A little perspective, and I think we should applauded the military for keeping the KIA numbers so low, here are the casualties figures from all the wars we have been involved in,

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
American Revolution (1775–1783)
Total servicemembers 217,000
Battle deaths 4,435
Nonmortal woundings 6,188

War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Total servicemembers 286,730
Battle deaths 2,260
Nonmortal woundings 4,505

Indian Wars (approx. 1817–1898)
Total servicemembers 106,000
Battle deaths 1,000

Mexican War (1846–1848)
Total servicemembers 78,718
Battle deaths 1,733
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 11,550
Nonmortal woundings 4,152

Civil War (1861–1865)
Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union) 140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881

Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown

Spanish-American War (1898–1902)
Total servicemembers 306,760
Battle deaths 385
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061
Nonmortal woundings 1,662

World War I (1917–1918)3
Total servicemembers 4,734,991
Battle deaths 53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114
Nonmortal woundings 204,002
Living veterans fewer than 500

World War II (1940–1945)3
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846
Living veterans 4,762,0001

Korean War (1950–1953)
Total servicemembers 5,720,000
Serving in-theater 1,789,000
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,730
Nonmortal woundings 103,284
Living veterans 3,734,000

Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Total servicemembers 8,744,000
Serving in-theater 3,403,000
Battle deaths 47,410
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000
Nonmortal woundings 153,303
Living veterans 8,295,000

Gulf War (1990–1991)
Total servicemembers 2,225,000
Serving in-theater 665,476
Battle deaths 147
Other deaths in service (theater) 382
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565
Nonmortal woundings 467

Living veterans 1,852,000

America's Wars Total
Military service during war 42,348,460
Battle deaths 651,008
Other deaths in service (theater) 13,998
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,256
Nonmortal woundings 1,431,290
Living war veterans 17,578,5004
Living veterans 25,038,459

What Do The Terrorism Numbers Really Mean?
In short, total US deaths and injuries due to terrorism in 2002-2003 were fewer than those caused by lightening strikes in the United States (according to ...
http://www.rense.com/general54/eeter.htm

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf

This International Terrorism report from the United States Central
Deaths and Injuries Due to International Terrorist Attacks,' ... 1975 -1976. 1977. 1978. Total*. US diplomatic officials or ...
http://www.mipt.org/pdf/1978PoGT.pdf

Buffalo Roam's right.

You know, for opening the doors of hell in the Middle East, we sure do an efficient job of it, even if you count the 22,565 wounded (according to the Pentagon).

Way to go guys!



The Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism also works in conjunction with RAND, for some of its research and analysis. [wiki]

The RAND Corporation has been associated with militarism and the military-industrial complex by some. Many of the events in which RAND plays a part are based on assumptions which are hard to verify because of the lack of detail on RAND's highly classified work for defense and intelligence agencies. Some RAND participants who have gone on to large roles in the military-industrial complex are often believed to have had a role in shaping RAND research. [wiki]

Still we have the lowest casualties for time frame of any war of this size, and you know something this is just like Vietnam, were are slowly winning and the Democrats are going to cut and run, the difference is that time the terrorist will be running right behind them, all the way back home.

Winning what exactly?

And we accomplished the least.

spidergoat, are you going to volunteer to be a Medic?

Fuck that, I'm no stinking pacifist. If I thought a cause was worth fighting for, I would pick up a gun.


The numbers for our civil war are quite high. They compare to the number of estimated Iraqis killed, that's nothing to take lightly.

this second Crusade was inevitable. Beyond all chaos religion lies, it seems.

Buffalo Roam's right.

You know, for opening the doors of hell in the Middle East, we sure do an efficient job of it, even if you count the 22,565 wounded (according to the Pentagon).

They have started & opened the DOORS, attacking us, 1979, the hostages in Iran, then in Lebanon the baricades, then on 911.

"They" ? Who is that?

spidergoat

Fuck that, I'm no stinking pacifist. If I thought a cause was worth fighting for, I would pick up a gun.

spidergoat, what does being a pacifists have to do with this, I'm talking about supporting the troop's, as a medic your job is make sure that the wounded are taken care of, U.S., and the enemies wounded to, you say that the war is wrong, well here's a way to make it a little more right, and you could protect the wounded from being murdered out of hand.

hypewaders, quit playing stupid.

hypewaders, quit playing stupid.

