Re: [allthingshistory] Re: What is the most memboriable event that took place in your lifetime?
- Must you guys make this complicated?
Just make me Benevolent Dictator!
---- DJ <pommefritte2001@...> wrote:
> Only one problem with this thought. Bribry is bad enough as it is. It
> could only get worse on this system. Also there is nothing to say that
> they wouldn't use there position to forward the needs of their own
> Personally I think that the Congressmen should get their benifits
> reduced and any time the refuse to give the military a raise they
> shouldn't get one either. In fact I would say that it might not be a
> bad idea to give them a salary in line with that of officers. First
> term you get paid like a second louie and so on.
> --- In email@example.com, nitsirt
> <nitsirtthecommie@...> wrote:
> > I think we should go back to the really old days of not paying
> senators, and make them have an actual job. Then we would get rid of
> the politicians and the onlt people who would run would be the ones
> who actually want to do good, not just make themselves and their
> friends look good.
- 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