> Message: 4
No, John, it is not a military operation like the guy that shot a t your
colleagues patrolling the roads in Iraq, OK? It is a VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF
OPERATION. If you think that spy operations and subtraction of industrial
secret items are your job you are a confused man. If you think that
information subtraction or homicide of an individual is a military operation
you are in a branch very different than the one I served. Each and every
references I made was made in view of the item at hand: active and military
significant opposition to an invasion (which, in my thesis, should be made
with large, conventional forces and not small, elite ones), not the killing of
individuals but military operations. For example, the kind made by the Viet
Minh (yes, I know it was the party, not the name of the army) or FRELIMO and
UNITA; "FRELIMO and UNITA" were NOT different from PAVN... both had not a
defined, protected territory that could not be invaded but controlled parts of
the enemy territory, both had no more than rudimentary state organization,
both depended from foreign support for weapons, both had to recruit, train and
organize an army from scratch, in time, both developed (up to a point, and
here, yes, with a difference in strong favor of PAVN) specialized branches
equipped with heavier weapons. Functionally, historically they were exactly
the same kind of movement, one won the others lost.
By the way, I like to work with what I studied and remember, not what I can
reap through the Net. I am old fashioned.
> > Whose death exactly proves what?
Great, there were killers active in 1941 in Poland; how does that relates to
activity like the Warsaw Uprising that, at least, is relevant to the
discussion we were conducting?
> You make a definitive statement like "There was no active Polish
My next statement will be more circumstantiated and precise, I assure you
> You are a piece of work indeed.
John, really, didn't want to get this personal, but you have some relatively
big problem: you lack the capacity to analyze what you read, either in books
or in these messages. I hope you'll permit me to circumstantiate a little our
further exchanges and comment on some parts of your messages:
1) you should understand the limit of this kind of communication -
write is far more boring than talking face to face; 2) accept broader
generalities and categories, even if not exactly precise, just like any other
do [I could have asked "quote date and place and whatever else" after the
sentence "a Marine MEU can invade any nation"... it is false, unproved and
impossible, but it was meant to intend that a MEU is a redoubtable force and
in that meaning I accepted it] 3) give anybody else some credit, you'll still
probably have some
interesting thing to add to anybody else reflections - I probably was
involved in logistics more than you [simply because as a subaltern I had more
things to cater for] and still are [due to my job involving industrial
enterprises]... and I am still waiting for an explanation about how come
invasion forces do not incur in the same kind of logistical problems defenders
do... [by the way, defenders menaced usually disperse their stores and have a
whole planet... how come AK was able to store enough weapons and ammo in
Warsaw under the occupation and a free planet can't do the same even only in
the time the invading fleet needed to reach the planet from outsystem?] 4) do
not ignore everything that do not concord with your hypothesis that come up in
discussion as you have done again and again in this exchange and do not warp
the term of the issue at hand [I never ever declared that a US maneuver unit
was completely destroyed in Vietnam, that's what you understood; just like you
misunderstood my first comment that was explained to you by Oerjan; the term
of the exchange
were - small elite units have limited usefulness in battle -
companies were destroyed and routed in Vietnam again and again -
small units are company sized at best - company sized units can be
routed or destroyed by a less capable enemy; this is the issue in discussion
and it has been proved by historical sources beyond me and
you referring to historical precedents I invoked] - [and I am still
waiting for an explanation of Ishandlwana] - [and, I would add, an
explanation of how could "small elite" units control Iraq with the kind of
losses US and Allied troops suffered; I think, but I will appreciate any
further info on the subject, that they would have suffered a crisis several
thousands casualties ago] 5) do not ask for precise references with pedantic
regularity, it does very little to help the discussion, focus instead on the
topics, several affirmations will become more clear that way [this is not an
after the action debriefing, we are just brainstorming on a reality about
which we can not know a thing] 6) last but not least, do not use personal
evaluation with complete foreigners, it usually is considered rude.
I didn't care to get to such stupid and pedantic list of comments but it looks
like it is the way of the land; would have preferred a friendly exchange among
us, where it is not necessary to point to each and every "glitch".. less
intelligent proposals usually disappear by themselves, substituted by the
better corrections.
Will gladly read any further comment of yours, even if personally addressed,
IF REFERRED TO EACH AND EVERY PART of my last message, NOT SKIPPING ANYTHING
YOU DO NOT CARE TO COMMENT BECAUSE YOU FEEL IT IS NOT IMPORTANT. It probably
is, just because you felt it is not.
I hope these statements are circumstantiated enough and contain enough
references to be comprehensible and clear.
With this, I have nothing more to add, but my excuses to the list (and to Indy
whose advice I guiltily preferred to ignore) as it was definitely a better
place before I started this. It is evidently my fault as you had your own kind
of equilibrium before. Hoped to cool things down showing a white flag.
But would like to hear the story of the exchange with Kratman... he's
described as a mean guy and must have been a titan's clash...:)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAm
I the only one who finds this overbearing and absolutely unnecesarily
confrontational? I thought this thing had pretty petered out and then this
bomb gets dropped on the list seems a little vindictive.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Enzo de Ianni <enzodeianni@tiscali.it>
> >Message: 4
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAm
I the only one who finds this overbearing and absolutely unnecesarily
confrontational? I thought this thing had pretty petered out and then this
bomb gets dropped on the list seems a little vindictive.
-Eli
Just a bit....
Don
Gday All,
No you are not alone Eli. But then John does have the ability to get under
peoples skin and to be a tad offensive. Those of us that have been
on the list for some time know this. We also know that he often has good
stuff to add as well so put up with one for the sake of the other. Enzo is
right thought, it could have done without the personal insults.
Tony.
> emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'v
e been on this list for years. Admitedly I tend to tune out a good portion of
the threads and lurk a lot. This just stuck out as particularly nasty. I am
familiar with John's posts. My main observation is right or wrong, I was
pretty sure that the thread had really been brought to an end a few posts ago.
Anyhow, was an observation, no more.
Was still a very interesting thread all nastiness aside.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au>
> Gday All,
Enzo
> is right thought, it could have done without the personal insults.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Enzo de Ianni <enzodeianni@tiscali.it> wrote:
> It's an active resistance.
There's a confusion on your part as well--counterinsurgency and
insurgency tend to transcend traditional (conventional) delinations between
what is or isn't a military operation. cf. Phoenix, which was an early
"interagency" operation that mixed detailed intelligence gathering with both
paramilitary and military assets which actually targetted specific
individuals.
And yes, I have rolled into a village and kicked open a door to arrest a
single individual. Would have shot him had he realized what was going on in
time to effectively fight back before getting cuffed and stuffed.
> For example, the kind made by the Viet Minh (yes, I know it was the
Actually, PAVN had a defined, protected territory that could not be invaded.
It was called alternately the DRV or SRV depending on year. Do some basic
research and understand what I'm talking about before you make more of an ass
of yourself than necessary.
> By the way, I like to work with what I studied and remember, not what
Double-checking your facts rather than running off your glaringly
fallible memory would save you from looking like an ass in public.
> > Whose death exactly proves what?
Full-spectrum operations. This is how weak resistance movements
operate. Basic Little Red Book stuff here.
> really, didn't want to get this personal, but you have some
I can't analyze drivel which is factually incorrect. Garbage in, garbage out.
> 1) you should understand the limit of this kind of communication -
I know--I'm even more exciting face to face. It's also easier to tell
when I'm jerking someone's chain and when I'm not.
> 2) accept broader generalities and categories, even if not exactly
You're attributing someone else's statement to me.
... and I am still waiting for an explanation
> about how come invasion forces do not incur in the same kind of
The invaders do. Presumably they have a pretty good handle on the rate at
which they should expend supplies and have made provision. Having captured a
lot of the infrastructure of the colony, I presume they will engage in some of
the excesses American forces do (shipping bottled water instead of purifying
water on the spot, etc) and will supplement their imported resources with
confiscated stores of food, water, fuel, etc.
There are a lot of unanswered questions which are utterly setting dependant.
If, to take an extreme case for discussion's sake, all potable water on the
planet comes from a single facility, then that constrains the invaded more
than the invaders who probably made that a prime target and secured it as soon
as possible.
[by the way, defenders menaced
> usually disperse their stores and have a whole planet...
Most of which is howling wilderness devoid of local communities and
transportation networks capable of sustaining an insurgency...
how come AK
> was able to store enough weapons and ammo in Warsaw under the
Very little of that predated the invasion. Most of it was stolen or captured
from German forces or smuggled in.
> 4) do not ignore everything that do not concord with your hypothesis
Nah, you claimed that United States forces were defeated tactically.
> you referring to historical precedents I invoked] - [and I am still
Any force which makes the series of gross errors displayed by the British
forces (tactical, technical, logistical) at Ishandlwana would
have been utterly destroyed by any force what so ever--though how you
justify saying the British were a small, elite force compared to the Zulus,
who were technologically primitive, but highly trained professionals.
> 5) do not ask for precise references with pedantic regularity, it
If you make factually incorrect statements, I find it difficult to
refute them by saying "uh-uh, you're wrong". Then we both end up
sounding like small children going "is, is not, is, is not". If I ask for
references to back up your sweeping assertations and you cannot provide them,
or the ones you do provide fail to back up your point, then you are clearly
shown to be an ignorant jackass.
> 6) last but not least, do not use personal evaluation with complete
My coat doesn't say "US State Department". You make factually incorrect
statements, and get offended when those statements are challenged as factually
incorrect. To me, that's most revealing about
your intellectual honesty. I'm an asshole--but I'm an honest asshole.
> But would like to hear the story of the exchange with Kratman... he's
He's beneath contempt in many ways, not least of which is a level of personal
insecurity that has to be experienced to be believed. He once threatened to
sue me. He's also threatened to call my company commander and tell him I hurt
his feelings on the Internet.
I'll always wonder about someone who carefully cultivates a reputation as a
badass, and then suddenly discovers a medical problem when he gets called up
to put his money where his mouth has been, especially if that individual just
signed a lucrative book deal.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Enzo de Ianni <enzodeianni@tiscali.it> wrote:
> [quoted text omitted]
> John,
This message is the best argument I've seen for taking the GZG mailing list to
a moderated web forum, and I'm one of those who've opposed such a move. On
RPG.net, there'd be calls to "take it to Tangency", and probably a banning or
two for personal attacks.
If you want to discuss posts in an adult and civilized manner, good. The
moment you want to make it personal, take it off line to private
e-mail.