Is it time to get rid of the Army and Air Force?
N9NWO
Naval journals on how, if we keep down
sizing the military, that the department of
the Navy could take over the missions of
the Army and Air Force.
Given that the Army is starting to look more
and more like the Marines, is not time to
thing about merging the Army into the Marines?
And merging the Air Force into the Navy?
Why do we need four services? Especially
when they overlap?
Robert Frenchu
You are actually making sense.
You're still off topic for talk.politics.guns, but at least you're
making sense.
_____
"And GWB will not screw you on guns."
-N9NWO 1/2/2002
M. Eglestone
> N9NWO wrote:
>
> Why do we need four services? Especially
> when they overlap?
-------------------------------
After all these years you STILL haven't figured out what IS, and
what is NOT, appropriate material for the (Talk.Politics.GUNS)
discussion group?
You ARE a lost cause, N9NW0; not to bright either!
----
Michael W. Eglestone
Senior Master Sergeant (E-8)
United States Air Force, Retired
BTR1701
<n9...@amsat.org> wrote:
> In 1987 there was an article in one of the
> Naval journals on how, if we keep down
> sizing the military, that the department of
> the Navy could take over the missions of
> the Army and Air Force.
>
> Given that the Army is starting to look more
> and more like the Marines, is not time to
> thing about merging the Army into the Marines?
> And merging the Air Force into the Navy?
Or merge the Navy into the Air Force and the Marines into the Army.
N9NWO
: > Naval journals on how, if we keep down
: > sizing the military, that the department of
: > the Navy could take over the missions of
: > the Army and Air Force.
: >
: > Given that the Army is starting to look more
: > and more like the Marines, is not time to
: > thing about merging the Army into the Marines?
: > And merging the Air Force into the Navy?
:
: Or merge the Navy into the Air Force and the Marines into the Army.
The Navy is far more natural a decision as it is more
self contained and less dependant on land bases.
BTR1701
<n9...@amsat.org> wrote:
You missed the point. Once the services merge, then their separate
identities cease to exist. It's just a matter of what you're gonna call
the result.
If the Air Force and the Navy merge, it would be just as proper to call
the result "Air Force" as it would to call it "Navy".
BD (Dave) Thompson
"BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-0E468F...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
Anyone who imagines the Navy is less dependent on land bases than the other
services has obviously never been to San Diego or Norfolk. The Navy is
probably the service most dependent on fixed base resources to continue to
operate. After all, you can't just whip a shipyard together in a few days.
--
Dave
Russell C. Nixon
>BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> You missed the point. Once the services merge, then their separate
>> identities cease to exist. It's just a matter of what you're gonna call
>> the result.
>>
>> If the Air Force and the Navy merge, it would be just as proper to call
>> the result "Air Force" as it would to call it "Navy".
>
>Well; not really.
>
>The Navy has a significant aviation presence, but the Air Force doesn't
>have a water surface (or subsurface in the case of the "Silent Service")
>presence; now do they?
Isn't the Navy the only contitutionally allowed standing military
force?
Russ
N9NWO
: > > : > Naval journals on how, if we keep down
: > > : > sizing the military, that the department of
: > > : > the Navy could take over the missions of
: > > : > the Army and Air Force.
: > > : >
: > > : > Given that the Army is starting to look more
: > > : > and more like the Marines, is not time to
: > > : > thing about merging the Army into the Marines?
: > > : > And merging the Air Force into the Navy?
: > > :
: > > : Or merge the Navy into the Air Force and the Marines into the Army.
: > >
: > > The Navy is far more natural a decision as it is more
: > > self contained and less dependant on land bases.
: >
: > You missed the point. Once the services merge, then their separate
: > identities cease to exist. It's just a matter of what you're gonna call
: > the result.
: >
: > If the Air Force and the Navy merge, it would be just as proper to call
: > the result "Air Force" as it would to call it "Navy".
:
: Anyone who imagines the Navy is less dependent on land bases than the
other
: services has obviously never been to San Diego or Norfolk. The Navy is
: probably the service most dependent on fixed base resources to continue to
: operate. After all, you can't just whip a shipyard together in a few
days.
And how many of those bases are oversees?
The Navy can project power abroad without
being dependant on a land base. Not that the
do not have land bases. After all there is the
ASG at Bahrain and Santiago Garcia. And
then there are bases like Subic Bay (now closed)
and Guam. But for the most part the Navy
has less land bases than the Air Force.
an0...@hotmail.com
The Marines *are already* part of the Navy.
Amanda Wreckonwit
Provide for and MAINTAIN a Navy. They could Create an Army, but no
appropriations for that purpose could exceed a period of 2 years.
Since we are not at war (constitutionally declared) then the Army should be
shut down.
The Marines are already a part of the Navy.
The Air Force, which used to be called the Army Air Corp, should be closed
too. The Navy is the only constitutionally authorized service that should
be maintained.
We used to have a militia before the managed media made it sound like a
terrorist group.
Arthur Luxury-Yacht
Don't merge the Marines. They are one of the only branches that has
not gone politically correct. The oter services deal with knocked up
women soldiers, and all sorts of politically correct bullsh*t. The
Marines main mission is still to kill the enemy as quickly as
possible. Let the Marines take over the Army and Navy.
p220
navey. They have never been seperated. That is why you have a Navey falg at
every marine base but not a marine flag at every navey base.
SpOoKNP
<< Why do we need four services? Especially
when they overlap? >>
I have wondered why there is such a difference of organizations in the
military. Why not have one military and assign people where needed? Of
course, this would probably make sense and when done, the need for people
wouldn't be so great. Now all they do is bitch about how they need people,
blah blah blah. No one wants to be a cop in Kosovo, maybe we should just over
haul from the top down?
SpOoKNP
<< You ARE a lost cause, N9NW0; not to bright either! >>
He post all over the USENET. I am not sure if he has a life or not outside
USENET and ham radio. He likes to say "Everyone should be in the military"
crap. I find some articles he post a good read. But his constant
cross-posting does suck. Due to him and others I am thinking about trying to
find a newsgroups filter that keeps cross-posted messages from coming through.
BTR1701
JohnJ...@mindspring.com wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > You missed the point. Once the services merge, then their separate
> > identities cease to exist. It's just a matter of what you're gonna call
> > the result.
> >
> > If the Air Force and the Navy merge, it would be just as proper to call
> > the result "Air Force" as it would to call it "Navy".
>
> Well; not really.
>
> The Navy has a significant aviation presence, but the Air Force doesn't
> have a water surface (or subsurface in the case of the "Silent Service")
> presence; now do they?
So what? My point is that it's all just a name. If you merge them and
call the result "Air Force", then that term will come to include a water
surface or subsurface presence.
Bob G
Luxury-Yacht) wrote:
>> Or merge the Navy into the Air Force and the Marines into the Army.
>
>Don't merge the Marines. They are one of the only branches that has
>not gone politically correct. The oter services deal with knocked up
>women soldiers, and all sorts of politically correct bullsh*t. The
>Marines main mission is still to kill the enemy as quickly as
>possible. Let the Marines take over the Army and Navy.
I take it you were never either a Marine or a sailor or you'd know
they are the same branch of service. There is a Dept of the Navy, no
such thing as a Dept of the Marines.
Bob
*Retired USN. And having nothing bad to say about the jarheads,
remembering a time or two I was REAL glad they came running when I
needed them.
I love my country ! It's the politicians I don't
like or trust.
Blake A. Loyd
"N9NWO" <n9...@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:WGE28.436$1b7.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
for the separate branches was to prevent there being to much control
in the hands of one individual, other than the President. And no
matter how you arrange it, there is still going to be the need for
specialization of functions and sub-organizations within the system.
It doesn't really matter what you call it, because there is going to
be a natural division between certain functions. Besides, having the
various branches overlapping in some areas provides a bit of
redundancy in the system, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Loyd
Steve Hix
You could end up with an equivalent to the "People's Liberation Army Navy"...
Al Montestruc
No the constitution does not permit a standing army. Appropriations
must be redone every 2 years for the Army and Airforce while no such
prohibition exists for the Navy (that was so planning for large ship
construction could be done). Give the Airforce to the Navy and merge
the best of the regular army into the USMC and the rest of the army
can be demobilized into national guard units.
James and Peg
"p220" <p2...@bellsouth.nospamhere.net> wrote in message
news:YeZ28.33669$Ee7.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
X
> "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-0E468F...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> > In article <zoH28.577$1b7.4...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, "N9NWO"
> > <n9...@amsat.org> wrote:
> >
> > > : > In 1987 there was an article in one of the
> > > : > Naval journals on how, if we keep down
> > > : > sizing the military, that the department of
> > > : > the Navy could take over the missions of
> > > : > the Army and Air Force.
The Clinton Administration beleived in down sizing and we have more
forces than even deployed...... downsizing without extremely careful
planning is dangerous.
N9NWO
Colin Campbell <col...@linkline.com> wrote in us.military.army...
: in reply to monte...@lycos.com (Al Montestruc)
: :
:
: >No the constitution does not permit a standing army. Appropriations
: >must be redone every 2 years for the Army and Airforce while no such
: >prohibition exists for the Navy (that was so planning for large ship
: >construction could be done). Give the Airforce to the Navy and merge
: >the best of the regular army into the USMC and the rest of the army
: >can be demobilized into national guard units.
