If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yeah but thats what Thanatos did do and thats why i was disagreeing.
Never said that they were identical, but that there were striking similarities. Thank you for the "assist"...
As in every war, there were aberrations, and Lt Calley was one of them. My point is that those were ABERRATIONS, and not the standard operating proceedure that is constantly stated here. However, on a DAILY basis, I saw the fruition of the NVA and VC SOP. Strange how the reality gets so little play time, isn't it? Many prefer to repeat the lie, until it becomes the accepted "truth".
It AIN'T the truth.
As long as those here attempt to perpetuate the lie by repeating the bullshit, I will call it what it it... BULLSHIT!!!
These Limers need a lift.
A priest is never far.
<IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Do get your head out of your third point of contact. These attacks happened because Bill Clinton sat on his ass when the USS Cole was attacked and the American Embassy in Africa was attacked. 9-11 happened because he showed the world that the US would sit back and do nothing if there was a terrorist attack on our people. What did he do? He shook his finger at them and said it was a bad no-no when he could have been getting off his ass and finding out the scum that did it, though we already knew and so did he. The war on terrorism comes a little bit too late. It could have been prevented and it wasn't.
Bush causing hatred among other countries. Cripes, he hasn't even been in that long....how can you blame all the world's despairs on someone that is nowhere near finishing his term. You're an idiot for thinking that. Iraq and Israel's problems were here long before Bush came into office. Stuff that could have been taken care of to lessen the threat of terrorism in the Middle East could have been taken care of by Clinton and it wasn't. You're a fool just as much as he was.
As Thanatos said, Bush stood up instead of turning the other cheek. And its about time too. If he wants terrorism taken care of, now is the time and he has chosen who will do it...and he has chosen wisely.
And there is the answer to your question about terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration. If you think there was none, then you are dead wrong. If you would get your head out of the clouds you would know that. The fact is, we were attacked because of Clinton's blindness and stupidity. He was too busy thinking with what is in his pants then with what was on his shoulders. We were attacked because he allowed us to be, because he gave those assholes the idea that we could be attacked and that no one would do a damn thing about it. In my mind, he might as well be wearing a rag on his head as well.
Terrorism will not stop until someone has the balls to get up and fight. Bush is just the person and its about time. If you don't have the guts to get up and join us then I suggest you either join the Taliban or get the hell out of the way. Either way you will be taken care of the same way they will be.
As for you Aladdin, go find your genie and maybe he will grant your wish for world peace without bloodshed. The rest of us will continue to pick up our weapons here in the real world. You're bullshitting yourself just as much as Nice Kick is. Clinton tried to shake hands with the Palestinians. And has the war there stopped? Fucking no. Get it through your head already! They don't want peace and they aren't going to stop until one of them wins. Shall we do the same with the Taliban? Shall we drop arms and declare a treaty with the same dirtbags that killed so many innocent civilians? You're crazy. And all of you that believe that the North Vietnamese were victims in the Vietnam War are just as freakin' nuts! What they did to their own people was just that Thanatos stated. It was their own tactics because they would do anything to win. That is the whole idea of war. To win. To survive against all odds, no matter what it takes. If you would be awake in history class you would know that. And if they aren't teaching that in your history class, then something is seriously wrong. Now is the time to stand up and to survive against all odds. We are in a time of war, at this very moment, there are soldiers out in the sand surviving against all odds. That is what they are trained to do. That is the mission we take as soldiers. It's either them or us. I prefer to be them.
War on Terrorism begins new phase
As part of a multi-national honor guard, Staff Sgt. John Martin, 10th Special Forces Group, renders a salute while the United States and Georgian national anthems are performed during the opening ceremonies of the Georgia Train and Equip Program. (photo by Staff Sgt. Justin D. Pyle) (Click on the photo to view a higher resolution photo)
by Tech Sgt. Dean J. Miller
TBILISI, Georgia (Army News Service, May 28, 2002) - American Green Berets and soldiers from the Republic of Georgia stood side-by-side on Memorial Day to begin the newest chapter in the War on Terrorism.
Military forces from this former Soviet-bloc country will receive training in joint military doctrine and tactical skills under a mission that formally began May 27. Opening ceremonies took place on the grounds of Georgia's military academy in the capital city of Tbilisi.