Why do you think his screen name begins with "Hype"?

Baron Max

"hypewaders, quit playing stupid"

NeoCon tells us that an unspecified "they" are responsible for the Iranian revolution, the attack on the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, and 9-11 combined. I would like to know who has in mind. If I knew who he is referring to, then I would be "playing stupid". I honestly do not.

"Why do you think his screen name begins with "Hype"?"

When I chose a username, I was associating my old pair of fisherman's hipwaders with the experience of participating in discussions that often become flooded with distractions and hype. Of course, there's really no effective barrier in public discussions against less honest and thoughtful posting. Too often I'm steeped in efforts to muddy the conversations here. Please allow NeoCon to answer a simple question for himself.

spidergoat



spidergoat, what does being a pacifists have to do with this, I'm talking about supporting the troop's, as a medic your job is make sure that the wounded are taken care of, U.S., and the enemies wounded to, you say that the war is wrong, well here's a way to make it a little more right, and you could protect the wounded from being murdered out of hand.

If I thought the cause was good, I would BE a troop. I'm not going to contribute to a deeply flawed campaign in any capacity. I don't think any of our people should be over there in Iraq, not the troops, not the medics, not the private mercinaries or private truck drivers, or the contractors that run the Pizza Hut.

My question is why Bush doesn't support the troops. Why didn't they get proper armor? Why are veteran's benefits being cut? Why doesn't Bush attend the funerals of soldiers?

A young marine speaks out. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/martin-p1.html)

Yes you can find many excuses, not to do any thing but criticize, all mouth.

Because the root cause of the trouble isn't a lack of volunteers, but the flawed strategy of our leaders.

There are plenty of people to help everywhere. I can do more for my community and the country if I stay where I am.

Because the root cause of the trouble isn't a lack of volunteers, but the flawed strategy of our leaders.

There were lots and lots of people who said precisely the same thing about the US during World War II. Ain't it interesting?

Baron Max

In what context? I don't get how that's interesting.

spidergoat, yes safe at home.

If we were to conduct a survey of Sciforums members, what percentage do you think are safe at home? I think pretty near 100%.

Why are we at home asked to make no sacrifices for this war? The rich get tax cuts even, unprecedented in wartime. Bush is playing politics with this war, and his friends are getting rich from it. The soldiers families are having to raise the cash to buy armor and mail it over there! All so you and I can relax and be the sheep he wants us to be.

spidergoat, I ask you to make a sacrifice, and the government lets you make the decision to sacrifice, and you find a reason not to sacrifice, so who is the excuse maker? I made my sacrifice for my belief's in my time, I stepped up have you?

All so you and I can relax and be the sheep he wants us to be.

Yeah, that's all he's asking .....and you can't even do THAT!!

Baron Max

I am sacrificing, even if Bush doesn't know it. We are all sacrificing the reputation of our great nation, and our own security. We have had to sacrifice alot to help those in New Orleans. I can only guess because it wasn't profitable for Bush to get involved. I sacrifice when Bush's economic policies lead to a loss of decent jobs in America, and my friends become homeless and unemployed.

It still don't wash. The unemployment rate is 4.6%, and there are jobs in every city that are going unfilled, and with all the money that was spent in New Orleans, how can you even say that Bush doesn't care, but then I forget that image of the President doesn't fit you prejudice. Man you are a bigot and don't recognize it.

Bush to Request More Aid Funding
President Bush will call tonight for an unprecedented federal commitment to rebuild New Orleans and other areas obliterated by Hurricane Katrina, ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091402654.html

The president will call on Washington to resist spending money unwisely, but some in his own party are already starting to recoil at a price tag expected to exceed $200 billion -- about the cost of the Iraq war and reconstruction efforts. As emergency expenditures soar -- with new commitments as high as $2 billion a day -- some budget analysts and conservative groups are warning that the Katrina spending has combined with earlier fiscal decisions in ways that will wreak havoc on the government's finances for years to come.

Does this look like the President is scrimping on the recovery effort in New Orlien's?

