quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

This is an utter fallacy. Protect yourself. First of all.....this country will never be attacked by an invading army. And even if it was, I would rely on the local masses {ala posse comitatis} to rise up and defeat the enemy, not the military.

- R

You sir, are a blithering idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"How comfortable would US citizens be with a few dozen divisions of Chinese troops in Central and South America?"

...if they were there at the invitation of those countries what right would the US have to interfere?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

How little people know of history. What was the final straw that got the US into WWI? Ever heard of the Zimmermann Telegram?

While an invasion by our neighbors isn't in the immediate future that isn't the only possible invasion we could face. China has long term goals of expanding its influence with oil producing states including Venezuala and Mexico. How comfortable would US citizens be with a few dozen divisions of Chinese troops in Central and South America? Think it might be nice to keep a modern military around rather than trying to rebuild one when the geopolitical situation shifts to something unforseen?

quote:

You sir, are a blithering idiot.

quote:

If an invasion ever comes locals with hunting arms and handguns are not going to defeat tanks and jet bombers. A tiny fraction of the populace, likely mostly vets, would begin a resistance movement but without a lot of outside help it would only be a nuisance to an occupation force and if the invaders didn't care about bad PR it would quickly dwindle down to nothing as folks would be unwilling to take action when the reaction would be the execution of an entire community.


Also the whole small professional cadre that would then be supplemented by conscripts in case of national emergency idea is indicative that those advocating it have no idea about the realities of the modern armed forces. A serviceman is not ready to face the enemy after the 2 to 3 months of boot camp. It generally takes an additional 6 months to a year to get a new recruit to be able to do his job even marginally competently. Now that is not to say that the US needs a military of the size it has today but a tiny cadre isn't viable either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:

You sir, are a blithering idiot.

*Sigh*  I take solace in that this comment was made by guy hiding behind computer screen. Remember...I did not attack you personally.

Now let me clarify my comment in an earlier post that seems to have gotten your panties all knotted up.  

You took offense because I made the statement : ''Anyone who enlists in the military as a private making a grand a month under the pretense that they will be working /living amongst a bunch of sloppy, fat, outa-shape, Haliburton truck drivers making 10 -15 times the wages as the private, is a blithering fool.’’  

As a former vet, would you rejoin the military now and go through boot camp again and get in shape under the pretense that you were going to end up in Iraq working alongside and guarding /protecting fat, outa-shape, civilians, flipping omelets for ten to fifteen times the rate of your base pay for a job that has always belonged to the grunts on the ground? I don’t know about you, but based upon what I know, I’d be a blithering fool to enlist in the service with the foreknowledge of that – That’s what I said / meant  

And, now as a civilian, at thirty-nine years of age who claims to be an intellectual in his profile, do you really believe for a second that troops fighting over in Iraq are doing so to protect us over here? Do you really believe that, Ken?  

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:

If an invasion ever comes locals with hunting arms and handguns are not going to defeat tanks and jet bombers. A tiny fraction of the populace, likely mostly vets, would begin a resistance movement but without a lot of outside help it would only be a nuisance to an occupation force and if the invaders didn't care about bad PR it would quickly dwindle down to nothing as folks would be unwilling to take action when the reaction would be the execution of an entire community.


Also the whole small professional cadre that would then be supplemented by conscripts in case of national emergency idea is indicative that those advocating it have no idea about the realities of the modern armed forces. A serviceman is not ready to face the enemy after the 2 to 3 months of boot camp. It generally takes an additional 6 months to a year to get a new recruit to be able to do his job even marginally competently. Now that is not to say that the US needs a military of the size it has today but a tiny cadre isn't viable either.

Now let me address this other part of your post :  

If you look back through history in modern times of colonialism and invading armies, the indigenous peoples have always been able to repel /defeat the occupiers; even in light of vastly superior technological forces.  

Circa 1840 - I point to the invading British Army that attempted to Colonize Afghanistan by pushing  through the Khyber pass into Kabul only to have 18,000 of their men killed and the Army decimated by a fighting force of indigenous villagers with cross bows, spears and rocks.  

