US Army: a failure in Imperialism
comments4u
The US Army has a 200 year history of failing to achieve
US foreign policy goals. It's time to evaluate the US
Army and determine whether it has any useful purpose.
As defined by the Monroe Doctrine, US foreign policy was
at first imperialistic domination of the Western Hemisphere.
It was later extended to include domination of the entire
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, with influence extending onto
the European and Asian continents. For the most part, the
US was successful, but no thanks to the US Army.
The US Army secured the southern US border by defeating
Mexico, and secured the interior by defeating the Indians.
But it took a preposterous 100 years to defeat the Indians,
and taking a break for the US Civil War is no excuse.
The Civil War demostrates US Army inadequacy, where it was
soundly thrashed by the Confederacy for the first two years.
It didn't become effective until the US Navy blockade of the
South diminished the fighting ability of the Confederacy.
Ah, the US Navy, now there's a service that has sucessfully
executed US imperialistic foreign policy.
In the hundred years it took the Army to defeat the Indians,
the Navy convinced the British and French Navies to keep
their distance, blockaded the Confederacy, and beat the
Spanish Navy. With the Marines, it beat the Tripoleon
pirates, conquered the Phillipines, stole the Panama Canal,
and kicked around any banana republic it chose to pick a fight
with.
Things didn't improve for the US Army in the 20th century. It
tipped the balance of a stalement in WWI, showed up in Europe
for WWII after the tide had turned, lost in Korea even with
help, and lost in Viet Nam.
It's hard to justify continued funding for a service with such
a long history of failure. Maybe it's time to relegate the US
Army to home defense. But then, it couldn't prevent the British
from burning the US capital in 1814, so maybe that's not a good
idea either.
Isn't it obvious? The most famous US Army battle is Custer's
Last Stand.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
V-Man
>US foreign policy goals. It's time to evaluate the US
>Army and determine whether it has any useful purpose.
We are sorry, but our judges have ruled that you never took a US History
class. If you had, you'd have known about WW I, WW II, the American
Revolution, and a number of other conflicts.
>As defined by the Monroe Doctrine, US foreign policy was
>at first imperialistic domination of the Western Hemisphere.
Sorry, but our judges tell us that you have never taken a political science
class. If you had, you'd have known that spheres of influence were once very
important to nation states and that the US was the only nation that could help
struggling Latin American nations develop autonomy from their European
founders.
>The Civil War demostrates US Army inadequacy, where it was
>soundly thrashed by the Confederacy for the first two years.
You seem to forget Shilo, you also forget Antietam. Both were resounding
Confederate *losses*. And even before those was the battle of Springfield,
Missouri, which was also a resounding Confederate loss.
>It didn't become effective until the US Navy blockade of the
>South diminished the fighting ability of the Confederacy.
This conclusion is in error. The US Army's effectiveness was a leadership
issue that was resolved as the war progressed. That the Navy's blockade was
becoming *actually* effective, as opposed to *theoretically* effective (it took
the USN two years to get thei ships necessary to actually accomplish an
effetive blockade) at about the same time is coincidental. The Navy had it's
own leadership issues to resolve.
>Ah, the US Navy, now there's a service that has sucessfully
>executed US imperialistic foreign policy.
Like Pearl Harbor? Like the near disaster at the Leyte landing site?
>conquered the Phillipines,
But it took the US Army to *keep* the Philippines when the Moro rebellion
started.
>Things didn't improve for the US Army in the 20th century. It
>tipped the balance of a stalement in WWI,
Inaccurate. The US Army brought to Europe a fresh perspective and drive the
Allied forces lacked after several years of conflict.
> showed up in Europe
>for WWII after the tide had turned,
How do you measure that? Absent a US Army, there would have been no
invasion of Italy or France. Absent that ability, England would have sat out
the war. That would have permitted the Germans to stop, not defeat, but stop
the Soviets. The Germans would have retained Norway, France, the Low
Countries, Denmark, and much of the Balkans.
> lost in Korea even with help,
Again, incorrect. The Korean Conflict came to a political end, not a
military end. President Truman, and President Eisenhower decided, and embarked
on a course of action that limited military ability.
Further, Korea had Naval, Marine, and Air Force participation. It was the
first war where all four services had a major investment of assets in the same
theater.
Also, how do you figure "lost" at all? The UN decided there were to be two
Koreas in the late 40s. UN troops *never* had the objective of unifying Korea,
merely keeping the status quo, per the UN Mandate. hence, we achived our
objectives in Korea, rather well. Actualy military personnel call it winning
when you do what you set out to do.
> and lost in Viet Nam.
At worst, draw. And you couldn't even articulate why we drew (or lost).
>Isn't it obvious?
Yes, you are a loser.
>The most famous US Army battle is Custer's
>Last Stand.
I'd think that if you asked the average American what the US Army's greatest
battle was, they'd say "Desert Storm", even though that was a whole conflict.
I'd have to say, Normandy, or the Bulge, Shilo, Bataan, Michener, or perhaps
the Vera Cruz/Chapultepec campaign of the Mexican war.
Anyway, thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you
backstage.
<plonk>
A Knight is sworn to Valor...
His Heart knows only Virtue...
His Blade defends the Weak...
His Word speaks only Truth...
His *Wrath* undoes the Wicked...
Colin Campbell
wrote:
You should change your deja account to:
'NeverLearnedMilitaryHistory@'
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
massive, diffucult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a
source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
Gene Spafford 1992
CEEJAY
Message-ID: <7ut0dk$1rk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.138.4.212
X-Posting-Host: netnuuuuuz.trollfeed.utb.org
X-Funding: International Endowment for the Usenet Performing Arts
CEEJAY
Colin Campbell <col...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:38161729....@news.linkline.com...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:56:53 GMT, comments4u <comme...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> You should change your deja account to:
> 'NeverLearnedMilitaryHistory@'
I posted this to V, and now you.....
>
>
>
Bill
plausible to disband a sizeable amount of our nations defense based on data
that is for the most part 50 years old or more?
Since you are such an astute an educated person of American history, I
am sure you would be very familiar with the old saying "Rome was not built
in a day." Well my friend neither are armies.....
Lets compare today's Army to the basic structure of our armies of the
past. Today's Army is an all volunteer force whose educational level
averages at 1 year of college, the armies of our past were comprised of high
school drop outs, junior high school drop outs and in cases dating before
W.W.II some soldiers had never had any formal education.
This makes you say: Is an educated army a better army? The answer is a
resounding YES!
Our officer corps comprised of rich beurocrats or sons of them that
bought their commission or way into West Point etc.... Today's Officer corps
are all college grads that attained standards higher than writing a check
for the right price to receive their commission.
To further the discussion of today's officer, most of the officers in
the higher end of the food chain are veterans of the hollow army... Most of
them spent their careers rebuilding the Army to what it is today "An
Effective Fighting Force" that is more than capable of carrying out its
mission of carrying out American foreign policy.
So I say to you that you should rethink your position of today's Army
and definitely brush up on your history....
Bill
comments4u <comme...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7ut0dk$1rk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> US Army: a failure in Imperialism
>
> The US Army has a 200 year history of failing to achieve
> US foreign policy goals. It's time to evaluate the US
> Army and determine whether it has any useful purpose.
>
> As defined by the Monroe Doctrine, US foreign policy was
> at first imperialistic domination of the Western Hemisphere.
