Iraqi prisoner "abuse" issue
- Thread starter J
- Start date
- Status
Man what reality do you live in??? You guys sound like a bunch of right wing conservatives. Next thing you are going to say is that GOD is on your side and you read it in the Bible.
the US never lost a major battle in Vietnam. Period. Politics in America at the time are what killed the effort. All in all, we lost 58,000 troops while the NVA/Viet Cong lost close to 1,000,000. That's not including the Russian/Chinese "advisors" that numbered in the 10s of thousands from 1970 on.
Maybe that BS worked in Africa but in America we have a right and obligation to express our personal beliefs. Your political rhetoric trying to silence anyone that does not buy off on your position is not going to work here. I personally don't have a problem with the military fighting this war. I have a problem with the people running it and getting our men killed because of their political BS. They needed more men to get this job done. Bush/Rumy never listened to the advise of the Generals and the men fighting this war, putting are fighting men in more danger. Just like the political BS that got a lot of good men killed in Nam. What the F it don't mean nothin. same old same ol. Not going to change any minds here.
We have to keep these topics non-personal. Thanks
[ May 10, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
[ May 10, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]
The abuse of the prisoners has given the war detractors a bone to chew on. Let's face it it was deplorable and very stupid. Look at the idiots in the pictures. But why are we,(USA) trying to destroy our country because of it. War is **** . I bet a whole bunch of dead guys would be only too happy to have that humiliation, as long as they could come back to life. The politicising of the war and now the abuses, is the real pity. Every time some politician apologises, castigates and calls for a firing,it encourages our enemies. I would like to see a graph of the violence and our dead starting from before the election started. I think it would show exactly how our politices is killing our guys. All the grandstanding and vomit from politicians and their allies in the press should stop. When we need our soldiers in the future, this BS will make good people pause, before they volunteer. Pity.
It isn't necessary to win all or the majority of battles to win a war. It's an old technique and was even used by George Washington himself - guerilla warfare. When in war with a much more powerful opponent, it's useless to fight him head on. As Mao-Tse-Tung said, the weak must fight the strong like a bee fighting a lion - by buzzing constantly in the lion's ears till it goes crazy and paws itself to death. If our leadership isn't ready for this in the Middle East, all is wasted!
If you ever get a chance, visit Laos. That's where the "excess" bombs that weren't dropped in Vietnam were unloaded. By the time Congress decided to pull the plug, the VC were a few hundred kilometers from Saigon. Vietnamization was Nixon's policy as he offered to extract U.S. military from VN w/o damaging U.S. pride by creatively calling it "Vietnamization" or their war, not ours.
Your rendition of the VN war is what I call the American TV version of the war with liberals and conservatives bickering over whose fault it is that the war was lost. Somewhere along the way, they forgot about the Vietnamese people as part of the equation. As someone who has family members in both the South and North Vietnamese military, I can tell you that except for dropping bombs and killing off the entire population (as suggested by Gen. Curtis LeMay), it would have been extremely difficult to win the war.
Without going into details, the U.S. made many policy and tactical mistakes which resulted the loss of both political and moral leverage among the population. I can see similar mistakes being made in Iraq.
[ May 10, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Bugzii ]
Ummm..yea... But we did lose that war.
Sorry Bugzii you got it all wrong. There were a lot of ways to win the war, it's just that Democrats were in charge. For starters, one could have simply allowed the Thai to go into Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh trail. There was nobody to stop them; just ask your family members in the NVA. The NVA got trashed by the Thai regularly. Try mentioning the Battle of Mon Mak Moon to them, hehe
. If you go to Thailand, the Thai can show you T-55 NVA tanks abandonded by the NVA. Cobras live in them now.
"That's where the "excess" bombs that weren't dropped in Vietnam were unloaded. "
Excess??!! We deliberately bombed Laos, you didn't know that??
It was actually simple to win the war as the failed NVA offensive in 1972 showed. Say what you will, I'll simply repeat what I said before. We stopped aid to the point that the SVN were reduced to rationing ammo to 20 rounds and one grenade per month and the Sovs kept unloading freighters filled with war material in N Vietnam.
"Man what reality do you live in??? You guys sound like a bunch of right wing conservatives. Next thing you are going to say is that GOD is on your side and you read it in the Bible."
Sorry Pityorki, I'm a registered Libertarian who hardly reads the Bible and hasn't been in a church in years. I notice none of you really has anything to say that directly contradicts my statements regarding the slaughter of the NVA in 1972.
"That's where the "excess" bombs that weren't dropped in Vietnam were unloaded. "
Excess??!! We deliberately bombed Laos, you didn't know that??
It was actually simple to win the war as the failed NVA offensive in 1972 showed. Say what you will, I'll simply repeat what I said before. We stopped aid to the point that the SVN were reduced to rationing ammo to 20 rounds and one grenade per month and the Sovs kept unloading freighters filled with war material in N Vietnam.
"Man what reality do you live in??? You guys sound like a bunch of right wing conservatives. Next thing you are going to say is that GOD is on your side and you read it in the Bible."
Sorry Pityorki, I'm a registered Libertarian who hardly reads the Bible and hasn't been in a church in years. I notice none of you really has anything to say that directly contradicts my statements regarding the slaughter of the NVA in 1972.
Who wins after this election(In 2008)...Does it get that down right with a question mark...a new landmark...a new beginning..Something society will accept?!?!?...I don't KNOW
..Is this the gate for Hillary...
If this is POLITICS...it just might be what this is ABOUT
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Sorry gentlemen, no one wins a war. There are just those who are left less bloody ..everyone loses.
So ..make sure that you indeed believe in what you're fighting for.....for it costs so many ..so much.
