Fall 2004 Articles

Unit Refused Iraq Mission, Military Says

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Army is investigating up to 19 members of a supply platoon in Iraq (news - web sites) who refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the Soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in such poor shape.

Some of the troops' concerns were being addressed, military officials said. But a coalition spokesman in Baghdad noted that "a small number of the soldiers involved chose to express their concerns in an inappropriate manner, causing a temporary breakdown in discipline."

The reservists are from a fuel platoon that is part of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C. The unit delivers food, water and fuel on trucks in combat zones.

Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., who said her daughter, Amber McClenny, was among in the platoon, received a phone message from her early Thursday morning saying they had been detained by U.S. military authorities.

"This is a real, real, big emergency," McClenny said in her message. "I need you to contact someone. I mean, raise pure hell."

McClenny said in her message that her platoon had refused to go on a convoy to Taji, located north of Baghdad. "We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and, um, we were carrying contaminated fuel. They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners," she said.

Hill said she was later contacted by Spc. Tammy Reese in Iraq, who was calling families of the detainees.

"She told me (Amber) was being held in a tent with armed guards," said Hill, who spoke with her daughter Friday afternoon after her release. Her daughter said they are facing punishment ranging from a reprimand to a charge of mutiny.

The incident was first reported Friday by The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss. Family members told the newspaper that several platoon members had been confined, but the military did not confirm that.

A commanding general has ordered the unit to undergo a "safety-maintenance stand down," during which it will conduct no further missions as the unit's vehicles undergo safety inspections, the military said.

On Wednesday, 19 members of the platoon did not show up for a scheduled 7 a.m. meeting in Tallil, in southeastern Iraq, to prepare for the fuel convoy's departure a few hours later, the military statement said.

"An initial report indicated that some of the 19 Soldiers (not all) refused to participate in the convoy as directed," the military statement says.

The mission was ultimately carried out by other Soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 Soldiers, the military said.

Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings.

Staff Sgt. Christopher Stokes, a 37-year-old chemical engineer from Charlotte, N.C., went to Iraq with the 343rd but had to come home because of an injury.

He said reservists were given inferior equipment and tensions in the company had been building since they were deployed in February.

"It wasn't really safe," he said. "The vehicles are not all that up to par anyway. The armor that they have is homemade. It's not really armor. It's like little steel rails."

A whole unit refusing to go on a mission in a war zone would be a significant breach of military discipline. The military statement called the incident "isolated" and called the 343rd an experienced unit that performed honorable service in nine months in Iraq.

U.S. military officials said the commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command., Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, had appointed his deputy, Col. Darrell Roll, to investigate. An investigative team under Roll is in Tallil, questioning soldiers about the incident, the military said.

"Preliminary findings indicate that there were several contributing factors that led to the late convoy incident and alleged refusal to participate by some Soldiers," the military said. "It would be inappropriate to discuss those factors while the investigation continues."

Separately, the commander of the 300th Area Support Group, listed on a military Web site as Col. Pamela Adams, has ordered a criminal inquiry to determine if any Soldiers committed crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and, if so, whether disciplinary measures are warranted.

Alabama Republicans Sen. Richard Shelby (news, bio, voting record) and Rep. Terry Everett (news, bio, voting record) have both requested more information from the Defense Department, their offices said.

The platoon has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina, said Hill.

Patricia McCook, of Jackson, Miss., said her husband, Staff Sgt. Larry O. McCook, was also among those detained. She said he told her in a telephone call that he did not feel comfortable taking his soldiers on another trip.

"He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were 'deadlines' ... not safe to go in a hotbed like that," she said, the newspaper reported.

Associated Press writers Samira Jafari in Montgomery, Ala., and Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041016/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq _unit_investigation&cid=540&ncid=716

EDITORIAL

---

Iraq Exit Strategy: Adapt & Leave

The recent criticism that neither John Kerry or Bush have a viable exit strategy from Iraq has caused the 1st TSG (A) to put an end to this whining and offer a plan. There is nothing the U.S. military's incompetent generals want more to do than pullout of Iraq without having to ADAPT and fight the REAL 4th Generation War we are in against sub-national terror groups and go back to their snobby garrison routine and squander billions on RMA fantasy cash cows for mythical future wars against mythical nation-state mirror images of ourselves.

ADAPT

Falujah. Keeping in mind that we went to Baghdad to change a government, not to colonize Iraq which our daily presence inflames and creates more rebels each day. We have overstayed our 9-month "honeymoon" and welcome. However, we cannot consider leaving until all the rebel enclaves are gone. We cannot expect current or future Iraqi forces to kill or capture insurgents that we will not crush ourselves. Consequently, there is no alternative to the elimination of the enclaves. Falujah should be first as an object lesson for not only the rest of the insurgents inside Iraq, many of whom will run away in horror when they see Falujah's insurgents die in great numbers, but for Iran, Syria and others in the world who wish us ill as well.

Quick and Dirty Overview: Falujah. Entire city is still not infested, we are told. Though our failure last year in August/September timeframe to clean out the place was compounded by our failure in April to act, the entire city of 250,000 is still not infested with insurgents. How much is, we do not know, but here are the general steps:

1. Identify the areas of the city where the insurgents operate. Organize the force for urban combat operations away from the city and commit it when it is fully assembled so that operations can begin soon after. Do not give the enemy time or notice. Make no public announcements of any kind. Don't repeat the stupid mistakes of the last 12 months in this regard. Involve new Iraqi troops but DO NOT TELL THEM ABOUT the operation until minutes before it kicks off.

2. Cordon off the area in and around the city where the insurgents are concentrated by helicoptering in forces with M113 Gavin light tracks; CH-47Ds and especially USMC CH-53Es can easily lift these 11-ton tracked armored fighting vehicles. This means seal it off. Establish no more than one route out and one route in for everyone inside the city. Commit engineers to construct humanitarian aid facilities and overhead cover, tents, latrines outside of the city perimeter for civilians willing to leave when the time comes.

2. Commit 6,000 to 7,000 combat troops. This would involve about 130 tanks, 150 Bradleys, 100+ M113 Gavin infantry carriers with gunshields for infantry to fire in all directions, 24-32 155mm Self-Propelled guns for the 2D maneuver search force. Have continuous overhead air cover by armed Predator UCAVs/UAVs/A-10s/AC-130s and fly in two to three battalions of light infantry to bolster the M113 Gavin cordon force that act as military police to handle refugees and EPWs that emerge behind the advancing armor search force, not to be as close combat troops. Divide the insurgent-held areas into sectors. Develop routes in for urban battlegroups. Use tanks and artillery in direct fire protected by 25mm fire from Brads and rifle/machine gun fire from Gavins as they move.

3. Once these actions have been taken, inform populace that it has 12 hours to get out before we come in. Anyone who puts up a white flag will be spared. Anyone else will be shot on sight.

4. Then, get it done. It should be over in 96 hours if we go in with decisive force as outlined above. If the force looks like the one we have outlined, we will kill 5-10 thousand enemy at the cost of a few dozen of our own.

LEAVE

Then, remove all U.S. forces from north and central Iraq to forward operating bases south of the Euphrates river. With our 3D cordon and 2D search armored battle groups the Iraqis will now we can return at any time if the new government requests us. The IDF does this effectively in the formerly occupied territories. Walk softly and carry a big, armored stick. Reduce U.S. forces but improve their QUALITY by being in tracked AFVs not trucks such that our weekly bill for Iraq is reduced from $1 BILLION a week to a more affordable $100 million/week.

Carol Murphy
Editor

FEEDBACK!

---

IRAQ: DEBACLE IN TRUCKS

HMMWV SUV truck Deathtraps

Two U.S. military humvees burn after a car bomb exploded in al Mansour neighborhood of Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday Sept. 22, 2004.

Stryker $3.3 million cash cow deathtraps: road-bound Stryker truck easily ambushed and blown up, Soldier dead

We wonder how Army lie machine will spin this as a great Stryker "victory"? I'm sure they'll try to defend the BS Stryker cash cow that's soaking up money from more worthy tracked AFVs. Notice the U.S. Army lie machine doesn't widely distribute photos when their Strykers burn.

www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-446751.php

October 11, 2004

Truck bomb hits Stryker; one Soldier dead, nine wounded

By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer

MOSUL, Iraq - Insurgents steered a bomb-packed pick-up truck toward a Stryker combat vehicle and set off the deadly cargo, killing one Soldier and wounding nine others in the southwestern part of the city. The attack came this morning as a unit with the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division was returning from a combat mission to clear a section of the Al Amel neighborhood of people who have been using the area to mount attacks on coalition forces along main roads here.

About a battalion's worth of Stryker vehicles from Task Force Olympia, along with about 250 Iraqi National Guard Soldiers, began the hunt for insurgents just before 8 a.m. near the intersection of two main roads here just west of the Tigris River.

Stryker elements shut down traffic heading into two main traffic circles and surrounded the area as Soldiers dismounted from Stryker infantry carriers and cleared housing areas overlooking the main roads that insurgents have used to trigger vehicle-carried improvised explosive devices.

Iraqi National Guard members helped to clear the area which included a mosque and a massive graveyard.

Insurgents tried but failed in a similar attack on Stryker units when the United States conducted a related mission earlier this month.

During the planning phase of this operation, unit leaders stressed the likelihood of a possible attack as units returned to their nearby base.

They were right.

Just before 11 a.m., units began leaving the area in alternate routes but the small truck maneuvered into the path of a Stryker column and detonated.