: Please quote the section of the US Constitution that specifically
: prohibits a standing army. And military appropriations are redone
: every single year - in fact I cannot even remember a two year
: appropriation.
:
: For some reason some people are trying to twist the US Constitution
: into prohibiting successive appropriations - when there is no language
: in it that does so.
:
Their argument is that in peacetime the Army
can be only funded for 2 years then must be
disbanded. There worry is that the army is the
only power that can be used as a national police
force. They truly fear that we are becoming a
dictatorship.
Silly but it is what they fear.
You need to get out of us.military.army
and read Talk.Politics.Guns and Misc.Survivalism
Alt.Law-Enforcement is another group as well
(really good topics on survival techniques for those
of you into the backpacking activities and such).
N9NWO
: > > > : > Naval journals on how, if we keep down
: > > > : > sizing the military, that the department of
: > > > : > the Navy could take over the missions of
: > > > : > the Army and Air Force.
: ((((((((((((SNIP))))))))))))))))))))))
: The Clinton Administration beleived in down sizing and we have more
: forces than even deployed...... downsizing without extremely careful
: planning is dangerous.
Agreed. They down sized without really
having a goal other then the "peace dividend".
What it gave us was military that is so skewed
to the right that it now looks like a Rush Limbaugh
fan club!!
N9NWO
There are really to main functions. Ground pounding
and high tech warfare. The Marines and Army do the
ground pounding while the Air Force and Navy are the
high tech side.
N9NWO
:
: >Back when we had a constitution, Congress was charged with the authority
to Provide for and MAINTAIN a Navy. They could Create an Army, but no
: >appropriations for that purpose could exceed a period of 2 years.
: And no appropriation for the military has ever exceeded two years.
: The Constitution specifically identifies that no single appropriation
: can exceed two years. It was worded this way in order to allow
: successive appropriations.
Their arguement is that the constitution demands
that the army be disbanded in times of peace.
They fear that the army will be used as a national
police force.
: >
: >Since we are not at war (constitutionally declared) then the Army should
be
: >shut down.
:
: There is no 'Constitutional' requirement that war ever be declared.
: All it states is that only Congress can make that declaration.
:
: >We used to have a militia before the managed media made it sound like a
: >terrorist group.
:
: We used to have militias until we realized that militias produced very
: poor soldiers. Historically, the actions of militia units have been
: poor, and it was deemed necessary to create a reserve system that
: actually met some kind of standards.
:
: Don't worry, all of the militia units that were worth anything became
: the National Guard or Army Reserve.
:
:
: Besides, any group that proposes the uses of violence in order to
: alter government policy is rightly considered to be a terrorist group.
: If the shoe fits . . .
What they fear is that the US is becoming
a dictatorship of the rich.
Bob G
Chuckle, the Marine Corps is part of the Navy. Plain and simple.
Geez.
Marines and sailors have worked together and have been closely linked
together since the beginning.
Marine Corps units have Navy Chaplains, RP's, doctors, nurses, and
hospital corpsmen. (an RP is a Navy enlisted man, RP is a rating ...
job classification. Stands for Religious Program specialist. A
religious layperson. Does the necessary paperwork and such to support
chapels, sometimes serves as a lay minister or equivalent conducting
services. i.e. On one unit upon which I served religious services for
our Moslem crewmembers were conducted by an RP who was a Moslem.)
There are a number of Navy schools attended by the Marines, as the
trainning and equipment is the same or nearly so. i.e. I attended one
technical school that had both sailors and Marines in the class.
During the first 3/4 of the course we studied together, the
information being common to both. Last 1/4 of the course we split as
we sailors concentrated on the shipboard version of the equipment, and
the Marines concentrated on the shore based version.
In another case I attended a small arms weapons familiarization
course, for a special assignment. Instructors included both sailors
and Marines.
Two of the ships I served upon had Marine detachments onboard.
Check the full deployed complement and constitution of a Navy
amphibious group, and you'll find that there are a lot of Marines on
those ships. Check in the aircraft repair shop of a one of the
amphibious ships carrying aircraft and you'll likely find Navy and
Marine aircraft technicians working side by side. When landing craft
are deployed and head for the beach, don't be surprised that a sailor
is driving and heading into the beach with those Marines. And don't
be surprised to find out the beach has already been scouted, mapped
and obstacles removed by Navy sailors, SEALS. Or that during the
ensuing combat and cleanup that both Navy and Marine EOD types are
running around. Or, don't be surprised that if the Marines need naval
gunfire support that one of the fellows with the Marines, in cammies,
operating a radio and directing gunfire from the ships is a sailor.
Sheesh.
It's more than just a linkage between the 2 by way of them having Navy
medics. They are integrally and intimately linked. And share much of
a common historical bond. The Marines are the infantry of the Navy.
Or did you miss the part when they were talking on the news about the
Marines leaving that airport in Afghanistan and mentioned that those
Marines were going back to their 'ships'.
LOLOL. I'm remembering, again, that CNN reporter on Christmas Eve who
was interviewing "Marines" at that airport in Afghanistan. Stood
there talking to a fellow in fatigues. Saying things like, "What's
your name, Marine?", "How are you and your fellow Marines doing?",
"Are those Marines over there part of your particular unit?" Etc.
All the time the reporter was talking to a Navy guy, a sailor. A
member of the SeaBees. (SeaBee = CB = Combat Construction Battalion)
Bob
** Not to say that I do not think some integration of the services is
a bad idea. However, there are certain inherent limits to such
integration if one plans to keep the best strenght of each service.
And there are other problems. i.e. There are very important
fundamental differences between an F-16 and an F-18. An F-16 would
not survive an aircraft carrier landing or launch. Navy aircraft
carrier deployed aircraft sacrifice some speed and performance out of
necessity to achieve structural strenght needed for such operations,
Navy pilots, in general, dislike single engines a lot ... often yah
can't just bail out over land, and from the middle of an ocean it's a
LONG friggin swim to friendly land. They like an little extra
insurance. At least a chance to get closer to a ship or land before
bailing. OTOH, a carrier allows in many cases for one to project air
power 24/7 over an area where it would otherwise be very difficult.
i.e. No close airfields which could be used by the Air Force. Yes,
yah can do in flight refueling, doesn't change the problem with pilots
getting fatigued from excessively long flights without a chance for a
break. And carriers carry their own aircraft repair facilities, carry
new supply of ordinance for their aircraft, have their own SAR people,
etc, etc. Some missions the Air Force does better, some the Navy does
better. In some cases a forward deployed amphibious Marine outfit is
a better pick, in other cases the Army does it better.
Darren
"Amanda Wreckonwit" <cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c4c3...@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
During WWI, the then British government commissioned Field-Marshall Jan
Smuts of South Africa on a proper strategy for the way the Army and Air
Corps should work together, a move that was apparently prompted by the
Zeppelin raids.
He went and studied the problem from all angles from three months before
returning the answer: He summed up that the Air Corps be disbanded, and an
Air Force be created in it's place, independant of the Army. This was
apparently a lot more efficient, and resulted in the Air Force being able to
manage it's own budget, commission it's own planes and train it's own
personnel and a broader scale. It also marked a refreshing move away from
the sort of "old-boy" system prevalent in the Army.
This change resulted in the Royal Air Force being created in 1918, and the
South African Air Force being created in 1920. Some argue that were it not
for this fundamental change, the RAF would never have had the Hurricane and
Spitfire in the Battle of Britain.
Just the background on the issue, but the system envisaged by Smuts has
served most of the world well for 62 yrs, a fact recognised by America in
1950, so why change it now?
The fact is that the Air Force will always have very different demands to
the demands of the Army or Navy, and there is always a risk that one side
might become monopolized by the others, and you would lose an important
function of your defence force.
Sure, perhaps the acquisition system needs to be redressed, but I think that
consolidation of the Armed Forces is not a good thing.
Darren
Daryl Hunt
N9NWO wrote:
> What it gave us was military that is so skewed
> to the right that it now looks like a Rush Limbaugh
> fan club!!
You haven't been noticing the "Sheeple" lately have you.
Amanda Wreckonwit
: "Amanda Wreckonwit" <cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
to Provide for and MAINTAIN a Navy. They could Create an Army, but no
: >appropriations for that purpose could exceed a period of 2 years.
: And no appropriation for the military has ever exceeded two years.
: The Constitution specifically identifies that no single appropriation
: can exceed two years. It was worded this way in order to allow
: successive appropriations.
I said 2 years for the Army. You said for the Military. I might be wrong,
but the only, repeat ONLY place in the Constitution that limits
appropriations to 2 yrs is in reference to raising and supporting an Army.
If the founders meant for that rule to apply everywhere, why didn't they put
it (the rule) somewhere in a more encompassing location? Are telling me is
that nowhere else is congress allowed to make successive appropriations?
: >
: >Since we are not at war (constitutionally declared) then the Army should
be
: >shut down.
:
: There is no 'Constitutional' requirement that war ever be declared.
: All it states is that only Congress can make that declaration.
Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay ...<snip>...
provide for the common defense...<snip>...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall
be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union,
suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress; ...<snip>...
Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall...<snip>...
