black@pundit.DEC (Don Black DTN 261-2739 MS: NIO/N9 Loc: Pole B6) (05/28/85)
I had the opportunity over this holiday weekend to participate in a Memorial Day ceremony in a small town in southern Maine. As I stood in the formation around the War Memorial and listened to the haunting, echoing Taps, I couldn't escape the memories of the good friends I knew from high school who would never again stand in a parade, who would never again salute the Colors, who would never again hear Taps, who would never again throw a baseball or lift a beer. The names which were read from the podium are all strangers to me, since I am not from the area originally. But those of us who have worn a uniform all share a kinship. The places and causes of death are all too familiar: Killed in action, Belleau Wood, 1918; Lost at sea, Guadalcanal, 1944; Died of wounds, Korea, 1953; In memorial, missing in action, presumed dead, Republic of Viet Nam, 1968. There but for the grace of God go I. The fellow next to me served under Westmoreland, in a Special Forces unit, originally twenty-five strong. Two came home alive. The other survivor is a quadraplegic. Back in '66, when Uncle Sam was handing out invitations to his party in Southeast Asia, there was a massive emigration of "Americans" to places like Canada and Sweden. Children of rich parentage found refuge in college with a 2-S draft deferment. (The last laugh is on me. Their taxes paid for my college under the GI Bill.) Protest was the "in thing" to do. I can still remember the night Harvard Square underwent Urban Renewal at the hands of a bunch of bearded wierdos. So off we went, some willing, some not. Some came back, some didn't. War is Hell, and very unfair. Back then, we all asked ourselves "Why?? This isn't our war. We weren't attacked. What is the interest of the US? Why can't we fight the way we were trained? Why can't we use our best weapons? Why won't they let us win?" Nobody wants to hear the answer. We weren't supposed to win. Not in World War I, not in World War II, not in Korea, not in Viet Nam, not in Central America, not in Lebanon, not anywhere, never. Oh, yeah, we beat the Kaiser and turned Germany into bankruptcy. Sure, we creamed the Nazis, Il Duce, and the Land of the Rising Sun. But did we really win? Or did we set ourselves up for a fate worse than death? We're still fighting in Korea, thirty-five years after the initial North Korean attack. (You don't believe me? Ask any troop who's been there recently.) We're there under the auspices of our good friends, the United Nations. We'll be there until Hell freezes over. Nope, we sure ain't involved in fighting in Viet Nam at the moment. The last live POW that Hanoi intends to release came home a decade ago. We won't see any more live ones, just some bags of assorted bones, and questions. Were they alive when they were captured? When and where did they die? Howcome it took so long to release the remains? How many more remains will be released? How many more men are still alive? The Viet Nam war did not end with the last chopper leaving the roof of the American embassy in Saigon. No, this time we brought the combatants home with us. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that over 50% of the Viet Namese emigres are Communist Viet Cong sympathizers. And we willingly let these people onto our shores. Every war the United States has been involved in since the turn of the century has had only one reason: to further the causes of the One-World-Government, Internationalist Slave-Traders. Call them what you will, be it Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateralists, Bilder- bergers, Aquarians, Illuminati--they're all one and the same. They instigated World War I to gain control of Christian Russia. They needed the greater holocaust of World War II to enslave the rest of Christian Europe and Asia through the Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini/Hirohito coalition. Korea and Viet Nam were meant only to eliminate our will to fight for our own survival. Beirut only served as a negative reinforcement-- "See, GI? We can get you even in your fortresses. Why do you still try to fight us?" So today, when the knifepoint of Communist slavery is right in our belly, we do nothing to stop it from slicing our hearts out. And still we are being deceived. Nicaragua and El Salvador are getting the media attention, while the greater threat from a Communist Mexico is totally ignored. The Liberals are absolutely right when they say we should not intervene militarily in Central America. Our troops could better be used to seal our southern border. It is fairly obvious that we are being set up for an invasion of the American mainland by Communist forces. They are already infil- trating by the tens of thousands each night. What's to stop the Soviets from catching us in a four-way pincer movement? Airborne assault from Siberia into Alaska, from the USSR across the Arctic Ocean into southern Canada and the central US, by land into California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, amphibious assault and air (helicopter) assault from Cuba into Florida and the Gulf states--it's a cinch, particularly if we happen to be engaged in some little Brush-Fire war across the pond someplace. But this time the Rockefeller/Rothschild Internationalist clique has made one fatal mistake. Those of us who survived the Viet Nam era have learned the lessons of warmaking all too well, lessons we will not easily forget. We will be more than happy to use our skills one more time to keep our Nation and People free. We remember, Mr. Rockefeller. We remember, Mr. Rothschild. We remember, you Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, et alia. And we say to you, "NEVER AGAIN!" --Don Black "...decwrl!dec-vax!dec-pundit!black" ************************************************************************ "Walk softly, Stranger, for here lies a dream." Epitaph on a Soldier's tomb, Berwick, Maine.
