Guys, wake and smell the roses. On a radio show today in Pittsburg,Pa the PA national guard was quoted as saying foreign troops would be used to help quell disturbances in PA. Also, and more importantly, The Us War COllege has been quoted as saying Mexican and Canadian troops could be used in the United States. I get trashed for bringing up this subject of the many foreign troops already here in America. People are burying their heads in the sand on this subject. I will state right here to any foreign troops that hit the streets of our towns or villages armed with the intent of enforcing martial law or for Any other reason: The patriots will destroy you modern day Hessians of the New World Order! Folks, check website infowars.com where Alex Jones has been right on top of the foreign troop subject.
Its official now: foreign troops will be used to quell disturbances
- Thread starter Ivan8883
- Start date
- Status
Mike Spight
New member
WHO with the PA NG said this on WHAT radio show?
WHO at the US Army War College said this?
NAMES PLEASE...all the particulars. As I have an old friend and a couple of acquaintances on the faculty at Carlisle, this will be pretty easy to confirm or deny.
Mike
WHO at the US Army War College said this?
NAMES PLEASE...all the particulars. As I have an old friend and a couple of acquaintances on the faculty at Carlisle, this will be pretty easy to confirm or deny.
Mike
Joe the Redneck
New member
Okay, we all know that JFK wasn't really killed in 1963. He went out to Area 51 to do his work as the leader of the Majestic 12. JFK really died late last year. Membership in the Majestic 12 passes from father to son. That's why they had to fake the death of JFK jr. I didn't see any body, did you? C'mon, he vanishes off the coast, the body is found, burned, and buried at sea all in less than 24 hours? Give me a break!
When will Acirema wake up? When will the coffee be smelled? This is all part of the big Zeta-Reticuli take over plot.
If we don't do something now, we'll all be working in the underground fungus mines the aliens are building.
Considering the current occupant of the Whitehouse, I think I'd hear anyone out.
When will Acirema wake up? When will the coffee be smelled? This is all part of the big Zeta-Reticuli take over plot.
If we don't do something now, we'll all be working in the underground fungus mines the aliens are building.
Considering the current occupant of the Whitehouse, I think I'd hear anyone out.
Mike Spight
New member
Ivan:
Was it a "what if" that was DISCUSSED or was it (as your original post states)"...the PA national guard was quoted as saying foreign troops would be used to quell disturbances in PA." Obviously if the PA State Adjutant General or someone authorized to speak in his behalf stated something like that, this is gonna be interesting since the NG doesn't normally get involved in matters involving national policy. BTW, still waiting for more info on who at the "US War College" stated that Mexican and Canadian troops "...could be used in the United States." Like I said, one of my oldest friends in the Army and a couple of aquaintances (one's a former US Ambassador) are on the faculty at Carlisle...I'd be tickled to confirm this for you!
Mike
Was it a "what if" that was DISCUSSED or was it (as your original post states)"...the PA national guard was quoted as saying foreign troops would be used to quell disturbances in PA." Obviously if the PA State Adjutant General or someone authorized to speak in his behalf stated something like that, this is gonna be interesting since the NG doesn't normally get involved in matters involving national policy. BTW, still waiting for more info on who at the "US War College" stated that Mexican and Canadian troops "...could be used in the United States." Like I said, one of my oldest friends in the Army and a couple of aquaintances (one's a former US Ambassador) are on the faculty at Carlisle...I'd be tickled to confirm this for you!
Mike
Jason Kitta
New member
The info on the paper from someone at the US War College is here somewhere. One goof talked about North America strenghing defence ties and he basicly took it to the point of just about intergrating the militaries of Mexico, US, and Canada.
Jason
Jason
I don't know the truth of this but do believe that it is easier for American citizens to fire upon foreign nationals who are occupying our land than it is to shoot our own troops. Similarly, it would be easier for our troops to shoot foreigners than American citizens.
Such was the case at Tien An Mien Square. When the Northern Troops of the PLA wouldn't quell the demonstration, Southern Troops who had no sympathy for the Northen Students didn't hesitate.
May it never come to pass that we, as a people, must fire upon anyone on our shores. Let any war, if there must be one, be fought elsewhere by another against another.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
Such was the case at Tien An Mien Square. When the Northern Troops of the PLA wouldn't quell the demonstration, Southern Troops who had no sympathy for the Northen Students didn't hesitate.
