Send comments to:   We have space for most, but not all comments.   Let us know if you want us to include your organization and e-mail address.  Some letters may end up as content elsewhere in G2mil.  Avoid political comments, this is a weapons, warfare, and tactics website.

The Refugee Threat

     I must say that I enjoy reading your articles and editorials. Just recently found your site, I think from SFTT a couple months ago? I often pass them on and discuss some of them with buddies who are vets, or other interested parties, who like to think for themselves. I'm sure you get more than a few "letters to the editor" The current editorial is truly some "scary shit" but I must ad it's not really anything different than what my brothers and I argued about thirty years ago. Anyway I'd really be interested in seeing what a rebuttal to that one would be? You know what the hell can someone logically and in all honesty say to dispute your argument and justify the current pattern and thinking.  Thanks for your great work and provoking our thoughts.
                                                                                                  Chris Slean

Ed: I was surprised that only three readers protested my objection to using US taxpayer funds to import foreigners who are likely to end up on local welfare rolls.  One critic was from Canada and the other from Germany.  I informed them about the difference between allowing some immigration, and mass migration, especially from undeveloped countries.  No other nation is corrupt enough to run a "Visa Lottery".  Now the Bush Administration is considering dumping a few thousand hapless North Korean refugees in American cities.

What is Terrorism?

You wrote: "A year ago, an Egyptian who was in the USA after his wife won the visa lottery opened fire at the ticket counter of Israel's national airline at the Los Angeles airport, killing one and wounding several bystanders.  The federal government denied this was terrorism because it didn't want to answer embarrassing questions about the visa lottery. "  A month or two ago I read that the FBI (or someone) had *quietly* reclassified this incident as terrorism. I say "quietly" because I found this in a one- or two-paragraph story deep in my newspaper

I was pretty ticked when the authorities were saying "this is not terrorism" the same afternoon it happened. It had just happened? How the hell would they know what it was? The same thing happened with the Washington-area sniper case. Spokesmen told us this was not terrorism. Of course it was terrorism! The only question was whether it was an organization or an independent was committing the act.

Marilyn Vos Savant, who is supposed to have the highest IQ of any human being, has expressed serious concerns about overpopulation. She said by 2050 food for humans might resemble animal feed. She also has written that one of the biggest problems in this country is the hyphenated American syndrome (e.g., African-American, Asian-American, etc.). She says when people insist on hyphenating their identity, she wonders where their loyalties lie.

                                                                          Phillip Park

Ed: After a decade of bloodshed, the 'powers that be" recently decided the USA must "intervene" in Liberia; whatever that means.  The corporate media covered that story closely, but I didn't see or read one report that identified the primary problem; high birth rates.  According to the UN, since 1995 the fastest growing populations are that of the Gaza Strip, Liberia, Oman, and Yemen. However, there will also be extremely high rates of population growth in Rwanda, Somalia, Niger, Ethiopia, and Angola.  Not surprising, all those nations (except Oman) are near chaos. Here is a population growth graphicOf course American grain corporations are eager for federal dollars to save Liberians, but just feeding them will make the problem worse.

Many news reports carried false information, such as: Liberia was an American colony, Liberia was founded by the United States, and Liberia was founded by freed slaves.  In reality, it was founded by wealthy Easterners who paid ex-slaves to return home thinking it was best for white Americans.  However, most ex-slaves had no interest in moving to chaotic Africa.  All "African-Americans" today should be thankful that slavery existed, otherwise they would not exist today.  I know this logic is a shock to most people, but we must all accept reality that if history didn't evolve as it did, none of us would have been born.  If my mother's fiancée wasn't killed during the Korean War, I wouldn't exist and you wouldn't be reading this right now.  So I must not become upset about that pointless conflict.

AIDS Funding Cuts Birth Rates Too

I have been reading your magazine with considerable interest over the past several months. On almost every issue you have addressed, from Iraq to the Space Shuttle, I have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Even in this month's editorial, there are a number of points you make that I agree with, like that education, particularly about family planning, is the most effective way we can help third world countries. If you take a look at examples like Bangladesh, you'll see that educating and economically empowering women especially is the most efficient possible use of foreign aid money to control population growth.

