Re: [allthingshistory] Re: What is the most memboriable event that took place in your lifetime?
- I have a Libertarian bent myself, but not the Howard Sternian Cro-Magnun Man variety.
However, that party is screwed up in it's own unique way.
They believe too many whacky things like opposition to the Federal Court System and lacking actual real candidates for President everytime around to a worse degree than the two main parties.
---- DJ <pommefritte2001@...> wrote:
> My personal favorite in the message sending, letting the powers that
> be know that it is time to stop playing business as usual and time to
> start fixing things is a write in campaign for 'None of the Above',
> although odds are either someone is going to do a cosmetic makeover
> and appear to be something that the people want or another third party
> member is going to shake things up like Periot did.
> At the present time, I don't see a great deal of difference between
> Republicans and Democrats. Other then the words that spill out of
> their mouths. By an large their actions are very similar.
> Heck the only party that caught my attention for a time was the
> Libertarian, but I am not sure they have thought things out enough.
> --- In email@example.com, <kimnoyes@...> wrote:
> > Jeffrey,
> > I, too, get tired of the finger-pointing.
> > Mostly it's contentious and is an attempt to pass the buck and/or
> cynically take advantage of a setback when we should be trying to
> figure out went wrong and fix it both in a bi-partisan/non-partisan
> > I realize the latter part of that remark sounds hilariously naive. ;-p
> > You are right about the lag time in cause and effect and that
> becomes true the bigger we get.
> > Managing our nation is much like steering a supertanker.
> > Kim
- Hello,I understand very well the purpose of the Army. If the Presidential Palace or Foggy Bottom ((State Dept.)) wants peacekeepers, maybe Foggy Bottom or presidential advisors ((replacements for court jesters)) should be issued tin stars and blackjacks and go out and keep the peace. That is not a job for the regular Army and most certainly not that of elite units.Andrew
DJ <pommefritte2001@...> wrote:Here is the problem with that. You spend billions of dollars to hone
the edge on your military. And our training is some of the best in the
world short of actual combat. Maintaining the Status Que isn't what
you train the army for. Their mission is to rapidly overwhelm an
opponent and deliever victory on the battlefield. It isn't a case of
changing uniform to go from combat professionals to peacekeepers. By
and large the army is the wrong tool for the job. I think our army is
pretty much second to none. (at least in an overall context) but
asking Infantry ground pounders to function as Peace Keepers is just a
bad idea. MPs and Intel types probably a better call, but there is a
tad to few of them to be doing this.
--- In allthingshistory@ yahoogroups. com, "andrej1234au"
<andrej1234au@ ...> wrote:
> > > > Very much in agreement. Like the use of "peacekeepers. "
> > > > Not what the Army is for.
> > > The Marine Corps used to fill this role, but no longer.
> > > It is a shame to, since they were very good at it
> > > when they were doing it.
> > Hear! Hear!
> Troops serve as peacekeepers only when their government wants to
> maintain the status quo. In instances when they view change as their
> best option, they either send in the army (in an active rather than a
> passive role), or simply stand by and watch from afar as the competing
> factions slaughter one another whilst secretly financing and supporting
> one of them.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around