I am sacrificing, even if Bush doesn't know it. We are all sacrificing the reputation of our great nation, and our own security.

Not to worry, Spider, we lost all of that bullshit when we pulled out of Vietnam and left the South Vietnamese to be killed, tortured and "re-educated" in camps.

Since the dishonor of surrendering in Vietnam, we've lost any and all ideas about being a great nation that stands up for itself or it's friends. A few rag-wearin' murders can send the entire nation to cringing in fear and begging to be saved. (And I won't even mention how we argue and fight to give the terrorists their rights while the try to kill us here in our own nation!)

Baron Max

"Since the dishonor of surrendering in Vietnam, we've lost any and all ideas about being a great nation that stands up for itself or it's friends."

Speak for yourself. We did not belong in Vietnam. Vietnam was never a threat to the USA- therefore it was an unjustifiable war of our own aggression, therefore resistance was inexhaustible without complete annihilation of a people steeped for generations in throwing off invasion. There was no victory attainable. We did not surrender to anyone in Vietnam. We belatedly realized our collossal mistake, and we went home. The dishonor was in our entrance, not in our exit. It will be the same in Iraq.

Just like in Vietnam, Bush is delaying the inevitable for political reasons.

U.S. and DRV negotiators met in Paris on 10 May 1968 for the opening session of the peace talks. The DRV delegation was headed by Xuan Thuy, while his American counterpart was U.S. ambassador-at-large Averell Harriman. For five months, however, the negotiations stalled as neither Hanoi nor Washington was willing to give ground that would allow full negotiations to begin; Hanoi insisted on a total cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam, while Washington demanded a reciprocal de-escalation of North Vietnamese military activities in South Vietnam. Matters were further complicated by the fact that delegations from the NLF and South Vietnamese government would also be participating.

...Neither gave way until late in October when Johnson issued preliminary orders to halt the bombing of North Vietnam (which ended on 11 November). Johnson's vice-president, and the Democratic Party's nominee in the U.S. presidential election, Hubert H. Humphrey, had managed to close a large lead held by the Republican candidate, Richard M. Nixon, partly by breaking with Johnson in September and calling for an end to the bombing of North Vietnam. Humphrey was further boosted by the apparent breakthrough in Paris. Nixon feared that this lead would be sufficient to give electoral victory to Humphrey. Using an intermediary, Nixon encouraged South Vietnamese President Thieu to stay away from the talks by promising that Saigon would get a better deal under a Nixon presidency. Thieu obliged, and Nixon went on to win the election by a narrow margin.

So, the war might have ended at the Paris Peace Talks in 1968 if not for Nixon and Kissenger's involvement.

On 15 January 1973, citing progress in peace negotiations, Nixon announced the suspension of all offensive actions against North Vietnam, to be followed by a unilateral withdrawal of all U.S. troops. The Paris Peace Accords on 'Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam' were signed on 27 January, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

Instead Kissenger got the Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the war on the same terms offerred 5 years earlier and some tens of thousands of Americans dead later.

spidergoat, no just like Vietnam the Democrats are cutting and running, I was in Nam in 1971, and we had won the battle field, the NVA could not stage a major operation in Vietnam, with out us kicking their ass, but the politicians had decided to with draw, and all of the guys who died ended up dieing for nothing, because the politicians didn't have the intelligence to realize that we had won and just needed to finish the fight, I know your going to tell me I'm in a cocked hat, but if you look at the fighting from January 1970 to December 1971, you will find that the NVA didn't conduct a successful major operation, and that there were no Major Units of the NVA operating in South Vietnam, and we walked away and the most shameful thing we did was when the democrats in congress cut the support fund to South Vietnam, and we allowed the North to walk through the country, which eventually lead to the killing fields in Cambodia, and the death of millions in Cambodia's nightmare brought on by the Communist.

Even though we won every battle, we could not win that war. Our tactics were unsuitable for combatting that kind of insurgency, we could not win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people, especially when we used such overwhelming firepower as you advocate.

Even though we won every battle, we could not win that war.

Spider, I can't believe that you know so little about the actual happenings during the Vietnam war. Spider, we weren't allowed, we weren't permitted, to win the war by the politicians and the idiotic Paris Peace Talks agreements.