May it never come to pass that we, as a people, must fire upon anyone on our shores. Let any war, if there must be one, be fought elsewhere by another against another.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
I just don't buy into this. The mere logistics makes it near impossible to carry this out.
When was the last time either the Mexican or Canadian armies ventured outside of thier borders in force? I doubt they have the capabilities.
But if martial law were to happen, I definitely wouldn't fire on U.S. troops. I can't use force against men I still feel comraderie with.
As for foriegn troops, I have my AR...
------------------
Dan
Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
When was the last time either the Mexican or Canadian armies ventured outside of thier borders in force? I doubt they have the capabilities.
But if martial law were to happen, I definitely wouldn't fire on U.S. troops. I can't use force against men I still feel comraderie with.
As for foriegn troops, I have my AR...
------------------
Dan
Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
Al Thompson
Staff Alumnus
You know, this is just about the silliest thing I've heard in years.. There is no way enough foreign soldiers could be pre-positioned on American soil to amount to a hill of beans..
One, you would have to accept the complete and utter repudation of American soldiers to their oaths. IIRC, something about defending the country against all enemies foreign and domestic..
Second, the sheer logistics of keeping these guys here would be impossible to hide..
Third, if you can hide the log tail, the numbers available won't amount to anything worth while..
Silly rumours being propigated by folks who have no critical thinking skills..
Giz
------------------
"Shoot low boys, they're riding Shetland ponies..." LG, RIP
One, you would have to accept the complete and utter repudation of American soldiers to their oaths. IIRC, something about defending the country against all enemies foreign and domestic..
Second, the sheer logistics of keeping these guys here would be impossible to hide..
Third, if you can hide the log tail, the numbers available won't amount to anything worth while..
Silly rumours being propigated by folks who have no critical thinking skills..
Giz
------------------
"Shoot low boys, they're riding Shetland ponies..." LG, RIP
Mike Spight
New member
Jason:
You alude to something about a paper from the War College. (My emphasis on what I'm going to post here is directed towards Ivan and others who read treachery into every event involving the training of allied troops on US military installations).
Students there are constantly producing monographs concerning operational/strategic level military theory and doctrine...it's part of the curriculum and is why they are there to begin with...to THINK.
From what you said, someone may have read or obtained a copy of a paper (could have been published in Parameters, the official publication of the War College, a public document BTW) concerning combined/coalition military strategy for the defense of North America and turned it into something very different/sinister owing to their absolute state of ignorance about such matters.
Obviously, coalition planning is a few light years away in intent from what Ivan is suggesting...Mexican and Canadian forces using force of arms AGAINST the population of the US as part of some UN controlled operation. Like I said earlier, if someone can provide specific details (who/what/when/in what medium) I can probably confirm or deny it rather quickly by making a couple of phone calls.
Actually, I've seen this process in reverse on every overseas tour I served: The left wing and the right wing of every half-assed political party in Europe, Central and South America and Asia saw our presence there (invited by their own governments as part of a bi or multi-lateral defense treaty or for combined exercises) as clear intent to use US military forces against them and their way of life. How can I expect anything different from our own citizens?
BTW, every year an award for the best piece of military writing is awarded to a US Army War College graduate. About 3 or 4 years ago the winner was a Lieutenant Colonel who wrote a piece of fiction about the incarceration and court martial of a senior US Army officer who opposed a military takeover of the US government. I have a copy of it somewhere. It is, in short, brilliant. Once I obtain the title and author's name, I'll post it along with where they can read it...for those who are interested.
Post Script: Dan and Giz have provided a very vital piece of this...the logistics involved. I won't repeat what they have already said, only to add that the US is about the only military in the world that can strategically deploy large numbers of troops and the ash and trash needed to support them and their equipment. I guess that means we'll bring them in ourselves.
[This message has been edited by Mike Spight (edited July 29, 1999).]
You alude to something about a paper from the War College. (My emphasis on what I'm going to post here is directed towards Ivan and others who read treachery into every event involving the training of allied troops on US military installations).
Students there are constantly producing monographs concerning operational/strategic level military theory and doctrine...it's part of the curriculum and is why they are there to begin with...to THINK.
From what you said, someone may have read or obtained a copy of a paper (could have been published in Parameters, the official publication of the War College, a public document BTW) concerning combined/coalition military strategy for the defense of North America and turned it into something very different/sinister owing to their absolute state of ignorance about such matters.
