🚀 go-pugleaf

"DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:cneiou$4s9$1@news.chatlink.com...
>
> "Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> news:7152320.AaHMmCGklK@news.verizon.net...
>> RTO Trainer wrote:
>>
>> > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
>> >> DeadMeat wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a bomb is
>> >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the troops
>> >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor, 3rd,
>> >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.
>> >> > Hell, kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US side.
>> >> > If you overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people in 
>> >> > the
>> >> > first place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going to get
>> >> > some pretty nasty surprises.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the 
>> >> other
>> >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war 
>> >> blogs,
>> >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
>> >
>> > Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"
>>
>> I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
>> characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
>> >
>> > I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
>> > doctrine.
>> >
>> > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different conceptions
>> > of the term "doctrine."
>>
>> We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's 
>> quite
>> honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on doctrine.
>> Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce 
>> about
>> doctrine.  I thought wrong.
>>
>> I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite
> indirect,
>> but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam era,
>> watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply wrong. 
>> The
>> intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result of
>> that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.
>>
>> The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
>> wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely
> destroy
>> what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave risk
>> for another 9/ll at home.
>
> I spent some time above the Ho Trail shelling anything that moved.  We 
> used
> Overwhelming Firepower once they removed the stupid rules and we got a
> President that was no longer being lied to and didn't try to micromanage
> each every round fired. Sounds to me like you were there 1968 at the 
> latest.
> I didn't show up until 1969 and it wasn't until 1970 that the rules were 
> all
> but removed from us where we could shell anything that moved.  20mm 
> Vulcans
> make wonderful Elephant guns.
>
> The doctrine is much the same as Nam was from 1970 to 1974 in more ways 
> than
> the kids realize.  The term "Win their Hearts and Minds" was used back 
> then
> as well.  Had it not been for Pres Ford, the South might still be a 
> seperate
> nation from the North.

You did this as an E-4 in the Air Force while going to a Jump school at Fort 
Bragg drunk where there wasn't a school right? Or was that when you dropped 
the 101st into combat that wasn't there? No no wait I got it you did this 
while you were Navy Intel watching the Marines leave their buddies behind so 
they could take their weapons. Is that why you say Air Force can't wear a 
CIB or Jump Wings on their dress uniforms even if awarded before they 
joined? You got to help me out here fake boy you have made so many claims 
it's become hard to remember them all.

Mike
I own you, and you wait on me.