Spider, we weren't allowed to bomb Hanoi! We weren't allowed to bomb Haiphong harbor, where the enemy brought in most all of it's war supplies from China and elsewhere. What kind of war is that?? ...that you allow your enemy to get guns and ammo and exposives, without lifting a finger to stop it? And all of it agreed to by the damned politicians!!

...we could not win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people, especially when we used such overwhelming firepower as you advocate.

How'd we win the hearts n' minds of the Japanese during World War II??

Baron Max

spidergoat, yes spidergoat there is a vast void between your horns, check the history, the massive fire power we use did win the battles, from Tet of 68 the NVA were a beaten force, they never won a battle, they were falling apart, and their operations were winding down, and then our politician stabbed the troops in the back and quit, and threw away the lives of 58,000 honorable men, and gave away the people of Vietnam and Cambodia to the tender care of the Communist, and millions died, because the politicians gave everything away.

Why did the US enter Vietnam?

Why did the US enter Vietnam?

to test what sort of ornamental shapes from russian mig's bullets make on the hull of the US aircraft.

Why did the US enter Vietnam?

To help the South Vietnamese resist the aggressive forces of communist North Vietnamese insurgents attempting a takeover of the entire nation.

Baron Max

To help the South Vietnamese resist the aggressive forces of communist North Vietnamese insurgents attempting a takeover of the entire nation.

Baron Max

So this is wrong?


The communist-held North Vietnam was opposed by the United States for its proximity to the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Disagreements soon emerged over the organizing of elections and reunification, and the U.S. began increasing its contribution of military advisors even as Soviet-supplied arms and munitions strengthened communist forces. The controversial attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin triggered a U.S. military assault on North Vietnamese military installations and the deployment of more than 500,000 troops into South Vietnam. U.S. forces were soon embroiled in a vicious guerrilla war with the Viet Cong, the South Vietnamese communist militia.

So the US was helping the South Vietnamese by fighting them?:confused:

samcdkey, now how about you thoughts, the post don't make sense.

So this is wrong?

What's wrong? To help your international friends when they ask for help? How can that be wrong???

So the US was helping the South Vietnamese by fighting them?

So ye're beginning your usual slide-aside in posting responses, Sam?

As I said; "To help the South Vietnamese resist the aggressive forces of communist North Vietnamese insurgents attempting a takeover of the entire nation."

Now tell me what you think about the revolution in India, Sam? I mean, do you support that revolution or not?

Baron Max

spidergoat, yes spidergoat there is a vast void between your horns, check the history, the massive fire power we use did win the battles, from Tet of 68 the NVA were a beaten force, they never won a battle, they were falling apart, and their operations were winding down, and then our politician stabbed the troops in the back and quit, and threw away the lives of 58,000 honorable men, and gave away the people of Vietnam and Cambodia to the tender care of the Communist, and millions died, because the politicians gave everything away.

I know we won the battles, but in an insurgency situation that doesn't matter so much. They would have maintained a resistance as long as we stayed, at some point someone with sense has to draw the line. They don't have to win, just not lose. Perhaps if we had an unlimited commitment to Vietnam, we could have eventually turned it into a stable democracy, but the cost to the American people would be too high. That is one thing you don't understand, unlimited commitment to war is not ultimately a winning position. Warfare has very high costs. Traditionally, only countries with a surplus could afford to fight a war, and even then not for long. War is unsustainable and unproductive. Only the manufacturers of military hardware benefit in the long run. Our commitment ran out, not our courage. To discount this factor in war or belittle it as cowardice is like discounting the military's need for fuel or supply lines. We are a superpower, but our power is not unlimited. The politicians that cut funding for Vietnam were responding to their constituents, they are representatives of the people, and the people said fuck this shit, it's not worth it.

Your philosophy of unlimited war is counterproductive in an insurgency. Too brutal an exercise of power undermines our support in the populous.

What kind of war is that??
Modern.

Your philosophy of unlimited war is counterproductive in an insurgency. Too brutal an exercise of power undermines our support in the populous.

Like it did after World War II in Japan and in Germany?