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (05/29/85)
> > Every war the United States has been involved in since the turn > of the century has had only one reason: to further the causes of the > One-World-Government, Internationalist Slave-Traders. Call them what > you will, be it Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateralists, Bilder- > bergers, Aquarians, Illuminati--they're all one and the same. But Don, didn't you know that USENET itself was founded by that same consipiricy? This net goes to FOREIGN COUNTRIES!!! Why, in some of those countries there are SOCIALISTS (god help us). Yes, Mark Horton himself is probably a member of the trilateral commission who created USENET at the orders of the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers. And ME, let me tell you about ME!! Why I have been fighting for one world government ever since David Rockefeller called me up and explained why he, personally, felt that it was important to have one world government. Just the other day I was talking to my good buddy, the Baron Van Rothchild, and he was explaining to me why he was happy that the last of the Rothchild family fortune was nationalized by France's socialist government. He told me that the Rothchilds never cared about amassing wealth and that all along they had been working towards a one-world socialist government. I know the whole Rockefeller family is sincere in their efforts to give up their vast personal wealth and power for a one-world government. > > But this time the Rockefeller/Rothschild Internationalist clique > has made one fatal mistake. Those of us who survived the Viet Nam era > have learned the lessons of warmaking all too well, lessons we will not > easily forget. We will be more than happy to use our skills one more > time to keep our Nation and People free. What is this? What did you learn in Viet-nam?--How to kill people?!? Are you threating all the members of your "conspiricy?" Are you armed? I am against gun-control, but you are a one-person argument for keeping guns out of the hands of some people! > > We remember, Mr. Rockefeller. We remember, Mr. Rothschild. We > remember, you Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, et alia. And we say to > you, "NEVER AGAIN!" > "...decwrl!dec-vax!dec-pundit!black" What do you remember? Give me a hint. Were you in WWI? I asked my buddies David and Baron and they have never heard of you. How could you remember that they are part of a conspiricy? If you remember an internationalist conspiricy, how did it get in your mind in the first place? Isn't "NEVER AGAIN" the slogan of the Jewish Defense League? pesnta!idsvax!steiny twg!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
rastaman@ihdev.UUCP (Ridin' those switchin' modules into the sunset) (05/30/85)
> What's to stop the > Soviets from catching us in a four-way pincer movement? Airborne > assault from Siberia into Alaska, from the USSR across the Arctic Ocean > into southern Canada and the central US, by land into California, > Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, amphibious assault and air (helicopter) > assault from Cuba into Florida and the Gulf states--it's a cinch, > particularly if we happen to be engaged in some little Brush-Fire > war across the pond someplace. > Anybody up for net.strategy? Airborne assault into Alaska. Ok, they'd still have a long way to go. What about the lengths of the supply lines? What about the time it would take to penetrate to the contiguous 48 states? Yo, Canucks! You folks feel like letting a foreign army march across your country? Ditto for an over-the-pole route. Amphibious assault into the South. I could almost buy this but the ease of reaching the States also makes it easy for us to hit the Cubans. One plane is all it takes to obliterate Habana. Mexico turning Communist. Interesting idea that. I think if the country were really wobbling, we'd have troops there pretty quickly. On the other hand, suppose we invaded Siberia from the east, invited our new found Chinese friends to invade from the south, bottled up the Soviet Atlantic and Black Sea fleets, blockaded and bombed Cuba, and invaded Poland (where the populace would presumably be less than pro-Warsaw Pact). Makes you wonder if the Soviet general staff lies awake at night worrying about us...
