Re: Something Fishy with Kerry's being a "Hero"

[Pechs1]

David-<< Something is fishy.
>><BR><BR>

I laud anybodys participation in the SE Asia war games. But how about stop this
veiled slam at Kerry and focus on the issues in the face of the USA today.
If you wish to debate records, include GWB and his family's ability to keep him
out of harm's way.

steele<< I sure don't want him as Commander in Chief. >><BR><BR>

You are happier with GWB sending combat troops to Iraq so that they can be
killed by roadside bombs, while checking ID cards...ridiculous.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

David-<< What we need is a force that is primarily made up of Military
Police, Intel and Civil Affairs folks (mostly an Army force) that
deals with such peacekeeping missions. >><BR><BR>

The 'military' exists for only two reasons. To kill people and break things.
Nation building is not the military's job. What does this have to do with your
initial BS about Kerry, while ignoring GWB's ineptitude in leading the military
in Iraq??

steele<< We must face that if we are to keep attacks off of our shores, we
have to take to where the potential problems are brewing. >><BR><BR>

What 'potential problem' did Saddam present??

You are endorsing preemtive warfare anywhere the US and any President feels
like going. That is scary.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Miller" > wrote in message
...
> nestori wrote:
>
> > http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
>
> http://25thaviation.org/johnkerry/

Now for a little military aviation content:

SENATOR KERRY FOUGHT TO SLASH INTELLIGENCE FUNDING BY AT LEAST $2.5 BILLION

1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry
introduced a bill that would "reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million
in
each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." There were no
cosponsors of Kerry's bill, which never made it to the floor for a vote.
(S.1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

1995: Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480:
Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Spending
For
Two Major Intelligence Programs. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion
from
the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical
Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The bill did not make it to a
vote,
but the language was later submitted (and defeated - see below) as S.
Amdt.1452
to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)

1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. "Now
that that [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence
apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and
essential
priorities fall far short of what is necessary? ." (Senator John Kerry
Agreeing
That Critic's Concerns Be Addressed, Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)

When His Bill Stalled In Committee, Kerry Proposed $1 Billion Cut As
Amendment Instead. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the National
Foreign
Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence budgets, and freezing their
budgets. The amendment was defeated, with even Graham, Lieberman and Braun
voting against Kerry. (Amdt.. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R
3-37;
D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Graham, Lieberman And Braun Voted Nay)


After all the above, he has the nerve to say this, after 9/11

12 Days After 9/11: Kerry Questioned Quality Of Intelligence. "And the
tragedy
is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United
States
of America is intelligence. . And we are weakest, frankly, in that
particular
area. So it's going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this
properly." (CBS's "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

SEN. KERRY'S DEFENSE STRATEGY: CUT CRITICAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS

In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5
Billion.
Kerry's bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (S. 1580,
Introduced 2/29/96;
In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34
Billion
From Defense. Only 27 other Senators voted with Kerry.

Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa,
amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer
the
$34.8 billion in savings to education and job training." (S. Con. Res. 13,
CQ
Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces
in one year. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93,

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including:

In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay
Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S.
Con.
Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry
Voted Yea)
In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense. Republicans and Democrats
successfully blocked the attempt to cut defense spending. (S. Con. Res. 106,
CQ
Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Nay)
In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To
Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense
cut.
(H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91,
Kerry
Voted Yea)
In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%. Only 21 other Senators
voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated. (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ
Vote
#49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber.
(H.R.
3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted
Yea;
H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/18/89, Kerry
Voted
Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90, Kerry
Voted
Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90, Kerry
Voted
Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91, Kerry
Voted
Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41,
9/25/91,
Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2,
5/6/92,
Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D 37-18,
9/18/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D
37-19, 7/1/94, Kerry Voted Yea)

Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense. (S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion
Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote
#173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521,
CQ
Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted
Nay; S.
2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
S.
3114, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay;
S.
3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted
Yea;
S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted
Nay;
S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 10/9/93, Kerry Voted
yea;
S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94,
Kerry
Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42,
8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D
40-5,
8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D
40-4,
6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D
35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To
64-34:
R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Rejected
59-41:
R 55-0; D 4-41; I 0-0, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262:
Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S 1635, CQ Vote
#157:
Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote
#178:
Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

