in 1993 and then again in 2001.
Ah, but the military is, by law, prevented from being involved in
domestic law enforcement. And the reason the 9/11 planes weren't shot
down?
You're going to love this.
Really.
The reason we didn't intercept the 9/11 planes was because we had
closed NORAD alert bases because of the end of the Soviet threat!
Don't you just love it?
>3. The federal government
>
>As our Founding Fathers understood so well, the primary threat to our
>freedom lies with our own government. That's in fact why we have the
>Constitution and the Bill of Rights - to protect us and our freedoms
>from federal officials. If the federal government did not constitute
>such an enormous threat to our freedoms, there would be no reason to
>have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
>
>Yet, what is the primary means by which a government takes away the
>freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer:
>its military forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers
>opposed a standing, professional military force in America - they
>knew not only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in
>costly, senseless, and destructive wars abroad but also that government
>officials would inevitably use the troops to ensure a compliant and
>obedient citizenry at home.
Our founding fathers also approved of salvery, and were living in an
age where the difference between soldiers and civilans was slim. There
was no need for a standing army in thos edays, since militia could do
the job.
That changed. About the time of the Civil War. Better technology,
changing tactics.. it became clear that we needed a larger
professional force. The militia became the National Guard.
By WWI, the US had settled on a small professional regular Army backed
by a large National Guard. That served us well, and continues to do
so.
The US Army has, as of 2005, 489,971 persons on active duty. That's
out of a population of about 300 million. Add up all the members of
the armed forces, active and reserves, and only about 1% of our
population is in uniform. Hardly a huge force.
>Consider the words of James Madison:
>
>A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be
>safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger
>have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans
>it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
>apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the
>pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
He was writing when the standard military arm was a breech-loading
musket. Things have changed just a bit.
>Here's how Patrick Henry put it:
>
>A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands
>of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be
>punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match
>for a disciplined regiment?
So, list the armed rebellions by US military units since 1783. Go
ahead.
>Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to deploy against the
>American people and take away our freedoms?
If those people are in armed rebellion against the US, yes.
>There is no doubt about it. Of course they would, especially if the
>president told them that our "freedom and national security"
>depended on it, which he would.
Can you back that up?
>As I suggested in my article, "The Troops Don't Support the
>Constitution," in the United States the loyalty of the troops is to
>the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the
>Constitution. Recent evidence of this point, as I observed in my
>article, was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders
>to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to
>secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.
Funny, but the oath I took was to defend the Constitution, and my
first day in training I was told what an illegal order was.
Again, Congress authorized the mission.
>What if the president ordered the troops to deploy across the United
>States and to round up "terrorists" and incarcerate them in
>military camps, both here and in Cuba? Again, there can be no doubt
>that most of the troops would willingly obey the president's orders,
>especially in the middle of a "crisis" or "emergency" because
>they view themselves as professional soldiers whose job is to serve the
>president and not to question why but simply to do or die.
Actually, that would be a violation of Federal law. As such, no
officer worth his salt would obey it.
>Another good example of the allegiance that the troops have toward the
>president involves the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Labeling
>Padilla a "terrorist," the president ordered the troops to take him
>into military custody, deny him access to an attorney, and punish him
>without a trial and due process of law. The troops obeyed without
>question. Do you know any troops who have publicly protested the
>Padilla incarceration or who have resigned from the army in protest?
>How many have publicly announced, "I refuse to participate in the
>Padilla incarceration because I took an oath to support and defend the
>Constitution"?
Padilla was arrested by the FBI,m part of the Depratment of Justice
and not part of the US Military.
>Indeed, how many of the troops resigned in protest at the president's
>orders to set up a prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, knowing that
>the reason he and the Pentagon chose Cuba, rather than the United
>States, was precisely to avoid the constraints of the Constitution?
Two that I know of.
>If the troops didn't protest with respect to Iraq or Padilla or
>Gitmo, what is the likelihood they would protest when their commander
>in chief ordered them to arrest 100 other Americans "terrorists,"
>or 1,000?
Except of course that Gitmo holds people captured overseas. Domestic
cases are held in federal prisons here in the states.
>I repeat: The troops, from the Pentagon on down, would not disobey
>orders of the president to disarm and arrest American "terrorists,"
>especially in the midst of a "crisis" or "emergency."
I love being painted with such a broad brush. I suppose all blacks
like fried chicken, all Jews are greedy and have hooked noses, etc..
>And even if some were to protest, they would be quickly shunted aside
>(probably punished as well) and replaced with those troops whose
>allegiance and loyalty to the president would be unquestioned.
Prove that allegation, please.
>Now it's true that soldiers are supposed to disobey unlawful orders,
>but as a practical matter most of the troops are not going to overrule
>the judgment of their commander in chief as to what is legal or not.
Ha! I've seen buck privates tell bird colonels to go stuff
themselves.
>Imagine that the president issues the following grave announcement on
>national television during prime time: "Our nation has come under
>another terrorist attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at
>stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately
>take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been
>identified by the FBI as having conspired to commit this dastardly
>attack or who have given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also
>ordered the JCS to take all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate
>weapons in the areas where these terrorists are believed to be hiding.
>These weapons will be returned to the owners once the terrorist threat
>has subsided. I am calling on all Americans to support the troops in
>these endeavors, just as you are supporting them in their fight against
>terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will prevail. God bless
>America."
The Army would refuse to take part in that mission on thye grounds
that it violates Posse Comitas and has not been authorized by
Congress.
>Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would disobey the orders of
>the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked and
>terrified Americans and the mainstream press were endorsing his
>martial-law orders?
Wow, you come up with the most amazing scenarios.
>The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would not consider it their
>job to determine the constitutionality of the president's orders.
>They would leave that for the courts to decide. Their professional
>allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would trump
>all other considerations, including their oath to "support and defend
>the Constitution."
Prove that none would diobey. Have you interviewed every single
American service member on the subject?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms
> by Jacob G. Hornberger
>
> How often do we hear the claim that American troops "defend our
> freedoms"? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed
> far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper
> columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It's even a
> common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.
>
> Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In fact, the situation is the exact
> opposite - the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both
> our freedoms and well-being are threatened.
Really? Do tell.
> Let's examine the three potential threats to our freedoms and the
> role that the troops play in them:
>
> 1. Foreign regimes
>
> Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a
> foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has
> the military capability of invading and conquering the United States.
> Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not
> anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer
> and "pacify" the entire nation would take millions of foreign
> troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them
> across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such
> resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the
> foreseeable future.
So our nation can only be threatened if an invasion comes to our
shores?
> After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most powerful military
> force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such a
> small country as Iraq because of the level of domestic resistance to a
> foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that would be
> needed to conquer and "pacify" a country as large and well-armed as
> the United States.
We don't shoot full-auto firearms into the air at weddings.
> I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the
> United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away
> our freedoms.
I repeat, "Our nation can only be threatened if an invasion comes to
our shores?"
Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our
> freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
Really? And if we were to stand down our military, do you think it
would open an opportunity for invasion?
Snipped the rest because you don't understand deterrence or national
interests overseas (oil). Best of luck with your ration of gray matter.
Brian E. Clark
Berry said...
> Our founding fathers also approved of slavery, and were living
> in an age where the difference between soldiers and civilians
> was slim.
Are you referring to the American experience alone? Certainly
Europe had seen standing, professional armies for centuries, and
Britain in particular had used them since the 1600s. The
frequent employment of standing armies to promote the interests
of the monarchy above the interests of the nobles (and barons
and people, etc.) was one reason the Founders spoke so strongly
against them: the Founder's fears were based on historical
experience.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Douglas Berry wrote:
> You're going to love this.
>
> Really.
>
> The reason we didn't intercept the 9/11 planes was because we had
> closed NORAD alert bases because of the end of the Soviet threat!
>
> Don't you just love it?
Alumni 20AD, Ft Lee AFS, VA. 1977-1979.
Chris Hayes
Douglas Berry wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and conn...@hotmail.com posting
> the following on 14 Feb 2006 11:20:35 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
> >The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms
> >by Jacob G. Hornberger
>
> >1. Foreign regimes
>
> (snip)
>
> >I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the
> >United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away
> >our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our
> >freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
>
> Let's pretned for a moment. It's 1920. And I tell you that Germany
> will, in about 20 years be able to not only attack its neighbors but
> overwhelmthem with such speed and ferocity that all of Europe will be
> under its sway in under two years.
>
> What would you say to that? German was beaten, defeated, broken in
> 1920. The idea that German could be a threat was ridiculous.
>
> So to assume that just because there is no threat today means there
> will never be one is just stupid.
>
It's equally stupid to have a large standing army when no credible
threat is around. Hence one of the reasons why the US military invaded
Iraq: to justify the existence of such a large standing army.
> >2. Terrorists
> >
> >Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that
> >terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government,
> >and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of
> >people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to
> >subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.
> >
> (snip)
>
> That's not their goal.
And hence, the military can't "defend" us. It's a law enforcement
issue.
> And after 9/11 it was the military that routed
> the Taliban and al Qaeda from their safe haven in Afghanistan.
>
What utter bullshit. The Taliban is still around in Afghanistan.
[moronic garbage snipped]
> >If the American people had dismantled the nation's standing army when
> >the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have
> >lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East
> >with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones,
> >bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have
> >been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a "war on
> >terrorism" for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT
> >Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine,
> >and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.
>
> Bullshit. You think that the hatred comes because of standing army?
>
> That is quite possibly the most simple-minded thing I have ever seen
> on Usenet.
>
You really need to learn how to read. That's not what was said.
> >Finally, but certainly important, despite being the most powerful
> >standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to
> >protect Americans from terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two
> >terrorist attacks on the same target - the World Trade Center, first
> >in 1993 and then again in 2001.
>
> Ah, but the military is, by law, prevented from being involved in
> domestic law enforcement.
Yet it's used here in the US for that purpose. Have you been paying
attention to the domestic spying scandal?
> And the reason the 9/11 planes weren't shot
> down?
>
> You're going to love this.
>
> Really.
>
> The reason we didn't intercept the 9/11 planes was because we had
> closed NORAD alert bases because of the end of the Soviet threat!
>
That's total bullshit. The mission of NORAD changed in 1989 in order
to prevent budget cuts.
> Don't you just love it?
>
I'd love it if you had a clue as to what you're talking about.