Obviously, coalition planning is a few light years away in intent from what Ivan is suggesting...Mexican and Canadian forces using force of arms AGAINST the population of the US as part of some UN controlled operation. Like I said earlier, if someone can provide specific details (who/what/when/in what medium) I can probably confirm or deny it rather quickly by making a couple of phone calls.
Actually, I've seen this process in reverse on every overseas tour I served: The left wing and the right wing of every half-assed political party in Europe, Central and South America and Asia saw our presence there (invited by their own governments as part of a bi or multi-lateral defense treaty or for combined exercises) as clear intent to use US military forces against them and their way of life. How can I expect anything different from our own citizens?
BTW, every year an award for the best piece of military writing is awarded to a US Army War College graduate. About 3 or 4 years ago the winner was a Lieutenant Colonel who wrote a piece of fiction about the incarceration and court martial of a senior US Army officer who opposed a military takeover of the US government. I have a copy of it somewhere. It is, in short, brilliant. Once I obtain the title and author's name, I'll post it along with where they can read it...for those who are interested.
Post Script: Dan and Giz have provided a very vital piece of this...the logistics involved. I won't repeat what they have already said, only to add that the US is about the only military in the world that can strategically deploy large numbers of troops and the ash and trash needed to support them and their equipment. I guess that means we'll bring them in ourselves.
[This message has been edited by Mike Spight (edited July 29, 1999).]
Grenadier2
New member
I think the reference to the War College paper is the one put out last month by Col. Munoz.
He suggests forming a sort of NAFTA for the militaries of the US, Canada, and Mexico. The HQ and command would be here in the US, with Canada and Mexico trading off the second in command slot every other year. We would also run a lot of joint ops.
We would pay 60% of the costs, Canada 25%, and Mexico 15%.
IMHO the idea sucks....
He suggests forming a sort of NAFTA for the militaries of the US, Canada, and Mexico. The HQ and command would be here in the US, with Canada and Mexico trading off the second in command slot every other year. We would also run a lot of joint ops.
We would pay 60% of the costs, Canada 25%, and Mexico 15%.
IMHO the idea sucks....
"North American peacekeeping force"???
by Joe
July 07, 1999
`NAFTA' for military proposed
U.S. war college report urges joint command with Canada, Mexico
By Linda Diebel
Toronto Star Latin America Bureau
MEXICO CITY - A United States military report advocates a joint command for American, Mexican and Canadian forces, in the same way the three countries are united under free trade.
The report, by Lt.-Col. Joseph Nunez for the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., also suggested a North American peacekeeping force, headquartered in the U.S., with deputy commander positions rotating between Canada and Mexico.
``Moving from bilateral arrangements to a (military) organization that reflects regional economic and security concerns is a better strategy, particularly considering our burgeoning trade through NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the growing threat of terrorism that can penetrate through our borders,'' the report said.
The war college study is the first to publicly advocate the sensitive issue of integrated military command - a matter of sovereignty in Canada and Mexico, as well as countries throughout the hemisphere.
Such a command would co-ordinate military action on terrorism, insurgency, security threats and drug trafficking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`It's an important issue and it's time to take a good, hard look at how we currently operate. If we fail to change our current strategy, the country could become less stable . . . . '
- Lt.-Col. Joseph Nunez,
for the U.S. Army War College
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nunez said the joint command would replace, for example, NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defence command) which ``is getting pretty out-of-date when it comes to drugs, terrorism and other threats.''
``The U.S. does not have the kind of working arrangement with Canada and Mexico that it should.''
Nunez admitted the proposed unified command ``may be a U.S. defence arrangement, but a lot of things would evolve to the benefit of Canada and Mexico - that would be my hope.''
Most major initiatives in Canada in recent years - from free trade with the United States to the ongoing initiative of a hemisphere-wide economic pact - began with reports from think-tanks or academia.
The report comes during debate over other controversial free-trade issues, such as whether Canada should adopt the U.S. dollar as advocated in a recent report by the C.D. Howe Institute, a conservative think-tank in Toronto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`A lot of the geographic considerations are a bit out-of-date'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian nationalists have seen free trade as the tip of an iceberg that put Canada at risk in other areas, from culture to monetary policy.
``A lot of the geographic considerations are a bit out-of-date and do not reflect current realities,'' Nunez, 43, a former West Point instructor, told The Star yesterday.
He said his report, which carries a stamp saying it does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Defence Department, has garnered a lot of attention in recent days.
The war college has received requests for copies from the Canadian and Mexican governments, as well as several U.S. government departments, including state and defence.