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following
oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States;...<snip>
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.....<snip>
IMO, the job of authorizing the making of war (declared or not), is a power
that belongs to Congress. My copy of the Constitution must be outdated.
Where does it say that the President can declare undeclared war?
:
: >We used to have a militia before the managed media made it sound like a
: >terrorist group.
:
: We used to have militias until we realized that militias produced very
: poor soldiers. Historically, the actions of militia units have been
: poor, and it was deemed necessary to create a reserve system that
: actually met some kind of standards.
:
The Militia worked pretty well during the Revolutionary War, 1812, Civil,
and WW1. Please cite the instances of which you speak.
: Don't worry, all of the militia units that were worth anything became
: the National Guard or Army Reserve.
:
The Militia, before its demonization by the managed media consisted of the
whole of the able bodied male citizenry up to a certain age. Do you assert
that all of us Citizens that are not Nat. Guard or Reserve are not worth
anything?
: Besides, any group that proposes the uses of violence in order to
: alter government policy is rightly considered to be a terrorist group.
: If the shoe fits . . .
Substitute "Global Behavior" for "government policy" and IMHO you have just
described our current foreign policy.
Thus you see why the founders feared a standing army.
Daryl Hunt
N9NWO wrote:
> There are really to main functions. Ground pounding
> and high tech warfare. The Marines and Army do the
> ground pounding while the Air Force and Navy are the
> high tech side.
The Army is a very large force and is quite affective when you need a VERY
large force to take or hold a piece of real estated from another VERY Large
force. They are loaded for bear and heavily armed. Not real affective in a
Door to Door Urban invironment. Of course, there are some exceptions.
The Marines are an Assualt Force. Quick, Light and can be anywhere in the
world on a very short notice. Very affective in an Urban Environment. In
an outright long term fight with a VERY Large force in the open, they lose
their affectiveness due to not being in LARGE Numbers and having different
training. In an Urban Environment, that large force would be hard pressed
to win against the smaller marine outfits due to the Large Numbers being
ill trained in that environment. When Numbers count in open combat, the
Marines cannot do this. When the terrain is at their advantage, there
isn't anyone better than a Marine.
The Navy is trained to operate more outside of the CONUS where they have to
be their own support. Along with the Marines, they have to be a completely
self contained force to react faster than the other 2 branches of the
Military. Let's not even discuss the normal Deep Water, we know that they
are the best at it. Let's talk about land operations. The Navy can place
4 carrier groups at any given time in a Hot Spot in a matter of days. No
worry about Logistics or getting permission for over flights. They bring
this with them. Like the Marines, the Navy really isn't setup for a long
sustained Air Attack. The end up with a slower supply line than the other
two branches when their supplies are depleted.
The Air Force is the Heavy Air group. The can deploy only after the
Marines and the Navy get things where the Army can secure sites for them to
operate from usually. The exception is Heavy Bombers and Tankers who will
depend on the Marine and Navy Fighters for support until bases can be
sucured in the area. After the bases are secured, look out. The amount of
damage these folks can do is astounding. They have their own quick
response Supply chain that is less than a Day from anywhere in the world.
The AF can move large amounts of equipment and People to a forward base in
less than a Day. The Army uses the AF as a Taxi service and a Cargo
provider. They also use the AF as Fire Support. Since the AF has many
times the fighters that the Navy has, it is to the Navy Air as the Army is
to the Marine. There is nothing quick and light about it. It takes longer
to get the full brunt of the AF into play. After the logistics are taken
care of, the AF is more affective in the long term.
Each branch has it's own job. It's own training requirements, etc.. While
the Army and Airforce are more General, the Navy and the Marines are more
like Specialtists and do have a simbiotic relationship.
It was realized before 1948 that the Air Forces requirements were so far
outreached from the Army that a seperate force was needed. When the
training and the mission is so far apart, it just has to be.
As for the overlapping of forces, yes, it is necessary. I was part of that
overlap. When there is pinpoint bombing done by a Heavy Bomber, you
honestly believe that it's always an Army or Marine calling it in? Chances
are, there will be a Navy, Marine or an Air Force troop out there that you
aren't aware of with a radio or laser finder either painting the target or
doing something that the Grunt can't do and that is giving pinpoint
Coordinates to the Pilot of the Heavy Attack Aircraft down to a couple of
feet of target zero. These people understand the role, capability and
power of the incoming Attack and do that part better. Do they understand
an outright Firefight? Not nearly as well as the Marine or the Grunt. But
that one person is more lethal and cost affective than 1000 of these other
folks when the situtation is correct. Usually, it will be some misbegotten
AF type for the heavies where the Navy and Marine will be assisting the
lighter attack aircraft. Ever hear the term, "On My Position".
In order for that one person to be that affective, the Navy and the Marines
had to do their jobs and the Army had to secure a foreward operating base.
Different missions entirely.
Colin Campbell
<cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: And no appropriation for the military has ever exceeded two years.
>: The Constitution specifically identifies that no single appropriation
>: can exceed two years. It was worded this way in order to allow
>: successive appropriations.
>
>I said 2 years for the Army. You said for the Military. I might be wrong,
>but the only, repeat ONLY place in the Constitution that limits
>appropriations to 2 yrs is in reference to raising and supporting an Army.
>If the founders meant for that rule to apply everywhere, why didn't they put
>it (the rule) somewhere in a more encompassing location? Are telling me is
>that nowhere else is congress allowed to make successive appropriations?
So you are saying that successive appropriations are allowed unless
expressly forbidden?
>: There is no 'Constitutional' requirement that war ever be declared.
>: All it states is that only Congress can make that declaration.
Again, where is the Constitutional requirement that war be declared?
>IMO, the job of authorizing the making of war (declared or not), is a power
>that belongs to Congress. My copy of the Constitution must be outdated.
>Where does it say that the President can declare undeclared war?
Fine, that is your opinion. And as it turns out, exactly how it
happens in real life.
>:
>: >We used to have a militia before the managed media made it sound like a
>: >terrorist group.
>:
>: We used to have militias until we realized that militias produced very
>: poor soldiers. Historically, the actions of militia units have been
>: poor, and it was deemed necessary to create a reserve system that
>: actually met some kind of standards.
>:
>The Militia worked pretty well during the Revolutionary War, 1812, Civil,
>and WW1. Please cite the instances of which you speak.
I take it that you have never really studied US military history.
For example - no militia or volunteer units fought in WWI. The use of
militia units ceased at the beginning of the Civil War and both sides
began allowing States to raise regiments only under the supervision of
the Federal military.
Militia units during the Revolutionary War (with a few notable
exceptions) consistently failed to hold against British regulars. In
general they were useful as harassers and holding areas not threatened
by British forces.
In fact many militia units of this war were nothing more than armed
bands of terrorists. There were many massacres of communities that
failed to show 'proper' support for the revolution.
>: Don't worry, all of the militia units that were worth anything became
>: the National Guard or Army Reserve.
>:
>The Militia, before its demonization by the managed media consisted of the
>whole of the able bodied male citizenry up to a certain age. Do you assert
>that all of us Citizens that are not Nat. Guard or Reserve are not worth
>anything?
I said "militia units." If you are willing to twist the meaning of
what I said - are you willing to do the same to the US Constitution?
>
>: Besides, any group that proposes the uses of violence in order to
>: alter government policy is rightly considered to be a terrorist group.
>: If the shoe fits . . .
>
>Substitute "Global Behavior" for "government policy" and IMHO you have just
>described our current foreign policy.
If you are proposing that the policy of the US government be altered
in a manner not in accordance with the US Constitution - then you are
now an enemy of the Republic.
>
>Thus you see why the founders feared a standing army.
And you see why everybody else thinks that you are a bunch of
potential terrorists.
--
We make war so we may live in peace.
Aristotle
Amanda Wreckonwit
In the spring of 1917, Harry Truman (remember him?), even though he was too
old for the newly instituted draft, helped organize and was later elected
by the troops (Old timey Constitutional method) as a First Lieutenant in
Troop F, 2nd Missouri Field Artillery. Then they joined the Army. Later
known as the 129th Field Artillery of the 60th Brigade attached to the 35th
Division.
Then in May of 1917, Lieutenant Truman had to take his Army Physical. In
October 1917, his unit went to war.
Replacement Tommel <
<3c4dd...@skycache-news.fidnet.com>, "Amanda wrote:
>
>Military History:
>
>In the spring of 1917, Harry Truman (remember him?),
Yep, he's my favorite President (he's also partially responsible for me having
met my wife - I was reading the McCullough biography of HST when we met).
> even though he was too
>old for the newly instituted draft, helped organize and was later elected
>by the troops (Old timey Constitutional method) as a First Lieutenant in
>Troop F, 2nd Missouri Field Artillery.
It wasn't a militia unit. It was a National Guard unit. He had joined in 1906
when he was 22.
The chronology is in the Truman Library:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/truman-c.htm
1905-11 Served in Battery B of Missouri National Guard,. Entered as a private,
but was soon promoted to corporal.
1917 June: Rejoined National Guard and was elected first lieutenant of Battery
F, 2nd Missouri Artillery.
August: Sworn into regular army service as a member of 129th Field Artillery
regiment.
September: Assigned to Camp Doniphan, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and appointed canteen
officer, with Sgt. Edward Jacobson as assistant.