Baron Max

There was never popular support for an insurgency in post-war Japan or Germany. The mindset of the people is of primary importance in this kind of war, not firepower.

There was never popular support for an insurgency in post-war Japan or Germany. The mindset of the people is of primary importance in this kind of war, not firepower.

At the elections, over 70% of Iraqis voted and seemed more than proud and happy to do so. So they seemed happy, huh? The mindset was just fine, rigth?

Then only, ONLY, about 2500-3500 radical, violent Iraqis take up arms and begin to blow up other Iraqis and cause widespread death and destruction. So from that, you conclude the "the Iraqi" mindset is against the US and is in support of those few militant, violent, radical Iraqis? I.e., we have to win the heart and mind of every single Iraqi on the fuckin' planet for you and others to be happy?

Baron Max

I'm in support of insurgency of post-war Japan. The insurgency in post-war Japan, is amazing....I am really supporting them...the guys are popular.

They voted for an Islamic republic. Now the Sunnis are fighting for control of it, since they are the minority, and the Shias are fighting back. Both are fighting our continued occupation. We aren't getting anywhere, just keeping a tenuous lid on all out civil war.

They voted for an Islamic republic. Now the Sunnis are fighting for control of it, since they are the minority, and the Shias are fighting back. Both are fighting our continued occupation. We aren't getting anywhere, just keeping a tenuous lid on all out civil war.

There's only about 2500-3500 violent, radical Iraqis fighting and blowing things up ......so for you, this represents the entire nation of Iraq? And those few people are what you call "civil war"??

Baron Max

Proof?

What's wrong? To help your international friends when they ask for help? How can that be wrong???


So then why was the US fighting the Viet Cong? Were they not South Vietnamese? Was it not an internal problem in a sovereign state?


Now tell me what you think about the revolution in India, Sam? I mean, do you support that revolution or not?
Since the people of the State of Assam who have the vote themselves do not support it, my opinions are of no regard whatsoever.

Everyone in India has a right to their opinion. The separatists are not being punished for having a different opinion, only for killing people. If they wish, they can get themselves elected. In my opinion, if they face problems of poverty and unemployment in Assam, they could put their zeal to better use by forming a political party and supporting reforms that increase employment, rather than killing civilians.

So then why was the US fighting the Viet Cong? Were they not South Vietnamese? Was it not an internal problem in a sovereign state?

No, the Cong were North Vietnamese with a few sympathetic south vietnamese. But the South Vietnamese government asked the US for help in quelling that violence, so we helped our international friends.

Since the people of the State of Assam who have the vote themselves do not support it, my opinions are of no regard whatsoever.

The Palestinians voted, yet your opinion is loud and overbearing!! India is your country and you have no opinion; The Middle East is virtually nothing to you, yet you lend you adamant, and loud, voice of opinion. Huh??? Waht the hell??

You obviously don't know shit about Vietnam, yet you voice your opinion in condemnation of the US loud and clear. But you have no opinion for the revolution going on in your own country? Huh? What the hell??

Baron Max

No, the Cong were North Vietnamese with a few sympathetic south vietnamese. But the South Vietnamese government asked the US for help in quelling that violence, so we helped our international friends.



So American interests were not a consideration, just helping your friends?

By 1948 [three years after the Saigon Commune uprising] the State Department recognised quite clearly that the Viet Minh, the anti-French resistance led by Ho Chi Minh, was the national movement of Vietnam. But the Viet Minh did not cede control to the local oligarchy. It favoured independent development and ignored the interests of foreign investors.



The Palestinians voted, yet your opinion is loud and overbearing!! India is your country and you have no opinion; The Middle East is virtually nothing to you, yet you lend you adamant, and loud, voice of opinion. Huh??? Waht the hell??

Tell me again how the Palestinians voted for the Israeli insurgents.

I support the majority view of the people of Assam, which you do not seem to understand.

You obviously don't know shit about Vietnam, yet you voice your opinion in condemnation of the US loud and clear. But you have no opinion for the revolution going on in your own country? Huh? What the hell??