jbtubman@water.UUCP (Jim Tubman [LPAIG]) (05/30/85)
In article <243@ihdev.UUCP> rastaman@ihdev.UUCP writes: > >> What's to stop the >> Soviets from catching us in a four-way pincer movement? Airborne >> assault from Siberia into Alaska, from the USSR across the Arctic Ocean >> into southern Canada and the central US, by land into California, >> Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, amphibious assault and air (helicopter) >> assault from Cuba into Florida and the Gulf states--it's a cinch, >> particularly if we happen to be engaged in some little Brush-Fire >> war across the pond someplace. >> > >Anybody up for net.strategy? > >Airborne assault into Alaska. Ok, they'd still have a long way to go. >What about the lengths of the supply lines? What about the time it >would take to penetrate to the contiguous 48 states? Yo, Canucks! >You folks feel like letting a foreign army march across your country? We wouldn't like a foreign army marching though this country, but there isn't much we could do about it. The Canadian Armed Forces are notoriously feeble. We'd wind up with *two* foreign armies marching across our country -- the Soviets and the Americans. Not that a lot of Canadians would mind the US Army helping out in the (unlikely) event of a Soviet invasion. There are probably a lot more realistic problems to worry about than an invasion of North America from Asia. Jim Tubman University of Waterloo
marr@yale.ARPA (Leon T. Marr) (06/07/85)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: >>=<2339@decwrl.UUCP> black@pundit.DEC (Don Black DTN 261-2739 MS: NIO/N9 Loc: Pole B6) > =<243@ihdev.UUCP> rastaman@ihdev.UUCP (Ridin' those switchin' modules into the sunset) writes: =me (marr@yale-comix.UUCP) >> What's to stop the >> Soviets from catching us in a four-way pincer movement? Airborne >> assault from Siberia into Alaska, from the USSR across the Arctic Ocean >> into southern Canada and the central US, by land into California, >> Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, amphibious assault and air (helicopter) >> assault from Cuba into Florida and the Gulf states--it's a cinch, >> particularly if we happen to be engaged in some little Brush-Fire >> war across the pond someplace. > >Anybody up for net.strategy? I`d be up for it. But I think fa.arms or something already exists. Rastaman`s overall analysis is sound. This whole question makes an interesting thought exercise. > >Airborne assault into Alaska. Ok, they'd still have a long way to go. >What about the lengths of the supply lines? What about the time it >would take to penetrate to the contiguous 48 states? > Yeah. Hopeless. It`ll take weeks just to get to Anchorage. Supply? Gosh. > >Ditto for an over-the-pole route. > Two additional problems with going over the pole: 1) The only Soviet military transports with the range to reach even northern Canada are Il-76`s and An-22`s. Nothing else reaches from the available bases, unless it`s on a one-way trip. With these (about 200 aircraft; 10,000 tons), they can move about four battalions. This brings us to our second problem: 2) You are in command of the 102nd Guards Parachute division, and have just managed to drop four battalions of your force into the Northwest Territory. Everything has gone perfectly, and there is no opposition. Now all you have to do is to march 1500 km across permafrost to reach your first objective, Winnipeg, MB. And you have to get there ahead of the defenders, who, since they are riding the trains from Canadian Forces Bases in Ontario, will be there in less than a week. Think you can march 1500 km in a week? Dubious. Remember also that all your supplies are being carted over the pole by those same 200 aircraft, shuttling back and forth. This is all assuming our air defence is non-existent. I personally would hate to try and get all those transports in against any fighter opposition. The fighters don`t even have to shoot any down (although that wouldn`t be difficult), all they have to do is disrupt the drop. Then the paratroopers can spend an entertaining few days trying to reorganize and find out where the heavy equipment and supplies landed. > >Amphibious assault into the South. I could almost buy this but >the ease of reaching the States also makes it easy for us to hit >the Cubans. One plane is all it takes to obliterate Habana. > 1) The Soviet Navy just hasn`t got the amphibious