Known as the "Georgia Train and Equip Program," the mission is under the operational control of Special Operations Command Europe and officials said they expect it to last approximately two years. They said the goal is to enhance the capability of Georgia to respond to security threats and enable the Georgian government to improve security and stability at home and regionally.
The mission is being conducted out of Forward Operating Base 102 by soldiers of the 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) from Fort Carson, Colo. The Green Berets are supported by other troops from U.S. Army Europe and U.S. Air Forces Europe.
"Through this unique partnership, together in the global war on terrorism, we hope to promote Georgian freedom and stability and to help you to fulfill your desire to live in an open, democratic society -- free of the threat of global terrorism," said U.S. Ambassador to Georgia Richard Miles, during opening ceremonies. "In the months to follow, you the Georgian military, border guards and police will face challenging obstacles, yet I have every confidence you are up to the challenge.
"America willingly and proudly sends you her best military men and women to conduct this training," said Miles. "These fine officers and non-commissioned officers are some of the most well-trained and capable military instructors in the world. I urge you to use them and learn from them."
GTEP is a time-phased initiative, officials said. The first program of instruction, which lasts about 70 days, consists of staff training. The curriculum is modeled after modern American joint military doctrine. It is designed to build strong and effective staff organizations, officials said, capable of creating and sustaining standardized operating procedures, training plans, operational plans, and a property accounting system.
At the end of the staff training, tactical instruction follows. Five Georgian units, trained back-to-back for approximately 100 days each, will be involved in basic individual skills training such as radio operator procedures, first aid, land navigation, and human rights education. Individual combat skills are also on the agenda. The tactical training will culminate in platoon-level offensive and defensive procedures and basic airmobile tactics.
Under GTEP, military equipment will also be transferred to the Georgian Army, officials said. This includes uniforms, communications gear, training gear, medical gear, fuel, construction equipment, small arms, and ammunition.
"A program like Georgia Train and Equip is one way we honor the fallen and help others," said GTEP mission commander, Lt. Col. Robert M. Waltemeyer, during opening ceremonies.
In his remarks, Lt. Gen. David Tevzadze, Georgian Minister of Defense, welcomed the U.S. soldiers and reflected on the significance of the date.
"Today, we celebrate the kick-start of this program," said Tevzadze. "This is not only a Georgian and American day, this is also a day for all of our partners that we're in [military] relationships with. Therefore, at the end of the day, we will all celebrate together. Starting today, we will share equal victory and equal defeats."
Following the opening ceremony, Waltemeyer conducted a course introduction for the Georgian students.
"We will train one of you; you will train ten -- and they will train ten more," said Waltemeyer. "You are the future of your armed force.
"We will apply the lessons we learn here in the lecture hall and the classroom to improve the interoperability of your force. Everything we do will prepare you for tactical training," said Waltemeyer. "There will be hard work and late nights. My men will be with you every step of the way. Get a good night's sleep, tomorrow will be a long day."
(Editor's note: Tech Sgt. Dean J. Miller is a member of the Georgia Train and Equip public affairs team.)
We are the future of the armed force! Hooah!
I'm sorry Thanatos, if my aticle upset you. It was not my intention to hit a guilty nerve.
Now, please explain to me the concept of a "TOTALLY insignificant" attrocity.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that I am supposed to forget that Vietnamese children were burnt (and plenty of American photographers gathered evidence) with Napalm in their villages, because somewhere else, worse things happened?
Boy, you talk of me being foolish or deluded.
But hold on, don't let me take an "emotional and irrational perspective". No, I should examine it a bit. Maybe you are right. Yeah, perhaps it would have been okay for us to have bombed a few Jewish towns during WW2 because, well hey, The Nazis are so much worse that it would have been "totally insignificant".
No, I don't think so.
Yes. They were at war, and neither side were what we in the West would call advanced politically or socially. The US on the other hand were supposed to be the peacekeepers and defenders of what was right.
What happened to the American Veterans of Vietnam was terrible, the hostility and lack of respect many came home to (and only the lucky ones came home alive) was undeserved by them. It is not a soldier's place to decide to have a war, nor who with, nor on what grounds. However, that is nothing to do with this thread.
My story was an illustration to make people stop and think about other perspectives for a moment.
The story of the Vietnamese woman, burned by Napalm has plenty of documentary evidence to back up its credibility. In fact, I believe TIME magazine had a superbly moving set of photographic and journalistic reports on the innocent casualties of war.
