Posted on 06/28/2004 10:42:43 AM PDT by take
I believe the reserve command is a bit larger than that. What if we add all support personell, those who work for 2000 front companies owned by the military and all available conscriptees. Would I be close then?
Fine, but if I get demoted down to 23rd level Freemason, I'm never going to forgive you.
I do go pan some now and then just for a little distraction.
Believe as you wish; reality is very different.
What if we add all support personell, those who work for 2000 front companies owned by the military and all available conscriptees. Would I be close then?
Nope, not even.
Also note that the ChiComs want to cut the active force in half because they can't afford to have both a modern army and a big army. They can either have a peasant conscript army, or a small professional force. The small professional forces are the ones that win wars.
One does wonder how the nefarious Chinese plan to invade us. Gasp! They're gonna deforest Central America and build invasion rafts! The b@stards!
Nope, they'll retain Louis Farrakhan as an advisor for "The 300-Million-Man Swim."
No kidding?
So there are only 2.5 million people in the United States?
Ground Force (Army) (1.9 million men; 14,000 tanks; 14,500 artillery pieces & 453 helicopters)
Introduction and General Information
Ground Force Aviation
Navy (250,000 sailors; 63 submarines; 18 destroyers; 35 frigates)
Commander: General ZHANG Dingfa
Political Commissar: General HU Yanlin
Introduction and General Information
Marine Corps
Naval Aviation
I guess I believe the clock needs to be viewed as working and correct at least one since it was last observed as wrong in order to prove that it is still not broken since then.
U.S. Rewords a Resolution on Immunity for Its Troops
By WARREN HOGE
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/international/23NATI.html?ex=1088568000&en=05d0331a2974eff4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Published: June 23, 2004
NITED NATIONS, June 22 The United States circulated a reworded resolution among Security Council members on Tuesday evening to try to overcome broad opposition to its effort to keep its troops immune from any prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
The measure, introduced last month and then withdrawn, would extend such protection to American soldiers participating in United Nations-approved peacekeeping forces. The current expiration for such immunity is June 30.
Advertisement
That same day, next Wednesday, Iraq regains sovereignty and the mostly American force there becomes a United Nations-mandated one. The United States is pressing hard for a vote beforehand.
This is the third year in which the United States has sought the exemption, and though there were three abstentions last year and several more expected this year, American diplomats in May said they felt confident they could obtain support for a "technical rollover" of the measure.
The Bush administration says the protection stops people from using the court to bring politically motivated war crimes prosecutions against Americans abroad.
Last week, Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the Security Council to turn back the American move, saying it was "of dubious judicial value" and particularly objectionable in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse cases in Iraq.
Mr. Annan said that passing the measure would discredit the council, the United Nations and the "primacy of the rule of law," and he appealed to the 15 members to maintain the common purpose they had shown earlier this month in voting unanimously on a resolution affirming the arrangements for transferring power in Iraq.
That appeal caused several nations to rethink their backing of the original resolution and of their reluctance to be seen as defying the United States.
The version that American diplomats circulated on Tuesday dropped language in the original proposal that expressed the intention to renew the one-year exemption each July 1 for further 12-month periods "for as long as may be necessary."
Mr. Annan had protested that the clause would perpetuate United Nations approval of what was meant to be a temporary emergency departure from international law.
The new language pledges that this request for a one-year exemption is the last.
James B. Cunningham, the American deputy ambassador, said the ambassadors would consult with their governments overnight and that the United States would wait to hear how the compromise was received before deciding whether to put it to a vote.
Richard Dicker, director for international justice at Human Rights Watch and an opponent of immunity for American troops, expressed doubt that the compromise would change enough minds. "I wonder how one reconciles support for even one year's exemption with the very strong words of the secretary general," Mr. Dicker said.
But Abdallah Baali, the Algerian ambassador, said he thought otherwise. "A number of countries have been looking for a gesture from the Americans," Mr. Baali said, "and this could be that gesture."
-------------------------------------------------
And
There was an article on this posted at today's nationalPost. It ends with the following:
IOW, the administration apparently feels the blanket immunity from the UN is irrelevant, given these bilateral treaties. HOWEVER, I would feel more comfortable if our ambassador to the UN would forcefully reiterate that : 1. it is a gross insult to national sovereignty to claim that a nation is bound by a treaty it specifically rejected-that goes against the UN's own bylaws re: sovereignty; 2. that our laws state that the US Constitution is the supreme law over US citizens ; and 3. Any attempts to bring US citizens before this tribunal, by ANY country or countries, will be considered a hostile act which the US will retaliate against with all means at its disposal, NOT excluding war.
We must make it clear to the scum of the earth that we are willing to see large numbers of their soldiers die , if that's what it takes to have our national sovereignty respected.
--------------------------------------
And
U.S. Ends Bid for Protection From War Crimes Tribunal (Update1)
Can you weigh in here?
I hear they all plan to jump in at once. The term "assault wave" takes on an entirely new meaning.....
Nah -- It's just that Pat Buchanan's like a bowl of Life Cereal. First bowl tastes great, and it's tastes progressively worse from there.
That's for sure, they are much more of a threat to our liberty.
Good post, H.
Pat is right on the money with most of his editorials. Thats why the neo-conservatives, and other assorted open border, new world order types hate him.
Many believe that whichever establishment faction (Dem/GOP) is installed next will likely make massive concessions to the UN, and we may even see the formal beginnings of a UN Army.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/6/112634
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_118230.html
"What I'm trying to do is to promote a process of reorganization of the world ..." President Clinton, interview with Argentine reporters, October 17, 1997.
I feel better at this time with the GOP in there...
I'm tired of these people who completely ignore the FACTS and continually post disinformation on this site.
I note with some satisfaction that 25 years ago, the Chinese managed to sustain and supply an invasion of Vietnam - for about three weeks. The US is not next door, as the Vietnamese were, and the US military is somewhat more capable than the Vietnamese, so I'm not losing too much sleep about the Yellow Peril driving T-72s down Broadway just yet... ;)
There are more people in the Chinese army than in the entire US.
Ahahahahahahahahaha Thats rich did ya ever use a calculator when you were a kid ! no better time to start !
Besides i estimate 85% of the U.S. is armed i dont think they would get very far even if they got here!
Let me guess, it's the "Pats against the Jews" conspiracy again eh?
Funny how some of you go out of your way to pretend to mock Buchanan with the endless "he hates the jews" thing, calling him a leftist among other things. In reality, most jews are the liberal leftist. Hehehe...
Fact is, the biggest, most threatening thing facing this nation is the endless attack on our sovereignty and our borders by literally millions entering illegally. Pat is one of the very *few* that speaks out against this and the UN. IMO, anyone that's against Pat is a, well lets just say they have other interest in mind, and I am sure it's clear to most that decline to join in your propaganda parade against Buchanan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.