It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US accused of using 'illegal' white phosphorus in chemical attack that killed Afghan civilians

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 




Since Julius Caesar never cried out diddly * upon the hills of Afghanistan, I assume you're not speaking in a literal sense. Which would indicate you scotched someone's term paper or thesis.


It was an extremely thought provoking question I can appreciate you have no answer, no worry friend.




By speaking in the rambling tongue of scholars, you can always claim that you were misinterpreted, or misunderstood, all the time talking babble.


Or I can always claim I put careful thought into my reply to you and my questions back minus the vulgarities and bravado and penchant to attempt to order people to accept one's assertions as fact.




I found that it helped me to lay off the Scotch and Brandy when I was trying to convey in plain language my words and intents. Otherwise, I sounded just like this.


Well that explains a lot of your posts thanks.




Your Caesar was vain, overconfident, and in the end, suicidal. You say he fought for the laurels of victory? No he didn't.

Caesar fought for personal glory. He was a selfish bastard, brilliant field tactician to be sure, but it was always about him, and his tactics failed him on the Senate floor. Not a lot of that noble Roman stuff with Caesar.


He fought for what everyone fights for an ideal. His legacy suggests opposite to your conclusions but then again debate does involve that process of opposing views.




You see, you asked the wrong question, and your purpose is glaringly transparent.


That would be the question in general you fail to acknowledge thus creating the illusion you know the motivation for me asking and by extension have an answer that you have failed to render that by inference in your estimation is correct?



You ask by contrast - what did I fight for? Why hell, old son, I fought for the grandest, most noble cause in the world - the guy next to me!


So in other words you have no idea what led you to the weight of those circumstances and while you fought to protect the guy next to you as you utter the soldiers universal code, presumably the people you were fighting against also members of the same universe and code were fighting for the same thing, so no one involved knew exactly why they were engaged in this violent process other than for the sport of violence?

You wonder though why some people question the ethics and morality of war though?




Oh. For you to lecture me about Engineers? I had four MOS's in the military. Military Occupational Specialties. In Special Forces, I was the team . . . . ENGINEER! So, I'm just a bit familiar wiht the duties and difficulties of an engineer.


I see, first our military is incapable of winning hearts and minds through infrastructure improvement because it lacks the skills as you mentioned in your initial reply, then in your subsequent reply you mentioned that engineers were no where near as important as combat troops and now you yourself are an engineer once I demonstrated there great value to you? Well, I guess that’s a form of learning and an opinion evolving?




And I'm not young Skywalker on the dark side???? Bad Scotch???


I agree you are no young Master Jedi! I drink yogurt smoothies, they are excellent for your digestion and over all health. I highly recommend them, so does Michael Weston of the fictional TV series, Burn Notice, his character plays a spy trying to avoid recruitment in an organization involved in the deepest conspiracies, while occasionally working for them and against them at the same time. He lives in Miami too, he’s a pretty sharp character with a great dry sense of humor, his best buddy is a retired Navy Seal, they visited the same parts of the world often at the same time and have a history. You might like that show, you ought to watch it sometime if you have never seen it.

Coincidentally dooper spies are in the intelligence business, while soldiers are not.




If you're going to quote others, such as Clausewitz, please have the courtesy to indicate that you quoted someone else. You know the sentence, "war is a continuation . . ."


I did as a matter of fact several times, please have the courtesy to acknowledge that as well as the real questions put to you rather than simply trying to make such pertinent and weighty questions mere reflections of personality. It is rather fruitless debating trying to learn or helping others learn when they are constantly filtering out the questions and the answers to deflect dealing with them to instead focus on the rudimentary, redundant and mundane.




Maybe you need to sleep it off. You're rambling pretty bad, and it's hard to keep up. I mention the necessity for a military to maintain freedom of movement, and you're off on some mystical, nebulous, conceptual brainfart which is completely out of context with what I was referring to.


Or maybe you should sleep on your answers before engaging the people who don't live in stone or grass huts?

I would like to point out that the Universal Military Code of Following Chain of Command, Discipline and Structure you are referring to in other words the essence of how the military works you have just described as being a mystical, nebulous, conceptual brain fart, which sheds greater light on the context in general in which you seem to be referring to things.




Sounds like you alreay spent the evening in the Temple of Bacchus. (that's how it's spelled._


If I did I bet I know how it’s spelled!

Why do you keep responding to posts putting forth questions and assertions and fostering debates and then going so out of your way to avoid having to take ownership of your own questions and assertions and then avoiding the substance of the debate you foster?

Is this a preferred tactic when you encounter opposition?

In the military they would call that not being able to shoot straight.

I call it a feable attempt to discredit ones opponent so you can avoid having to deal with them on a thoughtful and intelligent level.

Thanks for your answers!




[edit on 12/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 




Whatever you said. Same as you.


They were very difficult questions; I understand why you would decline to answer them as they lead to the answers that highlight the failure of the strategy you favor.




So many embedded snipes in your response, it would be impossible to discuss with you without addressing those first.


It is apparently impossible to discuss anything that is not a blanket acceptance of your agenda or your reservations in regards to character of those who can not render blanket acceptance. Thanks for the invitation though to bog down in that morass. You asked questions you got answers, pity you can’t address those rather instead.




But that's not productive. I don't want to play.



No it isn’t not when the sole and only intent is to foster acceptance of your own agenda.