Tell me about it.
http://libcom.org/history/1948-1991-us-intervention-and-war-in-south-east-asia

Right into the late 1960s, the US blocked all attempts at political settlement of the conflict, even those advanced by the Saigon generals. If there were a political settlement, there might be progress toward successful development outside of our influence - an unacceptable outcome.

Instead, we installed a typical Latin American-style terror state in South Vietnam, subverted the only free elections in the history of Laos because the wrong side won, and blocked elections in Vietnam because it was obvious the wrong side was going to win there too.

The Kennedy administration escalated the attack against South Vietnam from massive state terror to outright aggression. Johnson sent a huge expeditionary force to attack South Vietnam and expanded the war to all of Indochina. That destroyed the virus, all right - Indochina will be lucky if it recovers in a hundred years.

While the United States was extirpating the disease of independent development at its source in Vietnam, it also prevented its spread by supporting the Suharto takeover in Indonesia in 1965, backing the overthrow of Philippine democracy by Ferdinand Marcos in 1972, supporting martial law in South Korea (despite people’s resistance) and Thailand and so on.

Suharto's 1965 coup in Indonesia was particularly welcome to the West, because it destroyed the only mass-based political party there [the Communist Party the PKI - the CIA handed Suharto membership lists, then crossed people out as they were murdered]. That involved the slaughter, in a few months, of about 700,000 people, mostly landless peasants - "a gleam of light in Asia," as the leading thinker of the New York Times, James Reston, exulted, assuring his readers that the US had a hand in this triumph.

The West was very pleased to do business with Indonesia's new "moderate" leader, as the Christian Science Monitor described General Suharto, after he had washed some of the blood off his hands - meanwhile adding hundreds of thousands of corpses in East Timor and elsewhere. This spectacular mass murderer is "at heart benign," the respected London Economist assures us - doubtless referring to his attitude towards Western corporations.

After the Vietnam war was ended in 1975 (following the mass rebellion of American GIs), the major policy goal of the US has been to maximise repression and suffering in the countries that were devastated by our violence. The degree of the cruelty is quite astonishing.

When the Mennonites tried to send pencils to Cambodia, the State Department tried to stop them. When Oxfam tried to send ten solar pumps, the reaction was the same. The same was true when religious groups tried to send shovels to Laos to dig up some of the unexploded shells left by American bombing.

When India tried to send 100 water buffalo to Vietnam to replace the huge herds that were destroyed by the American attacks - and remember, in this primitive country, water buffalo mean fertiliser, tractors, survival - the United States threatened to cancel Food for Peace aid. (That's one Orwell would have appreciated.) No degree of cruelty is too great for Washington sadists. The educated classes know enough to look the other way.

In order to bleed Vietnam, we've supported the Khmer Rouge indirectly through our allies, China and Thailand. The Cambodians have to pay with their blood so we can make sure there isn't any recovery in Vietnam. The Vietnamese have to be punished for having resisted US violence.

Contrary to what virtually everyone - left or right - says, the United States achieved its major objectives in Indochina. Vietnam was demolished. There's no danger that successful development there will provide a model for other nations in the region.

So American interests were not a consideration, just helping your friends?

Obviously we had an interest, Sam, that's what friendship is all about (which I guess you'd not know anything about that!).

Tell me again how the Palestinians voted for the Israeli insurgents.

Huh? What? What the fuck? Who said anything like that in any post that you see above?

See ...stirring the shit pot by side-stepping any points or questions! Damn, ye're good at that, Sam, that's for sure!

Baron Max

samcdkey,

After the Vietnam war was ended in 1975 (following the mass rebellion of American GIs),

Were the hell does this come from, I was in the Army in 1975 and I sure as the hell don't know about any rebellion by the G.I., you are posting someone's wet dream of history.


This to, for everything that was destroyed in Vietnam we had to pay the local population, the U.S. government paid for every chicken, pig and water buffalo killed in Vietnam, also for every Rubber Tree, and Rice field that was burned.

When India tried to send 100 water buffalo to Vietnam to replace the huge herds that were destroyed by the American attacks - and remember, in this primitive country, water buffalo mean fertiliser, tractors, survival - the United States threatened to cancel Food for Peace aid. (That's one Orwell would have appreciated.) No degree of cruelty is too great for Washington sadists. The educated classes know enough to look the other way.

And having been there I never seen mass hurds of Water Buffalos, and didn't see them being killed in mass by any of our troops.

Obviously we had an interest, Sam, that's what friendship is all about (which I guess you'd not know anything about that!).

Indeed?

Huh? What? What the fuck? Who said anything like that in any post that you see above?

See ...stirring the shit pot by side-stepping any points or questions! Damn, ye're good at that, Sam, that's for sure!

So there is no comparison between the Assamese and Palestinians then? Because one is made up of a group of extremists not supported by the local people? And the other a whole country of people under oppression by a separate sovereign state?

samcdkey,



Were the hell does this come from, I was in the Army in 1975 and I sure as the hell don't know about any rebellion by the G.I., you are posting someone's wet dream of history.


This to, for everything that was destroyed in Vietnam we had to pay the local population, the U.S. government paid for every chicken, pig and water buffalo killed in Vietnam, also for every Rubber Tree, and Rice field that was burned.



And having been there I never seen mass hurds of Water Buffalos, and didn't see them being killed in mass by any of our troops.

I would be surprised if you saw anything at all. You apparently keep your head where the sun don't shine.:rolleyes:

http://libcom.org/history/vietnam-gi-resistance


History of the widespread mutiny of US troops in Vietnam that brought the world's most powerful military machine to its knees.

The GI anti-war movement within the army was one of the decisive factors in ending the war.

Probably the most dramatic incident occurred aboard the Navy attack carrier USS Coral Sea in the fall of 1971. The Coral Sea was docked in California while it prepared for a tour of bombing duty off the coast of Vietnam. On board was a crew of 4,500 men, a few hundred of whom were pilots, the rest being support crew. A handful of men on the ship began circulating a petition which read in part, "We the people must guide the government and not allow the government to guide us! The Coral Sea is scheduled for Vietnam in November. This does not have to be a fact. The ship can be prevented from taking an active part in the conflict if we the majority voice our opinion that we do not believe in the Vietnam war. If you feel that the Coral Sea should not go to Vietnam, voice your opinion by signing this petition."

Though the petition had to be circulated secretly, and though men took a calculated risk putting their name down on something which the brass might eventually see, within a few weeks over 1,000 men had signed it. Out of this grew an on-ship organisation called "Stop Our Ship" (SOS). The men engaged in a series of demonstrations to halt their sailing date, and on November 6 over 300 men from the ship led the autumn anti-war march in San Francisco, Their effort to stop the ship failed, and a number of men jumped ship as the Coral Sea left for Vietnam. But the SOS movement spread to other attack carriers, including the USS Hancock and the USS Ranger.

this second Crusade was inevitable. Beyond all chaos religion lies, it seems.

I dont see it that way at all. Are the Americans converting Iraqi's? Can you find the answers to all problems with just one word?

Spider, we weren't allowed to bomb Hanoi! We weren't allowed to bomb Haiphong harbor, where the enemy brought in most all of it's war supplies from China and elsewhere. What kind of war is that?? ...that you allow your enemy to get guns and ammo and exposives, without lifting a finger to stop it? And all of it agreed to by the damned politicians!!

The same way politicians decided that Saddam wasn't allowed to fight a war against his political enemies?

How'd we win the hearts n' minds of the Japanese during World War II??

We didn't, we scared em shitless by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their civilians through two god-like sun bombs and lots of firebombing.

That's the whole reason why we won't win the war in Iraq because we're being too nicey nicey. It's the same reason why we lost in Vietnam. That's the problem with initiating a war trying to be the good guys as opposed to acting out in self-defense. You can't start a war to win the hearts and minds of people.. war and winning hearts and minds are contradictory.

Starting wars to bring democracy or any other BS reason is a pure political war, not a military one, which is why our guys over in Iraq are playing the duty of police officers, a role they're not intended to play so they're sitting ducks to getting picked off by civilian insurgents we can't attack because we gotta win the hearts and minds of their people. Perhaps if we bomb all of Iraq to kingdom kom, maybe then the Iraqi people will be left in desperation to follow our exact rules just like Japan, but then that goes against the whole reason of invading to free them because we'll wind up doing way more damage than the good we supposedly wanted to cause.