KERRY OPPOSED WEAPONS CRITICAL TO RECENT MILITARY SUCCESSES

Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Promised Massive Defense Cuts. "Kerry in
1984
said he would have voted to cancel . the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber,
AH-64
Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the
AV-8B
Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.
He
also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank,
the
Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet."
(Brian
C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. "[K]erry supported
cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US
military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to
the
world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of
weeks."
(Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe,
6/19/03)

F-16 Fighting Falcons. "The Air Force would also play an important role
in strikes against high-ranking officials of the Ba'ath regime. On April 4,
two
Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons dropped laser-guided munitions on the house
of
Ali Hassan al-Majid, a.k.a. 'Chemical Ali,' in Basra." (Abraham Genauer,
"Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis' Defenses," The
Hill,
5/21/03)

B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s. "On the night of March 21 alone, the first
of 'shock and awe,' coalition air forces flew nearly 2,000 missions. .
Involved
were Air Force B-1B Lancers, B-2A Spirits, . F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16
Fighting Falcons." (Abraham Genauer, "Technology And Volume Of Sorties
Overwhelmed The Iraqis' Defenses," The Hill, 5/21/03)

M1 Abrams. "'[M1 Abrams] tanks were the sledgehammer in this war,' added
Pat Garrett, an associate analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. 'The tank was the
tool that allowed [the ground forces] to progress as fast as they did.'"
(Patrick O'Connor, "Revolutionary Tank Tactics Alter Iraqi Conflict, Future
Of
Urban Warfare," The Hill, 5/21/03)

Patriot Missile. "U.S. Central Command says the Patriots . have improved
to the point where they intercepted nine of the Iraqis' short-range
al-Samoud 2
and Ababil-100 missiles in this conflict." (Andrea Stone, "Patriot Missile:
Friend Or Foe To Allied Troops?" USA Today, 4/15/03)

AH-64 Apache Helicopter. "Recently, Apaches in Afghanistan achieved
success directly supporting ground troops. . Whether in shaping the battle
in a
combined arms Warfighter-type fight where intelligence of the enemy is
known, or
by conducting close combat attacks in direct support of a ground commander,
the
Longbow Apache provides significantly increased flexibility and firepower
for
U.S. Army forces ." (Maj. David J. Rude and Lt. Col. Daniel E. Williams,
"The
'Warfighter Mindset' and the War in Iraq," Army Magazine, 7/03)

Tomahawk Cruise Missile. "The first operational use [of Tomahawk cruise
missiles] was in Operation Desert Storm, 1991, with immense success. The
missile
has since been used successfully in several other conflicts . include[ing]
Bosnia . in 1995 and in Iraq again . in 1996 . [and in] strikes against
training
camps run by Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan in 1998.
Cruise
missiles were also fired during the air campaign over Kosovo in 1999."
(Vivek
Rai, "Cruise Missiles, By Air And Sea," MSNBC.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. "During Operation Iraqi Freedom, [the Aegis
cruiser] Bunker Hill . was one of the first warships to conduct Tomahawk
strikes
against leadership targets in Iraq. The ship launched a total of 31 missiles
during the war. Its embarked . helicopter detachment . supported the rescue
of
United Nations workers being forcibly removed from oil platforms in the
Northern
Arabian Gulf and provided medical evacuations from the Iraqi city of Umm
Qasr."
(S.A. Thornbloom, "USS Bunker Hill Makes Revolutionary Return,"
NavyDispatch.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group
Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace
Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense
budget." ("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The
Associated Press, 6/3/88)

Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. "On
what
he'll do if he's elected to Congress, Kerry said he would 'bring a different
kind of message to the president.' He said he would vote against military
appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover,"
Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)

[Perry]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:24:41 GMT, John Miller > wrote:

>nestori wrote:
>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
>
>http://25thaviation.org/johnkerry/

even snopes can get it wrong sometimes. The Boston Globe and some
liberal writer is their main source of facts on this one. It's going
to take more than that to make it false.

[Vaughn]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> What 'potential problem' did Saddam present??
>
> You are endorsing preemtive warfare anywhere the US and any President
feels
> like going. That is scary.

For once we agree! And if Iraq is really about 911, why didn't we
instead attack the country that actually had something to do with it, Saudia
Arabia?

Vaughn


>
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Tarver-lots snipped.

geee, a quick look and he wanted to do things like slash $ from the B-2, lots
of defense 'slashing' of $3 billion(1% or less of the budget) right after the
Soviet Union went away. Also get rid of things like coastal mine
countermeasures for the US, other things that seem to make sense. Also missile
defense which was Reagan's and now GWBs folly(cruise missile defense-nope!).

Tell me how the B-2 made any difference in GW II? It was publicity 100%...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

vaughn-<< For once we agree! And if Iraq is really about 911, why didn't we
instead attack the country that actually had something to do with it, Saudia
Arabia? >><BR><BR>

Hear hear!!

But the fat asses with the 8 MPG SUVs would fight you on this one, along with
the oil/auto execs that have GWB in their collective pockets.

GWB is making a sham of what the military should be for. To see these guys
guarding gas stations and checking IDs, only to get smoked is a crime.

How about making the damn counrry protect itself?

Ooops, not quite sure how to do this, Kinda like another nation we tried to
build in the early 70s.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

David-<< No worst than what FDR was for about two to three years after
Pearl Harbor. It takes the military a while to get its act
together. >><BR><BR>

Horse****-The military had it **** together from about the late 80s or so, when
I was in, on an aircarft catrier and as evidenced by the 100 hr 'war' with
Iraq. It was/is designed to be mobile and fight, fight anything from small to
large conflicts, NOT be policemen or border guards. Were yo ever in the
military, i forget, but your comments speak volumes about what you 'seem' to
know about the military of the 80s thru today.

David<< As for the military killing people and breaking things, those
days are long gone. International law of war really forces us to
be far more selective. >><BR><BR>

Garbage and how much 'international law' was ignored when we preemtively
invaded Iraq.

David< For the most part
the military and the police tend to work under the same rules. >><BR><BR>

Bull**** again. If there were friendlies being held by bad guys the police
would mobilize a whole team of negotiators, the military would storm the house.
there would be no due process and no attempt to enusre nobody was hurt, they
would smoke anybody in the house, as evidenced by the attack on Saddams sons.


david<< To a certain extend, yes. Just as law enforcement may arrest
someone who has not yet committed a crime but has been planning
one. >><BR><BR>

Attacking a country, killing any combatants they come across is not 'arresting
somebody that is suspected of something'. You are confusing the police with the
military and they are NOT the same.


david<< As for Saddam, it does appear that he was supporting
terrorists, including al Qaeda, which includes training bases in
northern Iraq. With Sad dam gone, most of the "structure" of the
middle East is gone. It basically destabilize the whole region. >><BR><BR>


tyou really aren't that clueless are you?

It is an attempt to nation build a country that is western(meaning USA) leaning
in the back yard of other Arab nations that are not. It just isn't working and
the military is taking the brunt of it all.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[NEWS.QGRAPH.COM]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
snip...


No fair posting Voting records!!!
He is a decorated Vet (whot tossed his decorations)
He Stands soundly behind his brother Vets (ready to stab them in the Back)

Don't look at the record hear what he says...



Kerry is a putz.

Jim

[Bill Kambic]

"R. David Steele" wrote in message

> |Horse****-The military had it **** together from about the late 80s or
so, when
> |I was in, on an aircarft catrier and as evidenced by the 100 hr 'war'
with
> |Iraq. It was/is designed to be mobile and fight, fight anything from
small to
> |large conflicts, NOT be policemen or border guards. Were yo ever in the
> |military, i forget, but your comments speak volumes about what you 'seem'
to
> |know about the military of the 80s thru today.
>
> The military has always been the police.

No, only not really. Military forces were only used for civilian law
enforcement when the sheriff, marshall, etc. was faced with the equivalent
of an insurrection. The first historical incident of this kind in the U.S.
is the Whiskey Rebellion, IIRC.

That was one of the
> missions of the militia.

The militia was, and still can be, used to aid constitutional law
enforcement officers. Its use was rare.

Washington called out State Militias and lead them in the field to surpress
the Whiskey Rebellion. He is the only U.S. president to ever lead an army
in the field while in office.

Until the late 1800s, the military was
> the primary federal police.