The blast left a five-foot crater in the road.

Some units involved in the operation had already returned to base when they heard about the enemy contact. Leaders and staff inside one tactical operations center stood in silence as they listened to scraps of information come in over the radio.

Five of the Soldiers were evacuated from the scene to a nearby military hospital; four others returned to duty.

The names of the dead and wounded soldiers and units involved are being withheld until their families have been notified.

---

THE GROUND SOLUTION: M113 GAVIN ACAVS

"Great web site. I am retired 30 years CAV. The Humvee is not fit forcombat, and the Stryker is not far behind. I spent my tour in 'Nam in the M113 ACAV. There are 13+ thousand in the inventory. 700 in depot in Kuwait. I hope DOD does the math and start thinking of Soldiers first. Styker $3.3 million each, M113 upgrade max $300K. Pretty simple math. The M113 in ACAV configuration is a spitting Dragon---ie; the 'green dragon' as the NVA and VC called them.

Sincerely,

Shawn Stanfill

Name the ACAV the "Gavin", get the word out!

LPT STAFF REPLY:

1. The BEST way to prevail against enemy road bombs and RPGs is by starting with a TRACKED AFV WE ALREADY OWN that is 28% more space/weight efficient.

2. Instead of wasting $3.3 MILLION buying a Stryker truck which is 28% less space/weight efficient, has 8 air-filled rubber tires that burn, cannot pivot turn, cannot swim, cannot fly by C-130 or heavy lift helicopters, and a host of other platform specific ills, YOU TAKE THIS MONEY AND UP-ARMOR TRACKS WITH MULTIPLE ARMNOR LAYERS AND GUNSHIELDS.

3. The Army's corrupt and incompetent Generals either do not realize this because they are stupid having never been or lost touch with reality OR they simply DON'T WANT TO FIGHT. The Stryker truck is a cash cow to PRETEND the Army is "transforming" while spending $BILLIONS from Congress/taxpayers. It was all "gravy" when the Clinton administration sent troops on low-risk nation building expeditions; Soldiers got their "combat" patches, extra pay and Generals could cut costs with "presence patrols" in HMMWV trucks and get sexy and call themselves "visionaries" wasting money on Stryker trucks packed with Tofflerian/RMA mental electronic gadgets. It was a win-win situation for all the phonies and greedy defense contractors involved until the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

4. The Bush neocons then interferred with the Army's giant welfare recipient/mow-lawns-in-garrison sham operation and sent it to their misguided invasion into Iraq where REAL ENEMIES TRY TO BLOW OUR SOLDIERS UP.

However, the Army's generals are so selfish and corrupt they will not ADAPT, change their course and admit they were wrong squandering most of the Army's new purchase money on Stryker trucks. They lack basic human decency and humanity/concern for our troops. They cannot wait to pull out of Iraq, rip off all armament and extra armor from vehicles to return to "10/20 standards" and go back to mowing lawns and sports attire PT in the morning.

AFGHANISTAN: ATTRITION IN SUVS

This comes from an AF COL who was recalled to active duty and is serving in Ramstein, in what capacity I don’t know. The boy they visited is the son of the Colonel's wife’s best friend. but they had never met him. What a great young man, and how sad to have another loss like this that might have been prevented if the convoy had been in M113 Gavins.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Greetings once again from the land of bratwurst and beer. As they all are, it's been a busy couple of weeks. It seems like I go underwater at 6:30 on Monday morning and surface at 6:30 Friday evening, but the weekends are worth it, belive me. But before I go into that stuff, l'd like to let you in on a very emotional experience both XXXXX and I had last week. > We received a call from XXXXX's side of the family stating that the son of some friends of theirs was injured In Iraq and was undergoing surgery here at Ramstein (as I've mentioned in earlier messages, all of the injured from Iraq and Afghanistan come thru here), they asked if we could drop in on him and see how he was doing. We did, and it was an unbelievable experience.

This kid (I don't think he was over 24 years old) had just undergone surgery where they amputated his left leg, and almost took his right leg, he was in alot of pain and had just woken up from surgery when we arrived to visit (we personally had never met him before). He was ecstatic to see us and told us all about his ordeal...he just wanted to talk to someone who was interested, and we were the right people because we sure were interested!! His story went like this:

'We were patroling along in Baghdad when the lead vehicle in our convoy was hit by an RPG (rocket propelled grenade), I heard the word medic (he is a Navy medic) and grabbed my medical bag and started running toward the lead Humvee, when I was about 50 yards away another RPG hit me and blew me 7-8 feet in the air. When I hit the ground I knew I was dying as I saw gallons of blood, my blood, underneath me in the road. I put a tourniquet on my leg to stop the bleeding and within seconds my buddies surrounded me, but not before I took four more bullets, one in my left thigh and three in my good leg, (editorial comment: I'd like to know how many more didn't hit him but hit his bulletproof vest instead!) I was airlifted out and did everything in my power to stay awake because I knew that If I fell asleep I would go into shock and would never wake up.'

He continued "Sir do you think that they'll let me go back to my unit? Those guys are my brothers and we need each other, can you work it out so that I can go back?" What do you say......you say nothing; because all of your energies are being focused on trying not to cry. Here's a kid who just lost a leg and very likely will lose the other one and all he wants to do is to rejoin his unit!!!! I'm afraid he may never put on a uniform again, but I wasn't going to tell him. What an upbeat positive encouraging amazing Soldier and human being. You'd think he'd be down and depressed, he had every right to be. Well I don't think I've ever talked to a more positive individual. All he could do was to thank God for keeping him alive -when he could have easily been blaming God for the whole incident in the first place. . But no, to this kid he was looking at the Glass ALL full, not half empty. He just couldn't thank God enough for keeping him alive. Just amazing, the faith in God he has! (I think Billy Graham himself would have been somewhat mad and upset).

When our visit was over it was all he could do to thank us for coming over and listening to him. I suppose that the medical pipeline is so efficient from the War zone to Germany that up until he talked to us he really had no time to talk to anyone. Both XXXXX and I were humbled, embarassed, and amazed at this fine young man who put his life on the line for our freedoms and when he gave one leg, wanted to go back and give some more........Where do we find such great people? By the way, it is my guess that he will most likely receive the silver star or higher for his heroism... and he only had one more week to serve in his tour.

You know, I will never hear the statement "1 dead and 7 injured in fighting today" and react the same as I did before. The injured are real people, real good people, with real life altering medical problems. Boy did this experience send that message home.

It's kind of inappropriate to follow the above with happy stories of XXXXXX and I here on the weekends, so I'll leave that stuff for next week.

God Bless, and sleep well at night knowing that we have some awesome folks fighting for us out there, xxxxxxx

---

THE AIR SOLUTION: ARMED CESSNAS

www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6412

"With regard to the counter-mortar effort in Iraq, it seems to me that this process could be made a lot easier by having a Cessna up overhead with an observer in the back seat with FOFAC binoculars (i.e. grid coordinates) which could give the artillery an almost instantaneous target for counter-mortar. Just another mission that a low-cost, easy to maintain, long-loiter fixed wing aircraft could do that the UAV has to be configured for.

You can buy 30 Cessnas or Pipers or Steermans for the price of one $3.3 million each Stryker or Shadow UAV purchase]. For 24/7 operations, you need slightly over 180 to cover the various Areas of Operations in Iraq. If you want to patrol the border, you need about that many again. The pilot is easily trained, the aircraft is easy to maintain. It can land on the road alongside a unit it supports and get direct liaison. It can put a soldier or marine with a SINCGARS or ICOM in the back seat to provide continuous communications with the supported unit. At night the pilot and observer can wear the PVS-7 NVG [or ANVIS-6] and spot ambushes being implaced, people planting IEDs, and mortar tube flashes. In a heartbeat they can call in artillery (day/night/all weather), AC-130 (night), and Close Air Support (day).

I don't want to hear about the threat to a 5,000 ft AGL aircraft until you convince me that our troops are not threatened every day at ranges of 25 meters or less by ambushes, IEDs, suicide bombers, and RPGs. I've ridden back seat in an O-1 (Cessna) in combat, and survived being shot at a number of times; whereas, I have been shot down riding back seat in a helicopter. And yes, we did fly a lot lower than 5K ft over the target areas, but that is how the FACs earned their medals.

In the past, the O-1, O-2, OV-1s, OV-10s have been armed to directly attack the target or at least mark it. We could arm these new Cessnas with laser weapons, missiles, and/or light automatic weapons for immediate attack at a lot lower pricetag than the UCAS -- or not at all. In my war, Capt Pete Peterson had 6 WP rockets to use for marking targets from the front seat. I used an M-2 30 cal carbine and hand grenades from the back seat, and once, just once, a mason jar of piss. (4 hour plane rides require mason jars for both pilot and observer as standard equipment). No significant results with these back seat weapons other than to send them scurrying, but the fast movers we directed in when they came on station sure put a hurt on the bad guys on several occasions. The difficult point to grasp is that suppression counts. These terrorists in Iraq won't have time to fire mortars when they are dodging even light stuff.

If you want comms in built-up areas, you need an overhead comms relay platform The Cessna can do this too. So can the UAV, but it has to choose what packages it can carry. The Cessna is far more flexible and adaptable and useful. Helos can do this too, but it isn't their mission and they are high maintenance, limited loiter time.