Freedom ain't free, it has to be wanted and taken. By us being there, we're trying to give them it free, but it'll fail cause the people didn't work for it. The Iraqi people need to uprise if they want anything to happen. Gotta fight for your right.

- N

I agree with much of what you say, Neildo, but by any historical measure of warfare, we did win the war on Iraq some time ago. Now as you say, it's a political war.

I think the cooperation of the Japanese (rather than the surrender), was due not to our actions but the character of the Japanese people. It was simply the best choice for them to get help rebuilding. There was nothing to gain from resisting the Americans, and history has proven that. In Iraq, the people are different, and not as innately submissive. Their cultural values different from the Germans or Japanese, and solutions that worked in those cases won't work here.

Both Germany and Japan were scarce in natural resources, particularly oil, so there was no fear that the occupiers were there to rob them.

The same way politicians decided that Saddam wasn't allowed to fight a war against his political enemies?

“ Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
Spider, we weren't allowed to bomb Hanoi! We weren't allowed to bomb Haiphong harbor, where the enemy brought in most all of it's war supplies from China and elsewhere. What kind of war is that?? ...that you allow your enemy to get guns and ammo and exposives, without lifting a finger to stop it? And all of it agreed to by the damned politicians!! ”


Another quote misquoted?! I, Baron Max, wrote that above, yet "Buffalo Roam" is credited with it? What the fuck is going on??? This happened on another thread in a similar way, yet my name was associated with a post by someone else??? Duh??

Baron Max

OK, I made the correction, sorry about that.

Neildo

Perhaps if we bomb all of Iraq to kingdom kom, maybe then the Iraqi people will be left in desperation to follow our exact rules just like Japan, but then that goes against the whole reason of invading to free them because we'll wind up doing way more damage than the good we supposedly wanted to cause.

But isn't that exactly what we did in Japan?, Germany?, and we did free them, and establish two Free Democracies.

We occupied Germany and Japan with far more troops per capita.

When Germany surrendered in May 1945, the U.S. Army had more than 1.6 million men within the borders of the defeated Nazi state. Overnight they became occupation troops: Their orders were to spread out over every square mile of German territory and demonstrate without a doubt that they were in charge. U.S. troops secured every road junction, bridge, border post, government building, factory, bank, warehouse; anything of the slightest conceivable importance had a guard of GIs around it, and so did a good many things of little or no importance, too.

Army plans called for an occupation force of some 400,000 in the American zone for the first 18 months — or one U.S. soldier for every 40 Germans (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=2149).

But isn't that exactly what we did in Japan?, Germany?, and we did free them, and establish two Free Democracies.

Our initial reason for attacking them wasn't to convert them to a democracy. Not only that, but we kind of killed hundreds of thousands of their people which showed them we mean business so they had no other choice but to do what we said.

In Iraq tho, we went in with the sole reason to convert the Iraqis to a democracy, and as Spidergoat mentioned, the Arabs there are culturally quite different from the Japanese and Germans. And with us trying to promote democracy, it means we have to kill as little civilians as possible which make us look weak, but there's nothing we can do about that as taking any brutal action to show who's in charge would be in conflict of trying to promote democracy similar to us wanting to get rid of Saddam because he tortures his civilians only for us to have Abu Graib happen.

- N

Neildo, No Neildo we went to Iraq to enforce the 28, February 1991, Cease Fire, Which Saddam was Failing to live up to, after we removed Saddam, the mission was to reestablish a Iraqi government, and the model we chose was a democratic form, which would include personal freedoms for all Iraqi's, the Iraqi's have voted three time, to establish a Government, based on the parliamentary system, and all three time the votes were over 60%, reaching a high in the high 70%, so with a vote in the high 70% I would say that we have a legitimate Government in power, and it is the disgruntled few that are causing the problems with help from outside agitators. As for them being culturally different quite obvious, but that does not mean that democracy doesn't work for them, lets finish the job and see, not quit, if you quit you never get anywhere, and you loose, and if we loose there it won't stop there, it will just put more blood in the water, and they will follow us back home and then your friend and neighbors will be the ones dieing, and the war will be in our back yard's.