capability. The whole Soviet marine force is five brigades (12,000 men -- these are small brigades). By contrast, the USMC contains 3 (oversized) divisions and 3 air wings for a total strength of around 180,000 men. 2) The Gulf of Mexico is currently an American lake. Assault transports and landing craft are almost as vulnerable to attack as transport aircraft. "Sitting ducks" is, I think, the appropriate term. > >Mexico turning Communist. Interesting idea that. I think if the >country were really wobbling, we'd have troops there pretty >quickly. > Yeah. That would be a security threat. I think there`d also be an American response if the Soviets suddenly shipped its entire marine force to Cuba. As far as the problem of a brush-fire war is concerned, it has been Pentagon policy that we have to be able to fight at least one and a half wars at the same time. During Vietnam, this meant that Vietnam, a brush-fire war, was the half-war, which was one strictly military reason why we didn`t go all out. Key problems for an invader are: 1) The Atlantic and the Pacific make wonderful moats, so long as you control the seas. Luckily, the USN has this job in hand. 2) The extensive rail-net which exists in North America (most of it currently freight-only) is invaluble for movement of reserves and supplies to threatened points. 3) North America is huge. Conquering it would take a long time. > >On the other hand, suppose we invaded Siberia from the east, invited >our new found Chinese friends to invade from the south, bottled up >the Soviet Atlantic and Black Sea fleets, blockaded and bombed Cuba, >and invaded Poland (where the populace would presumably be less than >pro-Warsaw Pact). > Yow! Kremlin nightmare scenario! One of the things the Soviets get really worried about is what might happen if all the Warsaw Treaty Organization members (not including the USSR, and probably not Bulgaria) tried a rebellion at the same time. Messy. Especially if NATO tried to intervene. (This latter is dubious, given the record of '56, '68, and '80, but you never know...) > >Makes you wonder if the Soviet general staff lies awake at night >worrying about us... > They do. It`s their job. On to other parts of the posting: >> >> No, this time we brought the >> combatants home with us. The Immigration and Naturalization Service >> estimates that over 50% of the Viet Namese emigres are Communist Viet >> Cong sympathizers. And we willingly let these people onto our shores. >> This figure I want corroborated. I really doubt INS is that incompetent. If they were incompetent enough to allow infiltrators in, I`m fairly sure they`re not so stupid as to release the information. >> >> Every war the United States has been involved in since the turn >> of the century has had only one reason: to further the causes of the >> One-World-Government, Internationalist Slave-Traders. >> But this time the Rockefeller/Rothschild Internationalist clique >> has made one fatal mistake. Those of us who survived the Viet Nam era >> have learned the lessons of warmaking all too well, lessons we will not >> easily forget. We will be more than happy to use our skills one more >> time to keep our Nation and People free. >> We remember, Mr. Rockefeller. We remember, Mr. Rothschild. We >> remember, you Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, et alia. And we say to >> you, "NEVER AGAIN!" >> >> --Don Black I`m not sure if he`s serious. Me, I think the Postal Service, and its implacable minions of blue-uniformed letter carriers, is out to rule the world. Go ahead, laugh! Just wait till the Universal Postal Union takes control of USENET. Then it`ll take weeks to get a message through, IF it gets through. (What? That`s already true? INFILTRATORS!!!) Amazed that USENET managed to hold up a letter from cit-vax to yale for over 6 months (true story), Leon Marr decvax!yale!marr Incomplete list of references: Collins, John M. U.S. - Soviet Military Balance 1960-1980. McGraw-Hill. Dunnigan, James F. 1982. How to Make War: A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Warfare. New York: Wm. Morrow & Co. Inc. Gabriel, Richard A. ed. 1983. Fighting Armies: NATO and the Warsaw Pact A Combat Assessment. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Keegan, John. 1980. World Armies. Kosnett, Phil. 1975. "Invasion: America", Strategy & Tactics No. 57, pp. 25-35. New York: Simulations Pub. Inc.
