beerbarrel wrote:

http://www.forsakethetroops.info/

What a guy he really is!

He's a frickin 'tard boy from CanaDuh. They're all pretty much like that up
there.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

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


What a guy he really is!
_____________________
www.ReformUS.org

What do you expect from the skirt-wearing queef.

"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.

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 need to
eliminate much of the bureaucracy (it's ridiculous that only 1 out of 4
active duty US soldiers are combat ready troops) and get more rapid
response strike force type units that can be dropped in to the middle of
an insurgent held area, adapt to insurgent tactics as fast as the
insurgents can change them without having to go through layers of
bureaucracy to do so, and live off the land while fighting outwards from
the middle to join other strike force units in a pincer action to cut
off insurgent cells from one another and force them to wither away. I
realize that in the US at least creating a more mobile, better
responding military that's more able to fight the wars of the future
(wars in which there are no front lines and the bad guys don't wear
uniforms) will mean a lot of entrenched bureaucrats having to give up
power, but the demands of the war on terror demand nothing less.


----== 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 =----

"running dogg" wrote in message 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.


Their not insurgents, they are terrorist. Anybody that deliberately kills
unarmed civilians is a f--king terrorist. But I guess anybody that agrees
with their activity might be inclined to label them insurgents but never the
less they are terrorist.

B.H.

"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"running dogg" wrote in message 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.


Their not insurgents, they are terrorist. Anybody that deliberately kills
unarmed civilians is a f--king terrorist.

So our jails are filled with terrorists, not murders?

But I guess anybody that agrees
with their activity might be inclined to label them insurgents but never
the less they are terrorist.

B.H.

"FDR" wrote in message
...

"Brian Hill" wrote in message


So our jails are filled with terrorists, not murders?

Do I really have to explain to you how stupid that statement is?

B.H.

"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.


We need to
eliminate much of the bureaucracy (it's ridiculous that only 1 out of 4
active duty US soldiers are combat ready troops) and get more rapid
response strike force type units that can be dropped in to the middle of
an insurgent held area, adapt to insurgent tactics as fast as the
insurgents can change them without having to go through layers of
bureaucracy to do so, and live off the land while fighting outwards from
the middle to join other strike force units in a pincer action to cut
off insurgent cells from one another and force them to wither away. I
realize that in the US at least creating a more mobile, better
responding military that's more able to fight the wars of the future
(wars in which there are no front lines and the bad guys don't wear
uniforms) will mean a lot of entrenched bureaucrats having to give up
power, but the demands of the war on terror demand nothing less.


----== 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
=----

"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.

--Mike L.

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 =----