> It was later extended to include domination of the entire
> Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, with influence extending onto
> the European and Asian continents. For the most part, the
> US was successful, but no thanks to the US Army.
>
> The US Army secured the southern US border by defeating
> Mexico, and secured the interior by defeating the Indians.
> But it took a preposterous 100 years to defeat the Indians,
> and taking a break for the US Civil War is no excuse.
>
> The Civil War demostrates US Army inadequacy, where it was
> soundly thrashed by the Confederacy for the first two years.
> It didn't become effective until the US Navy blockade of the
> South diminished the fighting ability of the Confederacy.
>
> Ah, the US Navy, now there's a service that has sucessfully
> executed US imperialistic foreign policy.
>
> In the hundred years it took the Army to defeat the Indians,
> the Navy convinced the British and French Navies to keep
> their distance, blockaded the Confederacy, and beat the
> Spanish Navy. With the Marines, it beat the Tripoleon
> pirates, conquered the Phillipines, stole the Panama Canal,
> and kicked around any banana republic it chose to pick a fight
> with.
>
> Things didn't improve for the US Army in the 20th century. It
> tipped the balance of a stalement in WWI, showed up in Europe
> for WWII after the tide had turned, lost in Korea even with
> help, and lost in Viet Nam.
>
> It's hard to justify continued funding for a service with such
> a long history of failure. Maybe it's time to relegate the US
> Army to home defense. But then, it couldn't prevent the British
> from burning the US capital in 1814, so maybe that's not a good
> idea either.
>
> Isn't it obvious? The most famous US Army battle is Custer's
> Last Stand.
>
>
David Casey
<snipped to save bandwidth>
Sheesh, this is just *asking* to be flamed.
SGT Casey
Lurker Above
God, what an idiot...good-bye...<PLONK!>
Charles Revie
Italy, France, Germany, England, Holland, Portugal, Japan, the Church of
Rome, the Soviet Union and most recently, the Peoples Republic of China.
GL&GPUAR
comments4u wrote:
>
> US Army: a failure in Imperialism
>
comments4u
"CEEJAY" <CE...@ixsendnojunk.netcom.com> wrote:
SNIP
Love it when someone checks the headers! :)
Hate it when a perfectly good x post is ruined by AOL's non-compatible
software. :(
Would guess most Usenetters don't know what we're talking about.
Best Regards.
comments4u
velo...@aol.com.CanDo (V-Man) wrote:
SNIP
> the US was the only nation that could help
> struggling Latin American nations develop autonomy from their European
> founders.
Oh yes, they really became autonomous with Teddy's attitude of talk softly
and carry a big stick and later with the CIA buying their elections.
SNIP
> But it took the US Army to *keep* the Philippines when the Moro rebellion
> started.
Sounds like they were enjoying their autonomy from the Spanish. More like
trading oppressors, I'd say.
SNIP
> Again, incorrect. The Korean Conflict came to a political end, not a
> military end. President Truman, and President Eisenhower decided, and embarked
> on a course of action that limited military ability.
Which doesn't explain why the US Army was nearly pushed into the ocean in the
first few months, saved only by a daring plan by MacArthur more typical of
USMC actions (probably discovered it during his tremendous Southwest Pacific
campaign commanding the Aussie troops).
SNIP
So you've denied failure and called imperialism something else.
> <plonk>
Oh yes, AOL finally has kill files! Wow! A closed mind is a wonderful thing
to waste.
Stephen McCullough
>
>US Army: a failure in Imperialism
>
>The US Army has a 200 year history of failing to achieve
>US foreign policy goals. It's time to evaluate the US
>Army and determine whether it has any useful purpose.
>
Troll, troll troll. Lengthy troll though.
Stephen McCullough
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
Shaun
wrote:
>Speaking of imperialism in the western hemisphere, you left out Spain,
>Italy, France, Germany, England, Holland, Portugal, Japan, the Church of
>Rome, the Soviet Union and most recently, the Peoples Republic of China.
>
All of which have conquered greater territory, against stronger
opponents, than the US has achieved
CEEJAY
> >Italy, France, Germany, England, Holland, Portugal, Japan, the Church of
> >Rome, the Soviet Union and most recently, the Peoples Republic of China.
> >
> All of which have conquered greater territory, against stronger
> opponents, than the US has achieved
Yeah...You're right. England wasn't so tough to beat, Germany and Japan too!
And the Soviet Union....Hell, they collapsed before we could fight them.
And the PRC...They've conquered such vast territories with great standing
armies....Like Tibet.
But who has been conquered by Spain,
Italy, France, Holland, Portugal, or the Church of
Rome in recent history?
Mustang
offered STIFF resistance when Hitler's troops rolled in! Ever heard of Vichy
France?
Charles Revie
imperialistic. If we were then we would likely have conquered more than
our fair share of turf around the world. As it is, when we have beaten
up on them, we feel sorry that we did and we send them money out of pity
for their misbehaving and to get them out of our backyard.
1803 Lousiana Purchase (bail out of Royal France only -- no war)
18?? Seward's Folly (simple land deal to get Imperial Russia back on the
otherside of the Bering Straits -- no war)
1845 Gadsen Purchase from Mexico
1898 Various and sundry reparations to Spain (all acquired territories
have been relinquished are now independent nations -- okay maybe a few
small Pacific islands are the exception)
1945 World wide reparations to the Axis Powers
My point being that the US is not out for world wide domination or even
domination of the western hemisphere. Strange kind of imperialism if
you ask me. Hell, we have enough trouble getting all of our diversity,
factionalism, dissention, etc, to even agree to getting out to vote.
Charlie
Shaun wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:00:00 -0600, Charles Revie <cre...@zianet.com>
> wrote:
>
Charles Revie
Italy that took on Ethopia in the WW2 era. Austrian Royalty still
claims heir to the Holy Roman Empire.
fe...@mscd.edu
comments4u <comme...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> US Army: a failure in Imperialism
>
> The US Army has a 200 year history of failing to achieve
> US foreign policy goals. It's time to evaluate the US
> Army and determine whether it has any useful purpose.
>
Oh I don't know! The US has a very effectively functioning Empire
now! The more the Armies of the Empire destroy, the less are the
resources will flow into the Empire! The Armies of an Empire are to
make examples of Dissident Powers = Saddam, Noriega, Serbia, etc. But
you get Indonesia and Turkey doing mush that dissidents doing, and you
do nothing. The Empire is functioning smoothly. The issue will not be
examined excpet on how to make the Empire function more smoothly!
V-Man
>>Italy, France, Germany, England, Holland, Portugal, Japan, the Church of
>>Rome, the Soviet Union and most recently, the Peoples Republic of China.
>>
>All of which have conquered greater territory, against stronger
>opponents, than the US has achieved
Let's see, you left a few things out... France, Holland, Italy, Germany,
Japan, England, the USSR, and the PRC have all had their survival threatened
*credibly* this century, some of them twice. France and England have nearly
conquered each other several times.
France & Holland were overrun by Germany in two weeks.
Get off of it. To a point, the US Army is the best ground combat force in
the world, at the division level on down.
Communist China coun't beat us with staggering odds in Korea, Viet Nam
(North) was bled white trying to beat us on the battlefield, they had to beat
us at the negotiating table or lose.
Britian, the most powerful nation on earth in the last part of the 18th
century, got beat by a half starving, poorly equipped, worse supplied scratch
army that hadn't existed five years before the war started.
Britian couldn't do it again later.