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (06/12/85)
>>Airborne assault into Alaska. Ok, they'd still have a long way to go. >>What about the lengths of the supply lines? What about the time it >>would take to penetrate to the contiguous 48 states? >> >Yeah. Hopeless. It`ll take weeks just to get to Anchorage. Supply? Gosh. I beleive there was a tv movie about a raid on the pipeline about 5 years ago. >>Ditto for an over-the-pole route. >> >Two additional problems with going over the pole: > 1) The only Soviet military transports with the range to reach even > northern Canada are Il-76`s and An-22`s. Nothing else reaches from > the available bases, unless it`s on a one-way trip. With these (about > 200 aircraft; 10,000 tons), they can move about four battalions. How about an Aeroflot flight into an airport in Canada (in the range of a one way trip) with a force meant to seize the facilities. Then start ferrying in your supplies. This may seem desparate, but if the USSR is to invade North America from a cold start, they'd have to be. >This brings us to our second problem: > 2) You are in command of the 102nd Guards Parachute division, and have just > managed to drop four battalions of your force into the Northwest > Territory. Everything has gone perfectly, and there is no opposition. > Now all you have to do is to march 1500 km across permafrost to reach > your first objective, Winnipeg, MB. And you have to get there ahead > of the defenders, who, since they are riding the trains from Canadian > Forces Bases in Ontario, will be there in less than a week. Think you > can march 1500 km in a week? Dubious. Seizing something like Edmonton airport gets around this. >Remember also that all your supplies are being carted over the pole by those >same 200 aircraft, shuttling back and forth. > >This is all assuming our air defence is non-existent. I personally >would hate to try and get all those transports in against any fighter >opposition. The fighters don`t even have to shoot any down (although that >wouldn`t be difficult), all they have to do is disrupt the drop. Then the >paratroopers can spend an entertaining few days trying to reorganize and >find out where the heavy equipment and supplies landed. Last I heard, the US has 12 fighters based on the east coast of the US to defend the continent. I don't know if this is true (I doubt it), but the logic is that out forward defence (Europe & Asia) will prevent numbers of the planes getting through. Something else to consider: The aircraft will be passing near the magnetic north pole, that certainly won't help guidance systems. >>Amphibious assault into the South. I could almost buy this but >>the ease of reaching the States also makes it easy for us to hit >>the Cubans. One plane is all it takes to obliterate Habana. >> >1) The Soviet Navy just hasn`t got the amphibious capability. The whole Soviet > marine force is five brigades (12,000 men -- these are small brigades). > By contrast, the USMC contains 3 (oversized) divisions and 3 air wings > for a total strength of around 180,000 men. An interesting thought: There is only one country that could successfully invade the US by sea, and that is the UK. They would certainly have surprise, and they are the only other country capable of maintaining a war effort over sea supply lines. Ask Argentina. >2) The Gulf of Mexico is currently an American lake. Assault transports > and landing craft are almost as vulnerable to attack as transport > aircraft. "Sitting ducks" is, I think, the appropriate term. >> >>Mexico turning Communist. Interesting idea that. I think if the >>country were really wobbling, we'd have troops there pretty >>quickly. > >Yeah. That would be a security threat. I think there`d also be an American >response if the Soviets suddenly shipped its entire marine force to Cuba. Quite simply, the USSR is a land power. They are hemmed in by enemies. They are not a threat to the continental US in a conventional war. Their navy is not one to sustain a war effort across an ocean, but rather to disrupt an enemy's efforts. Air forces as a means to conquer (via paratroops) was discredited in Crete and Arnhem. Air power can be a very valuable assist to ground forces, but not a replacement. Look at how many bombs we dropped on Vietnam. Who is in control there now? Has any country been bombed into submission? >As far as the problem of a brush-fire war is concerned, it has been Pentagon >policy that we have to be able to fight at least one and a half wars at the >same time. During Vietnam, this meant that Vietnam, a brush-fire war, was >the half-war, which was one strictly military reason why we didn`t go all out. > >Key problems for an invader are: >1) The Atlantic and the Pacific make wonderful moats, so long as you control > the seas. Luckily, the USN has this job in hand. >2) The extensive rail-net which exists in North America (most of it currently > freight-only) is invaluble for movement of reserves and supplies to > threatened points. Our large civilian air fleets can also allow very quick response to hot spots. >3) North America is huge. Conquering it would take a long time. -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa I have not come as your prisoner, Davros, but as your executioner.