Interestingly enough, the U.S. has allowed the new Iraqi Army to purchase 6 new light fixed-wing Seeker observation planes from Jordan. The ultimate buy is 16. We won't buy them for our own troops - but we continue to let our own Soldiers and marines die as a result of no overhead surveillance or support. So we spend time trying to kluge together counter-mortar radars and UAV. If you think the UAVs are going to be the answer, then you are smoking pot. While UAVs are supposed to be with every battalion, they are consolidated at Division and higher levels for maintenance and admin reasons. As a consequence, they are not in the areas they are needed. This is another remarkable, but true, feat of mis-management of tactical operations.

There is a place for every system on the battlefield. The missing man is the light fixed-wing observation aircraft that can do a multitude of jobs and still survive in this environment. Will we lose some? Probably, but the fact of the matter is, that we refuse to even put one of these things up to experiment with saving lives on the ground. And that is criminal."

LTC Greg Wilcox, USA (R)

AIRBORNE WARFARE & MORTARS

"Excellent website I just want to say that. I enjoy your work on airborne warfare. I have studied airborne warfare since I was 14 and am now 21 and I do so like your site.

I research militaries in SE Asia and a good deal of airborne operations have happened there. Indonesia leads the pack and I am surprised you do not mention them as more then a footnote in East Timor in relation to the LAV and M-113. Indonesia took East Timor with a large airborne assault (for the region) during Operation Seroja in 1975. KOSTRAD (Indonesian Strategic Reserve which has 2 Infantry Divisions and 2 Airborne regiments along with armored cavalry units) and KOPASSANDHA (now called KOPASSUS) dropped in waves from AURI (Air Force) C-130s over the capital city of East Timor (Dili) and took on the left wing fighters of the Fretilin in close combat at night. The Fretilin had expected a round offensive to go through the rough territory of East Timor and hope to bog them down but the Indonesians out maneuvered them through a large airborne drop. The mission was a massive risk as the Indonesians only had 2 AC-47s (with 3 M-2HBs) to support the assault and had enough C-130s (9) to move about 2 battalions at once but little support weapons. 4 x C-130s carried the KOPASSANDHA commands and 5 carried the KOSTRAD Paratroopers of the 501st battalion. One C-130 was damaged from ground fire during the drop and had to return to base with 72 commandos on board. The second and third waves brought in the KOSTRAD 502nd battalion and the Brigade staff of the 18th Airborne Brigade. The fighting was up close and savage and worse at night. The commander of the 501st got lost and the battalion was unable to close to the lines of retreat for the Fretilin.

At the same time marines landed in BTR-50s and backed by PT-76s drove for the capital. They were landed a distance away to keep their ships safe and used their armor to move fast while Special Forces and local allies lead the way. There were problems as the second wave of the 502nd upon hearing the heavy fighting the first wave of KOPASSANDHA commandos had suffered during the drop began firing at the ground with their AK-47s and throwing grenades. At the same time the marines had arrived on the drop zone and had to duck for cover and worse some marines fired into the air knowing the KOSTRAD's 502nd battalion were in the air. None was hurt but many were shaken up. Hell KOPASSANDA forces actually used "captured" horses to provide mobility for a unit which backed by local forces move on the capital.

Air Force commandos of the PASKHAS were used to bring the nation's airfield to service to airland in more troops A platoon leader of the 328th KOSTRAD airborne battalion (of the 17th Airborne Brigade) had been dropped in the water as well. The 328th arrived in from the air to reinforce the units on the ground. The 401st KOSTRAD airborne battalion was airlanded to move on the town of Baucua. Seroja was the bloodiest day since independence for the Indonesian armed forces but allowed a quick take over of the capital. Around 50 airborne troops had died with more wounded but they had quickly taken the capital.

After the operation the 328th battalion had 2 PT-76s and 2 BTR-50s attached to them and seized Baucua. After the capture of Dili they had to go around the nation and defeat Fretilin strongholds. More airborne operations were done during this fighting. What followed by 24 years of war which lead to thousands dying and a vote on independence. Indonesia did not lose in Timor they were forced to leave which led to scars in their military. By the time they left in 1999 10,000 of their troops had died and an estimated 200,000 Timorese were killed.

Even as late as 2003 Indonesia dropped Paratroopers on Aceh to fight the GAM guerillas. This operation was done by about 600 Paratroopers dropped by C-130s backed with Hawk-209s and OV-10Fs. The ground element of Army troops backed with Scorpion-90 light tanks and marines backed by PT-90s (upgraded PT-76s with a 90mm gun) mopped up afterwards.

They also used paratroopers during the fighting in 1961 with the Dutch in Irain Jaya. They dropped in Para-commandos from C-130s, An-12s and C-47s to raid Dutch targets. Many of these raids failed but in the end America and Russia forced the Dutch to turn over the Island. They used the RPKAD (now called KOPASSUS) and the Air Force commandos the PGT (now called PASKHAS). Also in the late 1950s the RPKAD was used to take rebel airfields held by an American backed movement the PERMESTA. The RPKAD did several combat jumps from C-47s to take airfields and block the retreat. This was the operation which eventually lead to the shoot down of Alan Pope a CIA B-26 pilot by an AURI (air force) F-51D and his capture. The American government more or less paid a ransom for his release. Airborne forces have been used also in Irian Jaya to fight the OPM.

It is hard to find a nation crazier about airborne operations then Indonesia. Unlike many other poor nations their Paratroopers actually train for airborne operations and jump from planes in combat. Their Special Forces (KOPASSUS) wear a red beret as they used to be "just" Paratroopers and the KOSTRAD units were green berets. Still these are light units with rifles, machine guns and light mortars but are able to hit quick and hard. You shuld get the book "Kopassus inside Indonesian Special Forces" for more reading. The book goes into detail about different parachutes and different planes they used to jump from such as the C-47, An-12 and C-130 and how the different chutes acted. It's an excellent read for anyone. It also goes in depth about airborne operations across the nation.

About mortars for combat;

I agree the 81mm has a much bigger punch then the 60mm but the 60mm more then has a role. During the fight for Balibo in 1975 which was a small town in East Timor with a stone fort the KOPASSANDA was ordered to take the fort and were backed by local guerillas. The commandos had AK-47s, 90mm rocket launchers and 60mm mortars. The fort had about 20-35 fighters backed with machine guns, G-3 rifles and an 81mm mortar. The 90mm rockets went fired within 200 meters were unable to punch a whole in the stone walls so the commandos brought up the 60mms, which took out the fort and the 81mm mortar. Of course Fretilin 81mm's did cause losses during the border fight which came before the massive invasion. Fretilin even put some on barrages and tried to attack the coast of Indonesian held West Timor before being stopped by marine PT-76s.

Also the NVA/VS used the Type-63 (M-2 60mm) very well as it was light and they could bring it into service fast and move out before the enemy could fire back. The ARVN also found the M-2 great at the company level during the later phases of the war. From what I have read the Afghans also found it good as one guy could hold the mortar and move it around quicker then heavier systems.

Yes I am familiar with the fact the marine Raiders who used M-2s in WW-2 had massive problems in large set piece battles because it lacked the power of the 81mm though far more mobile by guys on foot.

I more then resect what you do on this site and keep up the good work."

Aaron Morris

UNIVERSAL COLOR BROWN WEB GEAR

"Was reading something about new LBE being used by the marines. Apparently they have decided on a universal brown outer cover for their Interceptor vesta, along with brown LBE. The stated reason in the article was the desire to avoid changing colors of gear between woodland and desert environments, and to avoid complicating their inventory. It appears they already have the vest covers in wide use, but I have yet to see any pictures of deployed marines with brown TA-50. If it's in the inventory, it OUGHT to be easier to get it accepted by the Army. More and more manufacturers are offering their tactical nylon products in some variation of brown/khaki. Any rumors of the Army getting on the bandwagon? After all, it appears we're going to adopt that lovely gray digital pattern uniform that works equally badly in all environments, why not switch the LBE at the same time?"

CORRUPT U.S. MILITARY CULTURE

A wife of an Army Drill Sergeant writes:

"Just read your Aug.1997 article, Training Gone Soft. I came across the article as a was web-searching under positive military drill sargeants. Reason being, my husband and I got into a debate over "basic training" methods. His view of course after being in the army was blind obedience, but not in such words.

This discussion began because I was telling him about an experience I had with my 11 year old's football coach. He came up to me and said, I just can't yell at your son, he just has this grin and big eyes......etc. I told him well, I try to be positive with him. You see, I am a 45 yrs old mother of 3, I play football with him, practice with him, I train him at a gym when I can, I believe in being all you can be, but in a positive way. These children are at the mercy of whomever has them, and you may be the only positive influence they see. Well, he couldn't sleep that night he later told me. The next time I saw him he said there's not going to be anymore yelling. The other 6 coaches have been told as well.

This is my son's 1st year ever to play, and first time to learn football. He is QB. Yeh, I sat thru the practices watching the harrassment garbage, helmet pushing, BS. But, its a man's thing right, a military mentality, as I saw it. These kids are 4th-6th grade, but they'll grow up to be one Hell of a man, right?

BS.

I figure these kids get up at 5am to get on the bus, go thru the teachers Hell all day, go home & who knows what kind of garbage they go thru at home, and guess what, another mouthful of abuse at the football field. Makes a great man out of him, doesn't it. A great husband and father, right? We'll we all did it, right, what kind of brain usage is that?.

Where did the ignorance come in to our military!!!!!! It is effecting everyone.

Every single family.

