Re: [GZG] Dear John

_______________________________________________
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 
> >Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 19:08:38 -0500 
> >From: "John Atkinson" 
> > 
> > 
> >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