No, the primary "federal police" authority be the U.S. Marshall. That
person could have one or more deputies. Territories could also for counties
and elect county sheriffs. Towns had marshalls. The Army was there
primarily to control hostile aboriginals (the word "indian" now being
non-PC).

During the Reconstuction period in the former Confederacy the Army had a
MUCH more active police role, but that was a very short period and few Army
officers wanted that duty.

Due to abuses, that is why the Army
> was restricted by the PCA (congress can give permission for the
> Army to engage in police work, the Navy is not restricted).

You are correct that percieve Army excesses were the genesis of the PCA.
The Navy is not subject to the PCA, but is subject to a SECNAVINST from
about 1919 that imposes the same limitations.

> |David<< As for the military killing people and breaking things, those
> |days are long gone. International law of war really forces us to
> |be far more selective. >><BR><BR>
> |
> |Garbage and how much 'international law' was ignored when we preemtively
> |invaded Iraq.
>
> Actually we were well within International Law. It was the UN,
> especially the leaders of the UN who were making money off of the
> food for oil program, that were acting outside of International
> Law. As were France and Germany.

International law is a very dicey thing because it involves soverign states.
One of the attributes of soverngnty is that you answer to no other entity.
If a sovereign state surrenders some aspect of this by treaty (in reality a
form of contract) then they are bound by the terms of that contract. Most
treaties carry with them a method to give notice "opt out."

Whether or not we were within our rights under International Law to act
against Iraq is a matter over which reasonable people can differ. I think
we were (but it's thin); others disagree.

> |David< For the most part
> |the military and the police tend to work under the same rules. >><BR><BR>
> |
> |Bull**** again. If there were friendlies being held by bad guys the
police
> |would mobilize a whole team of negotiators, the military would storm the
house.
> |there would be no due process and no attempt to enusre nobody was hurt,
they
> |would smoke anybody in the house, as evidenced by the attack on Saddams
sons.
>
> Police do the same thing.

As a general rule the police have, as their primary fuction, the
apprehension of criminals. They do not have a duty to protect any given
citizen. But their duty is APPREHENSION of criminals. They may use force,
including deadly force, when required by circumstance.

The soldier has no inherant duty to apprehend anyone. Within his rules of
engagement he may use whatever tactics, including deadly force, that he sees
as necessary to the accomplishment of his mission.

Or, put another way, the police officer has a general duty to announce
himself and give an accused time to surrender; a soldier can just bang away.

> |david<< To a certain extend, yes. Just as law enforcement may arrest
> |someone who has not yet committed a crime but has been planning
> |one. >><BR><BR>

Not under the Constitution of the U.S. they can't. I can plan all the
crimes I want and no offense is committed. But the first time I take a
concrete step toward implimentation of my plan then I will probably become
subject to some criminal liability.

> |Attacking a country, killing any combatants they come across is not
'arresting
> |somebody that is suspected of something'. You are confusing the police
with the
> |military and they are NOT the same.
>
> They are the same, both are parts of the militia. What we have
> now is an artificial construct.

No. The agencies in the U.S. are separate.

We are taking a risk in Iraq. IMO the risk is justified. YMMV.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Bill Kambic]

"R. David Steele" wrote in message

> |> The military has always been the police.
> |
> |No, only not really. Military forces were only used for civilian law
> |enforcement when the sheriff, marshall, etc. was faced with the
equivalent
> |of an insurrection. The first historical incident of this kind in the
U.S.
> |is the Whiskey Rebellion, IIRC.
>
> The title of sheriff was used for special knights in the King's
> service.

In English Law he is sometimes called the shire-reeve. He is the principal
officer in the county. In Scotish Law he was a judicial as well as
ministerial officer.

American pratice follows the English since at least the founding of the
Republic.

> | That was one of the
> |> missions of the militia.
> |
> |The militia was, and still can be, used to aid constitutional law
> |enforcement officers. Its use was rare.
> |
> |Washington called out State Militias and lead them in the field to
surpress
> |the Whiskey Rebellion. He is the only U.S. president to ever lead an
army
> |in the field while in office.
>
> The militia was used at local level as the posse and the fire
> brigade.

I'm sure that it sometimes was used as a fire brigade and to enforce local
law.. But that does not mean it was the primimary law enforcement
mechanism.