I live with a man that teaches thru yelling. Why? military training have anything to do with it?. I am one angry wife and mother of all your sons.

You better learn to RESPECT each other from all walks of life. We are all equal, none is better than the other.

If you want a military, you better study the heck out of the past wars. You better be familiar with anyone that is now, or could, or will be an enemy of yours. KNOW YOUR ENEMY.

REPEAT REPEAT tactics, plans. Listen, learn.. Gain wisdom and knowledge for this is life.........ignorance leads to injury and death. Train with what matters, train in what you will do. Use your minds, use your talents and gifts. As a team, learn each others talents and gifts and make them work for the team.

STOP DEGRADING AND DEMORALIZING. The bases line up with redlight districts to comfort the degraded. Draw the strengths out of each other. BUILD EACH OTHER UP, do not tear down.Correct where correction is needed in your team. Know each other on your team so well that you know what move they will make before they make it, what they think before they think it.

It does take PATIENCE, to teach, anybody can yell. Give those that have a gift to teach in patience the job to teach. Tell them WHY they are doing something, you'll be amazed at the results just because you told them WHY. This will give them understanding, it will give them life..

Thank you for writing your positive article.

Have to agree with you on most points, and it is so good to hear someone speak as I feel and I do feel strongly about it. Without respect for each other "all falls down". Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, and what you reap you sow....God's Word. If the drills are sowing disrespect, that's definitly what these guys are coming out with and bringing it into the homes and society. Satan's handhold.

I lot of these new "trainees" come in to the military to "grow up". They either come from a controlling up bringing' being told what to do and when to do it, or the silver spoon kids controlled by having their desires met, or ones with no guidance, they do the crime scene until the police give them the option of jail or the military. They don't even know they are being controlled, so.....all the senarios bring them to the military, where they almost "eat up" the blind obedience as some great accomplishment not realizing they aren't "growing up" they're still being told what to do. Do as I say, don't ask questions, how ignoramous is that. I teach the "why" because that gives understanding. Get wisdom, get understanding for this is life...God's Word. The ones that come in to the military at the lower ranks, that have matured before entering, don't stay long.

Sure needed to hear from someone in the same boat. My husband brought up something that happened to me in kindergarten...many moons ago, I was spanked the 1st day of school because I didn't drink my milk, I knew my stomach would hurt bad if I drank it. I didn't remember that for years until my mother reminded me of it. When my husband and I got into the discussion about the military, he said you are still tramitized by your first day of school, see, you couldn't handle it, you can't handle being yelled at. I guess, the military made him so he can handle it, right... and what gets me, he's not a "dumb" man, but in this aspect I feel he is lacking understanding......is it the military that brain washed him, or the society men are taught in, well, that brings us back to the military trickling down into the homes and society, doesn't it.

I've been thinking about my situation and you know he's right, I never could "handle" being yelled at, now that I'm older and a bit wiser I don't think it would bother me, first and foremost, its shows disrespect, and 2nd those doing the harrassing by yelling are using me as their scapegoat to their life's problems, 3rdly I don't like being around that stupidity, its not a safe place, and its not a place of understanding.

If I've done something wrong, teach me with understanding......so I can grow."

1st TSG (A) STAFF REPLY:

The U.S. military is a giant narcissistic egomaniac culture of weak people trying to fill an inner void in their life by existentialism. We need ADULTS in our military who realize they are already "somebody" because THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE and have intrinsic value, PERIOD.

Please read this web page for more details:

www.geocities.com/paratroop2000/weakcodependantarmy.htm

Many are discovering that this LIE that we need dictactorship to get the best results we need to defend freedom is ruining America. NEVER is it a good idea to STOP THINKING whether you are in a gun battle or fighting fires or on a football team. Other better armies are not run by draftee dumbass like we do; IDF, British Army etc. The blind obedience crap used to shout a warning to "duck" is the rare .0001% situation not what we should run ourselves by 99.9999%of the time as down-trodden lemmings.

The BEST WAY TO DEFEND FREEDOM IS WITH FREEDOM.

BATTLE BOXES USING ISO CONTAINERS

www.geocities.com/strategicmaneuver/battleboxes.htm

An USAF MSGT writes:

"I sent the following to SFTT, then thought of your site. If we are going to stay where bad folks use mortars, using stock or custom ISO boxes potted in reinforced concrete is too nice not to adopt. These things are terrific instant buildings, and un-potted units are all over the ME.

On the home front, I'm going to get more (I have two so far) for myself. Even camo'ed the street side so it attractively blends with my trees and the neighbors don't complain.

Texas barriers don't provide overhead cover.

Not being at Balad I don't know how many ISO 20 and 40 foot shipping containers are handy, but they are common in the Middle East. If supplies are delivered in them keeping the container would also let the delivering truck travel light on the way back to port. Containers would make a good internal form for a poured-in-place concrete bunker and act as an anti-spall liner after the concrete cures. To pour in place a set of mobile forms and a concrete pump would do the trick. If you have mixer trucks and no pump a ramp trailer pulled next to the form might do the job. Adding doors, power, etc. to these containers onsite before "bunkerising" would be simple, using basic home shop-level power tools (I have a nice personal shop I made from a 40'x 9' 6" High Cube version) and a welder. Appropriate holes for standard HVAC pack hoses would be easy to cut.

Custom buildings made from ISO boxes are used by industry world-wide, and joining multiple containers makes for some versatile structures.

Another option would be to pour a reinforced concrete "cap" that would bridge two Texas Barriers and bolt to rods cast or anchored in their tops. With this combination you could protect trailers, ISO boxes, or vehicles.

With all the barrier "walls" we've poured since 1990, a "roof" using them is so obvious it's been overlooked..."

---

GEOSTRATEGIC

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35047

WorldNetDaily: Al-Qaida plans high-sea terror

FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

International hunt continues for Osama's 15-ship 'navy' ------------------------------------------------------

Posted: October 13, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been developing sources around the world for the last 25 years.

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

While al-Qaida continues to hide from international authorities 15 ships it has purchased, there are growing warnings around the world the next dramatic terror attack is more likely to come at sea than in the air.

Earlier this year, a chemical tanker, the Dewi Madrim, was hijacked by machinegun-bearing pirates in speedboats off the coast of Sumatra. But these weren't ordinary pirates looking for booty. These were terrorists learning how to drive a ship. They also kidnapped officers in an effort to acquire expertise on conducting a maritime attack, according to a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

This attack, reports G2 Bulletin was the equivalent of the al-Qaida hijackers who attended Florida flight schools before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

There is also evidence terrorists are learning about diving, with a view to attacking ships from below. The Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines kidnapped a maintenance engineer in a Sabah holiday resort in 2000. On his release in June this year, the engineer said his kidnappers knew he was a diving instructor – they wanted instruction. The owner of a diving school near Kuala Lumpur has recently reported a number of ethnic Malays wanting to learn about diving, but being strangely uninterested in learning about decompression.

Aegis' intelligence has turned up links between big criminal gangs in the area and terrorists, driven by the need for the latter to finance their operations. There have been at least 10 cases of pirates stealing tugs for no apparent reason. The concern is that they are to tow a hijacked tanker into a busy international port. On Sept. 16, 2001, the United States closed the port of Boston, fearing terrorists would attack the gas terminal in the port. To this day, gas tankers bound for Boston have to be escorted by the Coast Guard from hundreds of miles outside port.

G2B reported two weeks ago that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network has purchased at least 15 ships in the last two years.

Lloyds of London has reportedly helped Britain's MI6 and the U.S. CIA to trace the sales made through a Greek shipping agent suspected of having direct contacts with bin Laden.

The ships fly the flags of Yemen and Somalia – where they are registered – and are capable of carrying cargoes of lethal chemicals, a "dirty bomb" or even a nuclear weapon.

British and U.S. officials worry that one or more of these ships could attack civilian ports on a suicide mission.

The freighters are believed to be somewhere in the Indian or Pacific oceans. When the ships left their home ports in the Horn of Africa weeks ago, some were destined for ports in Asia.

The U.S. Department of State Friday warned citizens overseas that the threat of terror attacks did not end with the passing of the September 11 anniversary – specifically mentioning the threat of maritime terrorism.

"We are seeing increasing indications that al-Qaida is preparing to strike U.S. interests abroad," said the State Department's "Worldwide Caution."

"It is being issued to remind U.S. citizens of the continuing threat that they may be a target of terrorist actions, even after the anniversary date of the September 11 attacks and to add the potential for threats to maritime interests."

"Looking at the last few months, al-Qaida and its associated organizations have struck in the Middle East in Riyadh, in North Africa in Casablanca and in East Asia in Indonesia," the State Department said.

The report continued: "We expect al-Qaida will strive for new attacks that will be more devastating than the September 11 attack, possibly involving non-conventional weapons such as chemical or biological agents. We also cannot rule out the potential for al-Qaida to attempt a second catastrophic attack within the U.S. U.S. citizens are cautioned to maintain a high level of vigilance, to remain alert and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness," the warning said.

G2B sources say other potential targets of the al-Qaida armada, besides civilian ports, include oil rigs. Another threat is the ramming of a cruise liner.

Some British navy officials have expressed concerns about not being able to patrol its coasts adequately against such a threat.

If a maritime terror attack comes, it won't be the first. In October 2000, the USS Cole, a heavily armed ship protected with the latest radar defenses, was hit by an al-Qaida suicide crew. Seventeen American Soldiers died. Two years later, following the attacks on the Twin Towers, a similar attack was carried out against a French supertanker off the coast of Yemen.