1918 13 April: Arrived in Brest, France, on board USS George Washington.
May: Promoted to captain, although he did note receive official notification
until October.
11 July: Assigned command of Battery D, 129th Field Artillery regiment, 35th
Division. Battery was composed of 188 men, 167 horses, and a complement of
French-designed 75mm guns.
6 September: Engaged in first combat operation in Vosges Mountains.
1918 11 November: Battery D fired last round at 10:45 am.
More info, this time from:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/trivia/command.htm
FAQ: How did Truman gain the experience necessary to command an artillery unit
in France in WWI?
Harry S. Truman joined the National Guard in 1905, while working at the Union
National Bank in Kansas City, advancing to the rank of corporal. After the
declaration of war by President Wilson, on April 6, 1917, the members of his
battery elected Truman a first lieutenant. He attended artillery school and
regimental school while at Camp Doniphan, in Oklahoma, and in France, where he
was promoted to Captain of Battery D.
Source: The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman, edited by Robert H. Ferrel,
Colorado Associated University Press, ©1980, pp. 27 and 41.
http://www.whistlestop.org/fastfacts/captainh.htm
"It was June 14, 1905, when Harry S. Truman, a 21-year-old bank clerk, enlisted
in the (then) Light Battery B of the National Guard. This was Truman's first
military experience but he would find many years of interest and service in the
military. He continued as a member of the National Guard until war was declared
in 1917.
At the start of World War I, it was decided to expand Battery B in Kansas City
and Battery C in Independence into a full regiment. Six batteries were formed as
well as a supply and headquarters company for Kansas City and Independence and
one battery for the First Missouri Field Artillery in St. Louis.
In organizing the regiment, Independence furnished three of the batteries, "C,"
"E" and "F." The 129th Field Artillery Battalion was commanded by Major John
Miles. All men for the three batteries were recruited from the Independence
area. The organizational procedure was that officers were elected by members of
their organizations. The officers then elected staff members."
From another website:
http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/gallery/gallery/truman.htm
"Harry Truman became a charter member of the newly formed Battery B of the
Missouri National Guard on June 14, 1905 where he served as battery clerk and
was discharged a corporal in 1906. But with the United States declaration of war
on Germany, he reenlisted in the Missouri National Guard, where he was elected
first lieutenant at the age of 33 in the 2nd Missouri Field Artillery. On August
5, 1917 his unit was sworn into the Regular Army as the 129th Field Artillery on
the 35th Division. He was given command of Battery D on July 11, 1918 in
Brittany. Captain Truman developed his battery into a topnotch combat unit. At
the end of a month the battery was setting regitmental records for firing
accuracy and speed in disassembling, moving and setting up the guns for firing.
Truman had won the unit's respect and admiration as well. Truman’s concern and
respect for his unit can be summed up with his own comment, “I want to tell you
this, too, fellows. Right now, I’m where I want to be—in command of this
battery. I’d rather be here than president of the United States.” Harry S.
Truman was discharged from the U.S. Army as a captain in 1919. He became 33rd
president of the United States of America in 1945. His World War I service stood
him in good stead as he realized the critical importance of capable and
competent leadership and the value of team work. Today the 129th Field Artillery
maintains a Battery D “Truman’s Battery”—the only Battery D in the National
Guard—in his honor"
http://www.whistlestop.org/archive/photos/images/79-22.htm
http://www.whistlestop.org/archive/photos/soldier.htm
>Then they joined the Army. Later known as the 129th Field Artillery of the
>>60th Brigade attached to the 35th Division.
>
>Then in May of 1917, Lieutenant Truman had to take his Army Physical. In
>October 1917, his unit went to war.
Like I said, Harry S. Truman is a hero of mine. His official library says he was
in the National Guard, and every book I've read said he was in the National
Guard, so don't make out one of our greatest Presidents ever to be some
"unorganized militia" crackpot. He wasn't - he was a member of the Mo. National
Guard, and I'm sure if HST was alive today, he'd tell you he was DAMN pround to
have served.
-Tom
“True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to
surprass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever
cost." - Arthur Ashe
Colin Campbell
<cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Military History:
>
>In the spring of 1917, Harry Truman (remember him?), even though he was too
>old for the newly instituted draft, helped organize and was later elected
>by the troops (Old timey Constitutional method) as a First Lieutenant in
>Troop F, 2nd Missouri Field Artillery. Then they joined the Army. Later
>known as the 129th Field Artillery of the 60th Brigade attached to the 35th
>Division.
Wrong.
"Harry Truman became a charter member of the newly formed Battery B of
the Missouri National Guard on June 14, 1905 where he served as
battery clerk and was discharged a corporal in 1906. But with the
United States declaration of war on Germany, he reenlisted in the
Missouri National Guard, where he was elected first lieutenant at the
age of 33 in the 2nd Missouri Field Artillery."
http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/gallery/gallery/truman.htm
This was a Guard unit, not militia.
N9NWO
: > standing army that will be used to police the American
: > people. These folks really fear that we are becoming
: > a dictatorship.
:
: I only have one question. What these folks doing that would cause this
: fear in the first place. The checks and balances are in place to prevent
: this already. Unless these same folks are arming for an Armed Revolt.
To tell you the truth, I doubt that they are
doing anything. If anything it makes them
feel important that the government would
want to take them out.
They see how our system is not responsive
to the common guy anymore. Working class
folks are very marginalized in this era of TV
political ads and big campaign donors. It is
not like it was back in the 1960s when politicians
like JFK actually campaigned at the factory
doors.
What is feeding is the gun control issue. Blue
collar workers are demonized as "rednecks"
and "white trash". The fear tactics of the Clinton
administration that was used to keep democrats
loyal in the last years of the administration made
negative comments about decent folks who just
happened to be church goers or gun owners or
just happended to believe in traditional values.
They were made to feel like they were nazis or
something worst. None of which they were. They
are just good people.
So people start fearing the worst. That the checks
and balances are being destroyed. They see court
decisions, executive orders and even regulations
that blur the lines between the various parts of
government. Congress passed gun control laws
that many disliked so much that it caused the democrats
to lose control of congress for the first time in over
40 years. And they just assume that nothing lasts
forever. That like the Roman Empire, the US will
become a dictatorship.
It does not make sense, it is not logical. And it does
not help that there is a good deal of John Bircher ideas
left that need to be purged out.
But more than anything, I really feel that many just feel
like they are not include of what is happening.
Does that help? Or have I made it more confused?
N9NWO
: > and high tech warfare. The Marines and Army do the
: > ground pounding while the Air Force and Navy are the
: > high tech side.
:
: The Army is a very large force and is quite affective when you need a VERY
: large force to take or hold a piece of real estated from another VERY
Large
: force. They are loaded for bear and heavily armed. Not real affective in
a
: Door to Door Urban invironment. Of course, there are some exceptions.
:
: The Marines are an Assualt Force. Quick, Light and can be anywhere in the
: world on a very short notice. Very affective in an Urban Environment. In
: an outright long term fight with a VERY Large force in the open, they lose
: their affectiveness due to not being in LARGE Numbers and having different
: training. In an Urban Environment, that large force would be hard pressed
: to win against the smaller marine outfits due to the Large Numbers being
: ill trained in that environment. When Numbers count in open combat, the
: Marines cannot do this. When the terrain is at their advantage, there
: isn't anyone better than a Marine.
The Army is training for urban warfare. That has
been a growing area since the Balkan peacekeeping
missions. Besides most of the world's population is
now living in urban environments.
As far as the heavy forces not doing well in urban warfare,
that is correct. That is why they are buying the LAV III
and going to lighter forces. We know from watching the
Russians fighting their rebel republics that urban warfare
is the main conflict these days. Urban warfare is the only
way a rebel group can take on a high tech military such as
ours. It forces an Army such as ours to dismount and limits
support activities such as artillery or UAVs.
I have a copy of the Russian AAR for their conflict with
the rebels. It is in electronic format and I can send it to
you if you wish.
: The Navy is trained to operate more outside of the CONUS where they have t
o be their own support. Along with the Marines, they have to be a
There is questions as to whether we still need heavy
bombers. And the Navy could do airlift if the AF was
merged into them. Of all the services, the AF is the
least needed and the Navy could do much of their functions.
: Each branch has it's own job. It's own training requirements, etc..
The Army is becoming lighter, mostly because of
the need to do rapid deployments and because of
urban warfare. The army is now looking more and
more like the Marines with the new light forces and
the LAV III. I think that you see a blurring.
Tim May
<n9...@amsat.org> wrote:
> They see how our system is not responsive
> to the common guy anymore. Working class
> folks are very marginalized in this era of TV
> political ads and big campaign donors. It is
> not like it was back in the 1960s when politicians
> like JFK actually campaigned at the factory
> doors.
You mean the year the Mob got the election for JFK? That bastard stole
the election and deserved the killing he got a few years later.
All politicians spend most of their time in PR events at factories.
Your reputation has dropped considerably in my eyes.
--Tim May
Daryl Hunt
Tim May wrote:
> In article <t5p38.1706$ME.7...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, N9NWO
> <n9...@amsat.org> wrote:
>
> > They see how our system is not responsive
> > to the common guy anymore. Working class
> > folks are very marginalized in this era of TV
> > political ads and big campaign donors. It is
> > not like it was back in the 1960s when politicians
> > like JFK actually campaigned at the factory
> > doors.