To the terrorists (guerillas in their own eyes, fighting the far bigger, meaner, better equipped US with any means possible) that is exactly how they see the events of Sept 11th. Casualties of war.
I don't agree.
However, I don't agree with the UN Aid Workers killed in Afganistan by one of the very first US attacks either.
I agree still less that you could argue that civillian villagers hit hurt by Napalm and Agent Orange would accept they were "totally insignificant". Still, the US has way too much economic muscle to ever be held accountable for its attrocities, except of course by the groups of dissidents and terrorist who believe that such a life will be the only way to seek justice.
Reading comprehension a transient concept for you? Or simply prefer to pervert a message to twist for your purposes.
No guilt on this part, much less a "guilty nerve".
Read the quote as POSTED! The number of intentional atrocities committed by the US armed forces are insignificant compared next to the orchestrated atrocities of the NVA and VC. Twist any fucking way you wish, and it REMAINS the reality.
Peace keeping force? Head up ass, again? US was requested by a SEATO member nation to uphold our commitment, and prevent NVn from over-running SVn. No "peace-keeping" UN bullshit mission. However, due to the gutless and cowardly "moral supremist idealists" of your ilk, we were constrained from prosecuting the war as it should have been prosecuted. Constraints removed? We would have secured the Chinese border, with Hanoi an evening stopover, like Sherman to Atlanta.
Too delusional to understand that REAL COMBAT is not a classroom debate? When fought in populated areas, there are civilian casualties. Add up the number of collateral casualties due to the US forces, and they are STATISTICALLY insignificant compared to the planned and executed genocide committed by North Vietnam upon the Vietnamese people, of BOTH sides. Too wrapped up in your Communist doctrine and propoganda to get a glimpse of reality? Your short-coming - NOT mine - and you are not transfering it to me, nor the rest of the US forces.
Totally disregard that after there were casualties due to US engagements, we sent our medics in to treat the wounded, as opposed to the VC and NVA simply taking the opportunity to continue their murder?
I did not state that civilian casualties were meaningless, but that they are consequential to war.
Get a grip on reality, and educate yourself as to which side the vast majority of civilian casualties were resultant from.
Your ignorance is an abomination... you have listened to the bullshit lies and distortions of your revised history until you accept it as truth.
It ain't.
And if that fails to register, go back to the previous post:
FUCK YOU!
Your Muslim "guerilla" fighters did NOT view the WTC civilian casualties as "collateral damage", THEY WERE THE INTENDED TARGET! Completely miss bin Laden stating that the were disappointed they did not kill more?
Exactly what delusion do you hide yourself within?
After all;
"the purpose of terrorists is to terrorise; you cannot make an omelette without cracking a few eggs"
-Joseph Stalin.
If they believe that their war must lead to the destruction of one side then couldn't they say that this would be a way to do it whilst saving the most lives?
I'm sorry if you inferred something from my post which was neither implied nor intended. Who said anything about collateral damage?
The terrorists targeted the WTC, much as the US targeted telecom networks (run by civilians there, just as here), power stations (how many soldiers usually work for the electricity suppliers where you live?), and in my Vietnam example, villages where they believed there were VC or VC supporters, even if they had no reason to believe that the whole village was VC, and very little evidence to support there being any direct VC link.
The civilians manning all of those power stations, telecomunications centres, and in Kosavo for instance, even the traffic on the bridges were - oh hell, use your own quote: THEY WERE THE INTENDED TARGET!
Still, at least you argued more effectively that time, even if under a misapprehension to my meaning. This may yet become a serious debate where we can respect our differences as well as stating our own cases. One can hope.
The earlier reply was disappointing in the extreme.
Allow me to demolish it as the hastily slapped together reply it seems.
Read my lips instead:
Any "number of intentional atrocities committed by the US armed forces are" utterly unacceptable.
Do you have a different meaning for the word 'atrocity' over there? To intentionally commit any atrocity is wrong, and THAT remains the reality in any civilised nation.
Again, you've drawn a wrong inference, but I admit that this time the poor wording of mine caused the error, and I apologise for any lack of clarity.
I used the word Peacekeepers in respect to America's serious worry about the spread of communism, and the popular political theory that it was important to world peace to cease its spread - and Vietnam represented an ideal opportunity to do so to some politicians of the time.