> >3. The federal government
> >
> >As our Founding Fathers understood so well, the primary threat to our
> >freedom lies with our own government. That's in fact why we have the
> >Constitution and the Bill of Rights - to protect us and our freedoms
> >from federal officials. If the federal government did not constitute
> >such an enormous threat to our freedoms, there would be no reason to
> >have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
> >
> >Yet, what is the primary means by which a government takes away the
> >freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer:
> >its military forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers
> >opposed a standing, professional military force in America - they
> >knew not only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in
> >costly, senseless, and destructive wars abroad but also that government
> >officials would inevitably use the troops to ensure a compliant and
> >obedient citizenry at home.
>
> Our founding fathers also approved of salvery, and were living in an
> age where the difference between soldiers and civilans was slim. There
> was no need for a standing army in thos edays, since militia could do
> the job.
>
Doesn't seem like there's much of a need for a standing army these days
either, given how it's being used in third world shitholes.
Really, you should at least come up with a rebuttal to the points
raised.
Chris Hayes
Indeed. They saw what standing armies did in Europe and given what's
transpired since WWII in America (since the military was vastly
expanded in a permanent "state of emergency"), they certainly sound
wise today.
wbarwell
> What's so funny about peace, love and conn...@hotmail.com posting
> the following on 14 Feb 2006 11:20:35 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms
>>by Jacob G. Hornberger
>
>>1. Foreign regimes
>
> (snip)
>
>>I repeat: No foreign nation has the military capability to invade the
>>United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away
>>our freedoms. Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our
>>freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
>
> Let's pretned for a moment. It's 1920. And I tell you that Germany
> will, in about 20 years be able to not only attack its neighbors but
> overwhelmthem with such speed and ferocity that all of Europe will be
> under its sway in under two years.
>
> What would you say to that? German was beaten, defeated, broken in
> 1920. The idea that German could be a threat was ridiculous.
>
Germany was an advanced nation with manufactoring know how.
They had 80 million in population. They had motivation
and organization. Even so, they could not defeat Russia,
much less invade the US.
There was no doubt Germany had the potential ability,
the error was in thinking Germany would stick to the
Vesailles treaty forbidding reaming.
Even victorious, it was unlikely they could actually
invade and defeat the US. We were not France or
Romania.
> So to assume that just because there is no threat today means there
> will never be one is just stupid.
>
>>2. Terrorists
>>
>>Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that
>>terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government,
>>and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of
>>people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to
>>subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.
>>
> (snip)
>
> That's not their goal. And after 9/11 it was the military that routed
> the Taliban and al Qaeda from their safe haven in Afghanistan.
>
>>Then along came the Pentagon's old ally, Saddam Hussein, to whom the
>>United States had even entrusted weapons of mass destruction to use
>>against the Iranian people, and gave America's standing army a new
>>raison d'être. Invading Kuwait over an oil-drilling dispute, Saddam
--
"If I saw a man beating a tied up horse, I could
not prove it was wrong, but I'd know it was wrong."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
Chris Hayes
Militarily, yes. Invading armies is what the US military is specially
built to take care of.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
How do we deal with the concepts of "force projection" and "global
reach?"
Chris Hayes
You don't. The American military should only be used for DEFENSE, not
killing people in their own countries because some political critter
wants to make a fast buck.
Don
> I've lived there. They do hate our freedoms, especially freedom of
> religion. They hate the fact that we have p-lenty, while they live in
> poverty. They hate the fact that we keep winning, while they can't
> even beat the damn Israelis.
This is the stupidest thing I've read in quite awhile.
Clearly this person is addicted to TV and hasn't the sense to realize the
damage caused by it.
Morton Davis
"Chris Hayes" <hay...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139971414.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Unless, of course, they're DEMOCTRATS, eh?
Spaz
THANKS!!!
Tank Fixer
on 14 Feb 2006 11:40:21 -0800,
conn...@hotmail.com conn...@hotmail.com attempted to say .....
>
> redc1c4 is a loser.
Hell we knew that.
But at least he doesn't have pretension of impotence by making up some
foundation and naming himself president of it..
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Tank Fixer
on Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:55:20 GMT,
Don one-if-...@concord.com attempted to say .....
Sorry but I trust Doug's judgement much more than I do yours...
Some Guy
[snip]
In the future, please mark your off-topic posts appropriately. I know
you're probably not smart enough to figure out how to not cross-post,
but that will at least help. Thanks.
Don
> Douglas Berry wrote:
>> >Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is no possibility that
>> >terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government,
>> >and take away our freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of
>> >people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the military forces to
>> >subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.
>>
>
> And hence, the military can't "defend" us. It's a law enforcement
> issue.
Neither can, nor are responsible for, protect[ing] *us*.
See if you can figure out why.
Reference: 9-11
Don
> Don > wrote
>> "Douglas Berry"> wrote
>> > I've lived there. They do hate our freedoms, especially freedom of
>> > religion. They hate the fact that we have p-lenty, while they live in
>> > poverty. They hate the fact that we keep winning, while they can't
>> > even beat the damn Israelis.
>>
>> This is the stupidest thing I've read in quite awhile.
>> Clearly this person is addicted to TV and hasn't the sense to realize the
>> damage caused by it.
>
> Sorry but I trust Doug's judgement much more than I do yours...
Well, if wanna be his sock puppet, knock yourself out.
Don
> conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a
>> foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has
>> the military capability of invading and conquering the United States.
>> Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not
>> anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer
>> and "pacify" the entire nation would take millions of foreign
>> troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them
>> across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such
>> resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the
>> foreseeable future.
>
> So our nation can only be threatened if an invasion comes to our
> shores?
You're talking about abstractions, be more specific.
Define: *our nation*.
Don
>> shores?
>
> Militarily, yes. Invading armies is what the US military is specially
> built to take care of.
Its little more than a social experiment, gone wrong, and has been that way
for decades at least.
Don
> How do we deal with the concepts of "force projection" and "global
> reach?"
Again, you're talking in abstractions.
Define: *we*.
Clue: You, nor anyone else, gets to speak for me.
Don
> "Chris Hayes"> wrote
>> You don't. The American military should only be used for DEFENSE, not
>> killing people in their own countries because some political critter
>> wants to make a fast buck.
>>
> Unless, of course, they're DEMOCTRATS, eh?
Pay attention.
Acts of immorality happen on both sides of the aisle.
Keep that in mind the next time you feel compelled to choose a new master.
Don
> Looks to me like you just made the best case yet for banning guns!
The only person you get to ban guns from is yourself.
Tank Fixer
on Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:23:30 GMT,
Don one-if-...@concord.com attempted to say .....
> "Tank Fixer"> wrote
Oh my, the dreaded sock puppet insult
Some Guy
Douglas Berry wrote:
[snip]
> Ah, but the military is, by law, prevented from being involved in
> domestic law enforcement. And the reason the 9/11 planes weren't shot
> down?
>
> You're going to love this.
>
> Really.
>
> The reason we didn't intercept the 9/11 planes was because we had
> closed NORAD alert bases because of the end of the Soviet threat!
>
> Don't you just love it?
>
Actually, that's not true. The reason we didn't intercept the plane is
that all the middle-management suits in government sat on their thumbs
and failed to do their jobs while the people on the bottom were trying
their best to keep things from falling apart. The planes were in fact
scrambled in a timely manner but no one told them where to go.
Some highlights from this excellent summary:
http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/terrorism/september_11/
demonstrate why no amount of "alert bases" would have helped.
* * * * *
8:24 On American 11, Mohammed Atta accidentally depresses the "talk"
button the radio while trying to address passengers on the intercom,
broadcasting the message: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and
you'll be O.K. We are returning to the airport."
8:25 Atta radios: "Nobody move. Everything will be O.K. If you try to
make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay
quiet." Air traffic control realizes the flight has been hijacked.
8:28 Boston air traffic controllers inform FAA Command Center in
Herndon, Va., that American 11 has been hijacked and is headed toward
New York City airspace.
8:32 FAA Command Center informs FAA headquarters (inexplicably not
the same thing) that American 11 may have been hijacked. FAA is supposed
to call in the military. It doesn't.
* * * * *
8:34 Boston controllers take it on themselves to call the military.
8:37 United Airlines Flight 175 tells Boston controllers that it saw
American 11 fly past.
8:38 Boston controllers reach the Northeast Air Defense Sector of
NORAD. NORAD is conducting a security training exercise at the time, and
the call is initially believed to be part of the drill.
8:40 Someone at the FAA thinks to call Northeast Air Defense Sector
of NORAD. The following exchange takes place:
FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked
aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need
someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
NORAD: Is this real-world or exercise?
FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
* * * * *
8:46 NORAD orders two F-15s to scramble.
8:46 Twenty minutes after Atta's voice was first heard announcing the
hijacking, no one in the White House or with the President knows that
American 11 was hijacked nor do they know that fighter jets are scrambling.
8:46 American 11 slams into Tower 1 of the World Trade Center and is
gone.
* * * * *
8:52 Four companies of NYC firemen arrive at WTC Tower 1.
8:52 Two F-15s lift off from Otis Air Base in Massachusetts, but they
don't know where they're going once they get into the air.
* * * * *
8:56 NY controllers try to inform their managers that another plane
has been hijacked, but they're in a meeting to talk about the first one
and refuse to take the call.
8:56 American 77 turns off its transponder. Air traffic controllers
in Indianapolis realize they've lost track of the flight. The
controllers are not, however, aware that any airplanes have been
hijacked this fine morning.
* * * * *
9:00 CIA Director George Tenet enjoys a leisurely breakfast with
former Senator David Boren at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C.
9:00 Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers
enters a self-promoting meeting with Sen. Max Cleland in Washington,
D.C. He remains in the meeting for 45 minutes, oblivious to the attack
unfolding in America, according to James Bamford.
9:00 At this moment, there are more than 4,200 airplanes in flight
over U.S. airspace.
* * * * *
9:01 NY air traffic controller tells FAA command center: "We have
several situations going on here. It's escalating big, big time. We need
to get the military involved with us... We're, we're involved with
something else, we have other aircraft that may have a similar situation
going on here..." This is what passes for notification to the FAA that
United 175 has been hijacked.
9:02 Barbara Olsen, a passenger on Flight 77, calls her husband
Theodore Olsen, a top official in the Justice Department, and tells him
the flight has been hijacked.
9:03 United 175 crashes into Tower Two of the World Trade Center.
9:03 Exactly too late to do anything about it, NORAD is informed that
a second plane has been hijacked.