>
> You mean the year the Mob got the election for JFK? That bastard stole
> the election and deserved the killing he got a few years later.
Woh, wrong answer. Trying to make me take HIS side for a change?
Don't do that, it's not nice.
> Your reputation has dropped considerably in my eyes.
So has yours with many of us. JFK, like Slick Willie and Bush jr were and
are MY President.
They shalll not be killed no matter what I personally believe. .
Amanda Wreckonwit
1905-11 Served in Battery B of Missouri National Guard,. Entered as a
private,
but was soon promoted to corporal.
From what I read at: http://www.sgaus.org/mhistory.htm
Early in this century, Congress elected to have the existing militia known
as "National Guard" placed in dual capacity. Under 1916 National Defense Act
a "National Guard of the United States" became an element of the Army for
war, but the state retained the training and appointment of officers and the
state National Guard remained available for law enforcement and for
emergencies
The key words from above; "existing militia known as "National Guard"".
They didn't become an element of the Army till 1916. HST got out in 1911.
I got out of the Navy in 1968. Do you think I could become a SEAL?
Daryl Hunt
Amanda Wreckonwit wrote:
> I got out of the Navy in 1968. Do you think I could become a SEAL?
Sure, but you had better learn to flap your Flippers and like Fish.
James and Peg
that...Navy personal also are located on Marine Bases...that the hospital is
a Navy Hospital not a Marine Hospital and such...we are a Marine Family
therefore part of the Navy Family...it's not about Flags on Bases it's about
the people who do the job on those Bases
"Bob G" <sa...@pclink.com> wrote in message
news:3c4d5d29$0$37099$9ba6...@news.pclink.com...
Gunner
>
>What it gave us was military that is so skewed
>to the right that it now looks like a Rush Limbaugh
>fan club!!
>
Hey!! I resemble that remark!!
Gunner, Ditto head
This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
MRK
say a lot of gloom and doom, but I don't mean it for next week, I mean for
several years from now. You won't see what we say on this NG happen for a
while, but it will eventually happen; don't know when, don't know how; but
it will happen. We can do what ever we like right now and we need to live
that way, but we also need to prepare for tomorrow.
"N9NWO" <n9...@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:t5p38.1706$ME.7...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
Arthur Luxury-Yacht
> On 21 Jan 2002 08:33:36 -0800, womba...@yahoo.co.uk (Arthur
> Luxury-Yacht) wrote:
>
> >> Or merge the Navy into the Air Force and the Marines into the Army.
> >
> >not gone politically correct. The oter services deal with knocked up
> >women soldiers, and all sorts of politically correct bullsh*t. The
> >Marines main mission is still to kill the enemy as quickly as
> >possible. Let the Marines take over the Army and Navy.
>
> I take it you were never either a Marine or a sailor or you'd know
> they are the same branch of service. There is a Dept of the Navy, no
> such thing as a Dept of the Marines.
>
> Bob
>
> *Retired USN. And having nothing bad to say about the jarheads,
> remembering a time or two I was REAL glad they came running when I
> needed them.
>
>
> I love my country ! It's the politicians I don't
> like or trust.
No I realized the Marines are part of the Navy. My point was the
Marines are less politically correct than the other branches. The
Marines main job is still to go out, take the ground and kill the
enemy. The other services are hampered by liberal social engineering
crap. The Marine have resisted this politically correct crap thrown on
them by liberal politicians.
As far as I am concerned - the Navy & Marines folks are the salt of
the earth - ditto for the Army and Air Force.
Strabo
Amanda Wreckonwit wrote:
>
> Colin Campbell <col...@linkline.com> wrote in us.military.army...
> : "Amanda Wreckonwit" <cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :
> : >Back when we had a constitution, Congress was charged with the authority
> to Provide for and MAINTAIN a Navy. They could Create an Army, but no
> : >appropriations for that purpose could exceed a period of 2 years.
> :
> : And no appropriation for the military has ever exceeded two years.
> : The Constitution specifically identifies that no single appropriation
> : can exceed two years. It was worded this way in order to allow
> : successive appropriations.
>
> I said 2 years for the Army. You said for the Military. I might be wrong,
> but the only, repeat ONLY place in the Constitution that limits
> appropriations to 2 yrs is in reference to raising and supporting an Army.
> If the founders meant for that rule to apply everywhere, why didn't they put
> it (the rule) somewhere in a more encompassing location? Are telling me is
> that nowhere else is congress allowed to make successive appropriations?
It was uniquely specified to prevent the formation of a permanent standing
army.
Congress controls the federal purse so it may cut or limit support
to any federal enterprise.
<snipped>
Amanda Wreckonwit
>: Colin Campbell <col...@linkline.com> wrote in us.military.army...
> :
>: Besides, any group that proposes the uses of violence in order to
>: alter government policy is rightly considered to be a terrorist group.
>: If the shoe fits . . .
>
>Substitute "Global Behavior" for "government policy" and IMHO you have just
>described our current foreign policy.
If you are proposing that the policy of the US government be altered
in a manner not in accordance with the US Constitution - then you are
now an enemy of the Republic.
>
>Thus you see why the founders feared a standing army.
And you see why everybody else thinks that you are a bunch of
potential terrorists.
--
We make war so we may live in peace.
Aristotle
Hey, Colin,
When I mustered into the Navy, I took an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. I didn't take an
oath to protect and defend the government.
I have nothing against the people who serve in the Army.
I do have something against the ruling elite that subverts the constitution
so that oil companies can make better profits on the oil they sell.
The Constitution is perfectly clear.....To raise and support armies, but no
appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two
years;
I didn't write it. I just swore to defend it.
People, (the founders) a whole bunch smarter than me or you or Ike Skelton
or Donald Rumsfeld or even GWB wrote it. If you have a problem with it,
take it up with them. I guess you must think that the founders were a bunch
of potential terrorists too.
The reason they wanted a militia instead of a standing army is exactly
because of what you see going on now. We are bombing goat herders and other
civilians in some god forsaken part of the world because some wacko
retaliated against us for meddling in Saudi Arabia. We were shooting
people, including women and children in Somalia under the guise of
"Humanitarian Efforts". "Black Hawk Down" doesn't tell the whole story.
The founders knew that the govt. would have much more difficulty getting a
farmer to come down off his tractor and go off to bomb Yugoslavia or to
deliver pizzas in Bosnia than a professional soldier who is just waiting for
a chance to do what he has been trained for (killing and breaking). They
also knew that they would have no trouble asking him to get down off it and
protect his country, land and family.
Like I said, I got nothing against the people in the military. They are
just being used, and poorly used at that.
That thing you quote Aristotle about......What did he say? I once again
paraphrase, "We love peace, so if you're not peaceful, we'll kill you"
Yeah, that makes sense.
Bob G
<mon...@charter.net> wrote:
>What I was trying to say and didnt come across right which Im sorry is
>that...Navy personal also are located on Marine Bases...that the hospital is
>a Navy Hospital not a Marine Hospital and such...we are a Marine Family
>therefore part of the Navy Family...it's not about Flags on Bases it's about
>the people who do the job on those Bases
Yep, true.
A Marine family? Then a tip of my hat to you, Shipmate. My best to
you and yours.
Bob, USN Retired
john_smith
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:51:13 -0600
>
>> "Amanda Wreckonwit" <cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>: Colin Campbell <col...@linkline.com> wrote in us.military.army...
>>:
>>: Besides, any group that proposes the uses of violence in order to
>>: alter government policy is rightly considered to be a terrorist group.
>>: If the shoe fits . . .
>>
>>Substitute "Global Behavior" for "government policy" and IMHO you have just
>>described our current foreign policy.
>
>If you are proposing that the policy of the US government be altered
>in a manner not in accordance with the US Constitution - then you are
>now an enemy of the Republic.
First, in the text you have quoted he does not make any such proposal.
He is pointing out that by your definition, the United States practices
terrorism abroad.
Second, the current judicial, executive, and legislative bodies are
behaving in violation of the Constitution, and each gives the other the wink
and nod, undermining the system of checks and balances that is supposed to
exist. By your definition, this makes them enemies of the Republic.
When the US government is largely comprised of enemies of the Republic,
who do not respect the processes, protocols, or limits described by the
Constitution, are the people still limited to using only constitutionally
proscribed means of changing that government in any moral or ethic sense?
Smith
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
"N9NWO" wrote ...
<snip>
> But more than anything, I really feel that many just feel
> like they are not include of what is happening.
>
> Does that help? Or have I made it more confused?
Actually, you did a nice job of it. While I don't agree with your thesis
that the checks and balances are in place to prevent an American
dictatorship, your tracing of the reasons for alienation are well put.
.
Amanda Wreckonwit
>I have taken the same oath - in fact many more times than you have.
I take it you're a lifer. I can understand how a person who had dedicated
their career to military service has an investment in it. When someone such
as myself points out that someone such as you has been ill used, that person
would have a tendancy to become defensive. It's only natural. I was
distraught once I figured out that I had been ill used in the Viet Nam
Conflict. You just have to buck up and get on with your life. So they
screwed you. What's new? Wait till you turn 65 and they make you go on
medicare.