Your Grand-dad ever tell you what *we* thought AEF meant in "The Great War"?
"After England Failed"
IF the US Army is so bad, and Britian so great, tell us about Dunkirk. And
Dieppe. And Tobruk. And Falaise. And Yorktown. Why was Churchill so
desireous of US invovlement in WW II if the US Army was so bad?
>All of which have conquered greater territory, against stronger
>opponents, than the US has achieved
Britian failed to counquer the 13 Colonies. You were far greater. Sure, we
didn't *conquer* Britian, but:
A) that wasn't our war aim,
B) we *did* win nonetheless. In 6 years, Britian couldn't muster the force
necessary to beat the US.
V-Man
>have been relinquished are now independent nations -- okay maybe a few
>small Pacific islands are the exception)
Puerto Rico...
Charles Revie
not? I think they have the legal right to vote for (1) independence,
(2) statehood, or (3) status quo. Thus far in several elections they
have failed to carry options (1) or (2). This begs the question, but
does Puerto Rico represent US Imperialism?
Alex Melomed
>
Damn. WHY are so many people posting works of fiction? Put it in a book,
you'll get more attention
Legionaire6
>Get off of it. To a point, the US Army is the best ground combat force in
>the world, at the division level on down.
Sure, it is, but only at logistical support level and quantity & quality of
equipment (well, except your piece of shit machine gun M-60).
> Communist China coun't beat us with staggering odds in Korea, Viet Nam
>(North) was bled white trying to beat us on the battlefield, they had to beat
>us at the negotiating table or lose.
Those odds included the navy, air force, number of trucks, ammunition,
supplies, heavy weapons? or JUST the # of men ?(the least important factor in
this age of industrial warfare).
> Britian, the most powerful nation on earth in the last part of the 18th
>century, got beat by a half starving, poorly equipped, worse supplied scratch
>army that hadn't existed five years before the war started.
> Britian couldn't do it again later.
>
Well, Britain had to fight and/or keep watch at the SAME time of other enemies
such as France, Spain, Holland as well as keep most of its fighting men in
colonial duty (the British Army in India was not *the british army* however the
men were Brits in a large degree).
>Why was Churchill so
>desireous of US invovlement in WW II if the US Army was so bad?
Well, who wouldn't want to have such a powerful supplier on his side?
Atila
hehehe
comments4u <comme...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7ut0dk$1rk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> US Army: a failure in Imperialism
>
> The US Army has a 200 year history of failing to achieve
> US foreign policy goals. It's time to evaluate the US
> Army and determine whether it has any useful purpose.
>
> As defined by the Monroe Doctrine, US foreign policy was
> at first imperialistic domination of the Western Hemisphere.
Not even close: the Monroe Doctrine was intended to END EUROPEON
imperialism in the Western Hemisphere!
> It was later extended to include domination of the entire
> Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, with influence extending onto
> the European and Asian continents. For the most part, the
> US was successful, but no thanks to the US Army.
In 1898, the U.S. picked up a few possesions by defeating Spain. The most
notable of these were the Phillipines, Cuba, and Peurto Rico. The
Phillipines were granted independence after less than 50 years of U.S.
ownership as a consequence of a treaty signed shortly after the U.S. took
possesion. Cuba was granted indepence almost immediately. Puerto Rico
remains a U.S. possession, but it's fate is largely in the hands of it's own
people. It benefits greatly from it's relationship with the U.S.: it's
citizens vote in U.S. presidential elections, they receive financial aid
both collectively and individually, and they enjoy unique tax sheltering.
The two alternatives to changing this happy relationship have been debated
for decades: statehood or independence. Neither one is as attractive as the
status quo as there would be huge financial penalties. If the Puerto Rican
people truly wanted independence, it would likely be granted. Except for a
few hot heads, however, there is no clamour in Puerto Rico for independence.
The 1898 War with Spain had two significant battles: The charge of the
"Rough Riders" in Cuba, who were more mercanaries than U.S. soldiers, and
the Battle of Manilla Bay, which was a Navy battle. So, you theory is
correct to a small extent with respect to the U.S. Army in that war.
However, there was simply no need for the Army to prove itself after Spain
capitulated. Should they have had a battle just for that purpose?
>
> The US Army secured the southern US border by defeating
> Mexico, and secured the interior by defeating the Indians.
> But it took a preposterous 100 years to defeat the Indians,
The interior of the U.S. is nearly as large as Europe, and at the time had
few roads, and has a lot of rough terrain. Yet the weapons used were little
more advanced than those during, oh, say, the Hundred Years war in Europe.
Why was it acceptable to have protracted wars in Europe and not in the U.S.?
And the period of time that the U.S. Army was actively trying to defeat
Indian tribes in the West was much briefer than 100 years. It didn't really
begin until after the Civil War, and essentially ended by 1890.
> and taking a break for the US Civil War is no excuse.
Yeah, right. "Taking a break"? I hardly call the deaths of 680,000
soldiers in combat "taking a break"!
>
> The Civil War demostrates US Army inadequacy, where it was
> soundly thrashed by the Confederacy for the first two years.
Most of the West Point educated officers in the U.S. Army were FROM THE
SOUTH!!! When the South left the Union, it took nearly all the significant
military expertise with it. Therefore, the bulk of what had been the U.S.
Army was now the Army of Northern Virginia. It did damn well.
> It didn't become effective until the US Navy blockade of the
> South diminished the fighting ability of the Confederacy.
You mean the "Swiss Cheese" blockade? No - the south was more or less
doomed from the start. The South had a quarter of the population of the
north. No heavy industry, a very inadequate rail road network, and little
money. Once the North became serious about winning the war, it was no
contest. The South did have a very important advantage: they were
determined to win. That, and superior generalship kept the war going as
long as it did. The North had excellant chances to win the war in 1862, and
again in 1863 - and they blew it!
You might think this proves your point, but the entitity that was the U.S.
Army before the Civil War was divided in two. The only thing the Civil War
demonstrated about the U.S. Army is how well it fought against itself!
>
> Ah, the US Navy, now there's a service that has sucessfully
> executed US imperialistic foreign policy.
Well, what a left handed compliment! The U.S. has never had an official
policy of "imperialism" what ever that is.
>
> In the hundred years it took the Army to defeat the Indians,
> the Navy convinced the British and French Navies to keep
> their distance, blockaded the Confederacy, and beat the
> Spanish Navy. With the Marines, it beat the Tripoleon
> pirates, conquered the Phillipines, stole the Panama Canal,
> and kicked around any banana republic it chose to pick a fight
> with.
Sunk U Boats, Survived Pearl Harbor, won at Midway, Coral Sea, etc. with the
Marines island hopped across the Pacific until to get the U.S. Army Air
Corps - that's right - the U.S. ARMY Air Corps (the Air Force didn't become
a seperate branch until 1947) - close enough to finish the job on Japan.
>
> Things didn't improve for the US Army in the 20th century. It
> tipped the balance of a stalement in WWI, showed up in Europe
> for WWII after the tide had turned,
and finished the fight. Would the tide have turned, really, if U.S. Army
bombers hadn't reduced the third reich to a smoking ruin? How long would
Germany have held France captive if the mainly U.S. invasion force hadn't
freed it? Academic questions, but it was Winston Churchill that "slept the
sleep of the saved" the night after Pearl Harbor. It wasn't until then that
he KNEW who would win the war. Britain and Russia had done a great job of
defending themselves, but actually defeating Germany was another question.
The U.S. Army between WWI and WWII was a joke. Dangerously underfunded, way
behind the times in weapon technology, it counted a bare few thousand men
during the 1920s and 1930s. Yet between 1939 (it started to rebuild once
trouble started in Europe) and 1945 it grew into the most formitable
fighting force on the planet. It took on a two front war, and handily beat
both opponents. At the end it was the equal or better of any Army on Earth
in both fighting expertise and weapons technology.
>lost in Korea even with
> help, and lost in Viet Nam.
I wouldn't say it "lost" in Korea. Vietnam was never lost in Vietnam. It
was lost in Washington D.C. Hell, the U.S. Army WON the Tet offensive. It
was the politicians who lost it.
>
> It's hard to justify continued funding for a service with such
> a long history of failure.
Ask Saddam Hussein how much of a failure the U.S. Army is.
>Maybe it's time to relegate the US
> Army to home defense. But then, it couldn't prevent the British
> from burning the US capital in 1814, so maybe that's not a good
> idea either.
>
> Isn't it obvious? The most famous US Army battle is Custer's
> Last Stand.
The most famous US Army battle was the Battle of the Bulge. I don't think
you can fault the U.S. Army's performance there.
David Casey
Legionaire6 <legio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991024205752...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> Velovich wrote:
>
> >Get off of it. To a point, the US Army is the best ground combat force
in
> >the world, at the division level on down.
>
> Sure, it is, but only at logistical support level and quantity & quality
of
> equipment (well, except your piece of shit machine gun M-60).
I'd like to introduce you to Mr. M249.
SGT Casey
fe...@mscd.edu
"hehehe" <totem...@aol.com> wrote:
> A most bizarre interpretation of U.S. History.
>
> comments4u <comme...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7ut0dk$1rk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > US Army: a failure in Imperialism
> >
> > The US Army has a 200 year history of failing to achieve
> > US foreign policy goals. It's time to evaluate the US
> > Army and determine whether it has any useful purpose.
> >
> > As defined by the Monroe Doctrine, US foreign policy was
> > at first imperialistic domination of the Western Hemisphere.
>
> Not even close: the Monroe Doctrine was intended to END EUROPEON
> imperialism in the Western Hemisphere!
Not Even Close! The Doctrine was always used to control Latin America
for US Interests!
>
> > It was later extended to include domination of the entire
> > Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, with influence extending onto
> > the European and Asian continents. For the most part, the
> > US was successful, but no thanks to the US Army.
>
> In 1898, the U.S. picked up a few possesions by defeating Spain. The
most
> notable of these were the Phillipines, Cuba, and Peurto Rico. The
> Phillipines were granted independence after less than 50 years of U.S.
> ownership as a consequence of a treaty signed shortly after the U.S.
took
> possesion.
Took Possesion??? We fought against those wishing an Independent
Phillipines! And killed a lot of people in the end. Had such given
orders as Kill all Males !!! Ultimately the Upper Class in the
Phillipines saw a greater benefit to align itself with the New Colonial
interests of the US! Thus the Revolution was lost!
> Cuba was granted indepence almost immediately.
Really! And all those admentments we had in the Cuban Constitution????
Puerto Rico
> remains a U.S. possession, but it's fate is largely in the hands of
it's own
> people. It benefits greatly from it's relationship with the U.S.:
it's
> citizens vote in U.S. presidential elections, they receive financial
aid
> both collectively and individually, and they enjoy unique tax
sheltering.
Still a Colony Bud!!!
> The two alternatives to changing this happy relationship have been
debated
> for decades: statehood or independence. Neither one is as attractive
as the
> status quo as there would be huge financial penalties. If the Puerto
Rican
> people truly wanted independence, it would likely be granted. Except
for a
> few hot heads, however, there is no clamour in Puerto Rico for
independence.
I agree! With its status, it is easier for the average Puerto Rican to
come to the Capital Cities of the US Empire to be where the bennies are
good!
> > and taking a break for the US Civil War is no excuse.
>
> Yeah, right. "Taking a break"? I hardly call the deaths of 680,000
> soldiers in combat "taking a break"!
Most due to disease!
> >
> > Ah, the US Navy, now there's a service that has sucessfully
> > executed US imperialistic foreign policy.
>
> Well, what a left handed compliment! The U.S. has never had an
official
> policy of "imperialism" what ever that is.
Oh I don't think so! Command and Control of areas is definetly
Imperial!!!
> >
> > Things didn't improve for the US Army in the 20th century. It
> > tipped the balance of a stalement in WWI, showed up in Europe
> > for WWII after the tide had turned,
>
> and finished the fight. Would the tide have turned, really, if U.S.
Army
> bombers hadn't reduced the third reich to a smoking ruin? How long
would
> Germany have held France captive if the mainly U.S. invasion force
hadn't
> freed it?
Basically until the Russian Army showed up sometime late in 1945!
Academic questions, but it was Winston Churchill that "slept the
> sleep of the saved" the night after Pearl Harbor. It wasn't until
then that
> he KNEW who would win the war. Britain and Russia had done a great
job of
> defending themselves, but actually defeating Germany was another
question.
>
> The U.S. Army between WWI and WWII was a joke. Dangerously
underfunded, way
> behind the times in weapon technology, it counted a bare few thousand
men
> during the 1920s and 1930s.
Oh really! And we developed our main bomber we used in Europe during
this time! The one you said won the war!!!!!
> >lost in Korea even with
> > help, and lost in Viet Nam.
>
> I wouldn't say it "lost" in Korea. Vietnam was never lost in
Vietnam. It
> was lost in Washington D.C. Hell, the U.S. Army WON the Tet
offensive. It
> was the politicians who lost it.
As if the army was not political at the time!!!
ala...@uswest.net
comments4u wrote:
>
> In article <19991023155116...@ng-cn1.aol.com>,
> velo...@aol.com.CanDo (V-Man) wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > the US was the only nation that could help
> > struggling Latin American nations develop autonomy from their European
> > founders.
>
> Oh yes, they really became autonomous with Teddy's attitude of talk softly
> and carry a big stick and later with the CIA buying their elections.
I'll gladly compare America's stewardship of the hemisphere
it "claimed" in the Monroe Doctrine with the job European
colonalzation did on Africa.
>
> SNIP
>
> > But it took the US Army to *keep* the Philippines when the Moro rebellion
> > started.
>
> Sounds like they were enjoying their autonomy from the Spanish. More like
> trading oppressors, I'd say.
>
> SNIP
>
> > Again, incorrect. The Korean Conflict came to a political end, not a
> > military end. President Truman, and President Eisenhower decided, and embarked
> > on a course of action that limited military ability.
>
> Which doesn't explain why the US Army was nearly pushed into the ocean in the
> first few months, saved only by a daring plan by MacArthur more typical of
> USMC actions (probably discovered it during his tremendous Southwest Pacific
> campaign commanding the Aussie troops).
Let me explain it for ya, buddy. The enemy (North Korea)
gained the upper hand with a "suprise" attack, and then
pressed the advantage all the way to Pusan. Sorta like when
Hitler suceeded in pushing the Brits into the sea at
Dunkirk.
>
> SNIP
>
> So you've denied failure and called imperialism something else.
>
> > <plonk>
>
> Oh yes, AOL finally has kill files! Wow! A closed mind is a wonderful thing
> to waste.