Unfortunately, with your pronouncements on disease you have clearly ventured into an area you know nearly nothing about. There are several serious fallacies in the following passage:  "An example is found in the Bush administration's pledge of $15 billion to fight AIDS in poor countries; money which the USA must borrow.  Since AIDS cannot be cured, what's the point of prolonging the agony of millions of surplus people? More Third Worlders die from common diseases like dysentery, which can be treated with antibiotics, yet they have no money to buy them.  The USA could ship tons of antibiotics to poor nations to save lives, but then who will feed and house these millions of surplus people breeding like rabbits?"

For starters, the statement that "AIDS cannot be cured" is not really correct. It HAS not been cured, but that does not mean that it CAN not be cured. In fact, I can say with some confidence (being in the field) that it is only a matter of time until it WILL be cured. Also the statement that  "more third worlders die from common diseases like dysentery" may still be technically correct today (I'm not sure either way), but if you take a look at the rates of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa today, ranging up to an appalling 40% of adults in Botswana, you can see that it will not be correct  for long. In fact, we may be facing the most dramatic die-off of the human race since the Bubonic Plague, or even in its entire history. But these things really beside the point.

More importantly, the middle of that passage, i.e. "What's the point...?" portrays either an appalling lack of compassion for your fellow humans or a complete ignorance of the reality of HIV treatment today, of what that money will go for, and of what the consequences of our inaction on this might be. Assuming the latter and regardless of the former, I'll take a few minutes to educate you.

First, a bit about the realities of HIV treatment. The current regimen of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) that is available in the West, while unable to eradicate HIV infection, seems to be capable of reducing the virus to undetectable levels in the blood for an indefinite period of time.  That is to say, as long as the infected person keeps taking the drugs, they will not develop AIDS as a result of HIV infection. More importantly, as long as the person keeps taking the drugs, they will not be able to transmit the infection to anyone else. So in treating these individuals, we are not just "prolonging their agony", but actually keeping others from being infected. These drugs are currently very expensive, not because of any intrinsic cost of manufacturing them, but because of overwhelming greed on the part of the pharmaceutical companies that developed them. Threats of WTO  sanctions (for patent infringement) against third-word drug companies that wanted to produce them at affordable prices for their own people are among the most shameful displays of callous Western indifference to human suffering in recent history. Basically, these companies want people to keep dying of the disease just so that they can make money. Because, you see, if you put every single HIV-infected person in the world on HAART permanently, the disease would quite possibly be wiped out, because it would stop being transmitted. At least, it would dramatically reduce the incidence of the disease, as it has in the USA, until a vaccine can be developed (which WILL happen, eventually).

Second, a bit about what the money will go for. A very significant portion of those $15 billion (provided certain idiot puritan senators don't get their "abstinence only" hooks into it) will go towards prevention. How do you prevent HIV? Sex education and Condoms! And what else to sex education and condoms prevent? Why, pregnancy, Mr. Meyer! They prevent pregnancy. So as a matter of fact, a lot of that $15 billion will incidentally go towards the very same goal you are promoting later on in your editorial, that is curbing birth rates in the third world. So there!

I hope that I have made you see the light on the issue of aid to developing countries for HIV. I also hope that you will remove your megaphone from where it is now, and that after thorough cleaning, you will return it to the correct orifice for next month's editorial. I'll be reading.

                                                                                         Herbert Kasler, Ph.D

Ed: I knew that would hit someone's nerve.  The UN expects African population to soar despite AIDS because they keep pumping out babies for years after infection.  The overall infection rate in Sub-Saharan African is 9%.  Disease is horrible, but so is starving to death.  These are very difficult issues and my point is we need to shift resources to treating the disease (high birth rates) to avoid these nasty symptoms (famine, disease, violence).  And for all those who have been duped by the AIDS scare, it's nearly impossible to get AIDS from vaginal or oral sex; anal sex makes small tears in the rectum allowing infected sperm to enter.  Of course the corporate media doesn't like to broadcast this nasty fact, while Puritans like any myth which promotes abstinence, and male homosexuals know that big research dollars require that all heterosexuals feel threatened by AIDS.  Someone told me that "dry sex" is more common in Africa which may transmit the disease through tears in the vagina.  Perhaps that UN program should teach African men the art of foreplay. 