Buh-bye.


Ciao!




Back on topic:


I was only answering the questions you put to me, so the more accurate and honest statement would be...now switching topics:

Let me help...

Back to more U.S. Government and Mainstream Media Propoganda on the war...



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

Nah. Your question wasn't thought provoking in the least. Nebulous metaphors are a really piss-poor method of engaging in fruitless rambling. No substance in your point, thus the ethereal concealment.

And by the way, I don't think anyone else is very impressed with your effort to engage in verbose embroidery. Hell, man. Just say what you mean.

You sure as crap don't talk like that!

Caesar fought for an ideal? If you believe that baloney, you're as delusional as your language is unclear. Men like Caesar fought for one thing. More.

Yes, I fought for the guy next to me, and that was good enough. When we came upon a small hamlet that had just been slaughtered for insufficient cooperation with my enemies, and I saw the bodies, the very young, the elderly, the women - two of which I think were pregnant - then I knew without a doubt that I was in the right place, killing the right animals, which were my defined enemies.

And I needed no lesson from some fairy pretender whose sole exercise if discussing the ethics of a struggle. And the MORALITY. Of war.

And (I'm sure to your horror,) we tracked them down. We illegally crossed a national border, and we made absolutely certain that not one of these animals would ever again hurt an innocent.

We violated several military regulations, we violated direct orders, we violated international law, we violated the Geneva Conventions, and we violated their "civil" rights.

So you bring up the ethics and morality of war?

Why? Why bother yourself? You sure as hell won't be participating in any event!

As it is, standing on the distant sideline, the very best you could hope for is a GUESS.

You're just guessing!

You have some hang-ups about this "hearts and minds." Once you have completely broken them, the hearts and minds aren't important at that moment. Because you now have their full attention.

The greatest Western warrior that ever lived, wrote"

"It is important to win morally as it is to win militarily. By which I mean our victories must break the foe's heart and tear from him all hope of contesting us again. I do not wish to fight war upon war, but by war to produce such a peace as will admit no insurrection." ALEXANDER

So, you discuss your shifting moralities on the conduct of war.

I'll go with what works.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 





Nah. Your question wasn't thought provoking in the least. Nebulous metaphors are a really piss-poor method of engaging in fruitless rambling. No substance in your point, thus the ethereal concealment.


Fell free to stop using them and doing that at anytime. I do my best to sift through it all to get what you are really saying all the same.




And by the way, I don't think anyone else is very impressed with your effort to engage in verbose embroidery. Hell, man. Just say what you mean.


I did say what I meant, but as most do struggling to define the illusion of life you simply ignored it to say what you would prefer what I said to mean.

As evidenced by, clearly I do talk like this, which even when witnessed in black and white in front of your very own eyes the desire to keep it out of your individual perspective on the illusion of life is evidenced by that denying proclamation.

Your frustration is simply born of the inability to twist what I say in to what you would prefer it to mean.




Caesar fought for an ideal? If you believe that baloney, you're as delusional as your language is unclear. Men like Caesar fought for one thing. More.




Some would say the concept of more is an ideal, McDonald’s calls it super sizing!



Yes, I fought for the guy next to me, and that was good enough. When we came upon a small hamlet that had just been slaughtered for insufficient cooperation with my enemies, and I saw the bodies, the very young, the elderly, the women - two of which I think were pregnant - then I knew without a doubt that I was in the right place, killing the right animals, which were my defined enemies.


So if no one had been fighting over their hearts and minds they wouldn’t have been slaughtered? No one has that right to fight over the hearts and minds of others but you and yours? You saw yourself as only the solution in this process and not part of the problem?




And I needed no lesson from some fairy pretender whose sole exercise if discussing the ethics of a struggle. And the MORALITY. Of war.


I am discussing politics; you are discussing homosexuality or Tinker Bell which sounds like a rather ethical discussion to me. I would prefer to concentrate on politics in the United States regarding the war in Afghanistan, and not the morality of the war itself, but the morality of the wars unstated objectives and goals, in which I was as a friend trying to help you see there are unstated objectives and goals. We all fight and struggle for different things in different ways my friend. Some of us consider things that we wish to empathize with for the common good and the sake of an evolutionary process that does exceed the level and league that you would prefer to keep your debates in. That’s part of a shared existence.



And (I'm sure to your horror,) we tracked them down. We illegally crossed a national border, and we made absolutely certain that not one of these animals would ever again hurt an innocent.


Everyone has karma to deal with dooper, plenty of horror to go all the way around for everyone involved in the resulting fight of those sheep whose mind were so hotly contested. I was just pointing out to you that by your own admission you did not really care or know what the contest was about, just that you were in it and wanted to win it.

It sounds to me like you are struggling to see something that was clearly a loss for all parties involved as a victory, though as the victor you are left in that sometimes unenviable position of having to be the one to come to terms with that internally.

That’s how karma works!




We violated several military regulations, we violated direct orders, we violated international law, we violated the Geneva Conventions, and we violated their "civil" rights.


It was your inalienable right as a natural human being to do those things, but please understand that you are advocating the spread of complete chaos with no structure or chain of command or any uniting principal or shared concept or concept of control. That does then make the whole process simply about an individual desire to make might makes right, utilizing no ones definition of right but your own, which is simply a predatory animalistic concept and not a military one.