The military's U.S. Pacific Command is trying to convince friendly nations in Asia to share intelligence on terrorism as part of a new regional maritime security policy. The policy envisions sharing information on ships' cargos and passengers as they travel the vast Pacific to help narrow the search for terrorists or dangerous or forbidden cargo. "The global war on terrorism is like watching water running downhill. Water always goes to the place of least resistance," explained U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Walter F. Doran.

As terrorists are flushed out of Afghanistan and Iraq from two successive U.S.-led wars "they tend to find themselves in Southeast Asia," Doran said.

He acknowledged it would be impossible to track the contents and intentions of every ship in the region but said the regional security policy would allow participating countries to better define the "gray" areas where they don't know what they don't know.

In December 2001 the Singapore government arrested nearly a dozen people with ties to al-Qaida allegedly planning to attack western targets, including a U.S. aircraft carrier that was scheduled for a port visit.

Meanwhile, the Philippine Ports Authority has raised the alert level at all Mindanao ports because of a supposed intelligence report indicating an alleged plot to bomb Manila-bound ships.

The PPA ordered port officials in Mindanao to implement the heightened alert in the wake of a threat allegedly issued by Abu Sayyaf chieftain Khadaffy Janjalani.

The Abu Sayyaf is on the U.S. government's list of international terrorist groups and is believed to be linked to the al-Qaida network.

In addition, a Rand Corp. study released last month in London warns terrorists might use container ships in terror attacks meant to cause massive casualties.

The report warns cargo ships or shipping containers could be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction for terror groups such as al-Qaida.

The report, produced in cooperation with the European Commission, said: "The potential threat of terrorists using containers poses a large risk to our economies and to our societies. Ultimately, this means that the marine sector – and specifically the container transport sector – remains wide open to the terrorist threat."

Rand says the international community has not become sufficiently aware of al-Qaida's threat at sea, with most counter-insurgency efforts being focused on stopping an attack from the air.

TIME FOR A REGIME CHANGE? (P.S.: we are not talking about Iraq!)

The article that follows presents a pretty good case against our country going to war with Iraq, but even with us going to Iraq, we could have saved a lot more of our own citizens if Soldiers hadn't have just been sent to the slaughterhouse as soft-targets. We know one thing for sure .... we wouldn't have surpassed the 1,000 KIA (and 6,000 WIA) mark for at least three more years if it hadn't have taken a full year and half after we attacked Iraq to declare that every soldier finally had a FLAK vest, that the doctrine we use to harden vehicles is piling sandbags on 5-tons (which, by the way hasn t been updated since Vietnam), and if individual Soldiers didn't have to worry about their soft-skinned canvas HMMVW doors taking AK-47 fire. Oh yeah, but we weren't counting on an insurgency!! No matter how bad Saddam was, how could we think that Iraqis would be showering flowers at a western army taking over their country and killing their innocent neighbors? There were too many sacrificial lambs at this party, but of course, "we all support our troops" as Michael Moore says.

We're not trying to influence anyone else's votes either, but what a disaster!

Subject: Food for Thought

This is not an attempt to influence your vote, we just ask you to stop and think for a moment about our actions in the middle east. Over the past few months numerous people who have worked for or with me have been killed. As American causalities surpass 1000, with no end in sight, I have been looking for some moral justification for our actions - I can find none. I did find the following article that frames the question for me - what right did we have to sacrifice the lives of our Soldiers and to take the lives of the 13 000 + (and growing daily) Iraqi people? Are those men women and children that have been killed better off than under Saddam? I suspect they would have chosen life.

The Moral Case Against the Iraq War

by PAUL SAVOY

[from the May 31, 2004 issue]

"Let's look this thing in the eye once and for all."

--Arundhati Roy

As the Iraq war continues into its second year, the Bush Administration's reasons for being there are more indefensible than ever. Prewar claims regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have all proved to be wrong; the number of terrorists in Iraq has increased rather than decreased; more American troops were killed in April than were lost during the entire invasion phase of the war; the systemic and barbarous abuse of Iraqi detainees contradicts the most basic values the Administration claimed it would bring to Iraq; and the uprisings in Falluja and at least half a dozen other cities portend a nationwide insurgency by both Sunnis and Shiites against the US presence. Yet the latest polls--including one conducted after the revelations about the torture of Iraqi prisoners--show that about half of Americans remain convinced that the war was morally justified. President Bush, in a speech on March 19 marking the first anniversary of the conflict, articulated a moral defense of the war that has been repeated many times: No one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off" with Saddam Hussein's regime "back in the palaces." Even those who opposed the war have, up to now, found the President's moral argument difficult to answer. The Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, in a speech to this year's session of the World Social Forum in Bombay, lamented how "plenty of antiwar activists have retreated in confusion since the capture of Saddam Hussein. Isn't the world better off without Saddam Hussein? they ask timidly" [see Roy, "The New American Century," February 9].

The problem opponents of the war have had in responding to President Bush's claim of moral legitimacy, as University of California linguistics professor George Lakoff suggests, is that they have addressed the moral issue in the terms the President has framed it rather than reframing the issue in their own moral terms. Talking about the world, or at least Iraq, being "better off" avoids confronting the civilian carnage caused by the war. As the late Robert Nozick cautioned in his classic work on the moral basis of freedom, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, we should be wary of talking about the overall good of society or of a particular country. There is no social entity called Iraq that benefited from some self-sacrifice it suffered for its own greater good, like a patient who voluntarily endures some pain to be better off than before. There were only individual human beings living in Iraq before the war, with their individual lives. Sacrificing the lives of some of them for the benefit of others killed them and benefited the others. Nothing more. Each of those Iraqis killed in the war was a separate person, and the unfinished life each of them lost was the only life he or she had, or would ever have. They clearly are not better off now that Saddam is gone from power.

There is only one truly serious question about the morality of the war, and that is the question posed more than fifty years ago by French Nobel laureate Albert Camus, looking back on two world wars that had slaughtered more than 70 million people: When do we have the right to kill our fellow human beings or let them be killed? What is needed is a national debate in the presidential election campaign that addresses the most important moral issue of our time. It is an issue we are required to face not only as a matter of moral obligation to all those Iraqis killed in the war, but to the 772 American servicemen and -women who, as of May 10, had lost their lives and the more than 4,000 U.S. Soldiers injured in Iraq. The debate should begin by moving beyond the narrow factual focus on WMD intelligence to an examination of the broad moral principles and values governing the use of deadly force against other human beings. Those principles are to be found in the basic precepts of our more than 200-year-old constitutional tradition and criminal jurisprudence, and in widely accepted standards of international humanitarian law.

Reliable estimates by independent organizations indicate that more civilians died in the first month of the war than were killed in the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. A five-week investigation by the Associated Press reported at least 3,240 civilian deaths between March 20 and April 20, 2003, including 1,896 in Baghdad alone. The AP survey notes that "hundreds, possibly thousands, of victims" are not reflected in the totals because the count excluded victims not taken to hospitals as well as records of hospitals in areas too remote or dangerous to visit. Between April 20, 2003, and the beginning of the wider insurgency almost a year later, at least 500 Iraqi civilians were reported by Iraq's Interior Ministry to have been killed by American-led forces in checkpoint shootings, misdirected arms fire and delayed explosions of cluster bombs. Hundreds more have been killed in the siege of Falluja, according to the director of the city's general hospital.

But even if as many as 5,000 civilians have been killed by US forces, isn't freedom for 25 million people in Iraq worth the cost of 5,000 lives? Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard, argued this cost-benefit analysis in making the moral case for war in the New York Times Magazine before the invasion: "The choice [was] one between two evils, between containing and leaving a tyrant in place and the targeted use of force, which will kill people but free a nation from the tyrant's grip." Ignatieff concluded that killing people was the better choice if the United States was willing "to build freedom, not just for the Iraqis but also for the Palestinians, along with a greater sense of security for Israel "

This is the moral reasoning of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Invoking the lesser-of-two-evils defense to justify his killing an old pawnbroker and stealing her money, Raskolnikov argues: "Kill her, take her money, dedicate it to serving mankind, to the general welfare. Well--what do you think--isn't this petty little crime effaced by thousands of good deeds? For one life, thousands of lives saved from ruin and collapse One death and a hundred lives--there's arithmetic for you." A few thousand dead Iraqis and freedom for 25 million.

What is overlooked by those who believe the benefits of the war outweigh the costs is that killing even one innocent person to benefit others violates the most basic human right--the right to life. The right to life is one of those unalienable rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. "Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual," William Blackstone wrote in his eighteenth-century Commentaries on the Laws of England, one of the leading sources of American civil liberties. What Blackstone meant when he characterized the right to life as a God-given right is that it is beyond the power of any mere government to abrogate or repeal. Innocent people may not be killed or injured by the state, even when a majority believes it serves the greater good.

In a prelude to the "Grand Inquisitor" scene in The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan asks his faith-based brother Alyosha a question we all need to ask ourselves about the children who were killed or injured in the Iraq war: "Let's assume that you were called upon to build the edifice of human destiny so that men would finally be happy and would find peace and tranquillity. If you knew that, in order to attain this, you would have to torture just one single creature, let's say the little girl who beat her chest so desperately in the outhouse, and that on her unavenged tears you could build that edifice, would you agree to do it?"

Even more horrifying than the torture of Iraqi prisoners by their American captors has been the unnecessary suffering and death inflicted on the Iraqi people by the war itself. One of those children on whose unavenged tears the edifice of freedom has been built in Iraq was 12-year-old Ali Ismael Abbas, who was so badly burned in a U.S. missile attack on Baghdad that his entire torso was black, his arms so mutilated that, as New Yorker correspondent Jon Lee Anderson described the hospital scene, they "looked like something that might be found in a barbecue pit." His family, which included his pregnant mother, his father and his six brothers and sisters, were all killed by the blast. Some of their bodies were so unrecognizable that all Anderson could see in morgue photographs was a collection of charred body parts and some red flesh. The remains of other family members were mutilated grotesqueries. "[His mother's] face had been cut in half, as if by a giant cleaver, and her mouth was yawning open.... The body of his brother was all there, it seemed, but from the nose up his head was gone, simply sheared off, like the head of a rubber doll. His mouth, like that of his mother, was open, as if he were screaming." Judging from the poll numbers after the fall of the Iraqi regime the seven or eight out of ten Americans who backed the war were prepared to build the edifice of freedom and democracy on the broken bodies not of one, but of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Iraqi children killed or maimed or burned in the conflict.

Viewed in the light of our own moral ideals, as embodied in our constitutional tradition, the right to life is so fundamental that killing the innocent to advance the cause of freedom of electoral choice or any other purpose, however worthy, must be regarded as wrong. We denounce terrorists because when the freedom of self-determination they seek is weighed in the balance against the right to life of innocent people, it is the right to life that our collective conscience has decided should prevail. Terrorism is simply a criminal technique for coercing a political agenda by killing innocent people. And it should make no difference whether the people who do the killing are freedom fighters like Palestinian suicide bombers, who purposefully kill civilians, or freedom fighters like the American liberators of the Iraqi people, who aim at military targets but who know with substantial certainty that they will incidentally kill civilians. In the eyes of the criminal law, a person is regarded as intending the death of another when he either has the purpose to cause the death of the victim or when he knows that death is substantially certain to result from his acts.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned before the war that, despite the military's best efforts to prevent civilian casualties "people are going to die." Given this knowledge aforethought, the Administration cannot continue to pretend that the civilian deaths in Iraq were accidental. The mother killed in a Baghdad bomb blast holding her baby so tightly they could not be pried apart, and the thousands of other innocent Iraqis killed in the war, were the victims of intentional homicide, however accidental or acceptable their deaths may have appeared on Fox News or CNN.

There is one exception to the prohibition against taking innocent human life recognized by both our own principles of criminal jurisprudence and international rules of warfare. Deadly force may be used in self-defense even when innocent people will be killed in the combat required to defeat the aggressor. Although international rules of warfare prohibit the purposeful targeting of civilians, even in a defensive war, the law makes an exception for the incidental or "collateral" killing of the innocent because civilian casualties are frequently unavoidable in mounting an effective military operation against the enemy.

However, when a nation acts in self-defense before it is actually attacked, international law requires an imminent threat. As statements by CIA director George Tenet have made clear, the White House did not even have probable cause to believe its own prewar claims, both express and implied, that the danger was imminent. Intelligence analysts "never said there was an imminent' threat," Tenet insisted in a February 5 speech at Georgetown University defending his agency. But according to the President, the United States had the right to go to war on a lesser standard than imminence. The Administration's position, first announced in its 2002 National Security Strategy, is that military force can be used pre-emptively whenever a threat however remote or improbable, involves the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. As President Bush argued in a February 8 interview with NBC s Tim Russert, "It is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent."

The elimination of the longstanding requirement of imminence by the Bush doctrine of pre-emption has been roundly condemned by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who called it a "fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last fifty-eight years." But for many Americans living in the shadow of September 11, common sense and simple prudence seemed to dictate a policy that says, in effect, we should kill them before they can kill us. What critics of the Bush doctrine failed to make clear is that the concept of imminence is essential because it actualizes the most basic moral principle upon which not only the United Nations Charter but our own constitutional system of government, is based: the sanctity of innocent human life.

The self-defense exception to the general principle protecting innocent life is not based on any cost-benefit calculation. Rather, the killing of innocent people is excused as a concession to human weakness. Self-defense in the face of an imminent threat of being killed is what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called one of those "can't helps" of life. No community of human beings facing an immediate threat of attack can reasonably be expected to allow themselves to be killed in order to avoid killing innocent people in the aggressor nation. Such extraordinary self-sacrifice is not demanded of ordinary mortals.

But when a threat is not imminent in the sense that there is sufficient time to protect ourselves without killing innocent people--by using more rigorous weapons inspections, for example--we lack that "can't help" that Justice Holmes suggested was a condition for sacrificing human life in a civilized society. To say, as the President continues to insist, that he had "no choice" is to make the absurd and horrific claim that he had no choice but to kill thousands of innocent people. We reply that the moral principles contained in our criminal and constitutional jurisprudence forbid the use of war to check tyrants and terrorists who threaten us with death unless there is such a clear and present danger to the nation that taking the lives of innocent men, women and children is the only way we can save our own lives.

The final argument advanced by the Administration, as well as some human rights advocates, is that the war was morally justifiable as a humanitarian intervention to defend the Iraqi people from mass slaughter by Saddam's brutal regime. However, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention cannot be applied retroactively to morally justify war as a means of punishing a political leader for past atrocities, such as Saddam's killing of more than 100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign, which occurred almost fifteen years before the invasion. Because it is essentially a principle that permits the defense of others, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, like the concept of self-defense, requires actually occurring or imminent large-scale killing to justify the use of military force. Criteria proposed in 2001 by an international commission of legal scholars and practitioners would permit humanitarian intervention to defend a vulnerable population from "large scale loss of life" or "large scale 'ethnic cleansing'" that is either actually "occurring" or "imminently likely to occur." Human Rights Watch, applying these criteria to the Iraq war in its 2004 World Report, concludes, "That was not the case in Saddam Hussein's Iraq in March 2003.... despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein's rule, the invasion cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention."

Freedom and democracy for Iraq are "worth fighting for, dying for and standing for," President Bush declared in a November 2003 speech, but no one asked the Iraqis who were killed in the war whether they were willing to sacrifice their lives as part of a demonstration project to create a democratic revolution in the Middle East. The very minimum that people have a right to expect from any effort to graft democracy onto their nation is that the donor nation honor the principle of no extermination without representation.

Denouncing the war a week after the invasion, Kofi Annan, in an unusually candid interview with New York Times reporter Felicity Barringer, said the UN Security Council authorized "disarmament, not mass murder." American criminal law defines murder as the purposeful or knowing killing of a human being without justification or excuse. If, as the relevant law and facts prove, the President's decision to invade Iraq cannot be justified or excused as a war of liberation or an act of self-defense or humanitarian intervention, then the killing of thousands of innocent people in Iraq fits the legal definition of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. While there are various legal and political obstacles to actually prosecuting the President--either in an international tribunal or an American court--we should not shrink from saying that taking the country to war was the wrong thing to do, not merely in the sense that the Administration's prewar claims about WMD were "wrong," but in the same sense in which mass murder is wrong.

"Each age and place has its own style of evil," Time essayist Lance Morrow observes in his book Evil: An Investigation. The history of radical evil up to now has been primarily a story of world-class criminals, each with his own method of mass killing, internment, expulsion and terror. What is unique about the kind of evil the Bush Administration has brought into the world is that a global law-enforcement campaign to bring a world-class criminal to justice has itself become a vast criminal enterprise. It is one of the bedrock principles of the rule of law that a law-enforcement officer cannot break the law as a means of enforcing the law. "For my part, I think it is a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part," Holmes wrote in a famous dissent that announced a constitutional principle of "lesser evils" that would eventually become prevailing law. The principle was most eloquently articulated by Justice Louis Brandeis: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

The capture of Saddam Hussein, who may have killed as many as 300,000 people ends a twenty-four-year reign of terror and might finally bring a measure of justice to the Iraqi people. But what would we think of a police chief whose war against crime resulted in killing thousands of innocent bystanders in the course of apprehending a criminal suspect, even a criminal as despicable as Saddam? The officer who breaks the law, who becomes a law unto himself, like the out-of-control cop played by Michael Chiklis in the FX cable drama The Shield--"Al Capone with a badge," to borrow a line from the script--is more dangerous than the criminal and, like the American guards who committed the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, becomes a criminal himself. The false charge that Saddam was reaching for his weapons of mass destruction when US troops attacked bears an uncanny resemblance to the pretexts for the use of deadly force that document a long and shameful history of incidents of police misconduct in cities across America. The evil of this President, once acclaimed for his "moral clarity," is the evil of police violence on a global scale--the evil of the law-enforcement officer who regards himself as above the law and thereby undermines the very foundation of law and morality.

If, in the 2004 presidential election campaign, voters were to compel the candidates to confront the profound moral and legal questions raised by the use of military power that needlessly extinguished the lives of children, of entire families, of great numbers of ordinary Iraqis who had as much of a right to live as we do, there might ultimately emerge a nonpartisan basis for a national consensus about the war, in much the same way that a universal accord has developed in the United States about the immorality and illegality of police conduct in violation of an individual's civil liberties While there will always be disagreement about the way we should wage the war on terrorism, as there will be about the way we should fight the war on crime, a global form of law enforcement that unnecessarily kills thousands of innocent people to punish or prevent crimes for which they bear no responsibility is plainly and simply wrong.