Seal the US Border

"America has a system of legal immigration where quotas are set and foreigners screened with the idea of selecting those who can best contribute to America and who have American residents willing to sponsor them. "

The overriding criteria of the legal immigration program is 'family reunification', which is where the last part comes in.  They aren't screened for usefulness themselves. 

This means the Bantus who came under the diversity lottery last year will bring in more Bantus in years to come.  Very often  elderly Bantus to dip into SSI and Medicaid even though they paid nothing and their sponsoring progeny are also social net losses.  The VDare people have done extensive work on all the facets of the 'immigration program.

Your comments on H1B are correct.  But I think you left out the most important source of illegal immigration and the greatest systemic threat.  This is the open Southern border, Mexicans and Central/South America.  Few can get here from Africa or South Asia except by exploiting our own stupidity or weakness.  Tens of thousands literally walk in from down south. 

The conditions on the southern border and with illegal Latin American (meaning Indian) immigration are so great as to be beyond normal measures of law enforcement.  It's an ongoing and growing military crisis and the only one that threatens US territorial integrity.  This border needs to be physically sealed and now.  The strategy is obvious. 

Immediately deploy all engineer battalions to begin building a 1-2 mile wide barrier strip ASAP in the empty desert parts.  2.  Redeploy all US Border Patrol law enforcement to the urban strip areas.  Only use military units to secure 100% no-go zones outside the urban border cities.    Not desirable to use troops in areas where they'd have to interact with US civilians.  About 100,000 troops are adequate long term to do this.  After 10 years this can probably be scaled back to 50,000.   Phase III is then to start moving the rest back over the border from all over the nearly Late Great USA.


Ed: The Border Patrol estimates that some 700,000 unknown people walked across semi-guarded areas of the US border this past year.  Nothing is done because the corporate world loves cheap labor.  Their media arms have convinced many Americans that securing our borders is somehow immoral or even unconstitutional.  However, from 1846-1940, the US Army's primary peacetime duty was guarding the Mexican border.  The US Border Patrol wasn't even formed until 1924 and only has 9000 agents today, compared to 1,400,000 active duty military personnel and over one million civilians in the "Defense" department.  There are also 204,000 reservists mobilized for this "war on terror", yet almost none of all these 2.6 million plus "defenders" are guarding US borders from unknown invaders.

Who is a Child Soldier?

 How can you use the term "child" or "children" to describe a 17 year old?  17 year old criminals are tried as adults.  The real issue here is not their age.  Let's be real, your talking about a 17 year old...not a 12 year old. That is what the point of banning "child" soldiers is about.  12 and 13 year olds running around in 3rd world civil wars with AK-47s.  Not a 17 year old who got permission from his parent...signed the dotted line.  The law states that that 17 year is of his/her right mind.  The law that governs enlistment.

The real issue is the double standards through out the legal > system.  You brought up the nice bit: American society thinks a 17-year old is not mature enough to buy guns, ammo, cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, or vote, yet he can join the Army and learn to kill people, and be killed.". But of all of that the reality is that it is a roll of the dice whether or not an adult between the ages of 18 and 20 can do any of that other than vote.  21 is the legal age to drink in all 50 states.  Most states show that in a "sexual" adult state that girls are adults at 18 and boys at 21...and some states (in the south no less) consider a girl sexual adult around 16 or 17.  And pornography is just as squirrelly.  Some states and communities 18 doesn't get you in the strip have to be 21...even if you don't by alcohol.

The point I am making is that age is a vague idea.  You cannot call 17 year olds children, and in most cases 21 is what America considers grown.  Personally I don't think you are grown till you are 25, but that is another arquement entirely.  I think the military cut off should be 21.  That way you can kill...drink...get laid...look at porno if you chose...and have no excuses for making a decision you regret later.  


Ed:  I agree, it's a comical situation.  But since the rest of the world has agreed that 18 years old should be the limit, I think the USA should bend a bit.  Especially since US policy is that 17-years old can't be in combat anyway.  And as you suggest, an even higher age may be better since teen soldiers are most likely to do "immature" things.

Semi-Recoiless Rifles

They are always looking for ways to lighten and reduce the kick on those anti material rifles.  The Croat RT-20   which already uses venting.