* * * * *
9:04 Having seen the second plane crash on TV, Cheney and aides in
the White House suddenly realize through the power of deductive
reasoning that the first crash wasn't an accident... despite having
received no information through official channels a full 40 minutes
after Mohammed Atta first announced on an open mike that American 11 had
been hijacked.
9:04 Using the power of deductive reasoning, Bush determines he
should go hang out with the elementary school students. Bush later
claims the crash he saw on TV one minute earlier was the FIRST plane,
but the video of the first crash did not air until much later in the day.
* * * * *
9:04 Around this time, Lt. General Michael Hayden, chief of the
National Security Agency, learns of the attacks. The leader of America's
early warning intelligence system gets the information from an aide who
saw it on CNN, according to Bamford.
* * * * *
9:06-9:10 Boston controllers ordered to inform all pilots in the air
to heighten cockpit security. Boston suggests to the FAA that this
instruction be given nationwide, but the FAA simply ignores this very
good suggestion.
9:10 Around this time, the head of the National Security Agency - the
primary early-warning intelligence service for the U.S. - learns that a
second airplane has hit the World Trade Centers and that America is
under attack... not from a fancy satellite monitor, or a secure
COM-SIG-INT intercept, but from watching CNN.
* * * * *
9:08 NORAD learns that the second plane has crashed into the WTC. The
commander on duty says "We need to talk to FAA. We need to tell 'em if
this stuff is gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters, put
'em over Manhattan. That's best thing, that's the best play right now.
So coordinate with the FAA. Tell 'em if there's more out there, which we
don't know, let's get 'em over Manhattan. At least we got some kind of
play."
9:08-9:13 Despite the grand intentions in the preceding quote, the
F-15s spend the next several minutes circling off of Long Island, not
receiving any orders to actually do anything.
* * * * *
9:15 While leaderless Air Force pilots continue to fly around
pointlessly, Bush FINALLY gets out of his chair and works his way to the
door. There are conflicting accounts about how long this takes. In an
adjoining room, he is briefed by his staff, which is getting its
information off the TV. Bush decides to return to Washington. (More on
this decision below.)
* * * * *
9:21 The following exchange takes place between the FAA and NORAD,
referring to American Flight 11 which crashed into the WTC more than
half an hour earlier.
FAA: Military, Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is
still in the air, and it's on its way towards - heading towards Washington.
NORAD: Okay. American 11 is still in the air?
FAA: Yes.
NORAD: On its way towards Washington?
FAA: That was another - it was evidently another aircraft that hit the
tower. That's the latest report we have.
9:23 NORAD scrambles fighters from Langley Air Force Base to
Washington on a mission to shoot down American 11. Which is, as
previously noted, has already crashed into the World Trade Center.
9:25 Regional FAA officials tell FAA headquarters about the missing
American 77, fully sixteen minutes after they first got the call from
Indianapolis.
* * * * *
9:30 Fighters take off from Langley, as per orders from NORAD. They
fly to Baltimore so they can intercept American 11, which is already
crashed into the World Trade Center, instead of flying to Virginia,
where they might have a chance of intercepting American 77, which is
coming in from the West.
* * * * *
9:30 Around this time, CIA Director Tenet has his breakfast
interrupted, a full hour after Mohammed Atta announced his hijacking
over an open mike. "I wonder if it has anything to do with this guy
taking pilot training," he says on hearing the news.
* * * * *
9:34 While telling NORAD to watch out for the still-crashed American
11, the FAA mentions to NORAD that American 77 is also missing. This is
the very first time NORAD has heard about American 77.
* * * * *
9:37 NORAD discovers that the planes it thought were over Baltimore
are actually out over the ocean, due to the fact that no one gave the
pilots clear orders about where to go.
* * * * *
9:41 Boston air traffic controllers tell NORAD that Delta 1989 might
have been hijacked. It wasn't, but NORAD orders fighters to intercept it
anyway. It lands without event.
* * * * *
9:42 FAA Command Center learns that the Pentagon has been hit, not
from any of the dozens of government sources now working on the
emergency, but once again, from the TV.
* * * * *
9:45 The Secret Service decides it's too dangerous for the president
to return to Washington. For posterity, the 9/11 commission found that
"All witnesses agreed that the President strongly wanted to return to
Washington and only grudgingly agreed to go elsewhere." OK, man. Keep
your dignity.
9:45 Bush calls Cheney from Air Force One on the ground. Bush says:
"Sounds like we have a minor war going on here, I heard about the
Pentagon. We're at war... somebody's going to pay." Cheney urges Bush
not to return to Washington. (All witnesses agreed that every cell in
Bush's virile, courageous, sweaty body screamed out against this advice
and that he yearned instead to throw himself personally into the fray,
even volunteering to fly the fighter planes himself.)
* * * * *
9:49 FAA Command Center speculates that someone at FAA headquarters
should really get around to deciding whether to request military
assistance. The following exchange takes place, marking what one can
only hope will go down in history as the all-time low point in the
history of government bureaucracy:
COMMAND CENTER: Uh, do we want to think about, uh, scrambling aircraft?
FAA HEADQUARTERS: Uh, God, I don't know.
COMMAND CENTER: Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make
probably in the next ten minutes.
FAA HEADQUARTERS: Uh, ya know, everybody just left the room.
9:49 NORAD orders all U.S. military aircraft in the country to
battlestations.
* * * * *
9:53 FAA bureaucrats continue to discuss whether to request that
fighters intercept United 93.
9:54 FAA command center loses radar contact with United 93.
* * * * *
9:59 The Deputy National Security adviser requests could someone,
somewhere, please start working on ensuring the continuity of
government, that someone produce fighters to escort Air Force One to
where ever it's going, and that a fighter combat air patrol be put into
place over Washington, DC.
* * * * *
10:00 Cheney enters White House shelter's conference room. Somewhere
around this time, Cheney supposedly calls Bush to ask for authorization
to let U.S. fighters shoot down civilian aircraft that refuse to divert
away from high-value targets. Supposedly, Bush agrees to this. We all
know Cheney would never give such an order without Bush's permission.
For the record, however, there is no independent documentation of this
conversation.
10:00 Bush contacts Donald Rumsfeld, who is technically second in
the chain of command between Bush and the armed forces. They do not
discuss the possibility of shooting down civilian planes, and Bush does
not convey any such authorization to Rumsfeld.
* * * * *
10:03 United 93 crashes in western Pennsylvania.
10:07 The NORAD representative on the Air Threat teleconference
announces: "NORAD has no indication of a hijack heading to Washington DC
at this time." This statement is technically correct only by virtue of
incompetence, since NORAD never knew anything was heading for Washington.
10:07 Four minutes after it is no longer an issue, NORAD is informed
by Cleveland control that United 93 has been hijacked. Luckily for FAA
headquarters, it is now an academic point that they FORGOT to call for
military assistance to prevent United 93 from crashing into a major
government building, as would almost certainly have happened if not for
the passengers rising up against the hijackers.
* * * * *
10:08 FAA headquarters informed that United 93 may have crashed.
10:08 NORAD continues to search for United 93 in the air, because no
one has informed them that it may have crashed.
10:10 NORAD informs fighter pilots they do NOT have "clearance to
shoot" aircraft over Washington, D.C.
* * * * *
10:11 A military aide asks Cheney whether fighter pilots can shoot
down an "incoming" aircraft (United 93, which has actually been on the
ground for 10 minutes). Without batting an eye, Cheney approves the
shootdown. Later, he says, "I didn't agonize over it."
10:15 Air traffic controllers in Washington, D.C. tell NORAD that
United 93 is "down."
10:16 The military aide returns to the White House shelter and again
asks Cheney if fighter planes are authorized to shoot down incoming
aircraft. Cheney authorizes the shootdown a second time.
10:17 A civilian aide suggests that Cheney might want to check in
with the president about the whole shooting down incoming aircraft
things, since no one (except Cheney and the President) has witnessed any
sort of prior conversation on this topic.
* * * * *
10:17 An FAA official joins the "Air Threat" teleconference.
According to the 9/11 commission, "the FAA representative who joined the
call had no familiarity with or responsibility for a hijack situation,
had no access to decisionmakers, and had none of the information
available to senior FAA officials by that time."
10:18 Despite the president supposedly having previously authorized
the shootdown of incoming planes, Cheney calls Air Force One and asks.
Uh, that is, he asks "again."
10:20 This time, someone actually remembers to write down that the
president has authorized NORAD to shoot down incoming planes.
* * * * *
10:23 This is the latest that United 93 would have actually reached
the Capitol or White House, had it not actually crashed 20 minutes
earlier. At this moment in time - the last possible minute a kamikaze
attack could have been prevented - the fighters in D.C. airspace have
not received authorization to fire on civilian planes.
* * * * *
10:30 Faced with a report of another hijacked plane coming in fast,
Cheney for the third time orders the military to shoot down any incoming
aircraft. The incoming target is later determined to be a Medevac
helicopter. It is not shot down.
* * * * *
10:31 Nearly half an hour after the last hijacked airplane has
crashed, NORAD is finally informed that it has authorization to shoot
down hijacked airplanes. An internal NORAD text message reads: "Vice
president has cleared to us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot
them down if they do not respond." Most NORAD operators are confused by
the message, so it is never actually sent to the pilots of the fighters
in Washington D.C. and New York City airspace.
* * * * *
10:33 Two hours and 20 minutes since the first hijacking began, the
federal government has failed to execute a single action that in any
measurable way prevented or contained any aspect of the biggest
terrorist attack in the history of America.
10:34 A second chance to go back in time and do something, ANYTHING,
to prevent or contain the attack fails to materialize.
Chris Hayes
You must have mistaken me for being a partisan hack like yourself. I
don't root for either party, but there's no denying the GOP is worse
right now (since they're in charge).
Chris Hayes
Indeed, the government's job is not about protecting or serving the
citizens unfortunate to live under it. Government's job is control.
In any case, even if one accepts that the government should go after
terrorists (they should at least make a half-assed attempt because
they're bad people), LEOs will have far more success getting them
without killing thousands of civiliains than the military. The
military's built to kill large amounts of people and break lots of
things. Not exactly subtle.
Law enforcement/"intelligence" agencies (like the CIA, DIA, etc) are
designed to gather info and do small scale things without causing much
of a disturbance.
Michael Gray
- Refer: <1139944834....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms
Oh, Der.
One for the "Bleeding obvious" file.
Who the fuck ever thought they served anyone's interest but the elite
of the U.S.?
Ever?
Chris Hayes
Have you been paying attention to, say, the mainstream media in the US?
I've never heard the media ever imply the troops aren't out
"protecting us" or "defending our freedoms." Heck, in some places,
even saying you don't believe the troops are "defending our freedoms"
could get you assaulted (or at the very least, ostracised).
redc1c4
>
> In article <1139946021.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> on 14 Feb 2006 11:40:21 -0800,
> conn...@hotmail.com conn...@hotmail.com attempted to say .....
>
> >
> > redc1c4 is a loser.
>
> Hell we knew that.
> But at least he doesn't have pretension of impotence by making up some
> foundation and naming himself president of it..
hey now..... i have a really kewl hat.
redc1c4,
(2, if'n yer lame enough to count the beret. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
redc1c4
just out of curiosity, can you actually speak english?
redc1c4,
(who's guessing the answer is "no, not really." %-)
redc1c4
anyone who's IQ is slightly larger than yours.....
redc1c4,
like my cats, for instance. %-)
Don
"Tank Fixer" <paul.deek...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e5c5fead...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <mVyIf.11581$Nv2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> on Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:23:30 GMT,
> Don one-if-...@concord.com attempted to say .....
>
>> "Tank Fixer"> wrote
>> > Don > wrote
>> >> "Douglas Berry"> wrote
>> >> > I've lived there. They do hate our freedoms, especially freedom of
>> >> > religion. They hate the fact that we have p-lenty, while they live
>> >> > in
>> >> > poverty. They hate the fact that we keep winning, while they can't
>> >> > even beat the damn Israelis.
>> >>
>> >> This is the stupidest thing I've read in quite awhile.
>> >> Clearly this person is addicted to TV and hasn't the sense to realize
>> >> the
>> >> damage caused by it.
>> >
>> > Sorry but I trust Doug's judgement much more than I do yours...
>>
>> Well, if wanna be his sock puppet, knock yourself out.
>
> Oh my, the dreaded sock puppet insult
So he knocks himself out.
Don
> Don wrote:
>>
>> hot-ham-and-cheese> wrote
>> > How do we deal with the concepts of "force projection" and "global
>> > reach?"
>>
>> Again, you're talking in abstractions.
>> Define: *we*.
>> Clue: You, nor anyone else, gets to speak for me.
>
> just out of curiosity, can you actually speak english?
No doubt the simplistic writings of the Constitution give you trouble too.
Welcome to the drunken bastards club.
Don
> Heck, in some places,
> even saying you don't believe the troops are "defending our freedoms"
> could get you assaulted (or at the very least, ostracised).
Please.
The people that spout that diatribe are too comfortable blobbing out on the
couch to concern themselves with assaulting anyone.
If they get to blubbering too loud just hand them another 12 pack and a box
of greasy wings.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > How often do we hear the claim that American troops "defend our
> > > > > freedoms"? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed
> > > > > far and wide across the land by television commentators, newspaper
> > > > > columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It's even a
> > > > > common assertion that emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In fact, the situation is the exact
> > > > > opposite - the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both
> > > > > our freedoms and well-being are threatened.
> > > >
> > > > Really? Do tell.
> > > >
> > > > > Let's examine the three potential threats to our freedoms and the
> > > > > role that the troops play in them:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Foreign regimes
> > > > >
> > > > > Every competent military analyst would tell us that the threat of a
> > > > > foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has
> > > > > the military capability of invading and conquering the United States.
> > > > > Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Syria. Not
> > > > > anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer
> > > > > and "pacify" the entire nation would take millions of foreign
> > > > > troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them
> > > > > across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such
> > > > > resources or military capabilities and no nation will have them for the
> > > > > foreseeable future.
> > > >
> > > > shores?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Militarily, yes. Invading armies is what the US military is specially
> > > built to take care of.
> >
> > reach?"
>
You do. That is what the USA military is designed to do.
> The American military should only be used for DEFENSE, not
> killing people in their own countries because some political critter
> wants to make a fast buck.
That is your opionion and does not reflect the reality of the situation.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Don wrote:
> hot-ham-and-cheese> wrote
> > How do we deal with the concepts of "force projection" and "global
> > reach?"
>
> Again, you're talking in abstractions.
Not abstract. It is the reality of today's US military. Has been
since the Spanish American War.
> Define: *we*.
The people involved in this discussion.
> Clue: You, nor anyone else, gets to speak for me.
Clue: I asked a question. I didn't put words in your mouth.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
A flotilla of Egyptian boats.
> Define: *our nation*.
The one we are discussing.
Michael Gray
<red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
- Refer: <43F2F5AB...@drunkenbastards.org.ies>
>Michael Gray wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Feb 2006 11:20:35 -0800, conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> - Refer: <1139944834....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>> >The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms
>> :
>>
>> Oh, Der.
>> One for the "Bleeding obvious" file.
>> Who the fuck ever thought they served anyone's interest but the elite
>> of the U.S.?
>> Ever?
>
>anyone who's IQ is slightly larger than yours.....
That assertion is not supported by any facts whatsoever.
You propose that their ignorance of reality is caused by having an
I.Q. marginally greater than mine?
Do you know how blitheringly stupid your assertion is?
I guess I shouldn't have expected much better from a coward who
doesn't use their real name, and hides behind an assumed epithet;
which reads in part as: 'drunkenbastards orgies'.
Douglas Berry
<one-if-...@concord.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
02:55:20 GMT iin alt.atheism?
>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
>> I've lived there. They do hate our freedoms, especially freedom of
>> religion. They hate the fact that we have p-lenty, while they live in
>> poverty. They hate the fact that we keep winning, while they can't
>> even beat the damn Israelis.
>
>This is the stupidest thing I've read in quite awhile.
>Clearly this person is addicted to TV and hasn't the sense to realize the
>damage caused by it.
LOL! Coinsidering I didn't even have one for the past year, that's an
interesting claim.
As I stated, I have lived in Islamic countries, and seen the culture
up close. How about you?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Tank Fixer
on Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:26:00 GMT,
redc1c4 red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies attempted to say .....
> Tank Fixer wrote:
> >
> > In article <1139946021.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > on 14 Feb 2006 11:40:21 -0800,
> > conn...@hotmail.com conn...@hotmail.com attempted to say .....
> >
> > >
> > > redc1c4 is a loser.
> >
> > Hell we knew that.
> > But at least he doesn't have pretension of impotence by making up some
> > foundation and naming himself president of it..
>
> hey now..... i have a really kewl hat.
>
> redc1c4,
> (2, if'n yer lame enough to count the beret. %-)
Relegated to the back shelf unless I happen to wear my class A's
Which I avoid doing like a plague
Tank Fixer
on Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:00:09 GMT,
Don one-if-...@concord.com attempted to say .....
>
> "Tank Fixer" <paul.deek...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e5c5fead...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <mVyIf.11581$Nv2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > on Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:23:30 GMT,
> > Don one-if-...@concord.com attempted to say .....
> >
> >> "Tank Fixer"> wrote
> >> > Don > wrote
> >> >> "Douglas Berry"> wrote
> >> >> > I've lived there. They do hate our freedoms, especially freedom of
> >> >> > religion. They hate the fact that we have p-lenty, while they live
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > poverty. They hate the fact that we keep winning, while they can't
> >> >> > even beat the damn Israelis.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is the stupidest thing I've read in quite awhile.
> >> >> Clearly this person is addicted to TV and hasn't the sense to realize
> >> >> the
> >> >> damage caused by it.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry but I trust Doug's judgement much more than I do yours...
> >>
> >> Well, if wanna be his sock puppet, knock yourself out.
> >
> > Oh my, the dreaded sock puppet insult
>
> So he knocks himself out.
Wow, such wit and grace.
Must be an ivy league boi
Malachias Invictus
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:caxIf.768605$x96.242485@attbi_s72...
>
> "Chris Hayes" <hay...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139971414.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> > How do we deal with the concepts of "force projection" and "global
>> > reach?"
>>
>> killing people in their own countries because some political critter
>> wants to make a fast buck.
>>
No. They are, for the most part, scumbag plutocrats as well.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Douglas Berry
<hay...@fadmail.com> posting the following on 14 Feb 2006 16:45:14
-0800 iin alt.atheism?
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> Let's pretned for a moment. It's 1920. And I tell you that Germany
>> will, in about 20 years be able to not only attack its neighbors but
>> overwhelmthem with such speed and ferocity that all of Europe will be
>> under its sway in under two years.
>>
>> What would you say to that? German was beaten, defeated, broken in
>> 1920. The idea that German could be a threat was ridiculous.
>>
>> So to assume that just because there is no threat today means there
>> will never be one is just stupid.
>
>It's equally stupid to have a large standing army when no credible
>threat is around. Hence one of the reasons why the US military invaded
>Iraq: to justify the existence of such a large standing army.
We don't have a large standing army. I you haven't noticed, our Guard
and Reserves elements are doing the brunt of the work in Iraq. Since
the end of the Cold War we've been shrinking the size of the active
duty force.
In 2005 we had 489,971 soldier on active duty.
In 1995: 521,036
In 1985: 776,244
The only branch of the Armed Forces which hasn't shrunk over the last
twenty years is the United States Marine Corps which has averaged
around 175,000 Marines over the period.
Now, please address my point. If it was too subtle for you, let me be
clear.
We don't know what threats may come tomorrow, or next week, or next
century. After WWI we basically dismantled our army, and failed to
keep up in terms of technology. So when we were attacked by a
carrier-centered navy in 1941, we were not ready. Our first
experiences in combat at Kasserine Pass were a fiasco. We learned the
hard way.
>> That's not their goal.
>
>And hence, the military can't "defend" us. It's a law enforcement
>issue.
The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
you deal with the crime caused by the house?
a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
>> And after 9/11 it was the military that routed
>> the Taliban and al Qaeda from their safe haven in Afghanistan.
>
>What utter bullshit. The Taliban is still around in Afghanistan.
Actually, they're mostly in Pakistan these days. On the run,
dusunited, and not able to proivide a safe haven for terrorists.
>[moronic garbage snipped]
I love you too. Nice to see you avoiding discussions.
>> >If the American people had dismantled the nation's standing army when
>> >the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have
>> >lacked the military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East
>> >with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions, no-fly zones,
>> >bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have
>> >been the terrorists attacks against the United States and a "war on
>> >terrorism" for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT
>> >Act, secret search warrants and secret courts, the Padilla doctrine,
>> >and other federal infringements on our rights and freedoms.
>>
>> Bullshit. You think that the hatred comes because of standing army?
>>
>> That is quite possibly the most simple-minded thing I have ever seen
>> on Usenet.
>
>You really need to learn how to read. That's not what was said.
Americans were targets *before* Desert Shield. You seem to ignore
that fact.
>> Ah, but the military is, by law, prevented from being involved in
>> domestic law enforcement.
>
>Yet it's used here in the US for that purpose. Have you been paying
>attention to the domestic spying scandal?
Yes, and that would be the National Security Agency. Which is *not*
part of the Armed Forces. It is a civilian agency.
Do you understand the difference between civilian and military?
>> And the reason the 9/11 planes weren't shot
>> down?
>>
>> You're going to love this.
>>
>> Really.
>>
>> The reason we didn't intercept the 9/11 planes was because we had
>> closed NORAD alert bases because of the end of the Soviet threat!
>
>That's total bullshit. The mission of NORAD changed in 1989 in order
>to prevent budget cuts.
And under those changes several bases were closed and the number of
planes on ready alert were slashed.
>> Our founding fathers also approved of slavery, and were living in an
>> age where the difference between soldiers and civilans was slim. There
>> was no need for a standing army in those days, since militia could do
>> the job.
>
>Doesn't seem like there's much of a need for a standing army these days
>either, given how it's being used in third world shitholes.
Having been in several of those shitholes during my service, I can
tell you we do an important job there.
>Really, you should at least come up with a rebuttal to the points
>raised.
So, facts don't count?
Douglas Berry
<wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> posting the following on Tue, 14 Feb 2006
19:20:55 -0600 iin alt.atheism?
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>> Let's pretned for a moment. It's 1920. And I tell you that Germany
>> will, in about 20 years be able to not only attack its neighbors but
>> overwhelmthem with such speed and ferocity that all of Europe will be
>> under its sway in under two years.
>>
>> What would you say to that? German was beaten, defeated, broken in
>> 1920. The idea that German could be a threat was ridiculous.
>>
>
>Germany was an advanced nation with manufactoring know how.
>They had 80 million in population. They had motivation
>and organization. Even so, they could not defeat Russia,
>much less invade the US.
My point was that you cannot say that there is never going to be
another threat. Hell, back in the day I saw warplans dealing with a
Mexican invasion of the American Southwest!
Everyone thought that Germany would never again be a threat. They
even called the conflict of 1914-1918 "The War To End All Wars." They
were wrong.
>There was no doubt Germany had the potential ability,
>the error was in thinking Germany would stick to the
>Vesailles treaty forbidding reaming.
>
>Even victorious, it was unlikely they could actually
>invade and defeat the US. We were not France or
>Romania.
Had Hitler listened to his Generals, we might have had to deal with a
victorious Germany controlling all of Europe from France to the
Ukraine.
Malachias Invictus
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:32s6v1tpdu6fme9qe...@4ax.com...
> The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
> law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
> you deal with the crime caused by the house?
>
> a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
>
> b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
Guess which one we chose?
Douglas Berry
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
10:57:15 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>news:32s6v1tpdu6fme9qe...@4ax.com...
>
>> The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
>> law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
>> you deal with the crime caused by the house?
>>
>> a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
>>
>> b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
>
>or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
>
>Guess which one we chose?
So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
Malachias Invictus
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
> 10:57:15 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>
>>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:32s6v1tpdu6fme9qe...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
>>> law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
>>> you deal with the crime caused by the house?
>>>
>>> a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
>>>
>>> b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
>>
>>or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
>>
>>Guess which one we chose?
>
> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
I never claimed we did. However, we *did* bomb markets and shopping malls,
as just one example.
I guess we had better burn down the grocery store where the crack dealers
buy their beer and snacks, and the mall where they get their clothes.
That'll teach 'em.
Chris Hayes
Then drop those two parts of the mission.
> > The American military should only be used for DEFENSE, not
> > killing people in their own countries because some political critter
> > wants to make a fast buck.
>
> That is your opionion and does not reflect the reality of the situation.
Oh puh-lease. If you want an empire, just say so. But don't go around
saying this bullshit that the US military is "defending" the US. The
reality of the situation is that most of the US military is totally
unnecessary.
Chris Hayes
Douglas Berry wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Chris Hayes"
> <hay...@fadmail.com> posting the following on 14 Feb 2006 16:45:14
> -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
> >Douglas Berry wrote:
> >
> >> Let's pretned for a moment. It's 1920. And I tell you that Germany
> >> will, in about 20 years be able to not only attack its neighbors but
> >> overwhelmthem with such speed and ferocity that all of Europe will be
> >> under its sway in under two years.
> >>
> >> What would you say to that? German was beaten, defeated, broken in
> >> 1920. The idea that German could be a threat was ridiculous.
> >>
> >> So to assume that just because there is no threat today means there
> >> will never be one is just stupid.
> >
> >It's equally stupid to have a large standing army when no credible
> >threat is around. Hence one of the reasons why the US military invaded
> >Iraq: to justify the existence of such a large standing army.
>
> We don't have a large standing army. I you haven't noticed, our Guard
> and Reserves elements are doing the brunt of the work in Iraq. Since
> the end of the Cold War we've been shrinking the size of the active
> duty force.
>
You're stupid, aren't you? The US spends around 500 billion a year on
its military. Its military forces far exceed any threats to our
nation. That's why they're doing all their fighting in *foreign*
lands.
If you want to worship the government blindly, go ahead. But your
analogies (especially the "crack house" one below) suck. I don't have
the time to waste on you.
Chris Hayes
Douglas Berry wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
> 10:57:15 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
> >
> >"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:32s6v1tpdu6fme9qe...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
> >> law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
> >> you deal with the crime caused by the house?
> >>
> >> a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
> >>
> >> b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
> >
> >or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
> >
> >Guess which one we chose?
>
> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
Talk about missing the point. Face it: there are thousands of
civilians who were killed by military strikes (termed "collateral
damage"). Contrast this to the approaches of law enforcement: they
don't destroy entire neighborhoods to get a few criminals.
Malachias Invictus
>
> Douglas Berry wrote:
>> What's so funny about peace, love and "Malachias Invictus"
>> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
>> 10:57:15 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>> >
>> >"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:32s6v1tpdu6fme9qe...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
>> >> law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
>> >> you deal with the crime caused by the house?
>> >>
>> >> a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
>> >>
>> >> b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
>> >
>> >or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
>> >
>> >Guess which one we chose?
>>
>> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
>
> Talk about missing the point. Face it: there are thousands of
> civilians who were killed by military strikes (termed "collateral
> damage").
That wasn't even necessarily what I was talking about. The intentional
destruction of civilian infrastructure is much more troubling to me.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Why?
> > > The American military should only be used for DEFENSE, not
> > > killing people in their own countries because some political critter
> > > wants to make a fast buck.
> >
> > That is your opionion and does not reflect the reality of the situation.
>
> Oh puh-lease.
Guys don't say, "Oh puh-lease."
> If you want an empire, just say so. But don't go around
> saying this bullshit that the US military is "defending" the US. The
> reality of the situation is that most of the US military is totally
> unnecessary.
Hmmm? Perhaps most of the US military think you are totally
unnecessary.
Spaz
news:g6e7v19t3lqi2e30g...@4ax.com...
> In <ssydnWbruf_-Am_e...@comcast.com>, "Spaz" <ye...@right.com>
>
> You want my guns gringo? Come and get them.
No, I don't own guns.
Chris Hayes
Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Chris Hayes" <hay...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140040471.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Douglas Berry wrote:
> >> What's so funny about peace, love and "Malachias Invictus"
> >> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
> >> 10:57:15 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
> >> >
> >> >"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:32s6v1tpdu6fme9qe...@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> >> The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
> >> >> law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
> >> >> you deal with the crime caused by the house?
> >> >>
> >> >> a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
> >> >>
> >> >> b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
> >> >
> >> >or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
> >> >
> >> >Guess which one we chose?
> >>
> >> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
> >
> > Talk about missing the point. Face it: there are thousands of
> > civilians who were killed by military strikes (termed "collateral
> > damage").
>
> That wasn't even necessarily what I was talking about. The intentional
> destruction of civilian infrastructure is much more troubling to me.
>
Gotta agree. It's especially sickening when they destroyed
water/sewage treatment plants and hospitals in Iraq.
Chris Hayes
Because it's a waste of American money.
> > > > The American military should only be used for DEFENSE, not
> > > > killing people in their own countries because some political critter
> > > > wants to make a fast buck.
> > >
> > > That is your opionion and does not reflect the reality of the situation.
> >
> > Oh puh-lease.
>
> Guys don't say, "Oh puh-lease."
>
> > If you want an empire, just say so. But don't go around
> > saying this bullshit that the US military is "defending" the US. The
> > reality of the situation is that most of the US military is totally
> > unnecessary.
>
> Hmmm? Perhaps most of the US military think you are totally
> unnecessary.
The US military is a parasite living off of my tax dollars. They need
people like me a lot more than I need them.
Douglas Berry
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
>
>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
>
>I never claimed we did. However, we *did* bomb markets and shopping malls,
>as just one example.
Shopping malls? In Afghanistan? Funny, I seemed to miss the Kandahar
Galleria.. do they have a Hot Topic there? In Afghanistan we did not
hit any urban areas with deadfall ordinance. We reserved that for
Taliban forces in the field.
>I guess we had better burn down the grocery store where the crack dealers
>buy their beer and snacks, and the mall where they get their clothes.
>That'll teach 'em.
No, we keep them from entering. Cut power and water to the house.
Prevent anyone from leaving unless they come out with their hands over
their heads.
But on that tack.. how many damns did we destroy in Afghanistan? How
many fields did we firebomb? How many bridges did we drop? Be
specific!
Douglas Berry
-0800 iin alt.atheism?
>> You do. That is what the USA military is designed to do.
>
>Then drop those two parts of the mission.
Why? They have been part of the mission from day one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Breaking the Barbary Pirates defended US ships plying trade, which, as
you might recall, is one of things that the government is supposed to
do.
Douglas Berry
-0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>> We don't have a large standing army. I you haven't noticed, our Guard
>> and Reserves elements are doing the brunt of the work in Iraq. Since
>> the end of the Cold War we've been shrinking the size of the active
>> duty force.
>
>You're stupid, aren't you? The US spends around 500 billion a year on
>its military. Its military forces far exceed any threats to our
>nation. That's why they're doing all their fighting in *foreign*
>lands.
I notice you cut the actual figures and went straight to the insults.
Let's discuss defense budgets.
In 2000 the total defence budget was 281 billion dollars. Last year,
it was 474 billion dollars. Of course, you may have noticed that we
were attacked in 2001. Military budgets go up during wartime; they
drop in peacetime.
During that time the total US budget was between 3 and 4 *trillion*
dollars.
>If you want to worship the government blindly, go ahead. But your
>analogies (especially the "crack house" one below) suck. I don't have
>the time to waste on you.
Your refusal to deal with actual facts and attempt to surrender the
field are noted.
Rail all you want. The fact is we need a professional military.
Douglas Berry
-0800 iin alt.atheism?
>> >or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
>> >
>> >Guess which one we chose?
>>
>> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
>
>Talk about missing the point. Face it: there are thousands of
>civilians who were killed by military strikes (termed "collateral
>damage"). Contrast this to the approaches of law enforcement: they
>don't destroy entire neighborhoods to get a few criminals.
Mal stated "set fire to the city." We didn't do that. In fact, in
Afghanistan we made a point of not hitting population centers.
As for your second claim, ever hear of the Philadelphia MOVE bombing?
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Don wrote:
> "Chris Hayes"> wrote
> > hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> So our nation can only be threatened if an invasion comes to our
> >> shores?
> >
> > Militarily, yes. Invading armies is what the US military is specially
> > built to take care of.
>
> for decades at least.
It reflects the society we live in.
Don
> We don't know what threats may come tomorrow, or next week, or next
> century. After WWI we basically dismantled our army, and failed to
> keep up in terms of technology. So when we were attacked by a
> carrier-centered navy in 1941, we were not ready. Our first
> experiences in combat at Kasserine Pass were a fiasco. We learned the
> hard way.
Your problem is that you suffer from the collectivist mentality evidenced by
your continuous use of the word *we*.
YOU are not a WE nor do you get to speak for others.
> The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
> law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
> you deal with the crime caused by the house?
>
> a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
>
> b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
The crack house on the corner has harmed no one yet you advocate a military
attack on it.
Maybe the military should come after YOU in YOUR house whether you've harmed
anyone or not.
If you haven't harmed anyone, then it can be settled in the courts
afterward.
If you're still alive.
> Actually, they're mostly in Pakistan these days. On the run,
> dusunited, and not able to proivide a safe haven for terrorists.
Then where's this *threat* that has you so terrified that you have
surrendered your freedom?
>
> Americans were targets *before* Desert Shield. You seem to ignore
> that fact.
YOU seem to ignore the fact that if someone antagonizes YOU over and over
and over again that YOU will lash out at them in any way that you can.
> Do you understand the difference between civilian and military?
Look. YOU better start paying attention.
Its all part of the same thing, an out of control administration.
> Having been in several of those shitholes during my service, I can
> tell you we do an important job there.
Clearly you haven't the first clue as to whats going on in the world around
you.
First you give up your individuality and surrender your freedom and now
you're claiming that following orders like a sheep is doing *an important
job there*.
> So, facts don't count?
Facts do count, but facts fail you.
There's really no excuse for a grown adult to be acting as you have in this
post.
You better straighten your act up, for your sake.
Its people with the mentality you have demonstrated in this forum that are
inviting the terrorist threat to the US and when it happens again the blame
will rest firmly on your shoulders as an enabler to the politicians and
military machine that causes harm worldwide.
BTW: The military AND the political body FAILED the citizens of this country
on 9-11 and it will FAIL the next time a terrorist strikes.
Stay tuned to FOXNEWS for details.
Tank Fixer
on Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:41:28 -0500,
AUK Registrar cj...@mxyzptlk.net attempted to say .....
> In <MPG.1e5c5fead...@news.west.earthlink.net>, Tank Fixer
> <paul.deek...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >In article <mVyIf.11581$Nv2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > on Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:23:30 GMT,
> > Don one-if-...@concord.com attempted to say .....
> >
> >> "Tank Fixer"> wrote
>
> >> > Don > wrote
>
> >> >> "Douglas Berry" wrote
> >> >> > I've lived there. They do hate our freedoms, especially freedom of
> >> >> > religion. They hate the fact that we have p-lenty, while they live in
> >> >> > poverty. They hate the fact that we keep winning, while they can't
> >> >> > even beat the damn Israelis.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is the stupidest thing I've read in quite awhile.
> >> >> Clearly this person is addicted to TV and hasn't the sense to realize the
> >> >> damage caused by it.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry but I trust Doug's judgement much more than I do yours...
> >>
> >> Well, if wanna be his sock puppet, knock yourself out.
> >
> >Oh my, the dreaded sock puppet insult
>
> Showing the dreaded "I don't know what a sock puppet" syndrome as well. What
> ever happened to the wierdos, kooks, and inbred morons of yesteryear?
I head DM is out of jail...
Tank Fixer
on 15 Feb 2006 18:03:00 -0800,
Chris Hayes hay...@fadmail.com attempted to say .....
> They need people like me a lot more than I need them.
You have an infalated sense of self importance
Don
> Contrast this to the approaches of law enforcement: they
> don't destroy entire neighborhoods to get a few criminals.
Contrast that with the Jack Booted Thugs that will kick your doors in at 3
am and shoot you in the head, assault your wife and kids and rifle your
possessions because of a clerical error on the address.
I don't care about the *neighborhood* nor do I care about Iraq.
I care about ME and my family and our property.
When you collectivists get your heads out and realize that you are
individuals then maybe you'll also realize that your enemy doesn't live in
foreign lands but is thriving nicely right there inside the beltway of DC.
Don
Watch how this victim of the public priso... er, school system has been
programmed to think, with the guidance of massive exposure to the TEEVEE:
> In 2000 the total defence budget was 281 billion dollars. Last year,
> it was 474 billion dollars. Of course, you may have noticed that we
> were attacked in 2001.
First it makes this silly claim that *we* were attacked.
Now where do you suppose it gets that from?
The TEEVEE, of course.
I wasn't attacked, nor were you.
So why is it saying *we* were attacked?
Thats right, it was programmed to think that way, in standard Marxist
fashion.
Military budgets go up during wartime; they
> drop in peacetime.
So, nobody was attacked, but it still believes the military budget should
increase simply because the TEEVEE told it it was attacked.
Do you see where this is going?
> Your refusal to deal with actual facts and attempt to surrender the
> field are noted.
YOU don't deal in facts nor would you know a fact if it was lodged in your
trachea.
> Rail all you want. The fact is we need a professional military.
Here's a fact for you.
YOU swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
The public schools dumbed you down....
....the TEEVEE keeps you dumb....
....the gov't makes you terrified.
You are so terrified that you grasp deperately to the specter that a
military somewhere is going to save you when the foreigners that have been
repeatedly provoked by US politicians decide to do diabolical things to the
population at large.
But you know what?
They're gonna let you down.
Just like they let down those 3,000 victims on 9-11.
Just like they let down 1,000's in Iraq and elsewhere.
Believe it or not Douglas *they won*.
They have you scared to death, and thats exactly what they wanted all along.
Frankly, I find that fact laughable.
Malachias Invictus
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Chris Hayes"
> <hay...@fadmail.com> posting the following on 15 Feb 2006 13:54:31
> -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
>>> >or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
>>> >
>>> >Guess which one we chose?
>>>
>>> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
>>
>>Talk about missing the point. Face it: there are thousands of
>>civilians who were killed by military strikes (termed "collateral
>>damage"). Contrast this to the approaches of law enforcement: they
>>don't destroy entire neighborhoods to get a few criminals.
>
> Mal stated "set fire to the city." We didn't do that.
We did the equivalent of that. Remind me: how many malls and markets are
left standing in Baghdad? What was the military use of the malls and
markets we targeted?
Don
> Had Hitler listened to his Generals, we might have had to deal with a
> victorious Germany controlling all of Europe from France to the
> Ukraine.
Well, Europe is mostly socialist now anyway so whats your point?
Oh thats right, you deal in *facts*.
Nevermind.
Malachias Invictus
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
> 13:22:36 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>
>>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:eq37v1d2g09rm93bn...@4ax.com...
>
>>> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
>>
>>I never claimed we did. However, we *did* bomb markets and shopping
>>malls,
>>as just one example.
>
> Shopping malls? In Afghanistan?
No, Iraq. You know, that country we are occu...liberating?
Don
> "Don"> wrote
>>"Douglas Berry"> wrote
>>> I've lived there. They do hate our freedoms, especially freedom of
>>> religion. They hate the fact that we have p-lenty, while they live in
>>> poverty. They hate the fact that we keep winning, while they can't
>>> even beat the damn Israelis.
>>
>>This is the stupidest thing I've read in quite awhile.
>>Clearly this person is addicted to TV and hasn't the sense to realize the
>>damage caused by it.
>
> interesting claim.
Please.
Your diatribe is so transparent as to be delivered by a child.
> As I stated, I have lived in Islamic countries, and seen the culture
> up close. How about you?
You just don't get it.
The enemy isn't in a foreign land, it is in DC.
Don
> The
> reality of the situation is that most of the US military is totally
> unnecessary.
The US military is little more than an extension of the welfare state.
A social experiment.
No one with any sense has anything to do with it.
Hardly any of the enlisted people reenlists except for misfits that can't
make it on the outside.
Don
> Don wrote:
>> hot-ham-and-cheese> wrote
>> > How do we deal with the concepts of "force projection" and "global
>> > reach?"
>>
>
> Not abstract.
Yes it is, go educate yourself on the topic.
>> Define: *we*.
>
> The people involved in this discussion.
You don't get to speak for them.
>> Clue: You, nor anyone else, gets to speak for me.
>
> Clue: I asked a question. I didn't put words in your mouth.
No one said you put words in anyone's mouth.
When you act like a *we* you lose sight of *me*.
You are a collectivist.
Don
> Don wrote:
>> "Chris Hayes"> wrote
>> >> So our nation can only be threatened if an invasion comes to our
>> >> shores?
>> >
>> > Militarily, yes. Invading armies is what the US military is specially
>> > built to take care of.
>>
>> Its little more than a social experiment, gone wrong, and has been that
>> way
>> for decades at least.
>
> It reflects the society we live in.
You say that as if its a bad thing.
Don
> Don wrote:
>> <hot-ham-and-cheese> wrote
>> > So our nation can only be threatened if an invasion comes to our
>> > shores?
>>
>
> A flotilla of Egyptian boats.
If they trespass on your property then you have the right to defend that
property, of course.
If they are trespassing on someone else's property it is none of your
business.
>> Define: *our nation*.
>
> The one we are discussing.
Do you own it?
If not, then it is none of your business.
Don
"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gks7v1lmhp2vcj74r...@4ax.com...
> Long, boring "libertarian" (Jeffersonian democrat) article. Grow up
>
>
> On 14 Feb 2006 11:20:35 -0800, conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> |The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms
> |by Jacob G. Hornberger
>
>
> If Today's Media Reported the Battle of Midway
>
> Discussion Board on this Military Joke
>
>
>
> Midway Island Demolished. Yorktown, destroyer sunk.
> Many US planes lost
> June 7, 1942
>
> The United States Navy suffered another blow in its attempt to stem the
> Japanese
> juggernaut ravaging the Pacific Ocean. Midway Island, perhaps the most
> vital
> U.S. outpost, was pummeled by Japanese Naval aviators. The defending U.S.
> forces, consisting primarily of antique Buffalo fighters, were competely
> wiped
> out while the Japanese attackers suffered few, if any, losses.
>
> In a nearby naval confrontation, the Japanese successfully attacked the
> Yorktown
> which was later sunk by a Japanese submarine. A destroyer lashed to the
> Yorktown
> was also sunk.
>
> American forces claim to have sunk four Japanese carriers and the cruiser
> Mogami
> but those claims were vehemently denied by the Emporer's spokeman.
>
> The American carriers lost an entire squadron of torpedo planes when they
> failed
> to link up with fighter escorts. The dive bombers had fighter escort even
> though
> they weren't engaged by enemy fighters. The War Dept. refused to answer
> when
> asked why the fighters were assigned to the wrong attack groups. The
> Hornet lost
> a large number of planes when they couldn't locate the enemy task force.
> Despite
> this cavalcade of errors, Admirals Fletcher and Spruance have not been
> removed.
>
> Code Broken
> The failure at Midway is even more disheartening because the U.S. Navy
> knew the
> Japanese were coming. Secret documents provided to the NY Times showed
> that
> "Magic" intercepts showed the Japanese planned to attack Midway, which
> they
> called "AF".
>
> Obsolete Equipment
> Some critics blamed the failure at Midway on the use of obsolete aircraft.
> The
> inappropriately named Devastator torpedo planes proved no match for the
> Japanese
> fighters. Even the Avengers, its schedule replacements, were riddled with
> bullets and rendered unflyable. Secretary of War Stimson dodged the
> question
> saying simply: "You go to war with the Navy you have, not the Navy you
> want or
> would like to have". Critics immediately called for his resignation.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> "If ye love wealth better than liberty ... servitude better than ...
> freedom,
> go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms ... May
> your
> chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our
> countrymen."
> - Samuel Adams
Chris Hayes
Douglas Berry wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Chris Hayes"
> <hay...@fadmail.com> posting the following on 15 Feb 2006 13:43:35
> -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
> >> You do. That is what the USA military is designed to do.
> >
> >Then drop those two parts of the mission.
>
> Why? They have been part of the mission from day one.
>
And?
Chris Hayes
Douglas Berry wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Chris Hayes"
> <hay...@fadmail.com> posting the following on 15 Feb 2006 13:48:58
> -0800 iin alt.atheism?
> >
> >Douglas Berry wrote:
>
> >> We don't have a large standing army. I you haven't noticed, our Guard
> >> and Reserves elements are doing the brunt of the work in Iraq. Since
> >> the end of the Cold War we've been shrinking the size of the active
> >> duty force.
> >
> >You're stupid, aren't you? The US spends around 500 billion a year on
> >its military. Its military forces far exceed any threats to our
> >nation. That's why they're doing all their fighting in *foreign*
> >lands.
>
> I notice you cut the actual figures and went straight to the insults.
Act like a moron and I'll treat you as one.
> Let's discuss defense budgets.
>
> In 2000 the total defence budget was 281 billion dollars. Last year,
> it was 474 billion dollars. Of course, you may have noticed that we
> were attacked in 2001. Military budgets go up during wartime; they
> drop in peacetime.
>
Hey moron: US military spending has been far ahead of the entire world
for over 50 years. You do realize that the US spends more on its
military than the rest of the world combined, don't you?
BTW- We're officially not at war. We have, however, been in a state of
"national emergency" since 1933:
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/national-emergency/
> During that time the total US budget was between 3 and 4 *trillion*
> dollars.
>
You are being totally stupid. The US budget has *never* been over 3
trillion dollars. Secondly, in your previous paragraph you use yearly
numbers on how much is spent on the military and now you bring up the
total budget. Why not tell us the % of that total budget spent on the
military? And why don't you show that in terms of DISCRETIONARY
spending (the budget is artificially inflated since it includes
non-discretionary items like Medicare and Social Security and net
interest).
But let's just take one of your numbers. In 2000 (when we were
supposedly at "peace"), the budget was 1.8 trillion dollars (including
both discretionary and non-discretionary spending) . Using your
military spending number, than the % of the 2000 total budget spent on
"defense" is 16%. Now let's look at the budget numbers closer. The
non-discretionary items come out to around 959 billion dollars. But
wait, it gets worse. In 2000, the US government spent around 215
billion on net interest. Which leaves around 590 billion bucks or so
for the government to play with (which is the real budget). That would
mean around 46-48% of the discretionary budget is going to the military
in a year we weren't at war.
It's a waste of wealth. And here's another thing: having that much
money going into the military means that it's going to have to be USED
in order to justify its existence. And since there's no threat of
significance to the US, the US military is being used to basically kill
third worlders in defenseless countries like Iraq, Serbia, Panama,
Grenada, Vietnam, etc......
Eisenhower was right. Washington was right. A permanent standing army
is not good for the American people.
> >If you want to worship the government blindly, go ahead. But your
> >analogies (especially the "crack house" one below) suck. I don't have
> >the time to waste on you.
>
> Your refusal to deal with actual facts and attempt to surrender the
> field are noted.
>
You provided no facts. Just blind assertions.
> Rail all you want. The fact is we need a professional military.
Then *prove* it instead of asserting it. The United States hasn't
faced a credible foreign threat with the ability to take it over since
1812 (I know, the Confederates attacked at Gettysburg, but that was the
Civil War and the Confederates wouldn't have been able to take over the
Union even if they wanted to). Since WWII, there's only been one place
US troops have been that can be justified under "national defense":
Afghanistan post 9-11. Yet A-stan has become second fiddle to Iraq.
Chris Hayes
Douglas Berry wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Chris Hayes"
> <hay...@fadmail.com> posting the following on 15 Feb 2006 13:54:31
> -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
> >> >or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
> >> >
> >> >Guess which one we chose?
> >>
> >> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
> >
> >Talk about missing the point. Face it: there are thousands of
> >civilians who were killed by military strikes (termed "collateral
> >damage"). Contrast this to the approaches of law enforcement: they
> >don't destroy entire neighborhoods to get a few criminals.
>
> Mal stated "set fire to the city." We didn't do that. In fact, in
> Afghanistan we made a point of not hitting population centers.
>
At least the propaganda said so. Yeah, civilian targets were aimed at.
Lots of civilians died. Kinda hard to prevent that when you drop
powerful explosives.
> As for your second claim, ever hear of the Philadelphia MOVE bombing?
Ah yes, an isolated incident. What's your point?
I'm not a fan of the cops, but to somehow imply they destroy
neighborhoods on a routine basis because a police chopper bombed an
apartment in 1985 is totally moronic. If it comes to calling a SWAT
team (or some other heavy use of force), they evacuate and cordon off
the area to minimize civilian casualties.
Chris Hayes
Tank Fixer wrote:
> In article <1140055380.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> on 15 Feb 2006 18:03:00 -0800,
> Chris Hayes hay...@fadmail.com attempted to say .....
>
> > They need people like me a lot more than I need them.
>
> You have an infalated sense of self importance
>
Keep talking, welfare nanny. Just remember: my tax dollars pay your
bills. I get nothing in return from the military.
Morton Davis
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote in message
news:nfUIf.12256$Nv2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Douglas Berry"> wrote
> > We don't know what threats may come tomorrow, or next week, or next
> > century. After WWI we basically dismantled our army, and failed to
> > keep up in terms of technology. So when we were attacked by a
> > carrier-centered navy in 1941, we were not ready. Our first
> > experiences in combat at Kasserine Pass were a fiasco. We learned the
> > hard way.
>
> Your problem is that you suffer from the collectivist mentality evidenced
by
> your continuous use of the word *we*.
> YOU are not a WE nor do you get to speak for others.
>
> > The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
> > law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
> > you deal with the crime caused by the house?
> >
> > a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
> >
> > b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
>
> The crack house on the corner has harmed no one yet you advocate a
military
> attack on it.
Those who are using it have. It is they, not the house on whom any "attack"
would be made.
Chris Hayes
Don wrote:
> "Chris Hayes"> wrote
> > Contrast this to the approaches of law enforcement: they
> > don't destroy entire neighborhoods to get a few criminals.
>
> Contrast that with the Jack Booted Thugs that will kick your doors in at 3
> am and shoot you in the head, assault your wife and kids and rifle your
> possessions because of a clerical error on the address.
>
Yeah, cops mostly suck (they rarely ever solve a crime) and certainly
have become more militarized over the years (basically wannabe soldiers
who can't hack it in the military and instead harass unarmed people 99%
of the time).
> I don't care about the *neighborhood* nor do I care about Iraq.
> I care about ME and my family and our property.
>
You mean to tell me you don't care about some of your neighbors? I'm
friends with quite a few of mine. I also like certain things in my
neighborhood, like my local library and park district, for example.
> When you collectivists get your heads out and realize that you are
> individuals then maybe you'll also realize that your enemy doesn't live in
> foreign lands but is thriving nicely right there inside the beltway of DC.
I'd say you should stop being so simple. Not everybody who recognizes
the benefits of working with their neighbors is a "collectivist." I'm
about as anti-government as it gets (and I agree, an American's true
enemy has always been its government). However, I do recognize that I
need to work with others and it is in my best interest care about how
my neighborhood's doing so trouble doesn't come and take me unawares
one day.
Face it: there are very few Americans who can say they're truly
self-sufficient. They're hermits living out in the "boonies", so to
speak. I know you at least rely on your neighbors for something: your
computer, internet service, and the electricity used to run it. And if
you rely on most modern luxuries (or even necessities these days like
plumbing, sewage treatment, automobiles, etc) like most of us, you'd
find your life would begin to suck pretty quickly if people didn't do
"collectivist" things.
Chris Hayes
There can be an argument that some are needed: like the Coast Guard, a
scaled down Navy, and the Air Force. You can't exactly train fighter
pilots in a few months like you can ground troops (it took me 15 weeks
of OSUT to become an canon cocker in the Army). There's some good
people there, some scumbags, but most are there because it's their job.
Chris Hayes
Strabo wrote:
> In [OT] Re: ATTENTION 9/11 Revisionist Alert on Tue, 14 Feb 2006
> 21:59:50 -0800, by Some Guy, we read:
>
> >Subject changed & labeled [OT] for your filtering convenience!
> >
> >Douglas Berry wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Ah, but the military is, by law, prevented from being involved in
> >> domestic law enforcement. And the reason the 9/11 planes weren't shot
> >> down?
> >>
> >> You're going to love this.
> >>
> >> Really.
> >>
> >> The reason we didn't intercept the 9/11 planes was because we had
> >> closed NORAD alert bases because of the end of the Soviet threat!
> >>
> >> Don't you just love it?
> >>
> >
> >Actually, that's not true. The reason we didn't intercept the plane is
> >that all the middle-management suits in government sat on their thumbs
> >and failed to do their jobs while the people on the bottom were trying
> >their best to keep things from falling apart. The planes were in fact
> >scrambled in a timely manner but no one told them where to go.
>
> The alert apparatus happened to be on stand-down that morning
> at that critical time, to accomodate a test. Thus the confusion,
> "NORAD: Is this real-world or exercise?", and delay.
>
> Just a coincidence of course.
>
*wink*
Chris Hayes
What are you rambling about? The War on (Some) Drugs is pure bullshit.
If people want to smoke crack and they're not hurting anyone else,
than what the fuck is the problem? It can't be illegal because Uncle
Sam wants to "protect" these people (or society in the abstract)
because tobacco and alcohol are more lethal and are legal. Oh, that's
right. They have lobbies.
My bad.
Douglas Berry
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
>
>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>news:r3o7v1t830o3duivf...@4ax.com...
>> What's so funny about peace, love and "Malachias Invictus"
>> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
>> 13:22:36 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>>
>>>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eq37v1d2g09rm93bn...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
>>>
>>>I never claimed we did. However, we *did* bomb markets and shopping
>>>malls,
>>>as just one example.
>>
>> Shopping malls? In Afghanistan?
>
>No, Iraq. You know, that country we are occu...liberating?
Kabul, my dear sir, is in Afghanistan.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
-0800 iin alt.atheism?
Well, if you hadn't snipped this portion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Breaking the Barbary Pirates defended US ships plying trade, which, as
you might recall, is one of things that the government is supposed to
do.
You'd see why force projection, and the ability to send troops
overseas, is important.
Douglas Berry
<one-if-...@concord.com> posting the following on Thu, 16 Feb 2006
06:04:23 GMT iin alt.atheism?
>"Douglas Berry"> wrote
>
>Watch how this victim of the public priso... er, school system has been
>programmed to think, with the guidance of massive exposure to the TEEVEE:
What part of "I don't watch television for my news" escapes you? I
watch baseball and some dramas.
>
>> In 2000 the total defence budget was 281 billion dollars. Last year,
>> it was 474 billion dollars. Of course, you may have noticed that we
>> were attacked in 2001.
>
>First it makes this silly claim that *we* were attacked.
>Now where do you suppose it gets that from?
>The TEEVEE, of course.
>I wasn't attacked, nor were you.
A dear friend of mine lost her husband in the WTC.
And they attacked the United States. As a citizen, I'm part of that
nation.
>So why is it saying *we* were attacked?
Because we were. I'm not a solipist who thinks that unless it affects
me directly I'm not involved.
>Thats right, it was programmed to think that way, in standard Marxist
>fashion.
"it"?
>Military budgets go up during wartime; they
>> drop in peacetime.
>
>So, nobody was attacked, but it still believes the military budget should
>increase simply because the TEEVEE told it it was attacked.
>Do you see where this is going?
Do me a favor. Go to lower Manhattan. Go look at the holes where the
World Trade Center once stood.
I've been there. Have you? We were attacked on September 11th, 2001
by a terrorist organization operating out of Afghanistan.
>> Your refusal to deal with actual facts and attempt to surrender the
>> field are noted.
>
>YOU don't deal in facts nor would you know a fact if it was lodged in your
>trachea.
>
>> Rail all you want. The fact is we need a professional military.
>
>Here's a fact for you.
>YOU swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
>The public schools dumbed you down....
>....the TEEVEE keeps you dumb....
>....the gov't makes you terrified.
>
>You are so terrified that you grasp deperately to the specter that a
>military somewhere is going to save you when the foreigners that have been
>repeatedly provoked by US politicians decide to do diabolical things to the
>population at large.
>
>But you know what?
>They're gonna let you down.
>Just like they let down those 3,000 victims on 9-11.
>Just like they let down 1,000's in Iraq and elsewhere.
>
>Believe it or not Douglas *they won*.
>
>They have you scared to death, and thats exactly what they wanted all along.
>Frankly, I find that fact laughable.
Now where do I say I'm scared? Quote me. Frankly, i think we've
broken al-Qaeda's back.
Douglas Berry
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
>
>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>news:a6p7v1tdjsr4c2khh...@4ax.com...
>> What's so funny about peace, love and "Chris Hayes"
>> <hay...@fadmail.com> posting the following on 15 Feb 2006 13:54:31
>> -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>
>>>> >or c. Set fire to the city. That'll teach 'em.
>>>> >
>>>> >Guess which one we chose?
>>>>
>>>> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
>>>
>>>Talk about missing the point. Face it: there are thousands of
>>>civilians who were killed by military strikes (termed "collateral
>>>damage"). Contrast this to the approaches of law enforcement: they
>>>don't destroy entire neighborhoods to get a few criminals.
>>
>> Mal stated "set fire to the city." We didn't do that.
>
>We did the equivalent of that. Remind me: how many malls and markets are
>left standing in Baghdad? What was the military use of the malls and
>markets we targeted?
Fer Pete's sake! Kabul is in AFGHANISTAN!!! Not Iraq! You have Iraq
on the brain.
How many? From the best of my knowledge all of them because we never
use dstrategic bombing on Bagdhad. We hit one market during the
initial invasion, a miss. Other than that we hit governmental
buildings.
This is being crossposted to u.m.a, I see.. so let's ask the people
who have been there recently. How many markets were destroyed?
Douglas Berry
<one-if-...@concord.com> posting the following on Thu, 16 Feb 2006
>"Douglas Berry"> wrote
>> We don't know what threats may come tomorrow, or next week, or next
>> century. After WWI we basically dismantled our army, and failed to
>> keep up in terms of technology. So when we were attacked by a
>> carrier-centered navy in 1941, we were not ready. Our first
>> experiences in combat at Kasserine Pass were a fiasco. We learned the
>> hard way.
>
>Your problem is that you suffer from the collectivist mentality evidenced by
>your continuous use of the word *we*.
>YOU are not a WE nor do you get to speak for others.
I'm an American, and a veteran of the US Army. I use we when refering
to the US since I'm a citizen.
>> The military can go after the terrorists where they hide. To use your
>> law enforcement analogy, there is a crack house on the corner. How do
>> you deal with the crime caused by the house?
>>
>> a. Wait for street crime to occur and clean up after it, or
>>
>> b. raid the house and remove the root cause of the problem?
>
>The crack house on the corner has harmed no one yet you advocate a military
>attack on it.
Never lived near a crack house I see.
No harm? Other than shootings, drug addicts breaking into your car
and home to steal things for drugs, the danger of fire when the home
made lab in the building blows up..
>Maybe the military should come after YOU in YOUR house whether you've harmed
>anyone or not.
Again, the military does not do domestic law enforcement.
>If you haven't harmed anyone, then it can be settled in the courts
>afterward.
>If you're still alive.
>
>> Actually, they're mostly in Pakistan these days. On the run,
>> dusunited, and not able to proivide a safe haven for terrorists.
>
>Then where's this *threat* that has you so terrified that you have
>surrendered your freedom?
OK, what freedoms have I surrendered? Be specific!
>>
>> Americans were targets *before* Desert Shield. You seem to ignore
>> that fact.
>
>YOU seem to ignore the fact that if someone antagonizes YOU over and over
>and over again that YOU will lash out at them in any way that you can.
This explains why France is a radioactive wasteland. After all,
France has antagonized the US repeatedly.
>
>> Do you understand the difference between civilian and military?
>
>Look. YOU better start paying attention.
>Its all part of the same thing, an out of control administration.
No it is not. Neither legally or in function. The NSA is a civilian
agency. They are not subject to the military chain of command, and
are not subject to the UCMJ.
>
>> Having been in several of those shitholes during my service, I can
>> tell you we do an important job there.
>
>Clearly you haven't the first clue as to whats going on in the world around
>you.
>First you give up your individuality and surrender your freedom and now
>you're claiming that following orders like a sheep is doing *an important
>job there*.
ROTFLMAO! Oh, yeah.. I gave up my individuality! After all, every
Ranger is a Deadhead who keeps underground comics in his wall locker!
Douglas Berry
<one-if-...@concord.com> posting the following on Thu, 16 Feb 2006
Fascism is not socialism.
Bert Hyman
news:9m39v11iqu4frhano...@4ax.com:
> Fascism is not socialism.
A distinction without a difference.
The economic aspect of fascism has government control of the economy
while retaining the fiction of private ownership.
In practice, the government control of an economy is no different
from government ownership of the real property.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Malachias Invictus
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> What's so funny about peace, love and "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
> 22:07:50 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>
>>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:r3o7v1t830o3duivf...@4ax.com...
>>> What's so funny about peace, love and "Malachias Invictus"
>>> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> posting the following on Wed, 15 Feb 2006
>>> 13:22:36 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>>>>
>>>>"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:eq37v1d2g09rm93bn...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>> So, when did we carpet bomb Kabul? Use nuclear weapons?
>>>>
>>>>I never claimed we did. However, we *did* bomb markets and shopping
>>>>malls,
>>>>as just one example.
>>>
>>> Shopping malls? In Afghanistan?
>>
>>No, Iraq. You know, that country we are occu...liberating?
>
> Kabul, my dear sir, is in Afghanistan.
No shit, eh? Funny how you are the only one bringing it up.