``It's an important issue and it's time to take a good, hard look at how we currently operate,'' he said.
In Ottawa yesterday, Lt.-Cmdr. Denise Laviolette, defence department spokesperson, said she had never heard of the study, adding it was not an ongoing concern of the Canadian Forces.
She added the report would carry more weight if it had come from the Pentagon, rather than the war college, a teaching institute that focuses on strategic perspectives.
Nunez, a 22-year army veteran, said a joint North American command would expand as free trade involved more countries in the hemisphere. If, for example, the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas becomes reality, the military command would stretch from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.
Asked whether he foresaw the joint command leading to an integrated armed force, with everyone marching under one flag, Nunez said: ``I see it growing, with all of the change and integration of new ideas . . . what it achieves depends on the types of missions it is assigned.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`It's time to take a good, hard look at how we currently operate'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report has created a stir in Mexico since it was published by the Mexico City daily, El Financiero.
Nunez' report is called ``A New United States Strategy for Mexico,'' and details current revolutionary movements in Mexico and the threat to U.S. national interests here.
``If we fail to change our current strategy, the country could become less stable, thus jeopardizing the viability of NAFTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas,'' it said.
Nunez said yesterday a joint peacekeeping force could be deployed wherever it was needed, ``without people thinking the United States - or any other country - was trying to influence things too much.''
U.S. intervention is a touchy subject in Latin America. Because of the history of U.S. involvement in the region, any kind of military co-operation, or shared duties with the U.S., is viewed with suspicion.
Whenever the Mexican government approves joint manoeuvres with the U.S., for example, there is a storm of opposition and media criticism.
Recently, the U.S. has been criticized for taking a stronger military role in Latin America after an apparent cooling-off period.
In his report, Nunez said a new North American peacekeeping force - which might be funded 60 per cent by the U.S., 25 per cent by Canada and 15 per cent by Mexico - would be used for everything from human rights work to hurricane disaster relief.
<A HREF="http://www.netbabbler.com/goto/index.php3?forumid=12204">
Joe's Second Amendment Message Board</A>
by Joe
July 07, 1999
`NAFTA' for military proposed
U.S. war college report urges joint command with Canada, Mexico
By Linda Diebel
Toronto Star Latin America Bureau
MEXICO CITY - A United States military report advocates a joint command for American, Mexican and Canadian forces, in the same way the three countries are united under free trade.
The report, by Lt.-Col. Joseph Nunez for the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., also suggested a North American peacekeeping force, headquartered in the U.S., with deputy commander positions rotating between Canada and Mexico.
``Moving from bilateral arrangements to a (military) organization that reflects regional economic and security concerns is a better strategy, particularly considering our burgeoning trade through NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the growing threat of terrorism that can penetrate through our borders,'' the report said.
The war college study is the first to publicly advocate the sensitive issue of integrated military command - a matter of sovereignty in Canada and Mexico, as well as countries throughout the hemisphere.
Such a command would co-ordinate military action on terrorism, insurgency, security threats and drug trafficking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`It's an important issue and it's time to take a good, hard look at how we currently operate. If we fail to change our current strategy, the country could become less stable . . . . '
- Lt.-Col. Joseph Nunez,
for the U.S. Army War College
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nunez said the joint command would replace, for example, NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defence command) which ``is getting pretty out-of-date when it comes to drugs, terrorism and other threats.''
``The U.S. does not have the kind of working arrangement with Canada and Mexico that it should.''
Nunez admitted the proposed unified command ``may be a U.S. defence arrangement, but a lot of things would evolve to the benefit of Canada and Mexico - that would be my hope.''
Most major initiatives in Canada in recent years - from free trade with the United States to the ongoing initiative of a hemisphere-wide economic pact - began with reports from think-tanks or academia.
The report comes during debate over other controversial free-trade issues, such as whether Canada should adopt the U.S. dollar as advocated in a recent report by the C.D. Howe Institute, a conservative think-tank in Toronto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`A lot of the geographic considerations are a bit out-of-date'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian nationalists have seen free trade as the tip of an iceberg that put Canada at risk in other areas, from culture to monetary policy.
``A lot of the geographic considerations are a bit out-of-date and do not reflect current realities,'' Nunez, 43, a former West Point instructor, told The Star yesterday.
He said his report, which carries a stamp saying it does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Defence Department, has garnered a lot of attention in recent days.
The war college has received requests for copies from the Canadian and Mexican governments, as well as several U.S. government departments, including state and defence.