The posse commitatus was a totally different enterprise.

> | Until the late 1800s, the military was
> |> the primary federal police.
> |
> |No, the primary "federal police" authority be the U.S. Marshall. That
> |person could have one or more deputies. Territories could also for
counties
> |and elect county sheriffs. Towns had marshalls. The Army was there
> |primarily to control hostile aboriginals (the word "indian" now being
> |non-PC).
> |
> |During the Reconstuction period in the former Confederacy the Army had a
> |MUCH more active police role, but that was a very short period and few
Army
> |officers wanted that duty.
>
> The US Marshall, I believe, did not come into existence until the
> late 1800s.

The U.S. Marshall service dates to 1789. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/usmshist.html

Until then the military did the federal function.

No, it did not.

> Even today the FBI, Marshals and others base their authority on
> that of an Army officer.

Where did you ever get this? The authority of the FBI is derived from the
Attorney General. See above for Marshall's authority.

> | Due to abuses, that is why the Army
> |> was restricted by the PCA (congress can give permission for the
> |> Army to engage in police work, the Navy is not restricted).
> |
> |You are correct that percieve Army excesses were the genesis of the PCA.
> |The Navy is not subject to the PCA, but is subject to a SECNAVINST from
> |about 1919 that imposes the same limitations.
>
> However we have used the Marines to do law enforcement. It was
> just a few years ago that the Marines were sent into the South
> Central LA to stop rioting.

Back in '65, IIRC, the 82nd Airborne was used during the Detroit Riots. In
'71 (IIRC) elements of of the 101st Airborne were deployed to NAS Quonset
Point, RI to be held in standby in the event of civil disturbances due to a
big-time civil rights trial in Hartford, CT.

IOW military forces CAN be used in certain circumstances. Read the Posse
Commitatus Act for further information.

> |As a general rule the police have, as their primary fuction, the
> |apprehension of criminals. They do not have a duty to protect any given
> |citizen. But their duty is APPREHENSION of criminals. They may use
force,
> |including deadly force, when required by circumstance.
> |
> |The soldier has no inherant duty to apprehend anyone. Within his rules
of
> |engagement he may use whatever tactics, including deadly force, that he
sees
> |as necessary to the accomplishment of his mission.
> |
> |Or, put another way, the police officer has a general duty to announce
> |himself and give an accused time to surrender; a soldier can just bang
away.
>
> Not true. Otherwise the military would just kill all civilians.

Bull****. Does the phrase Law of War have any meaning for you?

> Under the rules we operate under, there must be reasonable
> threat. If an enemy surrenders, we can not just execute them.

Ayup. Law of War thing.

> And the police can use deadly force if they are resisted.

I think I said that.

> Remember, the military's mission is not to kill everyone and
> anyone. It is to force the other side to accept the will of our
> politicians.

I think I said this, too, in my reference to "rules of engagement."

Likewise the police are there to force the American
> people to accept the will of the politicians (ie laws).

The police exist to apprehend criminals. In our republican system laws come
from folks elected to office. The police enforce those laws.

> Nor are service members allowed to kill fellow service members.

Well, DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/27/04 8:42 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

<SNIP>
>
> Garbage and how much 'international law' was ignored when we preemtively
> invaded Iraq.
>

Ouch. Guess I should have stayed home then. How many U.N. Resolutions were
ignored by Iraq?

<SNIP>
> david<< As for Saddam, it does appear that he was supporting
> terrorists, including al Qaeda, which includes training bases in
> northern Iraq. With Sad dam gone, most of the "structure" of the
> middle East is gone. It basically destabilize the whole region. >><BR><BR>
>
>
> tyou really aren't that clueless are you?
>

That's the second time you've said that about this issue Pechs (at least
since I've been counting). Ansar Al Islam in northeastern Iraq was linked
early on to al Qaeda. Not the sole reason for going to war, but certainly
an indication of the sort of miscreants you could find in country.

> It is an attempt to nation build a country that is western(meaning USA)
> leaning
> in the back yard of other Arab nations that are not. It just isn't working and
> the military is taking the brunt of it all.
>

That's certainly one interpretation. The military is currently fading out
of Iraq and training locals to take over. We now have an exit strategy from
Iraq instead of languishing in OSW as we did for 12 years--sending pilots
over the beach for no real good reason to get shot at.

Continual defiance against U.N. resolutions, failure to obey demarkation
orders, the threat of WMD (which Saddam *did* have *and* use *and* postured
as if he still possessed), links to terrorism, threats against U.S.
Interests, and an oppressive regime were enough reasons to go to war.

Not to mention that preemptively going into Iraq was the right thing to
do--in the same way rounding up 20-or-so Arab students who were in the U.S.
taking flight instruction in the spring/summer of 2001 would have been the
right thing to do.

Imagine how people would have been up in arms over THAT mess--ACLU and the
like.

> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

My only regret is that we didn't remove him from power in 1991 (which
admittedly at the time I thought was inappropriate)... Although then the
debate would have been how we would have become an imperialist power.

--Woody

[Pechs1]

david-<< The military has always been the police. That was one of the
missions of the militia. Until the late 1800s, the military was
the primary federal police. Due to abuses, that is why the Army
was restricted by the PCA (congress can give permission for the
Army to engage in police work, the Navy is not restricted). >><BR><BR>

You and the tarver dude need to spend a little time in the military, of today.
We learned combat, not saber rattling.


David<< Police do the same thing. Likewise the military are not cold
blooded murders that you make them out to be. >><BR><BR>

Kill the other guy in the aircraft, hopefully have the burning wreckage fall
into his kids school yard. Make the other guy hurt more than you, force him
into negotiations, end the conflict under favorable to you terms asap..Buy
killing them w/o prejudice.


David<< Saddam's sons
chose to fight, much like the situation at Ruby Ridge or Waco. >><BR><BR>

Yikes, to equate these two with a war is truly absurd.

The 'police' and the 'military' are not the same but your boy GWB sure is
trying to make them so by placing them in a situation that is not win-able..

David-
<< We volunteered. And
this is far more "fun" than training missions. Or civilian life.
>><BR><BR>

"We"? What branch of the military were you in? Years and what was your job??



P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Doug-<< Ouch. Guess I should have stayed home then. How many U.N. Resolutions
were
ignored by Iraq? >><BR><BR>

Look, I am very proud of the military and how well they conducted this and the
previous conflict in Iraq, VERY proud to have been a part of such a motivated,
well equipped and well led bunch BUT today in Iraq. A Boulder guy was home from
Iraq In the paper he stated his room mate was gunned down in Iraq while
guarding a gas station...THAT is tragic. To use the military for these
'mission's is sad and getting sadder.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Mike Kanze]

Bill,

>IOW military forces CAN be used in certain circumstances. Read the Posse
Commitatus Act for further information.

Good advice, except that David will likely misinterpret it - as he seems to
misinterpret much in this NG.

--
Mike Kanze

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you."

- Pericles (430 B.C.)


"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> "R. David Steele" wrote in message
> [rest snipped]

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/28/04 8:29 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> Doug-<< Ouch. Guess I should have stayed home then. How many U.N.
> Resolutions
> were
> ignored by Iraq? >><BR><BR>
>
> Look, I am very proud of the military and how well they conducted this and the
> previous conflict in Iraq, VERY proud to have been a part of such a motivated,
> well equipped and well led bunch BUT today in Iraq. A Boulder guy was home
> from
> Iraq In the paper he stated his room mate was gunned down in Iraq while
> guarding a gas station...THAT is tragic. To use the military for these
> 'mission's is sad and getting sadder.
>

Fair enough.

> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

David-<< 1) I am a democrat. But Kerry is not the one I would support.
I would prefer Zell Miller. Edwards might do. >><BR><BR>

I don't care what label you place on yourself, what pigeon hole you occupy.

david-<< 2) We are winning. Our causality rate is the lowest we have had
in any conflict. Why ignore that we lost 27 per day in Vietnam,
500 per day in WW2? Hell, the two years after we conquered
Germany we had the same problems with nazi forces doing guerilla
warfare. >><BR><BR>

We had the local police force in Germany operating in a matter of days. After
WWII, we had the Japanese provide police force duties in places
like....VietNam.

David<< 22 years, finished in Naval Intel.

Does that mean you were in the Navy? Or a civilian contractor.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer