Michael Lawson wrote:


"FDR" wrote in message
...

"running dogg" wrote in message
...
Michael Lawson wrote:


"beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
http://www.forsakethetroops.info/


What a guy he really is!

Mr. Crook doesn't know history very well; those without
a military tend to get run over by those who do. He may
not like the Iraq war, but effectively disbanding the
military by eliminating all forms of recompense is akin
to asking to get clobbered over the head.

--Mike L.

I wouldn't go THAT far, but I DO think that the US military needs
a
total, top down reconstruction. A modern guerilla insurgency (like
the
one in Iraq) will run circles around a typical bureaucratic
military
structure (like the US armed forces) because the big military
bureaucracy has absolutely no way of responding to the tactics of
the
insurgents as fast as the insurgents can change said tactics.

We now = British circa 1776. They = colonial army circa 1776.

No. During the WoI, one of the main goals of Washington's
army was to beat the British on the field so as to legitimize
the Revolution. Washington felt that employing
guerrilla tactics against the British, even if successful, would
not lend to the legitamacy of the Revolution as much as
being able to beat the British, then one of the finest militaries
of the time, on the field.

There are other differences. The colonials didn't kill civilians. Well,
there were a few atrocities, but nothing like the daily onslaught
against civilian populations that we see in Iraq. Also, there was no
religious component to the colonial rebellion; they wanted self rule and
freedom from taxes, not a religiously pure state. No suicide missions,
either.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----