---

OPERATIONAL

C-130 GyroCopter for V/TOL SeaBasing & Air-Mech-Strike

By Scott Miller

LINKS

Groen Brothers Aviation
www.groenbros.com/tech/crnt_tech.htm

Giant Heavy-Lifting Gyroplanes: June 2004 Cover Story...
www.popularmechanics.com/science/ aviation/2004/6/giant_gyros/print.phtml

I'd like to expand on that a little on the C-130 Gyrodyne (GD) concept to demonstrate just how good this system would be to have. The C-130 gyrodyne would use all the fundamental systems of the existing C-130 but would also possess a large rotor above the wing to provide for VTOL as well as limited hovering capability. The tail would also be modified to accomodate for the large rotor. In terms of fuselage dimensions, the C-130 offers greater internal capacity in a package similar in overall length to the current CH-53E but with a much larger rotor and wingspan.

The C-130J flies at 400 mph...critics of the C-130GD might say adding rotors for V/TOL would cut that speed in half.

Says who?

There is nothing stopping us from REMOVING THE ROTORS from the C-130GD with the only drag penalty being the rotor mast and extra tails and flying the C-130 as a regular fixed-wing airplane when crossing great distances like oceans at a 350+ mph speeds and 2,000 mile ranges. The rotors themselves can be stowed on top of the fuselage during fixed-wing flight. Add in-flight refueling capability and your range is indefinite. Once the C-130GD (- rotors) lands, it can then be refitted with its rotors for V/TOL tactical operations to be a C-130GD+ again.

Should we decide to fully develop this aircraft, we will be able to define a true Air Assault Company and Airborne Artillery Battery that will reside in each battalion of up to four BCTs or Airborne/Air Assault Groups depending on your force structure preference.

The Air Assault Company would feature 14 x C-130GDs in total. Three aircraft will each carry one platoon of leg infantry trained in both airborne and air assault roles. These will be conventionally armed infantrymen with the C-130GD serving as primary transport and support system. The heavy weapons platoon will consist of 6 x C-130GDs with four carrying IFVLs with 25mm autocannon turrets and/or Buford AGS light tanks with 105-120mm main guns and two carrying M113 Gavin MTVL armed with www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/popguns.htm">106mm RR and infantry dismount squads. Two C-130GD will carry XM1108 Tracked Support Vehicles (TSVs) to meet tactical resupply needs. One C-130GD carries the HQ element while two additional GD provide logistics support. The Airborne Artillery Battalion replaces a conventional FA battalion with 18 AC-130GDs formed in 6-ship batteries. With this structure, each BCT/AAAG would require 74 x C-130GDs. With a proposed fleet of 400 of these versatile aircraft, an additional 104 aircraft will be available to support training, Special Operations, and logistics missions for the remainder of the Army.

The use of gyrodynes makes these units both strategically and tactically mobile. No airfields or runways are required - these units can pick-up and go anywhere at any time. A limited hovering capability gives the unit a traditional air assault capability in addition to being able to parachute in. These units also form a complete combined arms team, featuring a large quantity of conventional infantry, high powered direct fire systems, and airborne indirect fire systems. This unit can be fought in a variety of manners.

In a conventional force on force conflict, this unit can be used in two roles. First it would serve as the lead element of deployment. When the conflict originates, these units can be deployed very rapidly in advance of the larger force that will ultimately be deployed. With Air Force expeditionary units clearing the skies, these elements can operate effectively against most types of potential enemies due to its very high level of tactical speed and mobility. As the main force enters the theater, these units can transition to heading off enemy incursions, encircling the enemy with its V/TOL mobility, or providing security for the larger force including conducting search and rescue operations.

This force is also quite capable in a forced entry role in that it can insert either through parachute drop or a combination of air assault and LVAD to rapidly get a light tracked armored force on the ground with effective weaponry and fire support. Against more capable adversaries, this approach can be used to seize airheads or seaports for insertion of follow-on forces. Against lesser opponents, this unit along with it's respective ABN-AASLTG or BCT would likely be sufficient for completion of the operation.

In Low-Intensity Conflicts, these airborne units can truely take advantage of the capabilities of the gyrodynes. In particular, the capabilities of the GDs allow for keeping some elements of the unit in a constant loitering position while the armored vehicles remain prepared to fly out when needed. In the proposed configuration of four battalions per BCT/ABN-AASLTG with one AAC per battalion and three 6-gunship Airborne Artillery Batteries, two platoons of infantry and two gunships can remain in constant loiter just about indefinitely as elements would rotate every four hours with the remaining 20 hours of the day as downtime. The armored elements would remain on stand-by. With this approach, units can physically engage the enemy in under an hour, anywhere within 200 miles of their base of operations with full combined arms force. The remaining units of the BCT/ABN-AASLTG can engage in traditional operations such as patrolling and security freeing the AACs and AABs to engage targets of opportunity and to respond to any actionable intelligence.

In peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, the AAC/AAB serves as a heavy security element protecting the remainder of the BCT/ABN-AASLTG that is free to use its substantial manpower resources to carry out the primary mission on the ground. The available C-130GDs can deliver large quantities of aid over very long range using its V/TOL capabilities to avoid the need for an available airport. The aircraft can also pick up materials from ships at sea and deliver the supplies hundreds of miles without refueling.

Currently, there are over 1000 x C-130s in service or storage that are available to support this effort. In addition, there are 1000s of M113 Gavins available for outfitting the ground elements. These assets and units should be used as an interim capability until better alternatives become available in the future. Obviously, a C-130GD is not an ideal long-term solution to meeting these needs as it is quite large and very heavy, in addition to being expensive, for serving in this role. The GD models should be built as remanufactured C-130s (all aircraft rebuilt to a common format) while the MTVL and TSV variants are constructed from existing M113 Gavins. This allows for the units to become reality at the lowest possible costs and in the fastest timeframe. With the amount of money we spend on defense every year, there is no reason whatsoever that we couldn't have this project completed in under two years. If the powers that be view this as violating the KWA, fine - turn these into joint units with the Air Force manning the aircraft. This unit isn't going to beat China in a conventional conflict but if we are serious about taking out the Bin Ladens and Zarqawis of the world, this is the level of capability that is going to be required to get the job done.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48616-2004Sep24.html

Army Floats a Trial Balloon Equipped Blimp Hovers Above Area In Test of Technology

By Carol Morello
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 25, 2004; Page B01

In the middle of a cornfield in Maryland, a blimp glided in for a landing.

Eight men grabbed two long guide ropes that dragged them along, their heels dug in, until the blimp halted, hovering a foot off the ground. The sun momentarily dimmed as the airship's two propeller engines kicked up a swirl of dry corn husks.

The U.S. Army believes scenes such as the one that has unfolded repeatedly over the past two days near Freeway Airport in Bowie might be as much about the future as a quaint reenactment of a bygone time.

That is why the Army has leased a blimp from the nation's only airship manufacturer and outfitted it with sensors and cameras. Over the next week, the 178-foot-long lighter-than-air craft will conduct test runs over the Washington area. In the fabric gondola hanging below the envelope, a technician will aim a camera, mounted to the front of the cabin, at government buildings and military bases.

The tests are designed to determine how effective the electro-optical and infrared cameras are at detecting potentially threatening movements on the ground when attached to a blimp yawing in the heat currents as it floats along 1,000 feet in the air at 30 knots. The equipment already is used in Iraq and Afghanistan to identify enemy troop movement, but in combat zones it is attached to a static inflatable device that looks like a giant, blimp-shaped balloon.

The prospect that a helium-filled blimp is an idea whose time has come again is increasingly being considered by serious people charged with defending troops overseas and the nation's borders at home.

Among the interested agencies is the Department of Homeland Security. Unmanned drones are already used along the border with Mexico. The agency thinks blimps might be equally useful.

"We're doing a preliminary evaluation," said Chris Wells, an assistant chief with the Border Patrol. "Though it's old technology -- airships have been around for a number of years -- recent advances caused us to take a fresh look at it."

Aboard the blimp, Phillip Mix, an electronics technician with Crane Naval Service Warfare Center, sat before a television screen as the airship cruised above Route 50. The camera beamed images from 800 feet below -- shopping malls, woods and meadows. Mix said that on a clear day, the cameras can discern objects from six to seven miles away.

Although the technology is state-of-the-art, blimps have been used for military force protection for decades. During World War II, more than 150 blimps patrolled the East Coast on anti-submarine missions, escorting convoys out to sea.

From a blimp, it was possible to see a periscope in the ocean, said Norman Mayer, an Alexandria resident who is president of the Naval Airship Association.

"There was never a convoy lost while an airship was patrolling," Mayer said as he waited in the cornfield to board. A former Naval blimp pilot and semi-retired aeronautical engineer, Mayer has spent his career designing and consulting about blimps. He allows that whenever he mentions his calling to a new acquaintance, "They want to have me psychoanalyzed."

Fewer than 30 blimps are in use, and 19 of them were made by the American Blimp Corp. in Oregon, one of only a handful of companies making modern blimps. Another is a German company whose name is synonymous with dirigibles, Zeppelin, which has sold three in recent years, all for sightseeing.

American Blimp makes three sizes of blimps, which sell for $2 million to $4 million each. Most are used during sporting events.

"It's a fun business," said E. Judson Brandreth Jr., the company's vice president for marketing. "Goodyear did a study and found that universally, blimps give people a big warm fuzzy. People just like blimps."