Circa 1880 - I point to Chinese Gordon and the invading British Army, again, this time with a push to take over the Sudan at Khartoum.  The indigenous peoples with inferior weapons /fighting power, killed Gordon and kicked the shit out of British Army  

Circa 1900 - I point to the Italians, with a vastly superior invading army trying to conquer Ethiopia at a place called Adowa. The Ethiopian forces made up of peasants and farmers destroyed the Italians killing over 9000 people  

Circa 1915 - I point to the British again, invading the Ottoman empire {Iraq}, up through Basra. They were trapped and encircled in Kut and forced to surrender with most of the army killed or taken as prisoners of war.  

Circa 1954 - I point the Union Army of France in a facet of the Algerian war of 1954 at a place called Dien Bien Phu , { ala Vietnam}. Again a bunch of villagers made-up the Việt Minh fighting force that threw the French out of Indo China {For good}  

Circa 1981 - And finally, I point to the Kremlin Army and their feeble attempt to colonize / control Afghanistan only to be beaten back and bankrupted by a rag tag group CIA backed insurgents. Stinger missiles, improvised explosives, RPGS and automatic weapons decimated one of the world’s finest armies/ air forces /mechanized forces.  

I just gave you six great examples from the 1800’s to present day where greatly superior forces were wiped-out, beaten-back, by mostly indigenous pheasants who had it in their heart to fight for their homeland no matter how superior the occupiers.  

Again…. In your and my lifetime, this country will never be invaded by a foreign army. But just for the sake of the hypothetical….the peasants here that make-up this country, would fight just as hard if not harder than those in previous examples given. Regardless of what you think, we don’t need the US military to protect the homeland once the invaders set foot on our soil.




- R

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
What I said was "No, I don't support GWB or the War on Iraq but I will do whatever I can to support the men and women who volunteered to protect me and are now in harms way over there."

quote:


Let's see, your examples include 3 before the introduction of automatic weapons,

quote:

Several where small contingents of Imperial powers attempted to take ofensive action against the locals without the full commitment of their superiors and finally 2 which involved the rebels/resistance fighters getting significant help from outside the nation.

quote:

 I find the reference to the Soviet/Afghan conflict especially amusing. Not only did vast sums get spent by outside forces but outside forces did much of the resistance fighting. The foreign makeup of the mujaheddin was one of the primary reasons no coalition of former fighters could actually gain the popular support necessary to govern the nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.......on several threads many people who have served in the military often use that experience to illuminate their thoughts. After all it is a unique type of experience. However, it does seem sometimes as if the very fact of having served is claimed as making them better citizens, more important. At the time they were paid to do the work. So what continuing claim do they have on society? Why is this different to, say, a nurse with many years experience? Or a teacher?
Surely being in the military is merely one of many types of unique, socially valuable experience, shouldn't all people whose work contributes to society should be valued equally?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:

You sir, are a blithering idiot.

*Sigh*  I take solace in that this comment was made by guy hiding behind computer screen. Remember...I did not attack you personally.

Now let me clarify my comment in an earlier post that seems to have gotten your panties all knotted up.  

You took offense because I made the statement : ''Anyone who enlists in the military as a private making a grand a month under the pretense that they will be working /living amongst a bunch of sloppy, fat, outa-shape, Haliburton truck drivers making 10 -15 times the wages as the private, is a blithering fool.’’  

As a former vet, would you rejoin the military now and go through boot camp again and get in shape under the pretense that you were going to end up in Iraq working alongside and guarding /protecting fat, outa-shape, civilians, flipping omelets for ten to fifteen times the rate of your base pay for a job that has always belonged to the grunts on the ground? I don’t know about you, but based upon what I know, I’d be a blithering fool to enlist in the service with the foreknowledge of that – That’s what I said / meant  

And, now as a civilian, at thirty-nine years of age who claims to be an intellectual in his profile, do you really believe for a second that troops fighting over in Iraq are doing so to protect us over here? Do you really believe that, Ken?    

quote:

If an invasion ever comes locals with hunting arms and handguns are not going to defeat tanks and jet bombers. A tiny fraction of the populace, likely mostly vets, would begin a resistance movement but without a lot of outside help it would only be a nuisance to an occupation force and if the invaders didn't care about bad PR it would quickly dwindle down to nothing as folks would be unwilling to take action when the reaction would be the execution of an entire community.