``It's an important issue and it's time to take a good, hard look at how we currently operate,'' he said.
In Ottawa yesterday, Lt.-Cmdr. Denise Laviolette, defence department spokesperson, said she had never heard of the study, adding it was not an ongoing concern of the Canadian Forces.
She added the report would carry more weight if it had come from the Pentagon, rather than the war college, a teaching institute that focuses on strategic perspectives.
Nunez, a 22-year army veteran, said a joint North American command would expand as free trade involved more countries in the hemisphere. If, for example, the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas becomes reality, the military command would stretch from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.
Asked whether he foresaw the joint command leading to an integrated armed force, with everyone marching under one flag, Nunez said: ``I see it growing, with all of the change and integration of new ideas . . . what it achieves depends on the types of missions it is assigned.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`It's time to take a good, hard look at how we currently operate'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report has created a stir in Mexico since it was published by the Mexico City daily, El Financiero.
Nunez' report is called ``A New United States Strategy for Mexico,'' and details current revolutionary movements in Mexico and the threat to U.S. national interests here.
``If we fail to change our current strategy, the country could become less stable, thus jeopardizing the viability of NAFTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas,'' it said.
Nunez said yesterday a joint peacekeeping force could be deployed wherever it was needed, ``without people thinking the United States - or any other country - was trying to influence things too much.''
U.S. intervention is a touchy subject in Latin America. Because of the history of U.S. involvement in the region, any kind of military co-operation, or shared duties with the U.S., is viewed with suspicion.
Whenever the Mexican government approves joint manoeuvres with the U.S., for example, there is a storm of opposition and media criticism.
Recently, the U.S. has been criticized for taking a stronger military role in Latin America after an apparent cooling-off period.
In his report, Nunez said a new North American peacekeeping force - which might be funded 60 per cent by the U.S., 25 per cent by Canada and 15 per cent by Mexico - would be used for everything from human rights work to hurricane disaster relief.
<A HREF="http://www.netbabbler.com/goto/index.php3?forumid=12204">
Joe's Second Amendment Message Board</A>
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Gentlemen-
Disagree with whomever you please. However, please do so politely. Personal attacks are unacceptable. Guilty parties have been notified by email. All others....carry on.
Rich
[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited July 30, 1999).]
Disagree with whomever you please. However, please do so politely. Personal attacks are unacceptable. Guilty parties have been notified by email. All others....carry on.
Rich
[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited July 30, 1999).]
rabbit assassin
Moderator
Thinking logically here - could Mexico - Canada - for arguments sake add Britain Australia an New Zealand with a combined Military force take over the US without the complete support of the US armed forces ?
To do this they would need the support of hundreds of thousands of US citizens. Do you really think it's got to that stage yet ? I suppose hundreds of thousands of people are keeping a secret ?
I don't know why anyone gets worried about foreign troops on your soil - we have US armed forces training here all the time - so do heaps of other countries - do I think the US army is involved in a conspiracy to enforce a new world order on all these contries ? Of course not -
I think it's a slur on the Canadians and Mexicans to suggest they would shoot US citizens in some sort of new world order - these foreign troops are real people with brains like the rest of us here, they aren't alll brainwashed new world order conspirators.
The only conpiracy I know of is one by all governments to make people believe in conspiracies - so they waste time investigating those conspiracies and don't find out the real problem is government ineptitude, corruption greed and ego.
just look at thge way the governments run economies and government departments - they do it extremely badly. Oh I forgot they are pretending to be stupid and useless to cover up their conspiracy for a new woorld order.
Just use logical thinking - these conspiracies will always fail.
Yes the government wants your guns - but thats more about politicians wanting votes, trying to please the left wing media.
The increased urbanisation of society is also a reason - people have less contact with guns and therefore don't care if they don't have them.
There are organisations like HCI etc trying to take your guns - but again thats just some left wingers with egos who want to be famous.
To do this they would need the support of hundreds of thousands of US citizens. Do you really think it's got to that stage yet ? I suppose hundreds of thousands of people are keeping a secret ?
I don't know why anyone gets worried about foreign troops on your soil - we have US armed forces training here all the time - so do heaps of other countries - do I think the US army is involved in a conspiracy to enforce a new world order on all these contries ? Of course not -
I think it's a slur on the Canadians and Mexicans to suggest they would shoot US citizens in some sort of new world order - these foreign troops are real people with brains like the rest of us here, they aren't alll brainwashed new world order conspirators.