Brandreth said American Blimp is promoting the use of airships as airborne surveillance. Many people wrongly assume blimps are vulnerable to bullets fired by, say, drug runners or terrorists.

"Almost everything people think they know about blimps is wrong," said Brandreth, citing the misconception that a bullet can bring down a blimp. The envelope is rip-proof. And many people seem to consider blimps moving targets.

"We often discover bullet holes when the airships are brought to our hangar for maintenance," he said. "People shoot at them. Particularly in the country. We think it's kids, not urban warfare. We just patch it up and go."

Pilot Jim Dexter emphasizes how safe a blimp is as he guides the airship above Maryland suburbia.

The blimp takes off and lands at a 30-degree angle, though it feels steeper. The eight seats come equipped with seat belts. Several gondola windows are open, and gentle breezes waft through and lift loose-fitting shirts in billows.

The ride gives the sensation of floating. Dexter works the elevator wheels beside his seat to adjust for the hobby-horsing caused by rising heat currents.

Dexter, who trained to fly fixed-wing aircraft but found airships were his passion, has flown during winds so strong that his blimp was blown backward. Like most blimp aficionados, he gets tired of the 1937 Hindenberg disaster being mentioned. The airship was filled with hydrogen, not helium, and caught fire because the paint contained a compound used in rocket fuel, Brandreth said.

"The Hindenberg always comes up, over and over," he said with a sigh. "If the engines quit, it's a balloon; you vent the helium, go down and land. If there's a rip in the envelope, you let the helium out and recover it later. It's a very safe aircraft."

TECHNOTACTICAL

Another $25 MILLION WASTED: Stupidity 101: Ohio Scientists Develop Ineffective but Light Armor for Humvee trucks

What RPGs will do to a so-called "up-armored" HMMWV truck.

YOU WILL NOT BE GOING ANYWHERE LEAST OF ALL AT "60 MPH" IF YOUR 750 POUND ARMOR FAILS TO PREVENT YOU FROM BECOMING A FLAMING WRECK.

This is more 20-something narcissistic troop stupidity to prop up a failed light infantry egotist and social class divided Army where tracked AFVs that can protect are men are not valued.

www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTExcmZsMGptBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAN2MTU3BHRtcGwDdjE1Ny1pZQ--/s/214803

Mon Oct 4, 8:55 AM ET Science - AP

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The military is ordering more lightweight armor developed in Ohio that protects troops in Humvees from automatic weapons fire and grenades without slowing the vehicles.

What a command-detonated, roadside bomb will do to these same trucks: AP Photo

Unarmored Humvees have become targets in the war in Iraq (news - web sites). The vehicle was designed to carry troops and supplies, not be part of the fighting. Special-operations forces were looking for lighter armor that doesn't affect their speed or make Humvees too heavy to transport on planes.

Some Humvees, made by AM General in Mishawaka, Ind., are being equipped with up to 3,000 pounds of armor, which slows them down. The new armor offers less protection, but weighs 750 pounds.

The military has tested 75 of the armor kits in the Middle East and has ordered 400 more from Columbus-based Battelle, the world's largest independent, nonprofit research institute.

Battelle introduced the armor kits last week at the Naval Institute's ninth annual Warfare Exposition and Symposium in Virginia Beach, Va.

"The bad guys come up with newer tactics, and we come up with newer techniques," said Skip Dirren, who heads Battelle's Navy marketing operations.

With no time to invent armor, Battelle went to the marketplace and found that an armor made of polyethylene and titanium survived testing at its laboratory.

The armor is 15 times stronger than steel, according to John Bockbrader, project manager. His team of engineers adapted the armor to fit Humvee parts considered vulnerable, including doors, seats, wheel wells and the underbody.

The armor will not stop blasts from homemade bombs and rocket-propelled grenades that Iraqi insurgents have repeatedly used.

But the lighter armor will help, said 1st Lt. Tim Casteel, who returned to Ohio on Sept. 3 from a 15-month tour in Iraq.

During Casteel's last three months in Iraq, his Middletown-based unit, the 324th Military Police Company, escorted truck convoys, he said. His group rode in Humvees loaded with so much ceramic armor that the cargo trucks they escorted could accelerate faster in an attack, he said.

"When you're attacked, you have to have the ability to hit the gas pedal and go and not be stuck at 45 to 50 mph," Casteel said.

The government has paid Battelle $25 million to work on the armor during the past three years. Battelle is selling it to the Defense Department for $90,000 to $120,000 per kit.

Traditionally, 90 percent of Battelle's business is contract work for the federal government.

Its national defense business has increased from $40 million to $75 million since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacks. The company's national security business, a $285 million operation in fiscal 2001, now is projected at $490 million in fiscal 2004.

Bye, Bye Gun Ownership under "Conservative" Bush Administration

By "Gun Owners of America" Gun_Owners_of_America@capwiz.mailmanager.net

Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 11:44 AM Subject: Bad News From The House

House 9/11 Bill Will Set Up A Database On All Americans, Create National ID Card

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 www.gunowners.org

Monday, October 4, 2004

What part of "Constitution" don't they understand?

In a frightening move, House Republicans -- members of the party that supposedly favors "limited government" -- are pushing an Orwellian nightmare in Congress in the name of "national security."

In the wake of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, the Senate -- unlike the House -- has prepared legislation which would closely track that Commission's findings by reorganizing the intelligence services in the federal government. The Senate bill is relatively innocuous compared to the House version, HR 10.

Unfortunately, many of the so-called Republicans in the House are pushing this nightmarish legislation which would:

* Create a massive government database containing personal information on every American man, woman and child;

* Standardize (i.e., nationalize) the process of issuing driver's licenses -- thereby taking the final step toward creating a national ID card; and

* Set up a system whereby any employer or industry identified by the Attorney General would have to submit employment applicants to the government for approval -- complete with fingerprints or other "biometric identifiers."

Now, let's look at how each of these problems could affect your rights -- gun rights in particular:

(1) The government database is created by section 2173 of HR 10, a bill introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert. It would allow airline passengers to be screened against lists containing "all appropriate records." What would be "appropriate" would be within the exclusive discretion of the bureaucrats, but could include medical records, confidential financial records, library records, and gun records.

(2) The driver's license standards are in section 3052. They would allow the federal government to set standards as high as desired to determine who may or may not obtain a driver's license. Please note that you need a driver's license (or similarly regulated state-issued photo ID) to purchase a gun from a dealer. But, increasingly, you also need it to travel on any form of transportation (airplane, bus, train, car), to get a job, to open a checking account, to cash a check, to check into a hotel, to rent a car, or to purchase cigarettes or alcohol. If the federal government can set standards so high as to deny you a driver's license or photo ID, it has effectively turned you into a non-person.

(3) Section 2142 would allow the U.S. attorney general to promulgate any regulations he desires concerning (a) what employers must submit the names and fingerprints of all employment applicants to the FBI, (b) what standards the government will use in approving or disapproving the employment applicants, and (c) whether or not the government's "disapproval" will prevent the applicant from being hired.

There is nothing in section 2142 which would prohibit an anti-gun attorney general from (a) requiring the resumes and fingerprints of every employment applicant in the country, (b) disapproving them on the basis of gun ownership or, for that matter, any factor he viewed as not being politically correct, and (c) prohibiting any employer from hiring an applicant thus blacklisted.

ACTION: Write your representative. Ask him, in the strongest terms, to vote against any "9/11 legislation" that (1) creates a government database of personal information on law-abiding Americans, (2) moves toward the use of a driver's license as a National ID Card, or (3) sets up a system for fingerprinting and approving job applicants in the private sector.

You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are also available).

---- Pre-written message -----

Dear Representative:

Movement toward an oppressive government does not make me feel more "secure."

Therefore, I would urge you, in the strongest terms, to please vote against HR 10, The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, if it:

* Creates a massive government database containing personal information on every American man, woman and child [section 2173];

* Standardizes (i.e., nationalizes) the process of issuing driver's licenses -- thereby taking the final step toward creating a national ID card [section 3052];

* Sets up a system whereby any employer or industry identified by the Attorney General would have to submit employment applicants to the government for approval -- complete with fingerprints or other "biometric identifiers" [section 2142].

Frankly, the ideas which are being floated with respect to this legislation are simply horrible, and are surely unworthy of those who have sworn to protect the Constitution.

Sincerely,

***************************

GOA Candidate Ratings Now Online

The 2004 version of GOA's famous Candidate Ratings Guide has now been posted at http://www.gunowners.org/votetb04.htm on the web.

A survey was mailed to every identifiable candidate nationwide for this year's Congressional elections. And every incumbent was rated based on his or her gun rights voting record while in office. The result is a truly comprehensive voter's guide that will prove invaluable to gun owners this November. Be sure to take note of where your candidates stand on the Second Amendment!

****************************

Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.

To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or use the url below.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

SOMETHING FOR FUN!

Paper M1 Abrams model!!!

desert_combat_technik_lexikon

www.lexikon.fungamebtl.de/lexikon/land/abrams/en_abrams/en_abrams.html#papiermodell

---

Professional Military Education HOT LINK:

TRADOC RPG pamphlet

Very informative 43 pages:

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf

---

Got bad Soldier gear? U.S. bureaucracy not listening?

Post your gear requests/ideas to Brigade Quartermasters, they will get good gear to the good guys (YOU)

www.actiongear.com

Return to Main Page, click here

equipmentshop@yahoo.com