[Rhodes22-list] (political) response to Brad

[Steven L. Mutart]

Go for it Cheryl: I got tired of reading about porta potties and bilge pumps. Speaking of chicken hawks, I note it's been awhile since our fearless leader uttered those famous words "Bring 'em on!!"

-----Original Message-----
From: Cheryl O'Grady [mailto:cheryl.ogrady at mail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:44 PM
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] (political) response to Brad


> spending four months in a war theatre, or four years
> for that matter, doesn't give one magical powers to be
> a military leader. 
spending four years in a war theater might have given all the "chicken-hawks," as they have been dubbed, a little more reluctance to send people into harms way based on intelligence that is daily proving to have been shaky, at best.  (an article in today's paper talked about information the Germans gave the US but qualified it all over the place, because the source was unreliable.  our government then touted this information all over the place as fact)

> Re-read the constitution.  The head of the military is
> a civilian, always has been. Prior military
> experience is not a requirement.
No, we don't want to require military service.  However, we have an administration of war hawks who all AVOIDED active service in a war theater, some with deferments, others by joining the Guard (the "I served" way of avoiding VietNam). 


> "A President has to rely on the commanders in the field and their assesments.  You may
> be right on this; we may need more troops before we have less."
Which general was it who was more or less removed from his position because, before the war started, he advocated a number of troops needed that was far higher than Rumsfeld wanted - was it Shalikasvili (sorry if I have murdered the spelling)?

> Cheryl, there are hundreds if not thousands of blogs
> and websites from soldiers in Iraq.  They will be
> happy to correspond with you and let you know what
> their feelings and needs are.  At least read a few of
> them.  Right now they are extremely pissed off at the
> press for not covering all the good things that they
> are achieving and are mad as hell that members of
> Congress are talking "cut and run". 

I never said I don't believe our military aren't doing good things.  Each and every one of them is a hero, in my mind.  I, too, am angry with Congress for it's "cut and run" rhetoric.  I feel the press is covering a lot of the good things they do.  But I am so damn pissed off that they are there in the first place.  I repeat, how do we express this anger without denigrating the soldiers doing the fighting?

Cheryl

> 
> Cheryl,
> 
> Let's start with the end of your response first.
> Re-read the constitution.  The head of the military is
> a civilian, always has been. Prior military
> experience is not a requirement.  Good thing,
> otherwise we would have been denied wartime leaders A.
> Lincoln (but for a weekend in the Indian hunting
> militia), FDR, and that brave warrior, the "Bomber of
> Bosnia", William Jefferson Clinton.  Serving in the
> Reserve is hardly avoiding service, look at the number
> of Reservists killed in our current battle (I say
> battle because the GWT won't be over in our lifetime).
>   One of the lessons we learned from Vietnam (or should
> have learned) is that you don't draft 18 and 19 year
> olds, send them into battle with no unit cohesion, and
> expect them to be happy soldiers.  Conversely,
> spending four months in a war theatre, or four years
> for that matter, doesn't give one magical powers to be
> a military leader. And by the way, do you know
> anything about the aircraft W flew, or its mission?
> Vietnam wasn't any safer nor was his aircraft a
> safehaven from 'Nam deployment.
> 
> Now let's start from the top of your letter and work
> down.
> 
> We needed to send in more troops?  Maybe.  Tommy
> Franks position in his book "American Soldier" was
> that the logistical tail was already getting too long
> during the march to Baghdad and the 4th ID was bogged
> down in Kuwait after Turkey denied entry from the
> north.  However, and this is a big however, perhaps we
> should have followed-up with more "boots" once the
> incredibly rapid march toward Baghdad was over.  If
> this was a failing, it will be debated in the War
> College and by historians for a long time.  We saw how
> well LBJ did micro-managing a war from the basement of
> the White House.  A President has to rely on the
> commanders in the field and their assesments.  You may
> be right on this; we may need more troops before we
> have less.
> 
> "We broke it, we need to fix it."  Thank you.  That is
> what Colin Powell said during the run-up to war, he
> called it the "Pottery Barn" rule.  Leaving now
> without the legitimate Iraqi government having the
> ability to defend itself from civil war would be
> foolish.
> 
> "How do you suggest that people who are against the
> war should express their dissent and dissatisfaction
> in such s way as to honor the people doing the
> fighting..........?"
> 
> Cheryl, there are hundreds if not thousands of blogs
> and websites from soldiers in Iraq.  They will be
> happy to correspond with you and let you know what
> their feelings and needs are.  At least read a few of
> them.  Right now they are extremely pissed off at the
> press for not covering all the good things that they
> are achieving and are mad as hell that members of
> Congress are talking "cut and run".  Try Google.
> 
> Brad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Cheryl O'Grady <cheryl.ogrady at mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Bob,
> > I found your post very interesting, particularly the
> > conclusion that we need more troops to close the
> > borders.
> >
> > Believe it or not, because I never supported the
> > invasion of Iraq, I think we need to send more
> > troops in to get the job finished so we can get out
> > and go home.  See, once they decided to do it, they
> > should have done it right.  My heart goes out to the
> > troops who feel we don't support them.  I do, and so
> > do most who are against the war.  I don't advocate
> > an immediate pullout, that would be wrong, for all
> > the guys who died or were maimed during service
> > there, and also for the civilians who would be left
> > in the middle of a vicious civil war.  We broke it,
> > we need to fix it.  We just had no business going in
> > in the first place.
> >
> > How do you suggest that people who are against the
> > war should express their dissent and dissatisfaction
> > in such a way as to honor the people doing the
> > fighting while dumping porta-potti contents on the
> > draft-dodgers who got us in there in the first
> > place?  Oh, sorry, those were deferments, weren't
> > they, and daddy-connected reserve jobs....not
> > draft-dodging.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Skinner" <robert at squirrelhaven.com>
> > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] stirring the hornet's
> > nest.... (political) 	-JohnMurtha chimes in
> > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:09:14 -0500
> >
> > > > Mike -
> > > > What do you think of this?  It showed up in my
> > inbox, unsolicited,
> > > but may be valid.  I trust no source any more,
> > except friends who
> > > are coming back, and each of them has a
> > necessarily limited view
> > > of the conflict/situation.
> > > > How does it square with what you are hearing?
> > > > Do you have an opinion about whether we should
> > pull out?
> > > Or should we send in enuf troops to seal borders?
> > > Do we have enuf force to seal borders?
> > > > /Bob
> > > > > The following is a report from a grunt in Iraq
> > and is something that will
> > > > almost never be shown on the left leaning news
> > networks.
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Report From Down Range
> > > >
> > > > This was sent to me a West Coast USAR CW3 who
> > got it from a Semper Fi, UAL
> > > > retired, east coast type.
> > > >
> > > > Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs,
> > veterans and interested
> > > > guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend
> > time with my son Jordan, who
> > > > was on his first leave since returning from
> > Iraq. He is well (a little
> > > > thin), and already bored. He will be returning
> > to Iraq for a second tour in
> > > > early 06 and has already re-enlisted early for 4
> > more years. He loves the
> > > > Marine Corps and is actually looking forward to
> > returning to Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > Jordan spent 7 months at Camp Blue Diamond in
> > Ramadi. Aka: Fort Apache. He
> > > > saw and did a lot and the following is what he
> > told me about weapons,
> > > > equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info
> > which may be of interest to
> > > > you.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing is by any means classified. No politics
> > here, just a Marine with a
> > > > birds eye views opinions:
> > > >
> > > > 1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming
> > problems with the talcum
> > > > powder like sand over there. The sand is
> > everywhere. Jordan says you feel
> > > > filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower.
> > The M-4 carbine version is
> > > > more popular because its lighter and shorter,
> > but it has jamming problems
> > > > also. They like the ability to mount the various
> > optical gunsights and
> > > > weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the
> > weapon itself is not great in
> > > > a desert environment.
> > > >
> > > > They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor
> > penetration on the cinderblock
> > > > structure common over there and even torso hits
> > cant be reliably counted on
> > > > to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random
> > autopsies on dead insurgents shows a
> > > > high level of opiate use.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223
> > cal. Drum fed light machine
> > > > gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a
> > piece of shit. Chronic
> > > > jamming problems, most of which require partial
> > disassembly. (that fun in
> > > > the middle of a firefight).
> > > >
> > > > 3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun,
> > performs well in desert
> > > > environment; but they all hate the 9mm
> > cartridge. The use of handguns for
> > > > self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old
> > story on the 9mm: Bad guys
> > > > hit multiple times and still in the fight.
> > > >
> > > > 4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well,
> > used frequently for clearing
> > > > houses to good effect.
> > > >
> > > > 5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal.
> > belt fed machine gun,
> > > > developed to replace the old M-60 (what a
> > beautiful weapon that was!!).
> > > > Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62
> > round puts em down. Originally
> > > > developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and
> > more are being dismounted
> > > > and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62
> > round chews up the structure
> > > > over there.
> > > >
> > > > 6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way,
> > way up. Ma deuce is still
> > > > worth her considerable weight in gold. The
> > ultimate fight stopper, puts
> > > > their dicks in the dirt every time. The most
> > coveted weapon in-theater.
> > > >
> > > > 7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best
> > pistol round out there.
> > > > Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is
> > trying to get their hands on one.
> > > > With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to
> > put em down with a torso
> > > > hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of
> > the pistol work) use the HK
> > > > military model and supposedly love it. The old
> > government model .45s are
> > > > being re-issued en masse.
> > > >
> > > > 8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued
> > in bulk, mostly in a
> > > > modified version to special ops guys.
> > Modifications include lightweight
> > > > Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG
> > sights. Very reliable in the
> > > > sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.
> > > >
> > > > 9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way
> > up. Spectacular range and
> > > > accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used
> > frequently to take out vehicle
> > > > suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of
> > them) and barricaded enemy.
> > > > Definitely here to stay.
> > > >
> > > > 10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in
> > .308 but some in 300 win mag.
> > > > Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great
> > performance. Snipers have been used
> > > > heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a
> > marine sniper on his third tour
> > > > in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos
> > Hathcocks record for
> > > > confirmed kills with OVER 100.
> > > >
> > > > 11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively
> > light at approx. 6 lbs. and
> > > > can reliably be expected to soak up small
> > shrapnel and even will stop an
> > > > AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear,
> > almost unbearable in the
> > > > summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees).
> > Also, the enemy now goes for
> > > > head shots whenever possible. All the bullshit
> > about
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list





"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Edmund Burke, Irish philosopher

__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list