If you understood in fact what you were truly advocating then for our military would be 120,000 men, each doing it there own way, to their own end, in their own style, which would result in complete and utter chaos having accomplished nothing shared except the desire to eliminate all opposition in your singular view of what’s right.

Now where this works for you, I must ask you now as you exercised your inalienable right to do such things…who footed the bill for it in your solitary decision and effort in manifesting your individually arrived at concept of right? Did you pay for your ticket to Vietnam or did the Government through the tax payers, did you buy your own weapons and ammunition, boots and gear or did the government or the tax payers?
In other words friend dooper where you as independent in this process as you imagine, was it truly a sole singular undertaking that would have allowed you to become a part of those circumstances and all those subsequent choices made of your own volition or were you in fact as you were something simply unable to control your own rage and uphold your own sworn oaths to adopt instead a personal code of if I think it is right it must therefore be right and I will do that and try to make it so through might regardless of whether it is right and ignore any other reasoned input in that regard?

That has nothing to do with the military, the politics that engages the military, but simply a certain predilection on the part of one person to value his own reasoning above all others.

I can’t imagine you are advocating a military full of nothing but such independent thinkers, or how they could be employed with any strategically devised goal.

What you struggle with all these years later is that reality and of course the fact that not only did those engaged in the struggle at all levels fail to win the hearts and minds of those caught in the middle of the two warring factions, but your enemy did, and the over all tactics did not win the war.

Meanwhile there is no shred of ideology present to suggest the villagers in question where anything more than a prize and a possession to be fought over.




So you bring up the ethics and morality of war?


You keep bringing them up by advocating a wholesale of abandonment of ethics and morality in war that your own real life experiences by your own admission result in nothing but chaos, innocent people being killed and still not winning.

I am talking about common sense!



Why? Why bother yourself? You sure as hell won't be participating in any event!


I would worry less about my participation than yours. I have no trouble accomplishing the tasks I put before me and follow a simple code of “Do no harm”. Though like with all people standing in my way of exercising my own inalienable rights to say what I mean and do what I say can be a harmful endeavors to others. Especially those who are want to underestimate my capabilities and I must admit, I do love people to underestimate them.

It takes a lot of pressure off you know!



As it is, standing on the distant sideline, the very best you could hope for is a GUESS.

You're just guessing!



Am I, you are just guessing that I am guessing, I can recommend a good Gypsy Fortune Teller for you too if you like. She’s cute!




You have some hang-ups about this "hearts and minds." Once you have completely broken them, the hearts and minds aren't important at that moment. Because you now have their full attention.


Actually dooper had you had the inclination, and or ability to read or actually contemplate my posts to you, you would understand my hang up as you put it, is actually the true objective and goal of the conflict which I tried in my own way to get you to ask yourself that very question, while you favor a pure chaos for the sake of chaos approach not really caring the goals or objective but just the opportunity to sew chaos in that pursuit of which your illusion does not encompass that you are merely employed as a pawn in, either without desire to accept that role by pretending you are not in it, or because you enjoy being a pawn as long as the self achievement to spread chaos exists.

I have been trying to talk to you about true goals and objectives as to why a particular strategy is being employed, while you have spoken constantly simply to your love of warfare and unbridled violence whose goal only to you is to assert your personal dominance and that which confounds you the most at this juncture in time is your inability to dominate me in our exchange.




The greatest Western warrior that ever lived, wrote"

"It is important to win morally as it is to win militarily. By which I mean our victories must break the foe's heart and tear from him all hope of contesting us again. I do not wish to fight war upon war, but by war to produce such a peace as will admit no insurrection." ALEXANDER


Like Caesar his victory was short lived. Like Caesar his empire was fractured and divided eventually after his death. Unlike Caesar his plan for world conquest has long run its course and failed. Unlike Caesar’s whose is very much alive and nearly quite complete.




So, you discuss your shifting moralities on the conduct of war.

I'll go with what works.


It hasn't in your past it's not now!



[edit on 12/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Actually, since the people of the hamlet were slaughtered, there wasn't any hearts and minds left to win.

Being the problem or the solution is arguable. It's great to reflect back on past events with great vision and certitude. You do the best with what you have, based on the best information you have, at the moment.

I really don't put much truck in debating cause and effect - afterwards - as it has no place in the task of the moment. Yesterday's water turns no wheel. Analysis is also a shifting mechanism, with shifting points. As more is learned, the points shift. Nice, but it demonstrates the questionable value of detailed analysis. Assumptions today made on past events will eventually change. Therefore, I find them to a degree, somewhat questionable.

But fine.

War is not all bad. You seem to assume that war is bad. It's not all bad. War defines peoples and nations. War enables ideals, concepts, practices, and methodology.

War is often purifying. War often purifies a rancid human condition. War culls, and thus promotes the evolutionary process you mention. War proves. Men and equimpment, and ideals and principles are tested by fire. Fire proves all things.

I don't put a lot of stock in Karma. If you're an evil bastard, then you can't expect good things, but that is more due to poor practices.

You mistakenly assume I just went, and didn't know why. I watched the war every evening on the news for years. I was friends with one of "America's Ten Most Feared Fighting Men" according to the article in Saga Magazine.

In fact, I volunteered for combat three times, so I had a pretty good idea of what I was walking into. Idealism is where you find it, and I never had much use for it one way or the other.