> Anybody who proposes to use force or the threat of force in order to alter
government policy is an Enemy Of the US Constitution - and will have to face
myself and the rest of the US military.
You keep indicating that I am proposing the use of force. Are you still
pissed because I pointed out that Harry Truman (one of your heros) was a
member of the militia (as demonized by the managed media)? Thank God for
posse comitatus.
Any member of government who institutes or tries to institute a policy
which is in opposition to the Constitution is an enemy of the Republic. Are
you so willing to face them?
>>The Constitution is perfectly clear.....To raise and support armies, but
no
>>appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two
>>years;
>>
>>I didn't write it. I just swore to defend it.
>Again, there is no wording that says that successive appropriations
>cannot be made.
>You are reading something into it that is not there.
>What makes you so sure that _you_ know their intent better that I?
>You seem to be trying to put words into their mouths. The fact that
>the very same people who wrote the US Constitution are the people who
>organized a permanent army should be an indication of what they were
>thinking.
From what you say about all your oaths, you must be an old timer, but I
feel like I'm arguing with a child. I quoted the pertinent part of Article.
1 Section 8. above verbatim. I didn't read anything that wasn't there.
This mantra that you keep spouting about no wording that says that
successive appropriations cannot be made -- (I've heard of reading in
something that's not there and that what it sounds like)
Presidential Blow Jobs, Smearing yourself with cream cheese, wearing a tu-tu
and spinning a baton are not there either, but some how I think you would
think that those are constitutional powers as well, since they are not
specifically prohibited.
Once again I paraphrase Amendment X; The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
to the states respectively, or to the people.
Non-Greek Translation follows, stand by to copy: If the constitution don't
say the government can do it, it can't.
I'm sorry that I have to rain on your parade, but if you're not in the Navy
or Marines, you should be out of a job.
-Amanda
--Who controls the past, controls the future; Who controls the present,
controls the past.
-George Orwell
Yeah, take it to court.
Ryan Terry
> Tim May wrote:
> > In article <t5p38.1706$ME.7...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, N9NWO
> > <n9...@amsat.org> wrote:
> >
> > > They see how our system is not responsive
> > > to the common guy anymore. Working class
> > > folks are very marginalized in this era of TV
> > > political ads and big campaign donors. It is
> > > not like it was back in the 1960s when politicians
> > > like JFK actually campaigned at the factory
> > > doors.
> >
> >
"You mean the year the Mob got the election for JFK? That bastard
stole
> > the election and deserved the killing he got a few years later."
I don't like swearing, but you are an asshole. And a fool, a racist,
as well as a bottom feeder to boot. You have gone beyond the pale on
this hateful and bilious comment, you horrible freak of nature. Do
you recall the turmoil this nation suffered when JFK was killed?
Think that was good sport, you dolt?
Laughable - it's laughable and pathetic for you to even think that
normal people would give a rat's ass as to their standing in your
twisted, sick, low-voltage diseased brain.
Nothing personal, mind you.
-RT
----------
Gunner
<cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Amanda Wreckonwit" <cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>: Colin Campbell <col...@linkline.com> wrote in us.military.army...
>> :
>
>
>>: Besides, any group that proposes the uses of violence in order to
>>: alter government policy is rightly considered to be a terrorist group.
>>: If the shoe fits . . .
>>
>>Substitute "Global Behavior" for "government policy" and IMHO you have just
>>described our current foreign policy.
>
>If you are proposing that the policy of the US government be altered
>in a manner not in accordance with the US Constitution - then you are
>now an enemy of the Republic.
Its already been altered from accordance with the Constitution. I
suspect that most argue that an armed return to it..is proper.
Gunner
>
>>
>>Thus you see why the founders feared a standing army.
>
>And you see why everybody else thinks that you are a bunch of
>potential terrorists.
This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Arthur Luxury-Yacht
I do not agree with Tim but JFK obviously got in bed with the devil
and paid the price. He hooked up with some very unsavory people like
the mob and LBJ. He screwed the mob over in their eyes. The Cubans
also feel that JFK really screwed them over. Ask any Cuban 40 years
after the fact and they are still angry about the Bay of Pigs. In
addition, the mob lost Cuba and millions of dollars because of it.
Some people think the many defense contractors in Texas were concerned
that JFK might not prosecute the Vietnam war and LBJ was waiting in
the wings & maybe champing at the bit. This is more the Oliver Stone
theory.
You do business with very bad people or screw them over and you can
expect some sort of payback. The Kennedy men have a reputation of
using very poor judgement and somebody usually gets killed because of
it.
Pam Clark
My all you frustrated losers don't have anything better to do than to
slander the dead. JFK could get in bed with whomever he wanted -jealous?
http://www.geocities.com/cathycollie/monroe.htm
i guess it' too hard for you to pick on the son, so you pick on the father.
-just an observation
Perry Noid
> : > What it is really about is that they are afraid of a
> : > standing army that will be used to police the American
> : > people. These folks really fear that we are becoming
> : > a dictatorship.
yeap, Clinton took one major step in that direction....
The ==HUGE== ongoing constitional crisis that continues to be ignored by
the press is the fact that Clinton's "campaign reform" (enacted into law
just after he was first elected) put control of 90% of the campaign
funds of the US congress and US Senate in the hands of just a few party
leaders. If you don't vote the way your party leaders want, then they
defund your re-election campaign, which has happened quite a few times.
This concentrates power into the hands of the few, and it's a very
dangerous situation. Thank you Bill Clinton :oP
Arthur Luxury-Yacht
Oh you mean like left-wing plagarizing historians slandering Jefferson
and others?
> JFK could get in bed with whomever he wanted -jealous?
Why should I be? I did not get in bed with the mafia and other scum
like JFK. Marilyn was quite fat, a whore and I have had much better
honey.
> http://www.geocities.com/cathycollie/monroe.htm
>
> i guess it' too hard for you to pick on the son, so you pick on the father.
>
> -just an observation
Both the father and son used incredibly poor judgement like Uncle Ted.
I feel sorry for the son he at least tried to be a decent person.
John John did use terrible judgement and got himself, his wife and her
sister killed.
dh
"Arthur Luxury-Yacht" <womba...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> I do not agree with Tim but JFK obviously got in bed with the devil
> and paid the price. He hooked up with some very unsavory people like
> the mob and LBJ.
And you can name a recent President who did/was NOT?
Dan
dh
"Arthur Luxury-Yacht" <womba...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> Oh you mean like left-wing plagarizing historians slandering Jefferson
> and others?
Now there is an intelligent statement...
You can, of course, prove them wrong? Assuming, for argument's sake that
your statement is even remotely plausible.
Yeah...
Dan
dh
"Arthur Luxury-Yacht" <womba...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> I do not agree with Tim but JFK obviously got in bed with the devil
> and paid the price. He hooked up with some very unsavory people like
> the mob and LBJ.
And you can name a recent President who did/was NOT?
Dan
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: "dh" <kha...@pyramid.net>
Control: cancel <bkj48.725$tT2.5...@newsfeed.slurp.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <bkj48.725$tT2.5...@newsfeed.slurp.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:52:17 GMT
X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 706672187 110.157.13.128 (Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:57:12 GMT)
Message-ID: <cancel.bkj48.725$tT2.5...@newsfeed.slurp.net>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,us.military.army
NNTP-Posting-Host: w088.z064003087.lax-ca.dsl.cnc.net 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.ruhr-uni-bochum.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.frii.com!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!sjc-feed.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp07!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40726569
This message was cancelled from within The Unacanceller's glorious new software, Lotus 1-2-3 For Rogue Cancellers.
dh
"Arthur Luxury-Yacht" <womba...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> Oh you mean like left-wing plagarizing historians slandering Jefferson
> and others?
Now there is an intelligent statement...
You can, of course, prove them wrong? Assuming, for argument's sake that
your statement is even remotely plausible.
Yeah...
Dan
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: "dh" <kha...@pyramid.net>
Control: cancel <qmj48.726$tT2.5...@newsfeed.slurp.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <qmj48.726$tT2.5...@newsfeed.slurp.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:36:11 GMT
X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 317363382 239.174.182.246 (Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:08:40 GMT)
Message-ID: <cancel.qmj48.726$tT2.5...@newsfeed.slurp.net>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,us.military.army
NNTP-Posting-Host: w088.z064003087.lax-ca.dsl.cnc.net 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.fh-hannover.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!hub1.nntpserver.com!xmission!nntp.cifnet.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!sjc-feed.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp07!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40726641
Pam Clark
My all you frustrated losers don't have anything better to do than to
slander the dead. JFK could get in bed with whomever he wanted -jealous?
http://www.geocities.com/cathycollie/monroe.htm
i guess it' too hard for you to pick on the son, so you pick on the father.
-just an observation
with the devil
> and paid the price. He hooked up with some very unsavory people like
> the mob and LBJ. He screwed the mob over in their eyes. The Cubans
> also feel that JFK really screwed them over. Ask any Cuban 40 years
> after the fact and they are still angry about the Bay of Pigs. In
> addition, the mob lost Cuba and millions of dollars because of it.