I didn't mention the UN at all, because of course, I was not refering to that kind of peace-keeper role. I stand behind the meaning of my words "neither side were what we in the West would call advanced politically or socially. The US on the other hand were supposed to be the peacekeepers and defenders of what was right" in respect that the Americans were supposedly morally superior (or at least would like to claim so). My post was in response to just such a claim.
Two wrongs (or three in a three-sided war) do not make a right. It is even more important to behave morally when fighting against, or with, an enemy of such morals. "But they did it first" is an excuse best left to kindergarten playgrounds.
I'm sorry but totally insignificant, especially with the use of the word TOTALLY emphasised in capitals, means they are pretty meaningless. Leastwise, that's sure how we see them words over here, y'all.
Semantics, man, semantics. You tried your damndest to make it seem meaningless in terms of whether or not to admit your nation was wrong to commit "intentional atrocities" (your own words), at least without any formal heartfelt guilt or apologies. Don't then try to have it both ways.
Either you are saying it was meaningless in the grand scheme and not something to be criticised for, or you are saying it is not meaningless, and so reinforcing my call (so far unanswered) for you to please explain what the hell defines the concept of a "TOTALLY insignificant" attrocity. Especially now that you have admitted that the atrocities were intentional (done with intent).
Yet is sufficient to tear apart your every argument so far, while you have yet to counter a single one of mine effectively. It must be rather embarrasing to be put in this position by a man with an abomination of ignorance.
(At least I wasn't the one ignorant enough to admit that the atrocities commited by the US were intentional - big slip there my friend. Major loss of points in any debate.)
Whilst I am flattered by your proposal, I really don't think that you are my type. I also worry that you might be as disappointing in that respect as you have been at putting up a decent argument.
So please, try to control you lusts for my cultured English accent, and in return I'll treat you more kindly when you next reply.
Everything BK has written is fact, documented and photographed.
The American army lost the Vietnam war when the NVA violated the Tset cease fire and routed most of your northerly armed forces. The war then became a stalemate, you weren't able to win without the use of nuclear weapons, and the use of nuclear weaponry would have started world war 3.
Your ground troops were bogged down, ambushed left, right and centre with the only possible form of movement being to retreat.
You state that the NVA lost more troops, I accept this as fact, I have seen the figures myself. However, after the Tset ceasefire the American military was unable to make any substanial gains in territory or victory after that point. Sure the NVA lost many more soldiers than you did, but they had a lot more to throw into the pot, and your government knew, as well as theirs if the war continued their NVA troops would have the support of Chinese ground troops.
The reason for this stalemate? Your troops weren't properly trained to counteract guerilla tactics, all they could do was react. The nature of the war meant that you were unable to force the NVA to play their hand as it were. I'm not going to argue with you about your experiences of that war, there isn't any point. All I'm pointing out are the technicalities. Yes, you may have won in the end if you hadn't stopped fighting. However with the NVA's huge manpower reserve, their ability to fight in the jungle and in small guerilla units, and the prospect of Chinese and Soviet support, your winning of that war would have remained a VERY big IF and not a WHEN. A small fact, for every casualty in the Vietnam war over 1 million rounds were fired.
This current war, like the vietnam war is not one your troops have been trained for. Your troops have been trained to fight in desert areas, with large tank/troop/air formations. But you are fighting against an enemy that has infiltrated the American heartland and has the ability to destroy you. That's why British commandos are doing a lot of seraching in the Afghan mountains, because it is something they have been training for years to do.
Repeatedly we have asked you to step back and think to yourself WHY you were attacked. We already know the response, but you've never shown us any insight into what you think their motives might have been. You state various things about instability in the region, and the requirement for US forces to keep the oil flowing e.t.c. You have told us that US forces don't commit acts of murder on purpose, and having an objective outlook I can believe it. However the people of the Middle East are spoon fed State media and State education. The believe only one thing, the USA is the enemy of their people. The only images they are ever shown on television are ones showing their victories, and of American attrocities.
How many Iraqi citizens do you think know how many civilians were actually killed by American troops during the Gulf war...? I can bet that they think it is substantially higher than the ones killed by Saddam Hussein. What this whole thing boils down to is America's reputation around the world. Maybe that reputation is something you need to improve, and I can guarentee it won't be done as long as there is "collateral damage"
Civilian casualties are a part of war, and regretable that they are, they will ALWAYS be a part of war when fought near/in populated areas. Different subject than PLANNED and orchestrated murder of civilians on the part of an armed force.
Yes, civilians died as a consequence of US bombing, but that was not the objective, no matter how much you chose to believe it. The number of "Lt Calley moments" during Vn WERE totally insignificant when compared to the daily murder of non-combatants, planned and carried out as the primary target, by the NVA and VC. The Calley incident made world news because it was an aberration... the daily slaughter of civilians by NVA and VC were the norm, and therefore not deemed newsworthy.
Civilians have died in every war ever fought, including by your own forces. That is the nature of war, and if you cannot deal with that reality, then simply and publicly admit that you are a gutless coward who would prefer slavery or your own personal execution to defending your country or your country's interests.
As for the US forces being routed during the Tet offensive, where the fuck did THAT dis-information come from. For all intents and purposes, the VC ceased to exist as a consequence of that offensive. The VC and NVA were the forces routed. NVA was pushed out of SVn time after time, again and again. Mission objective was to keep NVA from over-running SVn. By the parameters of that constrained mission, the Vietnam war was an over-whelming victory by US forces. US forces controlled the whole of Vietnam at the time of the Paris peace accord. Only in your deranged mindset could that be considered "a loss"...
The engagements such as Khe Sanh WERE the norm, where 5600 Marines defeated 100,000 NVA. THINK ABOUT THAT! What in hell do you THINK the outcome would have been if the 1st Marines had been given marching orders north? It would have been a modern day Genghis Khan re-enactment, until every damned NVA and VC were burned or buried. If you believe otherwise, then I will personally sell London Bridge back to you...
FOR THE REALITY CHALLENGED AND TERMINALLY STUPID: US ARMED FORCES CONTROLLED ALL OF SOUTH VIETNAM AT THE TIME OF THE PARIS PEACE ACCORD. THE US ARMED FORCES LEFT VIETNAM AFTER THE TREATY WAS SIGNED. BY THE MISSION STATEMENT, THAT CAN ONLY BE CALLED A VICTORY. NORTH VIETNAM BROKE THE TREATY AFTER THE US LEFT VIETNAM, AND DEFEATED ARVN, NOT THE UNITED STATES!!!
US FORCES DID NOT LOSE A SINGLE ENGAGEMENT OF PLATOON SIZE OR LARGER, AT ANY TIME DURING THE VIETNAM WAR!!!
Anything which you believe that is outside of that truth, is a self-serving lie that you prefer to reality. As you prefer to believe that lie, you are no better than the liars who promote that perversion of truth. To debate with the willfully ignorant - or, more likely, simply a gullible fool - makes no more sense than to attempt to teach a pig table manners.
Must be powerful propaganda, as both of you accept it as truth.
If the propoganda that Hussein feeds Iraq is the responsibility of the United States, are you advocating that we nuke Bagdad, and eliminate the source of that propoganda? Then get your reservations for the resort at Lake Bagdad, because we WILL put an end to the bullshit, once and for all.
1,000,000 rounds for each of the more than 3,000,000 we killed? ROTFLMFAO! You really ARE gullible, aren't you?
Feel secure enough about yourself to engage on the other's turf?
Very good. Jolly well done old chap.
Now try answering a single one of the many points in my posts.
Who knows, you might enjoy the challenge, if you are up to it.
I haven't quoted a single myth about Vietnam. Moreover, I'm only discussing Vietnam at all in reply to your general rant about my use of one single example in an article you have otherwise not managed to make one lucid argument against.
By all means correct me if I am wrong on any fact about Vietnam. You after all were there and a part of the whole mess I believe. I'll take your word for many things.
However, my questions to you are clearly spelt out, and are not relating to any single specific incidents. They are simple questions, and yet I still can't find a simple answer to them.
Come on now Thanatos, I've heard you have quite a reputation for making inteligent debate, yet so far you've merely wriggled and squirmed away from any direct answer to my very direct questions. Surely I haven't got you beaten so damn swiftly? Where would be the fun in that?
I'm not really trying to embarrass you, but I'm not going to go away until you either answer properly, or quit. And I never heard you were a quitter.
What matters to me is an accurate accounting of historical fact.
To you?
Politician? Propogandist? Snake oil salesman?
You believe that you can change history by your choice of words, and the games you play with them. Me? I am not going to play, so that leaves you playing with yourself...
And that makes you? A wanker? Is that what you would call it?
Your questions were asked, and then answered. If in your self-styled supremist/elitest delusions of grandeur I should be respondent to you solely, and ignore the postulates in ignorance of the cretin Whowhere... tough. If you cannot discern between what was respondent to you, and to Whowhere... then we have an exemplary display of your scintillating intellect, do we not?
I think NOT.
Neither have you likely witnessed nor survived that which is requisite to cause me to squirm. Allow me to grant you a clue; if indeed it has ever happened, it was not the consequence of words. Even the months of constant artillery shelling of Quang Tri City did not accomplish that formidable task: there were 50 men in my platoon for whom I was responsible, and THAT came before possible luxury of the lack of a total focus and commitment.
But - with the intent of charity toward those challenged in the comprehension of the written word - to make it SIMPLE...
a) The aberrent acts of an individual cannot be taken as the act of the whole, as in, simply because there are rapes and murders committed within the UK does not mean that the UK is a nation of rapists and murderers, therefore, the aberrent acts of the individual - such as the scapegoat Lt Calley - cannot be taken as representative of the actions of a whole armed force.
b) Collateral civilian casualties, while quite regretable, are TOTALLY disparate from the intended murder of non-combatants, as was the SOP strategy of both the NVA and VC.
c) If you are of the opinion that every civilian casualty is "an atrocity", then you are a severely handicapped individual without the capability nor hope of functioning in reality.
Play your little word games with yourself, all you choose. You want to have fun within your self-thought pithy manipulations; I want an end to your collective ignorance.
FOR FUCK SAKE, you can't even tell when someone is agreeing with you. WHEN THE HELL did I mention US forces deliberately killing civilians? I FUCKING WELL DIDN'T. Learn to read.
If you read my post PROPERLY you would find that I indeed accept that NVA casualties were a LOT higher than US ones, or did you CHOOSE to ignore that as well?
FYI in a guerilla war like the Vietnam one, I think the US marines trying to march north through jungles infested with enemy troops would have been suicide. Yes you held onto the South, I don't doubt that, but you never advanced. Defenders always have an easier job than attackers, anyone can tell you that, you never lost a major engagement because your troops were well dug in. For that reason you never managed to advance against well dug in posistions either. If you learnt to read EVERYTHING instead of selective portions you would find i said STALEMATE, one where neither force could win.
The NVA lost more troops because they attacked you more or does that small point elude you?
The US forces being routed was information I have got from several books that ARE NOT American.
The way you write is that of someone who has been spoon fed one sided information. Of course you didn't lose the Vietnam war, you've never read a book, or watched a documentary about it by someone who ISN'T American. It's the same as an Iraqi civilian thinking the USA is evil, they've never read anything to the contrary.
If you read my post properly, about propaganda (which of course you didn't) I never said it was the fault of the USA, maybe I should write more clearly...HERE GOES:
The Iraqi population have been spoon fed one sided state information for decades. They believe Hussein is close to a God or Prophet. They believe in him because they have never had the oppotunity to learn about any other way. Why do you think there are so many religious nuts in the American South? Because to them the theories of Evolution and creation given by scientists are taught as "superstition". When a nation is taught for many years that the ultimate enemy is the USA of course they're going to hate you.
Wether they have any justification is irrelevant, it is what they believe. Trying to change their mind is like trying to turn a gay man straight, it's not going to happen.
When did I mention that I believed what they are taught?
I have the advantage of being able to make an informed judgement about people from the USA and the nation as a whole. At the moment the only Americans I have come into contact with for several years are blustering old men stuck in a time warp and fervent in their belief that everything they say must be taken as gospel.
It seems this is the whole point to your meandering post, so let's be brief and clear.
The nature of an atrocity is specified very clearly in international law. Members of the United States military have been guilty of atrocities. Of course, none of them were the ones you chose to use as examples. On the other hand, British forces have engaged in atrocities in far more brutal and calculated manner. Obviously, Britain is not a civilized nation under your criteria. As a matter of fact, no nation is under your criteria. So, I guess your "reality" is immaterial, since there are no civilized nations under your criteria.
Being a civilised nation is not a digital affair. There are degrees of civilisation; some nations are far more civilised than others. To simply say that there are no civilised nations is arbitrary and completely defeats the point of discussion.
Also, please stop with the attitude that "yes, we commit atrocities, but Britain does too so you're not allowed to criticise us". I know that in the past Britain has done so, and I am ashamed of that fact. I am not so blinded by bizarre patriotism that I cannot criticise my country. Unfortunately it appears to be the case that Americans, at least the majority of them here, are.
And how much Vietnamese do you speak? How much time have you spent in Vietnam?
Let me give you a little information. Straignt from the mouth of an General in the current Vietnamese Army via this observer of the condition in SE Asia. And I quote: "The North Vietnamese Army could never win the war in Vietnam as long as the Americans were there. At every step, they beat us. In places where we were sure we had them beaten; outnumbered, outgunned, isolated, they beat us. Where we thought we were fast, they were faster. Where we thought we were strong, they were stronger. Our only hope for survival and victory was to surrender. So we did."
The NVA lost. Even they admit it. And the 1973 Paris Peace Accords make it very clear.
Victory in the military is measured against mission. The mission of the NVA was to reunite Vietnam under Communist rule. They did not successfully complete their mission until 1975. The mission of the US Armed Forces, the Kiwis, the Aussies, the Koreans, the Thais and the ARVN was to maintain South Vietnam as a seperate political entity. They did that, defeating every attempt of both guerilla and conventional warfare and in 1973 they forced a situation in which the North Vietnamese signed a treaty guaranteeing that South Vietnam would remain. Then they broke that treaty and invaded with a highly conventional Army in 1975.
War isn't a game of chess. It isn't made up of equal sides, and the missions are not the same on both sides, because the objectives aren't the same. "War is an extension of politics by other means".
As for the Iraqis, you might try learning a little history. There was a time that a people were raised to hate the British. When each and every one of them learned to hate them and to seek their death. Those people are Ghurkas.
Alright, let's put it in simpler terms. Can you come up with any instance of US troops commiting an atrocity as defined by International law under orders from above within the last 25 years? You'll have to come up with better examples then you have so far since none of those fall under the heading of atrocity in the Laws of Land Warfare (the relevant document).
Respected, independent aid agencies have repeatedly highlighted the dire effect the sanctions have, preventing much needed medicines, medical supplies and in some cases food from reaching those in desperate need. Not only is this an atrocity within the last 25 years (in itself a rather bizarre parameter, since it conveniently excludes Vietnam), it is an atrocity that is ongoing today.
The Kosovo conflict involved the bombing of civilian properties, not to mention a refugee convoy, by the US and other Nato countries. You might argue that under your politically convenient definition of atrocity there was no intent, so this does not count, but I would prefer to use the more widely accepted definition of an atrocity. Afterall, what else can you call the deliberate killing of hundreds of civilians?
I'm not an obsessive military lover, so don't know all the engagements the US has been involved in. The period of history I specialise in studying ends before 1977, so again I'm at a loss. But I'm certain there are plenty of other US atrocities floating around.
Second, sanctions cannot be an atrocity under the Law of Land Warfare. Doesn't really matter what organizations say.
Third, the sanctions are under a UN directive, not the US. Britain, France, Germany, etc. all agreed to those sanctions.
You can choose to use any definition of "atrocity" you want. But when it comes to making accusations against a country or individuals, it would help to stick to something that would stand up in court. Otherwise, you're just whining. Of course, from what I've seen so far on this site, that's normal.
As a ground grunt Marine, my missions were frequently of the "search and destroy" nature. We went into "Indian territory", confronted larger forces, and NEVER LOST AN ENGAGEMENT.
Our "Rules of Engagement" prevented us from taking the ground battle into North Vietnam, Loas, Camodia, Thailand, because of politicians. The reason for the existance of the Ho Chi Minh Trail was that we SHUT DOWN movement of supplies through South Vietnam, so the NVA went outside of the country.
We went in against dug in forces, and NEVER LOST.
Even Hanoi admits the WE NEVER LOST!
Your "FYI" is an arrogant assertion that you comprehend reality. The reality is, you comprehend only the propoganda you have been fed, and believe the lies. You prefer to live in denial. The reason I will not yield to your delusion, is that I have SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES the truth, which you choose to ignore, because it does not suit your hatred and envy of the US.
You might as well be attempting to assert that the normal color of a clear sky is green, rather than blue.
btw ~ You share with Black Night the arrogance of believing that me every post should be respondent to solely you. Tough.