Practicalities? Now you're talking my language.

I assure you that by taking our own actions, we did not, nor would any of us have been inclined toward anything to willfully negate the military necessity for good order and discipline, nor refuse our duty under necessary military control.

There was a task unfinished, a task that any man worth his salt would be required to perform, and we refused to take the easy way out. We missed our pickup point by five days. Had some problem with the radio, as I recollect.

And I'll agree with you, it was certainly an animalistic response.

The good kind.

As far as who was footing the bill during this little international side trip, since I could not get my WP grenades through military channels as they were being stolen off the docks, and since I had to buy my own in the local village for $5 apiece, I figure me and the American taxpayers are square.

You suggest that we somehow abandoned our oaths in exchange for independence and to satisfy our own rage. Well, we certainly had a cold rage going, and as our countrymen were paying us to kill our enemies over there, we assumed that in a manner of speaking, we were doing exactly what we were getting paid for, and performing exactly as expected.

We just weren't able to do it by the book. Oh, we got our asses chewed a bit, but after all, radios will occasionally fail.

You see, there's the military way, the wrong way, and then there's the right way.

The right way is often determined by the circumstances of the moment.

I would disagree that after all these years I'm struggling. I'm not struggling with anything. I sleep well, I am respected in the community, and I make no apologies to anyone.

You see, there are truly no ethics in war. You check your ethics, your morals, and your sensitivities at the door.

Survival is your sole moral point.

The strategy in war, contrary to popular misconception, is victory.

You either go in to win, and win quickly, or you keep your ass home.

No half measures.

Which is all we've seen since 1946.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 





Actually, since the people of the hamlet were slaughtered, there wasn't any hearts and minds left to win.


No, but there was still plenty of tin to be mined and lot’s of hungry men to eat LBJ’s Texas beef. Of course some would say as they were taught it was to check communist expansion, which is another way of saying, we sure won’t make any money of that tin ore if they have it. Of course the Heroine trade really got going too and while the CIA worked on getting it out, the DEA worked on making sure those with out the right political connections wouldn’t. So while American business made sure there was no shortage of Budweiser, Coca-Cola or burgers and steaks for you to enjoy, as usual a corrupt regime propped up by our Military as only winning the hearts and minds of those involved in the lucrative corruption. The simple people of the countryside for the most part could have gone either way as their peasant lifestyle wasn’t particularly affected by the competing doctrines of Communism versus Capitalism. While the NVA had a rabid ideology the ARVIN troops more or less didn’t. The Montanyards and Nungs were much better allies and in reality small Special Forces A & B Teams truly excelled at winning their hearts and minds, they too though were a simple peasant people and only had so much effect on the ground in a conflict where the NVA and the U.S. Military were primarily the main instigators with the Viet Cong taking as much advantage as they could of errant U.S. Bombs and Napalm and the occasional indiscretion of a U.S. Soldier here and there to recruit. Yet all too often when big commerce is concerned maintaining an occupation becomes the lucrative underlying factor for not dealing decisive blows on the battlefield to leave a corrupt regime in place without our own military as minders to remind them just how, when and to who and how much those contracts resulting in big commerce have to get paid. Simply put dooper and what angers me is you at the most should have only had to serve one or two tours as we could have easily won the war. Instead we maintained the zones we wanted to do to keep constant pressure on the South Vietnamese to keep us there in there defense right along with the mining companies and the wholesale distributors making retail inroads with their products who are troops very much served as advertising spokesmen for.

Had it just been about stopping the communists we could have done that in rapid order.

We wouldn’t have had to worry about hearts and minds.

Where we differ in opinion friend is you saw yourself as a patriot fighting for your country.

I see you being taken advantage of though as a Wackenhut Guard at a Grocery Store and Mine.

That’s not a denigration of the sacrifices you made buddy, that’s a denigration of the people who put you and those villagers in harms way for a monetary profit.

That’s what has been happening since 1946. It was actually happening since the late 1800’s except in World War I and II but places like Manila Bay, Cuba, Mexico, China were all about guarding American financial interests under the guise of military operations and so too was Vietnam.




Being the problem or the solution is arguable. It's great to reflect back on past events with great vision and certitude. You do the best with what you have, based on the best information you have, at the moment.


You can’t even do that when your recon teams and intelligence assets won’t filter it back to you because MACV has to politicize it first for fear some loose lipped Captain or Lieutenant runs across a reporter. You wanted to win and could have but the aim was not to win but maintain. When the cost of maintaining placed on the taxpayers no longer is less than the profits being earned by the corporate titans well then they rethink strategy a bit, usually at a point where they have lost every piece of crucial real estate and the hearts and minds to help hold it. Paying for the same piece of real estate more than once is just the most retarded thing to do and that’s what we kept employing in Vietnam and now in Afghanistan. Clean it out when it’s a hotbed withdraw and leave it to the locals, fail to win the hearts and minds in the absence and then have to retake it again to clean it out when it’s a hotbed. You might not like me too much dooper, but I like you more than enough to keep you from laying down your life for that nonsense.




I really don't put much truck in debating cause and effect - afterwards - as it has no place in the task of the moment. Yesterday's water turns no wheel. Analysis is also a shifting mechanism, with shifting points. As more is learned, the points shift. Nice, but it demonstrates the questionable value of detailed analysis. Assumptions today made on past events will eventually change. Therefore, I find them to a degree, somewhat questionable.


Dooper I have to tell you I have employed guys who were Special Forces Sergeants in Vietnam that did as many as 4 tours, I am well aware of what went on over there and I have no problem with it or what you did, because brother let me tell you if we had been fighting that war honestly to win it, you would have never been placed in that situation.

I am not here to judge you Dooper, and believe it or not I can even appreciate the way big business and the Intelligence Agencies break it down.

The only thing I am trying to point out to you is very often in war the propaganda that justifies engages people in the process for wholly manufactured reasons that appeal to their basic thinking which is why we use propaganda in the first place.

I don’t think Kennedy, LBJ or Nixon could have sold you on the concept of being a Wackenhut Guard for a tin mine or a Coca-Cola salesman do you?

While once engaged in the heat of battle the camaraderie it engenders the horrors that enflame your passion its easy to loose sight of through the propaganda just why those guys that day decided to deny you those hearts and minds.

It’s all a process that isn’t very honest to the participants and that’s what I take exception to.




But fine.

War is not all bad. You seem to assume that war is bad. It's not all bad. War defines peoples and nations. War enables ideals, concepts, practices, and methodology.

War is often purifying. War often purifies a rancid human condition. War culls, and thus promotes the evolutionary process you mention. War proves. Men and equimpment, and ideals and principles are tested by fire. Fire proves all things.



I can use any litmus everyone wants to imagine is universal to prove all things. Wars are fought for resources material, mineral and human. They are fought by people who wish to win hearts and minds in their very own population to provide the carrots that people jump for and want to have and enjoy in a process of enslaving people to material things that give their lives some greater degree of security, comfort, efficiency, entertainment and value. Very few people leave Miami for Cuba, a lot of people leave Cuba for Miami though. In the late 50’s, 60’s and 70’s Dooper they came as political refugees that could not or would not fit into the Communist system. Since the 80’s they come as economic refugees, they are people born into the Communist State and don’t have any first hand experience with other ideologies, they have first hand experience though with hungry bellies, rusty old bicycles, dilapidated and unsanitary living conditions that they just don’t like. They come to make money, the come to get things, things that aren’t available in Cuba. We make sure those things aren’t available in Cuba for that very reason, if they were there the majority of them would not leave over ideology, they are products of their environment not ours, and sometimes because we are products of ours and not theirs we loose sight that the people who are products of it aren’t always looking to have their hearts and minds won as we imagine. It does not happen but every now and then some recently arrived Cuban will move in with his relatives here and after the prerequisite trips to Disney World and some new clothes and a bunch of great big meals, the family says ok time to go out and get a job. Get a job? You mean I have to find one myself? Then when they get over that indignation and find out they have to work at their job in our system they say hey thanks for the vacation I am going back to Cuba, they have a lot less but a lot less is demanded of them.

Fire really doesn’t prove anything it destroys things, and wars are just fought for those things like tin or oil, living space or gemstones or farmland that you want to keep people in your tribe and loving you. Presidents like George H.W. Bush, Sr. go from heroes to zeros as fast as an economy goes busts and sours.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 





I don't put a lot of stock in Karma. If you're an evil bastard, then you can't expect good things, but that is more due to poor practices.


I do my friend, as a guy with dominant and sadistic tendencies I try to two good things for every one bad thing. War really is about the acquisition of resources and to that end some of us are more determined than others in that quest, I try to make it about then who I spread that wealth too and why to even out the scales. I would be happy to live in a society that the Golden Rule wasn’t he who has the Gold Rules but I do and War really is just the process of maintaining and exercising that Golden Rule.




You mistakenly assume I just went, and didn't know why. I watched the war every evening on the news for years. I was friends with one of "America's Ten Most Feared Fighting Men" according to the article in Saga Magazine.


War has no shortage of colorful characters and some very romantic and larger than life ones at that, but the TV news was little more honest then than it is today.




In fact, I volunteered for combat three times, so I had a pretty good idea of what I was walking into. Idealism is where you find it, and I never had much use for it one way or the other.


My friends and employees kept going back because they fell in love with the Montanyards and felt a responsibility and kinship to and with them, they were still in their formative years and the war simply became their life and their focus. I am not judging you Dooper, I have more empathy for you than you can imagine or would even think to ask for.

My war began at 13 I have 32 years in, war is my life, I just fight a different kind.

They all by the way respected I was as cool, calm, methodical and disciplined as anyone could be under fire, there is always a war going on somewhere Dooper even if you have to make it yourself.




Practicalities? Now you're talking my language.

I assure you that by taking our own actions, we did not, nor would any of us have been inclined toward anything to willfully negate the military necessity for good order and discipline, nor refuse our duty under necessary military control.


One of my employees blew half his hand off when at the last minute he pulled up on a grenade launcher he had aimed at some Marines at a Roadblock because he was drunk and wouldn’t let him pass beyond the DMZ on the road. I understand Dooper, believe me I understand.




There was a task unfinished, a task that any man worth his salt would be required to perform, and we refused to take the easy way out. We missed our pickup point by five days. Had some problem with the radio, as I recollect.


Might have been one of those exploding kinds they were all over the northern countryside. That’s why it’s better to buy American. Plain and simple Dooper you should not have been put in that situation, you know as well as I do we could have invaded the North, bombed its capital, and shut down their whole War Machine.

If you see the films of Stalingrad which I am sure you have, the Soviets were never about expansion they were about protection, they got hammered like no tomorrow in Barbarossa and were naturally paranoid it could happen again. Patton was right Dooper we should have just taken it all and marched on to Moscow but the reality is a lot of big money American Industrialist like Armond Hammer had big business interests over there and even all those years later when Chernobyl went up and no one could get in his Private 747 jammed with equipment and supplies out of L.A.X. was the first to touch down over there within hours with his 82 year old butt right on board. Big business interests.




And I'll agree with you, it was certainly an animalistic response.

The good kind.


To me the good kind is when they look up at you all sweaty and call you Daddy but hey different strokes for different folks.




As far as who was footing the bill during this little international side trip, since I could not get my WP grenades through military channels as they were being stolen off the docks, and since I had to buy my own in the local village for $5 apiece, I figure me and the American taxpayers are square.


Brother after putting you through all that nonsense the taxpayers and you are never going to be square, the point is my friend is we purposefully employed a bad military strategy for pure economic gain at everyone else’s expense including yours. That’s all I am trying to get you to see. We accomplished what we accomplished not because we weren’t capable but because we truly did not look to accomplish more than we did. They like to put it off to stupid meddling politicians and incompetent generals or a liberal population but they really do accomplish what they want too in the task, it’s just not what they are pitching to you and selling to you and everyone else. Frankly it makes me upset that a lot of people with better intentions and capabilities are made to be the scapegoats.

That’s what I am really trying to talk about Dooper.




You suggest that we somehow abandoned our oaths in exchange for independence and to satisfy our own rage. Well, we certainly had a cold rage going, and as our countrymen were paying us to kill our enemies over there, we assumed that in a manner of speaking, we were doing exactly what we were getting paid for, and performing exactly as expected.


Dooper as I told you before, it was your inalienable right my friend to do that. It did though violate the chain of command and that’s what I wanted you to see. War is hell and I agree with Sherman that if you have to fight it, that it should be just as horrible as you can make it so people do surrender and think long and hard before fighting it again.

That wasn’t a war we needed to fight as a nation Dooper, believe me I still had to buy my tin cups and could have bought them regardless of whether an American company controlled the mining of it. Maybe a few pennies more, maybe a few pennies left, it’s just that those American companies would not have made the money. And you know if American companies actually worried about Americans and paid them a real living wage I might even go for that, but they don’t, to them it’s all about commerce and no one life or place has any more value to them than their portfolio, holdings and net worth, so all I have to say is screw them, I would rather fight a war to get America back in the hands of Americans who want to make America work for Americans than the stone hut crowd.

That is what I am talking about. They are just stirring that hornet’s nest for a reason, and it’s never the reason they tell you it is.




We just weren't able to do it by the book. Oh, we got our asses chewed a bit, but after all, radios will occasionally fail.

You see, there's the military way, the wrong way, and then there's the right way.

The right way is often determined by the circumstances of the moment.



Fate is nothing but the weight of circumstances Dooper, I wasn’t there it was your call you exercised your inalienable right. It is not your fault that you were there per say. I don’t think you should have been there though under the conditions, you were, for the reasons you were, or saddled with the rules of engagement you were that led to a prolonged occupation in a culture where there is no way we could win hearts and minds.

We go back 200 years as a mixed group of bastards, Anchor Wat is thousands of years old Dooper, there were only really two last names the people in Vietnam used because they always took their last name from the Kings last name, only two dynasties in all that time, they have a culture it’s not our culture, but it means something to them because they have it.

We could have bought the tin at less of an expense and the reality is if we hadn’t been there those people wouldn’t have been wacked over their hearts and minds. They would have been bypassed and the weak corrupt vassal political regime in Saigon crushed as it was, once we stopped blocking the road, and all we were ever doing was partially blocking the road so enough of them could get on down it to justify hanging out and partially blocking the road.




I would disagree that after all these years I'm struggling. I'm not struggling with anything. I sleep well, I am respected in the community, and I make no apologies to anyone.


If you aren’t struggling with something you are taking up too much space Dooper! Don’t be a lard ass.




You see, there are truly no ethics in war. You check your ethics, your morals, and your sensitivities at the door.

Survival is your sole moral point.

The strategy in war, contrary to popular misconception, is victory.



Victory was denied, profits were made and taken, the blood of too many used to pad that ledger in a war with out an honest goal or an honest strategy to achieve it and in my opinion to that end you should have never been deployed.

Black Water could have done the same thing, had Black Water been around, and it could have been done honestly with the corporations bearing the cost instead of tax payers when it didn’t benefit them without putting you into that situation by means of deception. Conversely you could have joined Black Water been paid better and understood better the real nature and scope of your mission in the process.

I hope you are better seeing my point now.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Well, a good discourse.

Still one difference.

Gold and men are in fact, proven by fire.

See you on the other side.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 






You either go in to win, and win quickly, or you keep your ass home.

No half measures.

Which is all we've seen since 1946.



And once again I am asking you why, because in my humble opinion you aren’t fighting the war you really would be itching to fight if you asked that honestly and came up with the real answer. We are flat out wasting our time in Afghanistan and the real enemy isn’t there brother.

That’s all I am trying to tell you. You can dismiss it out of hand or you can think on it, and I am not engaging you in a contest of egos or trying to impress anyone. Just get some people to think.

That’s all I am asking you. You understand what feints are Dooper, how they are used to draw forces in and engage them in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They didn't teach you to be a Marine at Bragg Dooper, they didn't teach you to be a grunt. They taught you to be the thinking man's soldier, Special Forces Airborne.

I all I am trying to get you to do is think less about employing the same failed strategy in Vietnam that the Soviets tried using in Afghanistan too, and we are like a bunch of numb nuts doing the same thing again.

Why?

Beacuse let me tell you the guys at the top, they aren't stupid. They are businessmen and good ones and they always get exactly what they pay for...even if it's the tax payers who are picking up the tab. You know the filthy rich never cary wallets on them.

Why?

They aren't going to let you win this war they way you would like to win it. They are stirring up the hornets nest over there for a purpose, and this time it's not just the oil and dope.

The Taliban is far more motivated and set in their convictions than the NVA or Viet Cong where Dooper.

Everyone looses except the rich when they employ the military in these kinds of endeavors and more often than not they use one to create a pretext for another.

We both agree it's a failed battlefield strategy for similiar reasons.

Where we disagree is like Vietnam I don't think they want to win the things that you believe we are fighting for.

I am not stupid Dooper and neither are you so lets not get stuck on it please buddy.

Thanks.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I thought we were done!

I spent many years, trying to figure out why we can win our set-piece battles, and lose our wars.

I would read Sun Tzu and later find that Marlborough, or Alexander would say the exact same thing, which would be practiced by Ghenghis or Hannibal Barca.

I thought, how is it, that these men, though separated by continents, nationalities, and millennia are all saying the same things.

I began to delve, to research, to compile.

I'll U2U what I did with all that data.

Let's just say that while there are political concerns to be sure, once the decision has been made, then there are a few principles of conducting that foregone war, to a successful conclusion, if you follow these principles.

Not my principles, but the principles that the Masters of Warfare all agree on. In fact, of these principles listed, when followed, not a single battle, campaign, nor war have been lost.

To the contrary, regardless of the general, the moment they abandoned those principles that previously guaranteed their previous successes, they failed.

Napolean, Hannibal Barca, Robert E. Lee. The moment they abandoned one or more of these simple, timeless principles, they fell.

Therefore, regardless of how talented or skilled the general, it is the principles that are inviolable.

We can't win in Afghanistan the way we're going.

We can't win in Iraq the way we're going.

There was no way in hell we were going to win in Viet Nam.

And I know precisely why.

On the other hand, you give me 50,000 hand selected men, and I can run amok through any of those countries, even Iran.

Because I won't do anything like what we've been doing.

I would be doing what works without fail. Never deviating, never giving in to ego, pressure, or compromise.

And it wouldn't matter what the political reason was for putting us there.

The principles.

They work.

Without fail.

And we aren't using any.

Any.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 



Its not a glorious place to be with the gear in the rear Dooper, but if they don't get that gear over the supply lines up to the front you aren't going anywhere without it or for long. You better grab a snickers bar and hope you have one because you won't be going anywhere for a while.

You ask why did all these brilliant commanders and military giants abandon their own doctrines during the pivotal carreer and campaign breaking battle?

Because the guy who manufactures the gear in the rear whose a freind of the banker that pays for in the rear and have deals going on with guys over there say hey, that's about as far as I want or need him to go.

Had we just stuck with Swords this might have not happened. Swords they were just too dangerous in that regard!

Focusing on the space that the battle is taking place, and the military or political figure who puts the face on it is in my humble oppinion a mistake, because none of those people typically ever exist without a puppet master in shadows.

Now the thing about puppet masters Dooper is they often have more than one puppet, but they don't always tell their puppets how many puppets they have on how many stages. In fact they never do.

So when Napoleon finds himself amazingly in the inferior position, with the inferior logistics, and the inferior intelligence when he faces Lord Wellington on the field of battle who seems to be in just the right place with the right stuff at the right time...it's only because...

The puppet master is playing them both. The puppet master involved with that one made a fortune off of that and made inroads on other strategic battle fields that control the system that you can't use guns and bullets to win, but just sheer diabolical craftiness and heartless greed and ambition.

What's confounding you is two things. Why don't these guys who know the doctrine follow it?

They can't their supplies of resources, money and intelligence have been cut off in the rear.

The second thing is well why won't we learn to employ what you are sure is succesful strategy?

We know how to, the generals know how too, but they need the gear from the rear that the Puppet Master provides and decides.

The Puppet Master won England that day and Napolean lost France which Napolean didn't quite know was ever his, because in all these centuries of warfare Napoleon was ever the one smart enough to attack the Puppet Masters home base. When Napolean attacked Switzerland and shattered it's 12 canton states of Government that my friend was the Puppet Master's lair.

Puppet Masters are seldom in their lair of course but some of their things are, and if you come for a Puppet Master you had better have plenty of troops marching behind you if he's in what you imagine is your layer.

The Puppet Master who was actually the one fighting the war, because he figured out a way to engragiate himself or control enough of the wealth and logistics both players and sides needed had a different objective.

Not to crush Wellingtons Armies, but to storm England's financial system and through the confusion he could sew to bankrupt an entire nation with only information he possessed because only he knew the outcome of the fate of Europe and held that knowledge in his hand alone for just as long as he needed to, to put it to work.

He caused more damage through deception and manipulation and won more than Napoleon could have with a fleet of ships and three times the troops and all the supplies in the world.

In my humble oppinion its not about whats going on, on the battle field there is smoke there to be sure.

The fire is some place else Dooper, in the hands of someone else, after something else he can not, should not, and will not declare if he wishes to outsmart his opponents and get what he wants.

He moves pieces on the board here and there as far as he wants to make that place and the board appear as he wants it to be.

That my friend is the part of war I fear you are missing, and why it's never written in any book by these great military minds is by the time they discover the true nature of the puppet master who typically was their best friend, mentor, and source of everything they needed to gain and maintain their position and fight the wars they imagined, the Puppet Master would just betray and abandon them in there most critical hour.

Napoleon ended up slowly dieing in agony poisoned on the Isle of Elba where like everything else the Puppet Master controlled the food he would be given to eat.

The Puppet Master delighted in his agonizing death for daring to strike at the heart of his empire he manages to always maintain the illusion of being neutral and benign.

Should you attack this Puppet Master in a similiar manner your fate is most assuredly going to be the same or worse.

It's why when a Puppet Master wants an outcome you can't understand but he can, they don't employ the strategy you want.

It never pays to be fixated on the spaces on the board the action appears to be geared to or why.

The Puppet Master always and forever has his eyes on a different prize.

That's the missing link right their friend Dooper, whether you believe it or not thats all up to you, but from where I sit I have never seen one thing that for one second does not suggest it's not true.

The old saying really does hold true, you can tell the big boys by the size of their toys, and well some of these boys let me tell you, they got toys you can't imagine and ways to toy with them you never would either.

That my friend is the real art of war, not fighting it yourself, but controlling how it's fought and why by controlling and duping and manipulating every last little piece on the board.

That's the world they don't want you to see. It's a fun world where every little thing is turned in to an instrument of war and I do mean everything Dooper.

Ciao buddy.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Well, . . . *.

That puppet Master takes all the fun out of things, doesn't he?

And all this time . . .

Good post!

I'll chew on that for a while!



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Well, . . . *.

That puppet Master takes all the fun out of things, doesn't he?

And all this time . . .

Good post!

I'll chew on that for a while!


To give you an idea Dooper how it works...Valley Forge and the Hessians Christmas day. The Hessians first and foremost were accountable to the Puppet Master. Prince Rupart was the one who recruited and trained them but the Puppet Master was the only one who would book them and deploy them as their sole agent.

Now I am the Puppet Master staging a revolution, that I want to make appear really is a revolution to all parties involved except maybe one or two at the very top of it that are on my strings.

I can't fund them directly through the usual channels because hey just follow the money holds true as much then as it did now.

But if I say told the man in charge of the Revolution if you attack right here across the river at this day and this hour I will make sure you have everything you need to keep going right there.

Then the puppet master says to the commander across the river, good news I think this thing is just about wrapped up and over, they are starved broken and defeated and I will be bringing you back home soon. Enclosed is a bonus for plenty of libation and feasting to enjoy the Holiday the enemy is no longer a threat so let all the men stand down and enjoy and celebrate for a job well done.

Alright its time to paar-teeee.

Now the stores open and it does not look like I had one little thing to do with it does it?

I get what I need to who I want when I want in a way that my hand never shows.

That's what happend that day too. The Hessians weren't sloppy troops, the were crack, top notch, highly disciplined best of thier kind. Some one told them to stand down and gave them permission to relax their gaurd.

That's war the advanced player edition!



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by Nammu
 


You know nothing about me. How dare you make assumptions. You do not know my life, my family, and the troubles, if any, we have went through.

But that is neither here nor there . . . your reply was just a thinly veiled attempt to get pity.

Does not work here.

Next you will throw the kids into the bunch. That always works on the bleeding hearts.

There is an old saying: "Kill em all, let God sort em out"


My reply certainly was not thinly veiled in any way. It was rather more abrupt than I tend to be on this board because your responses plainly say that killing innocent people is collateral damage and so it's ok and people just shouldn't bother. As long as it's not one of 'you'. But we are all we! We're all the same! Regardless of whether we're in the UK, US or Afghanistan we're all people. Your 'kill em all' attitude may one day come back to bite you on the ass. That was my point. It seems that struck a chord.

How can you feel no pity for innocent people caught up in something they never asked for? How can you think that their pain and suffering is any different from your own? How can you say 'get over it', 'it's unavoidable' and 'when innocents are killed so be it' then freak out cause I related that to what it might feel like if it happened to you?

There's also another old saying:

Thou shalt not murder



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Kill =/= Murder

And it is because I know that sometimes innocent people will be killed. That is even more so when the enemy is hiding amongst the population, using them as human shields.

Then they get people like you crying about it.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


Yes, you will always get people like me crying over those that were murdered or killed at the hands of others, regardless of the circumstances. It's what balances out the people who believe their lives being snuffed out is nothing to care about and that they're any less than we are.

I would never wish it on anyone.

Ying and yang. You and me.

That's what makes us all brothers/sisters and keeps the world ticking.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Now... don't any of you worry- "Christian" soldiers are bring Jesus to the masses in Afghanistan! So- after we perpetrate heinous war crimes, we can show the 'loving, wonderful God' we serve!

Gotta love religion......... NOT.




top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join