The only conpiracy I know of is one by all governments to make people believe in conspiracies - so they waste time investigating those conspiracies and don't find out the real problem is government ineptitude, corruption greed and ego.
just look at thge way the governments run economies and government departments - they do it extremely badly. Oh I forgot they are pretending to be stupid and useless to cover up their conspiracy for a new woorld order.
Just use logical thinking - these conspiracies will always fail.
Yes the government wants your guns - but thats more about politicians wanting votes, trying to please the left wing media.
The increased urbanisation of society is also a reason - people have less contact with guns and therefore don't care if they don't have them.
There are organisations like HCI etc trying to take your guns - but again thats just some left wingers with egos who want to be famous.
My only questions follow this thread: Won't Canada, Mexico and other places have their own problems to deal with? Won't they need their own troops to take care of their own problems? Why send them here to quell our riots when they will have their own to deal with?
Just some questions...
Just some questions...
Just so you guys know, I'll let you guys in on a little secret about the Cdn Forces:
The Metro Toronto Police force (about one tenth the size of the Nypd) has more police officers than we have soldiers in the Canadian Forces, and they currently are thinly spread all over the world performing peace keeping roles. Even if we wanted to 'invade' you guys we could probably only come up with a few hundred soldiers, and the equipment we would bring with us for the invasion would make you guys laugh outloud.
You can walk faster than our armoured personel carriers. We have like 5 modern jetfighters for an air force, and like 5 rusty old WWI rust buckets that are already half sunk for a navy. We won't even spend the money on new SAR helicopters, even though the ones we have are dropping out of the sky everyday.
I had no idea that there was a fear of us coming down there for any other reason than kicking your guys ass at hockey. (That fear I can understand)
And I don't know about much about the mexican army, but they don't instill alot of fear in me.
And on top of this, yes, we have our own problems to deal with as well. Maybe you guys could spare a few soldiers to help us out?
(The beer is cold and the women are warm!)
The Metro Toronto Police force (about one tenth the size of the Nypd) has more police officers than we have soldiers in the Canadian Forces, and they currently are thinly spread all over the world performing peace keeping roles. Even if we wanted to 'invade' you guys we could probably only come up with a few hundred soldiers, and the equipment we would bring with us for the invasion would make you guys laugh outloud.
You can walk faster than our armoured personel carriers. We have like 5 modern jetfighters for an air force, and like 5 rusty old WWI rust buckets that are already half sunk for a navy. We won't even spend the money on new SAR helicopters, even though the ones we have are dropping out of the sky everyday.
I had no idea that there was a fear of us coming down there for any other reason than kicking your guys ass at hockey.
(That fear I can understand) And I don't know about much about the mexican army, but they don't instill alot of fear in me.
And on top of this, yes, we have our own problems to deal with as well. Maybe you guys could spare a few soldiers to help us out?
(The beer is cold and the women are warm!)
Mike Spight
New member
All: Thanks for the info about LTC Nunez. It sounds exactly like what I mentioned earlier...a monograph by an War College student (or faculty member)concerning (in this case) a concept for a multi-lateral defense/security treaty for the all of North America. Every year, a few hundred of these are churned out by students. The intent is to get them to think critically and to challenge current doctrine at the operational and strategic level and to examine issues of national security policy.
Like most ideas that are generated, some may even fall into the category of "WOD" (way out dere). Not having read the article, I don't know if this is one that does. Just understand that it amounts to no more than some free-thinking by a student who is on the fast track to being a full Colonel and possibly a GO later in his career, otherwise he wouldn't be at Carlisle.
As I haven't read it personally, I'll go over the the Combined Arms Center library today and take a look.
Regards,
Mike
[This message has been edited by Mike Spight (edited July 30, 1999).]
Like most ideas that are generated, some may even fall into the category of "WOD" (way out dere). Not having read the article, I don't know if this is one that does. Just understand that it amounts to no more than some free-thinking by a student who is on the fast track to being a full Colonel and possibly a GO later in his career, otherwise he wouldn't be at Carlisle.
As I haven't read it personally, I'll go over the the Combined Arms Center library today and take a look.
Regards,
Mike
[This message has been edited by Mike Spight (edited July 30, 1999).]
I know a guy that lives behind another guy that has an uncle who swears the United States is forming an alliance with a civilization living in the Beta galaxy. There plan is to take over the country and make us pay allegiance to their supreme ruler. I got this from MNN (Martian News Network)...LOL
------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
- Status