>
> Some people think the many defense contractors in Texas were concerned
> that JFK might not prosecute the Vietnam war and LBJ was waiting in
> the wings & maybe champing at the bit. This is more the Oliver Stone
> theory.
>
> You do business with very bad people or screw them over and you can
> expect some sort of payback. The Kennedy men have a reputation of
> using very poor judgement and somebody usually gets killed because of
> it.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: pamcla...@yahoo.com (Pam Clark)
Control: cancel <5546b088.02012...@posting.google.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <5546b088.02012...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:57:28 GMT
Message-ID: <cancel.5546b088.0...@posting.google.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,us.military.army
NNTP-Posting-Host: commflt.fastlanetrans.com 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.fh-hannover.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!peernews2.colt.net!colt.net!news-x2.support.nl!news.stealth.net!msrtrans1!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp02!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40727531
Arthur Luxury-Yacht
Oh you mean like left-wing plagarizing historians slandering Jefferson
and others?
> JFK could get in bed with whomever he wanted -jealous?
Why should I be? I did not get in bed with the mafia and other scum
like JFK. Marilyn was quite fat, a whore and I have had much better
honey.
> http://www.geocities.com/cathycollie/monroe.htm
>
> i guess it' too hard for you to pick on the son, so you pick on the father.
>
> -just an observation
Both the father and son used incredibly poor judgement like Uncle Ted.
I feel sorry for the son he at least tried to be a decent person.
John John did use terrible judgement and got himself, his wife and her
sister killed.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: womba...@yahoo.co.uk (Arthur Luxury-Yacht)
Control: cancel <ca7faf7f.02012...@posting.google.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <ca7faf7f.02012...@posting.google.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:08:37 GMT
Message-ID: <cancel.ca7faf7f.0...@posting.google.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,us.military.army
NNTP-Posting-Host: commflt.fastlanetrans.com 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.fh-hannover.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!nntp.cifnet.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!sjc-feed.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp02!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40727095
N9NWO
:> What it is really about is that they are afraid of a
:> standing army that will be used to police the American
:> people. These folks really fear that we are becoming
:> a dictatorship.
:I only have one question. What these folks doing that would cause this
:fear in the first place. The checks and balances are in place to prevent
:this already. Unless these same folks are arming for an Armed Revolt.
Nothing. They are just paranoid and it makes them feel important to
think that the US government will be hunting them down for just owning
guns or for being conservative.
Strabo
--------------------------------------
Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. argues that a
1996 decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals allows state police
to disqualify a person from possessing firearms based on the
sentence he could have received.
"To take somebody's constitutional rights based on 'could have'
— I don't understand that," Mr. Arnold said.
State police said they soon will begin searching databases for gun
owners with disqualifying offenses on their records.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20020129-865799.htm
---------------------------------------
Walter Daniels
>"Amanda Wreckonwit" <cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Back when we had a constitution, Congress was charged with the authority to
>> Provide for and MAINTAIN a Navy. They could Create an Army, but no
>> appropriations for that purpose could exceed a period of 2 years.
>> Since we are not at war (constitutionally declared) then the Army should be
>> shut down.
>>
>> The Marines are already a part of the Navy.
>>
>> The Air Force, which used to be called the Army Air Corp, should be closed
>> too. The Navy is the only constitutionally authorized service that should
>> be maintained.
>> We used to have a militia before the managed media made it sound like a
>> terrorist group.
>Just speaking about the Air Force, I have no real knowledge on the others.
>During WWI, the then British government commissioned Field-Marshall Jan
>Smuts of South Africa on a proper strategy for the way the Army and Air
>Corps should work together, a move that was apparently prompted by the
>Zeppelin raids.
>The fact is that the Air Force will always have very different demands to
>the demands of the Army or Navy, and there is always a risk that one side
>might become monopolized by the others, and you would lose an important
>function of your defence force.
Sadly, there is already a "split." The AF does not see it's job as
"multi role." A ground pounder in trouble, does not care _whose_
support attack plane it is, when he calls for help. The _Air_Force_
does not like to "play at ground level." There is a great need to stop
the _the_other_guys_ SA planes, but there is also need for them on
*our* side. The trouble is, there is no "glamor" in close attack
support. The AF continues to feed the "Fighter pilot" mentality, and
neglect the equally necessary, "_my_ buddy down there needs help from
above," attitude.
IOW, F-16 = sexy, A-7 = isn't sexy. As long as that attitude exists,
GP's die for no good reason.
>Sure, perhaps the acquisition system needs to be redressed, but I think that
>consolidation of the Armed Forces is not a good thing.
>
>Darren
Walter Daniels FBN Graphics Promotional Consulting.
Is your advertising working with your marketing to help with your selling? If
they aren't working together, you may be spending too much.
http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics
*******fbng...@earthlink.net**************
Walter Daniels
<<tommel6@_fook_spam_hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:26:52 -0600, in article
>>Military History:
Heavy snipping to get directly to the point.
>http://www.trumanlibrary.org/trivia/command.htm
>
>Source: The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman, edited by Robert H. Ferrel,
>Colorado Associated University Press, ©1980, pp. 27 and 41.
>
>http://www.whistlestop.org/fastfacts/captainh.htm
>At the start of World War I, it was decided to expand Battery B in Kansas City
>and Battery C in Independence into a full regiment. Six batteries were formed as
>well as a supply and headquarters company for Kansas City and Independence and
>one battery for the First Missouri Field Artillery in St. Louis.
>In organizing the regiment, Independence furnished three of the batteries, "C,"
>"E" and "F." The 129th Field Artillery Battalion was commanded by Major John
>Miles.
If "recruiting" is not a fancy word for "calling up the militia,"
someone needs to take a logic class. Someone announces a need for men
and the "militia" responds. This is further clarified, when it says
"the officers were *elected* by the men of the new regiments."
>All men for the three batteries were recruited from the Independence
>area. The organizational procedure was that officers were elected by members of
>their organizations. The officers then elected staff members."
>
>From another website:
>Like I said, Harry S. Truman is a hero of mine. His official library says he was
>in the National Guard, and every book I've read said he was in the National
>Guard, so don't make out one of our greatest Presidents ever to be some
>"unorganized militia" crackpot. He wasn't - he was a member of the Mo. National
>Guard, and I'm sure if HST was alive today, he'd tell you he was DAMN pround to
>have served.
He responded as a "militia member," and joined the organizarion then
known as the "National Guard of Missouri." It is no different than if
he had responded and joined the regular Army. From the statements
presented, the "NG companies *did not exist,* prior to the "militia
members responding to the call."
Their response led to the formation and organization, *exactly* like
the Revolutionary War.
>-Tom
>
>“True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to
>surprass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever
>cost." - Arthur Ashe
Sung Han
Regards,
Sung
betweentheeyes
news:3c695724...@news.earthlink.net...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:09:27 +0200, "Darren" <d...@icon.co.za> wrote:
> >"Amanda Wreckonwit" <cropcirc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Thanks for joining Talk Politics Guns. Can you tie this post to the topic
of the newsgroup?
Replacement Tommel <
><3c6959ab...@news.earthlink.net>, fbng...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>On 22 Jan 2002 14:33:40 -0800, Replacement Tommel
><<tommel6@_fook_spam_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:26:52 -0600, in article
>>>Military History:
>>
>>Source: The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman, edited by Robert H. Ferrel,
>>Colorado Associated University Press, ©1980, pp. 27 and 41.
>>
>>http://www.whistlestop.org/fastfacts/captainh.htm
>
>>At the start of World War I, it was decided to expand Battery B in Kansas City
>>and Battery C in Independence into a full regiment. Six batteries were formed
>>>>as
>>well as a supply and headquarters company for Kansas City and Independence and
>>one battery for the First Missouri Field Artillery in St. Louis.
>
>>In organizing the regiment, Independence furnished three of the >>batteries,
>>"C," "E" and "F." The 129th Field Artillery Battalion was >>commanded by Major
>>John Miles.
>
> If "recruiting" is not a fancy word for "calling up the militia,"
>someone needs to take a logic class.
I've taken one, thank you.
I've also have quite a number of dictionaries and none of them have your rather
unique definition of "recruiting" in them.
Let's see... hmmm, "To fill up the number (as an army) with new members"... no,
it's not that... "a newcomer to a field or activity"... "a former enlisted man
of the lowest rank in the army" etc. etc. Nope, no "calling up the militia" in
there.
>Someone announces a need for men and the "militia" responds. This is further
>>clarified, when it says "the officers were *elected* by the men of the new
>>regiments."
>
(snip)
> He responded as a "militia member,"
Nope. He responded as a "citizen."
> and joined the organizarion then known as the "National Guard of Missouri."
Run by the state of MO.
> It is no different than if he had responded and joined the regular Army.
If that is true, why do think it was the "militia" that he joined?
> From the statements
>presented, the "NG companies *did not exist,* prior to the "militia
>members responding to the call."
>
And neither do umpteen numbers of Army Divs prior to WW2... Truman was a
"charter member" of his unit. My ex-girlfriend's Dad is a "plank owner" of the
USS Miss-Shit-Can. It's the same sorta thing.
http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/gallery/presidential/truman.html
Harry Truman became a charter member of the newly formed Battery B of the
Missouri National Guard on June 14, 1905 where he served as battery clerk and
was discharged a corporal in 1906. But with the United States declaration of war
on Germany, he reenlisted in the Missouri National Guard, where he was elected
first lieutenant at the age of 33 in the 2nd Missouri Field Artillery. On August
5, 1917 his unit was sworn into the Regular Army as the 129th Field Artillery on
the 35th Division. He was given command of Battery D on July 11,
918 in Brittany. Captain Truman developed his battery into a topnotch combat
unit. At the end of a month the battery was setting regitmental records for
firing accuracy and speed in disassembling, moving and setting up the guns for
firing. Truman had won the unit's respect and admiration as well. Truman’s
concern and respect for his unit can be summed up with his own comment, “I want
to tell you this, too, fellows. Right now, I’m where I want to be—in command
of this battery. I’d rather be here than president of the United States.” Harry
S. Truman was discharged from the U.S. Army as a captain in 1919. He became 33rd
president of the United States of America in 1945. His World War I service stood
him in good stead as he realized the critical importance of capable and
competent leadership and the value of team work. Today the 129th Field Artillery
maintains a Battery D “Truman’s Battery”—the only Battery D in the
National Guard—in his honor.
> Their response led to the formation and organization, *exactly* like
>the Revolutionary War.
>
Nope. More like what happened with the Blue and the Grey in WW2 (National Guard
units merged into an Army Div.).
You might find the book "Truman" to be a good read, and I'd also recommend
"Plain Speaking." His library houses his army uniform, his saddle, and his
letters to Bess regarding his military service.
If you want to say that Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson, and Madison was in a
militia, than fine ('cause it's true). The simple fact of the matter is, HST was
not.
http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/historic/pres.html
-Tom
"Hey, if Hitler didn't have a gun he wouldn't have been able to kill himself
now, would he?" - a drunken Jen discussing gun control, Penn Law Halloween
Party, 2000
N9NWO
: >someone needs to take a logic class.
:
: I've taken one, thank you.
:
: I've also have quite a number of dictionaries and none of them have your
rather unique definition of "recruiting" in them.
:
: Let's see... hmmm, "To fill up the number (as an army) with new
members"... no, it's not that... "a newcomer to a field or activity"... "a
former enlisted man
: of the lowest rank in the army" etc. etc. Nope, no "calling up the
militia" in
: there.
:
: >Someone announces a need for men and the "militia" responds. This is
further
: >>clarified, when it says "the officers were *elected* by the men of the
new
: >>regiments."
: >
:
: (snip)
:
: > He responded as a "militia member,"
:
: Nope. He responded as a "citizen."
Per Congress, Title 10 USC Sect 311, all males
between 17 and 45, if fit, are militia in that they
can be drafted. To be a male citizen in the US
is to be potential member of the US military.
The unorganized militia is that pool of citizens
from which we recruit.
: > and joined the organizarion then known as the "National Guard of
Missouri."
:
: Run by the state of MO.
:
: > It is no different than if he had responded and joined the regular Army.
:
: If that is true, why do think it was the "militia" that he joined?
The National Guard is the organized militia per Congress
as stated in Title 10 USC Sect 311. The State Guard is
another form of the militia as are local police and fire departments.
: > From the statements
: to tell you this, too, fellows. Right now, I'm where I want to be-in
command
: of this battery. I'd rather be here than president of the United States."
Harry
: S. Truman was discharged from the U.S. Army as a captain in 1919. He
became 33rd
: president of the United States of America in 1945. His World War I service
stood
: him in good stead as he realized the critical importance of capable and
: competent leadership and the value of team work. Today the 129th Field
Artillery
: maintains a Battery D "Truman's Battery"-the only Battery D in
the
: National Guard-in his honor.
:
Justyn Waters
Arthur Luxury-Yacht wrote:
> sa...@pclink.com (Bob G) wrote in message news:<3c4ca008$0$1615$9ba6...@news.pclink.com>...
> > On 21 Jan 2002 08:33:36 -0800, womba...@yahoo.co.uk (Arthur
> > Luxury-Yacht) wrote:
> >
> > >> Or merge the Navy into the Air Force and the Marines into the Army.
> > >
> > >Don't merge the Marines. They are one of the only branches that has
> > >not gone politically correct. The oter services deal with knocked up
> > >women soldiers, and all sorts of politically correct bullsh*t. The
> > >Marines main mission is still to kill the enemy as quickly as
> > >possible. Let the Marines take over the Army and Navy.
> >
> > I take it you were never either a Marine or a sailor or you'd know
> > they are the same branch of service. There is a Dept of the Navy, no
> > such thing as a Dept of the Marines.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > *Retired USN. And having nothing bad to say about the jarheads,
> > remembering a time or two I was REAL glad they came running when I
> > needed them.
> >
> >
> > I love my country ! It's the politicians I don't
> > like or trust.
You said it buddy I'm with you. I think we have enough on our plate with the mess we have to
clean up if we reorder the ranks in the middle of a fucking war then that is stupid. Wait until
we cleaned up the damn mess over there and if we need to then we can reorder the ranks but to do
so now would be a dumb assed idea. The primary objective in any war is to fuck up the
organization of the enemy's flanks that's why the military is so organized and everything in its
place. Since if there is chaos in the ranks then you cannot fight the enemy when you don't know
when you are going or coming. The ranking system and the knowing who is in charge is to diminsh
the confusion when you are pinned down and starting to take fire but sometimes dickwads use rank
to get in the damn way since they are utterly fucking useless otherwise. I think the navy
should help the coast guard when they aren't being used to fight a war since it is the navy's
traditional role to deal with crime on the high seas let the new guys chew on some drug
smugglers. Maybe get the land forces in there to get them blooded in peace time so they know
what they will be feeling in combat when the adrenaline is surging and when the time comes they
will be able to think clearly and not panic. I would have a few games war games with the
marines verses the army.
One of the dumbest ideas they have is to make stuff that is multifunctional and very complicated
like the bradley fighting vehicle was a dumbassed idea that will probably get a bunch of folks
killed. The osprey is another dumb idea. I think they should design a motor bike that has a
weapon's package that tracks with the driver's helmet that can go extremely fast over rough
terrain that can be dropped from a bomber or a helicopter. A motor bike is faster and more
manvuerable than anything like a tank or a truck. You could load it onto a boat or throw a camo
sheet over it easy. If you make it really tough then you don't have to worry too much about the
weight. Reinforce the gas tank because a stray shot hitting that could blow you sky high. If
you go fast enough then they cannot see you well enough to hit you they cannot concentrate fire
because you've seperated and you can avoid the hit because you are more manuverable than a
standard vehicle. Then I would take a baja bug load it down with weapons and armor since a bug
is small and manuverable then if you armed it with the right weapons then you could basically
take out a fucking tank. I would design it build the prototype and hand over the keys to
someone who would take it for a spin and try to completely destroy it. Then after he has
completely destroyed it then he would write down what it took to destroy it. Then I would see
if I couldn't fix any design flaws. It wouldn't be very safe probably because the firewall on
the bug is too fucking thin but it would be fast and manuverable as long as the weapons on it
were light. Don't do a dumb assed thing like using aluminum armor use titanium or something.
Even with standard steel armor like a tank it would be much faster and more manuverable than a
tank smaller lighter faster and more manuverable is the way to go. A bike could be dropped from
a plane or loaded onto a carrier so therefore you would essentially have some thing that was
versitile and tough. It could easily be transported to a war zone an average air craft carrier
could pack many of them aboard it then distribute them to smaller boats for delivery designed
like those boats used in saving private ryan only built on a bit larger scale maybe or maybe
they would work just fine because I do not know how much weight they are capable of hauling.
The troops could ride off of the boats and go so fast that the gunners would have difficulty
hitting them because they scattered. If they start using heat seeking missiles to nail the
bikes then we have to come up with a way to screw up a heat seeking missile a flare shooter out
the back maybe could work. Or throwing a molitov cocktail might generate a miss.
Fuck the politicians most of them have their head up their god damn ass so far that you have to
put a breathing tube in close proximity or they might suffocate on their own bullshit. I say
when they start being difficult then hand each of them a sword and let the stupid mother fuckers
whale on each other and maybe a few of them might get killed and do america a favor.
>
>
> No I realized the Marines are part of the Navy. My point was the
> Marines are less politically correct than the other branches. The
> Marines main job is still to go out, take the ground and kill the
> enemy. The other services are hampered by liberal social engineering
> crap. The Marine have resisted this politically correct crap thrown on
> them by liberal politicians.
>
> As far as I am concerned - the Navy & Marines folks are the salt of
> the earth - ditto for the Army and Air Force.
--
-Justyn Waters
I never went to kindergarden so all I needed to know I learned from
Shakespeare. You won't survive long if you live in a Shakespearian tragedy.
There are few human problems which can not be solved with the jucicious
application of high explosives. (And if that doesn't work, try duct tape)
Reach out and byte someone:)
-Compass Media
Rifleman
"Justyn Waters" If it stops em from killing us allies in friendly fire
incidents I am all for it :o)
schon
Rifleman <rifl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MA4g8.79240$Ah1.10...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Justyn Waters" If it stops em from killing us allies in friendly fire
> incidents I am all for it :o)
>
>
Iraqui action . (Guess they've never really forgiven us for burning the
White House :-) )
Schon