Getting back to the Iraqi prisoner abuse issue, FOX News interviewed the commanding general and she appeared to me to be a very weak leader. There were lots of stories about lack of discipline in her command. The woman private who appeared in some of the photographs by the way was not even assigned to that unit. She was visiting her boyfriend.
It disturbs me that John Kerry is trying to make a political deal about all of this. After he served in Vietnam he came home and made a speech to Congress about all the things American soldiers were supposed to have done to the people of Vietnam. Since Kerry was an officer, shouldn't he be held accountable? After all, he is saying that Rumsfield should resign as Secretary of Defense and Rumsfield did not have anything personally to do with the torture of Iraqi POWs.
In the end, my guess is that they will find something like 10-12 soldiers involved in all of this. And it is possible that they received some sort of instructions from somebody in military intelligence to 'soften up' the POWs. And somebody in the American military in Iraq who knew about all of this stuff a long time ago and did not inform the right people should be fired or held accountable.
But blaming President Bush or Rumsfield for what happened to the Iraqi POWs is just plain silly politics.
It disturbs me that John Kerry is trying to make a political deal about all of this. After he served in Vietnam he came home and made a speech to Congress about all the things American soldiers were supposed to have done to the people of Vietnam. Since Kerry was an officer, shouldn't he be held accountable? After all, he is saying that Rumsfield should resign as Secretary of Defense and Rumsfield did not have anything personally to do with the torture of Iraqi POWs.
In the end, my guess is that they will find something like 10-12 soldiers involved in all of this. And it is possible that they received some sort of instructions from somebody in military intelligence to 'soften up' the POWs. And somebody in the American military in Iraq who knew about all of this stuff a long time ago and did not inform the right people should be fired or held accountable.
But blaming President Bush or Rumsfield for what happened to the Iraqi POWs is just plain silly politics.
Rumsfeld has said theres a lot worse to come. 25 deaths in custody and already two will be prosecuted as murder. For me the worse one is making hooded males perform oral sex and one of the female soldiers says "ooh look he's getting hard". One of the past U.S Presidents had a sign on his desk that said "The buck stops with me". That man is now Bush if I'm not mistaken?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Can you provide some references to the "Battle of Mon Mak Moon"? I'm unaware of any major battle by such name. I know there were U.S. air bases in Thailand and the CIA operated covert Air America in Laos for the training of minority Hmong mercenaries to break-off the supply flow on the HCM trail. "Cutting" the HCM trail? Apparently 2+ million tons of ordinance unloaded in Laos and carpet-bombing in Vietnam proved it fruitless.quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Sorry Bugzii you got it all wrong. There were a lot of ways to win the war, it's just that Democrats were in charge. For starters, one could have simply allowed the Thai to go into Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh trail. There was nobody to stop them; just ask your family members in the NVA. The NVA got trashed by the Thai regularly. Try mentioning the Battle of Mon Mak Moon to them, hehe. If you go to Thailand, the Thai can show you T-55 NVA tanks abandonded by the NVA. Cobras live in them now.
"Excess" was meant with sarcasm. Air America operations were covert. The CIA was free to do whatever they wanted in Laos, including the unloading of inventory. On a per-capita basis, Laos remains the most heavily bombed nation in the history of warfare. Again, more than 2 million tons of bombs (more than WWII) was dropped on the Laotian country side to demolish a trail that had no infrastructure. Doesn't that sound kinda idiotic? It's like bombing the John Muir or Appalachian Trail.
What offensive did the NVA launched in '72? Do you mean the Tet Offensive, which was in '68. The most important military events during '72 (in my opinion) were the heavy bombing raids Nixon ordered on Hanoi and Hai-Phong harbor in trying to force the VC leadership to the negotiation table. It didn't work. Aside from Laos, a total of more than 7 million tons of ordinance (3.5 more times WWII) was used in the Vietnam War or 1000 lbs for every man, woman and child. And you say there was a shortage of ammo?
Now, let's just say Vietnam was won "militarily", just like Iraq now. What then? At its peak, there were 500,000+ troops stationed in Vietnam, or South Vietnam. How many more troops would it have required to maintain the peace in a defeated Vietnam and for how long? And don't forget about China in the north and the contentious borders (jungle) between Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia. Just as now in Iraq, how will the U.S. military police the borders to prevent the flow of extremists and ammo into Iraq? How many troops do we need to prevent suicide bombings? How will U.S. policy-makers establish peace between the Kurds, Shiites, Sunis when they've been at each other throats for ages?
[ May 11, 2004, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Bugzii ]
The problem with Vietnam and the problem reoccuring with Iraq is we are fighting a war where politicians are in charge, not the military. You simply cannot conduct a conflict based on the current political climate at home or anywhere else. If you want to win, and win effectively, take the leash off the dogs, and let them do what they need to do.
I know, I'm just saying that it is funny that we were so superior in military might, however, we ended up "losing" the war due to the political climate at home. The way Vietnam was conducted was a huge mistake... If they had let the military take over a position, and hold it, instead of pulling back every time they won, we might not be having this discussion about Vietnam right now.
Durrr, wars are always political, started, run, ended. If they aren't won politically as well as militarily then they are failures. If we let the "dogs" do their job just what would that involve? Maybe more Iraqi prisoner abuse/torture? What's come out recently is that an estimated 90% of the prisoners were innocent, and I doubt any saw a lawyer or judge, does that fit with the opinions of people here that are trying to down play this issue and say our torture is not as bad as their torture? I do not believe for a moment that these occurrences were just 10-15 loose cannons, although the higher-ups will go into the "protect my butt and pension mode" and try to put full blame on lower rank soldiers. The CIA wanted these prisoners "loosened up", as well the Red Cross in January told and gave a writtian report to the military about this. It's also coming out that this issue was wide spread across Iraq.
P.S. Thanks for unlocking this thread.
P.S. Thanks for unlocking this thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked