[GZG] Dear John

>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 19:08:38 -0500
>From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
>
>
>It's an active resistance.

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?
>
>He was assassinated by Polish resistance fighters in 1941.

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
>resistance until 1944" and get a case of the ass when I tell you
>flatout you are wrong.

My next statement will be more circumstantiated and precise, I assure
you

>You are a piece of work indeed.
>
>John

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... :)

							 Enzo de Ianni	

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l