>
comments4u
fe...@mscd.edu wrote:
> The Empire is functioning smoothly. The issue will not be
> examined excpet on how to make the Empire function more smoothly!
And a Gold Star to you, sir, for making it to the second level. The Empire
_is_ functioning smoothly. Those who argue the Army didn't fail it's mission
while denying the mission exists... well... heh heh.
Voicesx20
from him!!!!!
hehehe
> > > at first imperialistic domination of the Western Hemisphere.
> >
> > Not even close: the Monroe Doctrine was intended to END EUROPEON
> > imperialism in the Western Hemisphere!
>
> for US Interests!
Some may say that, but that was not the intention of the Monroe Doctrine.
The operative word here is intention. Sleazy polticians through the years
have certainly abused the intents of a lot of things. Consider for example
the abuse of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. This one
clause is the sole basis for all federal government regulations. This is
WAAAAY beyond intent.
> > > and taking a break for the US Civil War is no excuse.
> >
> > Yeah, right. "Taking a break"? I hardly call the deaths of 680,000
> > soldiers in combat "taking a break"!
>
> Most due to disease!
Casualities are casualties.
> > >
> > > Things didn't improve for the US Army in the 20th century. It
> > > tipped the balance of a stalement in WWI, showed up in Europe
> > > for WWII after the tide had turned,
> >
> > and finished the fight. Would the tide have turned, really, if U.S.
> Army
> > bombers hadn't reduced the third reich to a smoking ruin? How long
> would
> > Germany have held France captive if the mainly U.S. invasion force
> hadn't
> > freed it?
>
>
> Basically until the Russian Army showed up sometime late in 1945!
Now THAT would have been a happy outcome! But would it have happened
without lend-lease? Stalin himself said that Russia would have starved if
it weren't for canned Spam from America! We sent them a lot of weapons,
too. The war wasn't won just by American weapons, though. The credit is
generally given to "British brains, American Brawn, and Russian blood."
Without any one of those factors, Hitler may very well have accomplished his
goals.
>
> Academic questions, but it was Winston Churchill that "slept the
> > sleep of the saved" the night after Pearl Harbor. It wasn't until
> then that
> > he KNEW who would win the war. Britain and Russia had done a great
> job of
> > defending themselves, but actually defeating Germany was another
> question.
> >
> > The U.S. Army between WWI and WWII was a joke. Dangerously
> underfunded, way
> > behind the times in weapon technology, it counted a bare few thousand
> men
> > during the 1920s and 1930s.
>
> Oh really! And we developed our main bomber we used in Europe during
> this time! The one you said won the war!!!!!
"Developed" and "deployed" are two different words. At then end of 1938,
the ENTIRE U.S. Army Air Corps numbered less than 500 aircraft. U.S.
Aircraft manufacturers, however, aware of European competition and kept
up-to-date thanks to a little known government agency called the NACA, never
lacked a technical edge. They also had massive foreign sales. For example,
during the period of 1925 to 1938, China bought 19,392 aircraft from the
U.S.
But when WWII started in Europe, the whole of the U.S. Army wouldn't have
lasted an hour against any given German division. Between the wars, there
was very strong isolationist and pacifist sentiment in the U.S. This,
coupled with the Great Depression, made the U.S. Army one of the worst
funded and supported Armies in the world.
>
> > >lost in Korea even with
> > > help, and lost in Viet Nam.
> >
> > I wouldn't say it "lost" in Korea. Vietnam was never lost in
> Vietnam. It
> > was lost in Washington D.C. Hell, the U.S. Army WON the Tet
> offensive. It
> > was the politicians who lost it.
>
>
> As if the army was not political at the time!!!
Not really. Certainly less political than arms manufacturers, right-wing
extremists, etc., etc. The Army was given an impossible mission in
Southeast Asia. About the only way to win that war was to commit total
genocide. "Bomb'em back to the stone age." (Never mind that that's where
they already were!) But that's what was handed to them by the politicians.
I don't think any foreign power could ever win there. France couldn't, we
couldn't, China couldn't. If the army was poltical, it would have used it's
influence to extract itself from that impossible situation.
What a lot of people forget about that war was the factor of pride. The
U.S. had not lost a war up to that point, and no one wanted to be part of
the team that gave up. I think if it weren't for that stupid pride, the
U.S. would have pulled out much earlier. No one will ever conquer Vietnam.
The army relialized that early on, and said so in the "Pentagon Papers".
When those secret documents were published, it wasn't the Army that was
embarrassed: it was the politicians who continued to fight the war against
the conclusions of the military analysts.
The tradition of all U.S. Armed Forces is that the U.S. has civilian rule.
You won't find a military officer then or now that doesn't believe that.
It's indocrtrinated from day one. It is probably the best example of
civilian over military power in the world.
If that wasn't the case, Clinton would have been the victim of a coup a long
time ago!
The lack of a draft in the U.S., among other things, is making the military
experience more and more rarified among the U.S. population. There is the
beginnings of a 'military class': a group of people whose fathers and
grandfathers served, and that's the primary motivation for their serving.
Because of their exclusive sacrifice, they may begin to think themselves
deserving of more privileges than other citizens. Such a class will begin
to make itself politically active, and it will have an edge because of its
experience in the working of government. This is a dangerous trend, and one
that can only be stopped by spreading out the obligation of military service
to as broad a part of the population as possible. The more people who are
aware of the sacrifices required of the military, of the dangers associated
with it, and with war and it's terrors, the better supported the military
will be, and the less likely that we will needlessly engage in foreign
conflicts.
It has been so easy for Clinton, and his staff, none of whom have any
military experience, to send other mother's sons into so many messy
situations abroad. The man is clueless about what military life is like,
and has stated a "loathing" for it. But it doesn't bother that man without
a conscience to send bombers to Bosnia, troops to Ethopia, and ever other
little campfire run-amok in the world, and to spread the military so thin
that it's readiness to fight a real war is seriously compromised. If Saddam
Hussein were to stage another invasion of Kuwait, we wouldn't be able to do
anything about it. Likewise if North Korea invades the South, or if China
invades Taiwan. I am pretty sure that all those events are forthcoming, and
will probably all happen simultaneously. Keep watching CNN: one day the
broadcast will start "Extremely heavy news day today...."
David Casey
hehehe <totem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7v39ph$rj3$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> But when WWII started in Europe, the whole of the U.S. Army wouldn't have
> lasted an hour against any given German division. Between the wars, there
> was very strong isolationist and pacifist sentiment in the U.S. This,
> coupled with the Great Depression, made the U.S. Army one of the worst
> funded and supported Armies in the world.
Wow, that kind of sounds familiar, almost like we're going down that road
again...
SGT Casey
V-Man
Since I have plonked this idiot for not studi\ying his history before holding
forth on the subject, I didn't see this. I cannot help but comment.
The USSR was attacked, in violation of her non-agression treaty with Germany,
in late spring, 1941. That is several months before Pearl Harbor.
The Soviet Union was in the process of rebuilding and modernizing her army,
and as such the defense was a shambles. In the process of trading ground for
time, the Germans managed to advance as far as Moscow. The battle for Moscow
was decisive, and it's unfortunate (from the German view) that the German High
Command was hamstrung by Hitler.
If they had been given theri way, they would have concentrated on Moscow and
no where else. You see, all rail lines went to Moscow. ALL of them running
from other cities. The various industrial cities of the USSR were not linked
independantly. All traffic whent thru Moscow.
So, not only was the USSR fighting before the US, but they were fighting for
their lives. Hitler and the Nazis are often credited with killing six million
Jews. That is true! But hey also managed to kill, by starvation, execution,
and the denial of basic medical care and living needs (shelter, warmth), some 4
million more, half of whom were Soviet citizens. This is counting *ONLY*
civilian war deaths caused *directly* by war crimes, as listed above.
Total losses, globally, are estimated to be on the order of 75 million.
So it is a poor student of history that says that the Soviets showed up in
1945. Matter of fact, whoever would claim that isn't even a student of
history, he's just stupid.
comments4u
velo...@aol.com.CanDo (V-Man) wrote:
> >> Basically until the Russian Army showed up sometime late in 1945!
>
> forth on the subject,
Do you even know who wrote it?
>I didn't see this. I cannot help but comment.
Then why bother plonking anyone?
comments4u
voic...@aol.com (Voicesx20) wrote:
> This is the most stupid thing I have ever read some one take B.C.'s computer
> from him!!!!!
Ah, a proposal to silence the dissenters by force! One of the favorite
techniques of imperialists.
Christopher Mette
What a typically shallow, liberal view of Army history. As a historian,
Gulf War veteran, an Officer of the Illinois National Guard, your
interpretation of the past is disturbing.
With the exception of the Gulf War at the beginning of this decade, NONE
of the services were prepared for ANY of the conflicts our Nation has
immersed itself into. All have gone in, full of pride and arrogance, and
all the services have paid with our dearest blood. But we lick our wounds,
and learn the lesson.
You point out Custer at Little Big Horn. I point out Bastonge, and the
Battle of the Bulge. As someone once said, "It's not the size of the dog in
the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog."
We went into the Gulf war ready, because the Generals of the Army were
the Lieutenants and Captains of Vietnam, and our wonderful Republican
president of the 80's, Ronald Reagan, believed that a strong military was
deterrence against aggression.
Now, thanks to too many years of declining budgets and manpower levels,
and running around playing the United Nations' rent-a-cop, we are again
faced with the "Hollow Force" of the 1970's.
Don't get me wrong. Defending the weak and helpless is a Noble
sentiment. I would serve it proudly. But we have doing too much with too
less, and the Army, and the other services are showing the signs. Worn down
equipment, lack of repair parts, declining manpower and experience, and
sagging morale.
Perhaps you are suggesting the Army's job can be done better by the
Marines alone? Perhaps. But as the name "Marine" implies, they are forever
tied to the sea.
If you still think Custer's Last Stand is all there is to Army history,
then NUTS to you! Go back, reread the whole thing. For as the saying goes,
"Those who are ignorant of history are DAMNED to repeat it."
1LT Christopher W. Mette
comments4u <comme...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7ut0dk$1rk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> US Army: a failure in Imperialism
>
> The US Army has a 200 year history of failing to achieve
> US foreign policy goals. It's time to evaluate the US
> Army and determine whether it has any useful purpose.
>
> As defined by the Monroe Doctrine, US foreign policy was
> at first imperialistic domination of the Western Hemisphere.
> It was later extended to include domination of the entire
> Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, with influence extending onto
> the European and Asian continents. For the most part, the
> US was successful, but no thanks to the US Army.
>
> The US Army secured the southern US border by defeating
> Mexico, and secured the interior by defeating the Indians.
> But it took a preposterous 100 years to defeat the Indians,
> and taking a break for the US Civil War is no excuse.
>
> The Civil War demostrates US Army inadequacy, where it was
> soundly thrashed by the Confederacy for the first two years.
> It didn't become effective until the US Navy blockade of the
> South diminished the fighting ability of the Confederacy.
>
> Ah, the US Navy, now there's a service that has sucessfully
> executed US imperialistic foreign policy.
>
> In the hundred years it took the Army to defeat the Indians,
> the Navy convinced the British and French Navies to keep
> their distance, blockaded the Confederacy, and beat the
> Spanish Navy. With the Marines, it beat the Tripoleon
> pirates, conquered the Phillipines, stole the Panama Canal,
> and kicked around any banana republic it chose to pick a fight
> with.
>
> Things didn't improve for the US Army in the 20th century. It
> tipped the balance of a stalement in WWI, showed up in Europe
> for WWII after the tide had turned, lost in Korea even with
> help, and lost in Viet Nam.
>
> It's hard to justify continued funding for a service with such
> a long history of failure. Maybe it's time to relegate the US
> Army to home defense. But then, it couldn't prevent the British
> from burning the US capital in 1814, so maybe that's not a good
> idea either.
>
> Isn't it obvious? The most famous US Army battle is Custer's
> Last Stand.
>
>
V-Man
Uh, who are you? Just like the LT, I haven't seen you post here before.
He's responding to a rather trollish post. Several of us did so.
Further, can you refute anything he said? if not, your comment represents
your opinions, not necessarily facts.
~ * Gepetto * ~
>Go away troll!
DAMN THEM TO HELL!!!!1!
Necrophillia: that uncontrollable urge to crack open a cold one.
Ryan Watson
been edited to mention only the bad and none of the good. Sort of like
reading your local newspaper and there is nothing in the damn thing but
Murder, Rape, and Riots. Then basing your opinion of the city in which you
live from reading the newspaper.
Support your military. Were the ones who all you Marxist Liberals to
rewrite history and make up facts as you go along.
V-Man
>been edited to mention only the bad and none of the good.
First, please start quoting who you are talking to.
Second, I dunno what history books *you* have been reading, but they aren't
about the US Army. The only ones one can find *in* the US include the Good,
the Bad, & the Ugly.
>Were the ones who all you Marxist Liberals to
>rewrite history and make up facts as you go along.
You also might want to proof-read a bit more. I don't understand this - if
could read one of two or three ways.
This is not a flame. If this was a flame, you have good reason to be
outraged. If you are outraged by this post, please tune to your local
emergency broadcast network station for instructions.
V-Man
=/\= A Knight is sworn to Valor
(-o-) His Heart knows only Vitrue, His Blade defends the Weak
<*> His Word speaks only Truth , His Wrath undoes the Wicked
V-Man
>Please get an adult to proof read your text before you post again.
I was hoping I wasn't the only one to not be able to follow that.
Greg
>
> The thing about these little Marxist is this. There history books have all
> reading your local newspaper and there is nothing in the damn thing but
> Murder, Rape, and Riots. Then basing your opinion of the city in which you
> live from reading the newspaper.
>
> rewrite history and make up facts as you go along.
Ryan,
you have just about reached the level of complete incomprehensibility!
Please get an adult to proof read your text before you post again.
Greg.
~ * Gepetto * ~
Marxist?!
What a fucking idiot.
What does Harpo, Chico, Groucho and Zeppo have to do with this?
Remember, it's not, "How high are you?" it's "Hi, how are you?"
Diagnostican
very important aspect of American imperialism. Our military is being
used every day in every country to make the world safe for "democracy".
Maybe we should abandon our imperalistic conquests and concentrate on
our own "democracy".
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
V-Man
>very important aspect of American imperialism.
And you aren't. Sad fact is, you couldn't follow current events and their
underlying reasons if you had a seeing eye dog and a cane.
Dear:
[X] Clueless Newbie
[X] Loser
[ ] "Me too"-er
[X] Troll
[ ] Pervert
[X] Idiot
[ ] Spammer
[ ] Fuckchop
[X] Moron
[ ] Fed
[X] Freak
[ ] FLAMENET
[ ] Net-Police
[X] Unbearably self-righteous person
[ ] Other
You Are Being Flamed Because:
[ ] You posted a "test" in a newsgroup other than alt.test/nl.test
[ ] You posted a binary in pieces LESS than 5000 lines
[ ] You posted a binary in a non-binaries group
[ ] You posted a "The UN is out to get us" message without documentation.
[ ] You posted White/Black/Whatever Supremacist crap.
[X] You posted a "The Government is out to get us" message without proof or
documentation.
[ ] You posted an HTML/'richtext' message.
[ ] You posted an HTML message that called for an off-line link that interfered
with something I was already doing.
[ ] You quoted an ENTIRE post in your reply, which wastes space
[ ] You quoted an ENTIRE post in your reply to to say something stupid and
inane
[X] You quoted none of the post, and your answer just sounds weird by itself
[X] You wrote something completely idiotic
[ ] You responded to spam, thus making yourself a spammer
[X] You attempted to write something witty but failed miserably
[X] You started an off-topic thread
[X] You posted a "YOU SUCK" message
[ ] You said "me too" to something
[X] You don't know which group to post in
[ ] You proselytised in a non-Christian newsgroup
[ ] You posted non-religious propaganda in a religious newsgroup
[ ] You posted religious propaganda in a non-religious newsgroup
[ ] You brag about things that never happened
[ ] You threatened hellfire and damnation on others
[ ] You posted an ad
[X] You posted something totally uninteresting and devoid of intelligence
[ ] You cross posted
[ ] You posted a message all written in CAPS
[ ] You posted racist/sexist propaganda
[ ] You attempted to be the "Net Police"
[X] You didn't even read the original post
[X] You failed to present any documentation
[X] You obviously do not know what you are talking about, and your ignorance is
offensive
[ ] You asked for a password or credit card #
[ ] You requested underage material
[X] You haven't read or are ignoring the NG's FAQ
To Repent, You Must:
[X] Give up your AOL/Web-TV/Remarq Internet account
[X] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Offer to have sex with Mike Sparks
[X] Read the FAQ
[X] Learn the basics of Nettiquette
[ ] Be the guest of honour in alt.flame for a month
[X] Apologise to everybody in this newsgroup
[ ] Post your tests to alt.test/nl.test
[ ] Other:
In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[ ] Subscribe to news.announce.newusers
[X] Learn some common courtesy
[X] Learn some logic/critical thinking
[ ] Learn to use your computer
[X] Learn to use your brain
[X] Learn to tell the truth
[X] Take your shitty tripe somewhere else
[X] Learn to post or FROAD
[ ] Realise that you do NOT own Usenet
[X] Realise that you do NOT own this newsgroup
[X] Learn that stupidity (such as evident in your post) is counter-evolutionary
[ ] All of the above
[ ] Other
Lisa S.
V-Man wrote:
V-Man <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote in message
news:19991231135853...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
billh
"Diagnostican" <glennrmc...@juno.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:01671a4a...@usw-ex0107-049.remarq.com...
> You are very well educated, but I think your article fails to address a
> used every day in every country to make the world safe for "democracy".
> Maybe we should abandon our imperalistic conquests and concentrate on
> our own "democracy".
I think it might be appropriate for all here to read Major General Smedley
Butler's speech of 1933 (I believe it was '33). BTW S. Butler is the only
recipient of two Medals of Honor. His speech on this very subject is quite
compelling and not something you would expect from a true warrior or a flag
officer.
V-Man
Naw, Babe, doin' just for you...
Zach
<willia...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think it might be appropriate for all here to read Major General Smedley
>Butler's speech of 1933 (I believe it was '33). BTW S. Butler is the only
>recipient of two Medals of Honor. His speech on this very subject is quite
>compelling and not something you would expect from a true warrior or a flag
>officer.
>
Where could we find that speech? Do you have a URL for it?
Zach Babayco
zbab...@oz-online.net
"You have moved the mouse. Windows has to be
rebooted for the changes to take effect..."
Doug Berry
translated read:
>I think it might be appropriate for all here to read Major General Smedley
>Butler's speech of 1933 (I believe it was '33). BTW S. Butler is the only
>recipient of two Medals of Honor.
Didn't Dugout Doug get two?
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Tom Huxton
not appear to still be living, per my records) There are multiple instances of two awards, and I recall
reading of a double holder of the MOH, killed in action trying for a third.
Thomas
Zach <zbab...@oz-online.net> wrote in message news:tExuOKw2=hjo7bFUHY...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 14:10:22 GMT, "billh"
> <willia...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > BTW S. Butler is the only
> >recipient of two Medals of Honor
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHART:
LIVING MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS
.
World War II Service Hometown
.
Lucian Adams Army San Antonio, Texas
Thomas E. Atkins Army Inman, S.C.
Vernon J. Baker Army St. Maries, Idaho
Van T. Barfoot Army Ford, Va.
Melvin E. Biddle Army Anderson, Ind.
James M. Burt Army Wyomissing, Penn.
Richard E. Bush Marine Corps Waukeagan, Ill.
Robert E. Bush Navy NW Olympia, Wash.
Ernest Childers Army Coweta, Okla.
Clyde L. Choate Army Anna, Ill.
Mike Colalillo Army Duluth, Minn.
Charles H. Coolidge Army Signal Mountain, Tenn.
Clarence S. Craft Army Fayetteville, Ark.
William J. Crawford Army Palmer Lake, Colo.
John R. Crews Army Oklahoma City, Okla.
Francis S. Currey Army Bonneau, S.C.
Edward C. Dahlgren Army Mars Hill, Maine
Michael J. Daly Army Fairfiled, Conn.
Jefferson J. DeBlanc Marine Corps St. Martinsville, La.
Desmond T. Doss Army Rising Fawn, Ga.
Russell Dunham Army Jerseyville, Ill.
Robert H. Dunlap Marine Corps Monmouth, Ill.
WALTER D. EHLERS Army Buena Park, Calif.
Henry E. Erwin USAAC Leeds, Ala.
JOHN W. FINN Navy Pine Valley, Calif.
Eugene B. Fluckey Navy Annapolis, Md.
Joseph Foss Marine Corps Scottsdale, Ariz.
Robert E. Galer Marine Corps Frisco, Texas
Nathan G. Gordon Navy Morrilton, Ark.
Stephen R. Gregg Army Bayonne, N.J.
John D. Hawk Army Bremerton, Wash.
James R. Hendrix Army Davenport, Fla.
Silvestre Herrera Army Glendale, Ariz.
Freeman V. Horner Army Columbus, Ga.
Arthur J. Jackson Marine Corps Boise, Idaho
Douglas T. Jacobson Marine Corps North Fort Myers, Fla.
Alton W. Knappenberger Army Schwenksville, Penn.
William R. Lawley USAAC Montgomery, Ala.
James M. Logan Army Kilgore, Texas
Jose M. Lopez Army San Antonio, Texas
Jack H. Lucas Marine Corps Hattiesburg, Miss.
Charles A. MacGillivary Army Braintree, Mass.
Robert D. Maxwell Army Bend, Ore.
Richard McCool Navy Bainbridge Island, Wash.
Vernon McGarity Army Bartlett, Tenn.
Gino J. Merli Army Peckville, Penn.
Jack C. Montgomery Army Muskogee, Okla.
Charles P. Murray Jr. Army Columbia, S.C.
Robert B. Nett Army Columbus, Ga.
CARLOS C. OGDEN SR. Army San Jose, Calif.
Nicholas Oresko Army Tenafly, N.J.
MITCHELL PAIGE Marine Corps La Quinta, Calif.
Everett P. Pope Marine Corps Fernandina Beach, Fla.
Wilburn K. Ross Army Dupont, Wash.
Donald E. Rudolph Army Bovey, Minn.
ALEJANDRO R. RUIZ Army Visalia, Calif.
Richard K. Sorenson Marine Corps Reno, Nev.
George L. Street III Navy Andover, Mass.
JAMES E. SWETT Marine Corps Trinity Center, Calif.
George E. Wahlen Navy Roy, Utah
Paul J. Wiedorfer Army Baltimore, Md.
Hershel W. Williams Marine Corps Ona, W. Va.
LOUIS H. WILSON JR. Marine Corps San Marino, Calif.
Jay Zeamer USAAC Albuquerque, N.M.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Korean War Service Hometown
.
WILLIAM E. BARBER Marine Corps Irvine, Calif.
David B. Bleak Army Arco, Idaho
Lloyd L. Burke Army Hot Springs, Ark.
Hector A. Cafferata Jr. Marine Corps Venice, Fla.
William Charette Navy Lake Wales, Fla.
Raymond G. Davis Marine Corps Stockbridge, Ga.
Duane E. Dewey Marine Corps Irons, Mich.
Rodolfo P. Hernandez Army Fayetteville, N.C.
Thomas J. Hudner Navy Concord, Mass.
Einar H. Ingman Jr. Army Irma, Wis.
LEWIS L. MILLETT Army Idyllwild, Calif.
Hiroshi H. Miyamura Army Gallup, N.M.
Ola L. Mize Army Gadsen, Ala.
Raymond D. Murphy Marine Corps Albuquerque, N.M.
Reginald R. Myers Marine Corps Jupiter, Fla.
George H. O'Brien Jr. Marine Corps Midland, Texas
Joseph C. Rodriguez Army El Paso, Texas
Ronald E. Rosser Army Roseville, Ohio
Edward R. Schowalter Jr. Army Auburn, Ala.
Robert E. Simanek Marine Corps Farmington Hills, Mich.
Carl L. Sitter Marine Corps Richmond, Va.
James L. Stone Army Arlington, Texas
Ernest E. West Army Wurtland, Ky.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam Service Hometown
.
Webster Anderson Army Winnsboro, S.C.
JOHN BACA Army San Diego, Calif.
Nicky D. Bacon Army Rosebud, Ark.
John F. Baker Jr. Army Columbia, S.C.
Donald E. Ballard Navy N. Kansas City, Mo.
Harvey C. Barnum Jr. Marine Corps Reston, Va.
Gary B. Beikirch Army Rochester, N.Y.
Patrick H. Brady Army Sumner, Wash.
Paul W. Bucha Army Waccabuc, N.Y.
JON R. CAVAIANI Army Waterford, Calif.
Raymond M. Clausen Jr. Marine Corps Ponchatoula, La.
Sammy L. Davis Army Flat Rock, Ill.
George E. Day USAF Shalimar, Fla.
Drew D. Dix Army Fairbanks, Alaska
David C. Dolby Army Oaks, Penn.
Roger H.C. Donlon Army Leavenworth, Kan.
Bernard F. Fisher USAF Kuna, Idaho
Michael J. Fitzmaurice Army Hartford, S.D.
James P. Fleming USAF Longview, Wash.
Robert F. Foley Army Ft. Sam Houston, Texas
Wesley L. Fox Marine Corps Blacksburg, Va.
Harold A. Fritz Army Peoria, Ill.
Charles Hagemeister Army Leavenworth, Kan.
Frank A. Herda Army Cleveland, Ohio
Robert L. Howard Army San Antonio, Texas
Robert R. Ingram Navy Jacksonville, Fla.
Joe M. Jackson USAF Kent, Wash.
Jack H. Jacobs Army Millington, N.J.
Don Jenkins Army Morgantown, Ky.
Delbert O. Jennings Army Honolulu, Hawaii
Leonard B. Keller Army Milton, Fla.
Thomas G. Kelley Navy Columbia, Md.
Allan J. Kellogg Jr. Marine Corps Kailu, Hawaii
Joseph R. Kerrey Navy Washington, D.C.
Thomas J. Kinsman Army Winlock, Wash.
George C. Lang Army Seaford, N.Y.
Howard V. Lee Marine Corps Virginia Beach, Va.
Peter C. Lemon Army Colorado Springs, Colo.
John L. Levitow USAF Rocky Hill, Conn.
Angelo Litkey Army
Gary L. Littrell Army St. Pete Beach, Fla.
James E. Livingston Marine Corps New Orleans, La.
Allan J. Lynch Army Gurnee, Ill.
Walter J. Marm Jr. Army Fremont, N.C.
Finnis D. McCleery Army San Angelo, Texas
John J. McGinty III Marine Corps
David H. McNerney Army Crosby, Texas
Franklin D. Miller Army St. Pete Beach, Fla.
ROBERT J. MODRZEJEWSKI Marine Corps San Diego, Calif.
Thomas R. Norris Navy Hayden Lake, Idaho
Michael J. Novosel Army Enterprise, Ala.
Robert E. O'Malley Marine Corps Goldthwaite, Texas
Robert M. Patterson Army Fayetteville, N.C.
RICHARD PITTMAN Marine Corps Stockton, Calif.
Ronald E. Ray Army St. Pete Beach, Fla.
Gordon R. Roberts Army Martinez, Ga.
Louis R. Rocco Army San Antonio, Texas
Clarence Sasser Army Rosharon, Texas
James M. Sprayberry Army Titus, Ala.
James B. Stockdale Navy Coronado, Calif.
Kenneth E. Stumpf Army Tomah, Wis.
JAMES A. TAYLOR Army Livermore, Calif.
Brian M. Thacker Army Wheaton, Md.
Michael E. Thornton Navy Montgomery, Texas
Leo K. Thorsness USAF Alexandria, Va.
JAY R. VARGAS Marine Corps San Diego, Calif.
Gary G. Wetzel Army Oak Creek, Wis.
J. Elliott Williams Navy Palm Coast, Fla.
Raymond R. Wright Army Mineville, N.Y.
.
Source: Congressional Medal of Honor Society and U.S. Army Center of
Military History
NOTE: California names in bold face
Zach <zbab...@oz-online.net> wrote in message news:tExuOKw2=hjo7bFUHY...@4ax.com...
billh
"> >I think it might be appropriate for all here to read Major General
Smedley
only
> >recipient of two Medals of Honor. His speech on this very subject is
quite
> >compelling and not something you would expect from a true warrior or a
flag
> >officer.
> >
>
> Where could we find that speech? Do you have a URL for it?
No I don't have a URL.
billh
"> >I think it might be appropriate for all here to read Major General
Smedley
> >Butler's speech of 1933 (I believe it was '33). BTW S. Butler is the
only
> >recipient of two Medals of Honor.
>
No, thayt would be Aurthur 1, and son Douglas 1.
billh
living multiple recipient.(he does
> not appear to still be living, per my records) There >are multiple
instances of two awards, and I recall
> reading of a double holder of the MOH, killed in >action trying for a
third.
You honestly believe the man was "trying for a third" MOH? It ain't a
contest you know.