Also the whole small professional cadre that would then be supplemented by conscripts in case of national emergency idea is indicative that those advocating it have no idea about the realities of the modern armed forces. A serviceman is not ready to face the enemy after the 2 to 3 months of boot camp. It generally takes an additional 6 months to a year to get a new recruit to be able to do his job even marginally competently. Now that is not to say that the US needs a military of the size it has today but a tiny cadre isn't viable either.

Now let me address this other part of your post :  

If you look back through history in modern times of colonialism and invading armies, the indigenous peoples have always been able to repel /defeat the occupiers; even in light of vastly superior technological forces.  

Circa 1840 - I point to the invading British Army that attempted to Colonize Afghanistan by pushing  through the Khyber pass into Kabul only to have 18,000 of their men killed and the Army decimated by a fighting force of indigenous villagers with cross bows, spears and rocks.  

Circa 1880 - I point to Chinese Gordon and the invading British Army, again, this time with a push to take over the Sudan at Khartoum.  The indigenous peoples with inferior weapons /fighting power, killed Gordon and kicked the shit out of British Army  

Circa 1900 - I point to the Italians, with a vastly superior invading army trying to conquer Ethiopia at a place called Adowa. The Ethiopian forces made up of peasants and farmers destroyed the Italians killing over 9000 people  

Circa 1915 - I point to the British again, invading the Ottoman empire {Iraq}, up through Basra. They were trapped and encircled in Kut and forced to surrender with most of the army killed or taken as prisoners of war.  

Circa 1954 - I point the Union Army of France in a facet of the Algerian war of 1954 at a place called Dien Bien Phu , { ala Vietnam}. Again a bunch of villagers made-up the Việt Minh fighting force that threw the French out of Indo China {For good}  

UtopianRanger:
I am not disagreeing with your post but just wanted to clear up a little history.
The French at Dien Bien  Phu were primarily Foriegn Legion (your previous gang affiliaton flew close air support for them in unmarked aircraft) Were surrounded not by a few angry peasants but rather five divisions of NVA regulars outnumbering them by at least 4:1.  They were backed up with a whole division of artillary and anti aircraft batteries which outnumbered the french artillary by 5:1.
As a side line it was at Dien Bien Phu that the first U.S. combat death in Viet Nam occured with the shooting down of ace fighter pilot "earthquake McGoon" (James McGovern) who was flying an R4Q (boxcar).
 
thompson



Circa 1981 - And finally, I point to the Kremlin Army and their feeble attempt to colonize / control Afghanistan only to be beaten back and bankrupted by a rag tag group CIA backed insurgents. Stinger missiles, improvised explosives, RPGS and automatic weapons decimated one of the world’s finest armies/ air forces /mechanized forces.  

I just gave you six great examples from the 1800’s to present day where greatly superior forces were wiped-out, beaten-back, by mostly indigenous pheasants who had it in their heart to fight for their homeland no matter how superior the occupiers.  

Again…. In your and my lifetime, this country will never be invaded by a foreign army. But just for the sake of the hypothetical….the peasants here that make-up this country, would fight just as hard if not harder than those in previous examples given. Regardless of what you think, we don’t need the US military to protect the homeland once the invaders set foot on our soil.




- R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang

"...volunteered to protect me..."

Is that right? Wow, such selfless individuals we are raising nowadays. You sure they weren't conned into service by bleak alternative prospects at home or the lure of college funds?

If those same soldiers are as ethical as you claim it would be my assertion that they would refuse to fight in Iraq whatever the legal cost to themselves. If they would lay down their lives for us, what's a few years in the stockade standing up for what is right?

Stop spewing shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

DomKen:
If my memory serves me correctly did'nt the Austrian army, in 1763, have a whole regiment of men  armed with automatic weapons?
It was I think about .50 cal. and would fire about 20 rounds without reloading.

thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

None. However it is within the US's rights to maintain a standing army to defend this nation against those troops if they were to attempt to cross our borders ala the Zimmermann Telegram. And since that was the point I originally made that you continue to try and twist into some justification for use of troops offensively I wonder what you're trying to accomplish? Perhaps you cannot defend the contrary position so you're trying to erect a strawman to defeat?