Moral objections on warfare.

Anonymous · Apr 19, 2005

Supposedly China is at least equal to the USA and perhaps ahead in nanotechnology - the next frontier in weapons systems design. Given another 5 years, this might start producing real weapons.

I also suspect China is rather confident that the USA will be embroiled in the war on terror for at least the next decade. The longer it waits the less and less capable the US will be to afford a conflict with China and the less willing the US people to fight for what are percieved as the intrests of others. This will be expecially true if Japan tries to exploit the US debt situation in any way.

=S=

Lunatic

Udet · Apr 19, 2005

War against China?

It is likely to happen. After all, wars are not waged for the fun of killing. Killing is just a mean never the ultimate goal.

The ultimate goal of war is economic-political power.

In view of the economic growth of China and the overall financial position of other powers, USA or course included, it could happen.

The USA and allies, for instance, did not invade Irak to implement democracy. It is a tale no one on earth buys, but let´s not forget politicians know how to chump on garbage -they are proffesionals at it-. They will continue to repeat their rubbish for as many times possible to convert lies into truth.

I hardly watch any TV, however, and by a mere coincidence I happened to be near a screen showing Sir Tony "Trafalgar Square Punk" Blair being interviewed. With a great smile on his face, his reponse to some question regarding the aftermath of the invasion of Irak was:

"Let´s not forget that present-day Iraki citizens have the absolute freedom of will and liberty to take the paper, chose their preferred politician and to deposit their vote in the box."

Yes, sure that might be happening now in Irak.

Still, this individual, the expression on his face lacked any authenticity. He sounded so untrue, so false and so pretending i found the view completely obscene.

Sure. Sure Mr. Blair had countless sleepless nights worrying on the absence of democracy in Irak.

Scene: At Mr. Blair´s residence, some night well before the invasion of Irak:

His wife, noticing some noise in the bedroom, opens lazy eyes, reaches out for her husband, but he is not in the bed. Turning the lights on, she sees her husband standing still looking through the window.
"Dear? It is 3 a.m. and you are not asleep? What is wrong?"
Worried Tony responds:
"Just to have the view in my mind of those poor people of Irak... they can not vote for God´s sake! I will never rest until i see them voting in freedom".

Laughable or upsetting, or both.

Now a China-USA military clash...let´s hope it never happens.
I ve been told most people in the USA army, when the Vietnam conflict was at its initial stages called the Vietnamese "rice chumping apes wearing black pijamas". In the end, the USA army fled Vietnam with the tail between the legs.

China is the kind of regime where high casualties would not be that relevant. The USA, loyal to a long tradition, does not tolerate casualties nowhere near the "moderate" range.

China has a large army, their soldiers are well trained and equipped: jets, heavy tanks, artillery, missiles, etc.

The sole similarity present-day Chinese soldiers could share with those Vietnamese who fought against the USA in the 60s would be the absolute fierceness in combat and utter commitment to annihilate the enemy.

You might immediately burst out to point out the fact Chinese military technology can be still well behind the USA´s.

I would not be so sure on that particular issue. China has been sending "armies" or fleets of spies to roll across the earth; most countries have them, either first world or developing nations, to steal all kinds of "know-how" on virtually every matter you can think of. The mission is to gather, record and steal all classified information they can get their hands on.

And they have been trained to make things happen. Trained to get their hands on almost anything.

Military technology, of course, is a relevant target of those fleets of Chinese spies rolling across the earth.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 19, 2005

Udet said:
Now a China-USA military clash...let´s hope it never happens.
I ve been told most people in the USA army, when the Vietnam conflict was at its initial stages called the Vietnamese "rice chumping apes wearing black pijamas". In the end, the USA army fled Vietnam with the tail between the legs.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WERE IN 1973 BUCKO BUT THE NORTH VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT SIGNED A CEASE FIRE WITH THE US AND SOUTH VIET NAM THUS ENDING US INVOLVEMENT IN VIET NAM. PRIOR TO THAT NIXION WAS BOMBING THE NORTH VIETNAMESE INTO THE STONE AGE DURING THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 1972! ONCE THE PEACE ACCORD WAS SIGNED IN PARIS IN EARLY 1973, THE US WITHDREW 99% OF ITS FORCES FROM A CONFLICT THE POLITICIANS ROYALLY SCREWED UP AND THE COMMON SOLDIER WAS MADE TO PAY FOR. BECAUSE OF THE TYPICAL POLITICAN OF THAT DAY, THE US ARMED FORCES WERE MADE TO FIGHT A CONFLICT WITH BOTH HANDS AND A FOOT TIED BEHIND THEIR BACKS!

OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY THOSE CLIPS SHOWING THE US EMBASSY BEING EVACUATED WHEN SAIGON FELL IN 1975, BY THAT TIME THE US HAD MAYBE 1000 "ADVISERS" IN COUNTRY, IF THAT AND THESE FOLKS HAD LITTLE OR NO COMBAT ROLES. THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE MILITARY WHO WAS MADE TO DEFEND THEIR OWN CONTRY FELL APART WITHOUT US ASSISTANCE. THE NORTH VIETNAMESE BROKE THEIR PEACE TREATY AND MARCHED RIGHT INTO VIET NAM (AS PREDICTED) AS THEY KNEW US PUBLIC OPINION WOULD NOT ALLOW A RE-ENGAGEMENT IN VIET NAM, ESPECIALLY WITH RICHARD NIXION OUT OF THE PICTURE. MILITARILY, THE VIETNAM WAR ENDED FOR THE US IN 1973 AND AT THAT THERE WAS A "SECURED" SOUTH VIET NAM.

IT WAS THEN AND STILL QUITE EVIDENT THAT IF THE US WANTED TO INVADE AND CONQUER VIET NAM, THAT COULD OF BEEN DONE AT ANY TIME, INSTED A BUNCH OF STUPID IVY-LEAGUE POLITICIANS ALLOWED THEMSELVES TO BE SUCKED INTO A CONFLICT THAT WAS A LOST CAUSE TO BEGIN WITH.

IF I WERE YOU I WOULD NEVER SAY SUCH A THING TO A VIET NAM COMBAT VETERAN, YOU'LL BE LIABLE TO BE MISSING SOME VITAL BODY PARTS!

Udet · Apr 19, 2005

What a particularly funny response.

Actually I had never seen any images of that Saigon evacuation thing.

But what i ve read are many accounts of countless USA platoons returning from their missions decimated in complete moral disarray.

Yeah, the USAF might have dropped countless hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs over enemy territory, still they never managed to decipher the combat style of the elusive enemy they met over there.

Yeah, the politicians might have contributed with their foolishness, but if you want to affirm the USA moved out of Vietnam for the fundamental reason of having unskilled politicians that is your sole business.

To me it appears more the dumbness of the politicians was more the consequence of a military situation that had gone beyond the bearable limits.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 19, 2005

Udet said:
But what i ve read are many accounts of countless USA platoons returning from their missions decimated in complete moral disarray.

And you know why that is? Because the US military wasn't allowed to fight in Viet Nam. The Navy and Air Force wasn't allowed to bomb certain targets. The Army and Marines were not allowed to cross the DMZ and take out NVA positions supporting the Viet Cong. Search and destroy missions were conducted with limited resources against an enemy who had the geographical, political and physiological advantage over an adversary (US) who's majority of fighting men knew they should of been there to begin with! But when it came down the the nitty gritty and when the North Vietnamese attempted to dispose of US Forces by force, those dis-grunted dope smoking US soldiers fought back and totally repulsed each attempt of the NVA to drive them out militarily. Read about the TET offensives. The US Military, considering the enemy it was up against, considering the stupidity of the leaders calling the shots in Washington, and considering the political climate back home fought very well when the last combat units left in 1973.

Did the US Military loose the Viet Nam War -No, the US Politicians did!

Anonymous · Apr 19, 2005

Udet that is really not true.

In most Vietnam clashes US losses were very low, VN losses very very high. Even so, something around 50,000 Americans were killed.

Troops were demoralized because of the senselessness of their orders. They'd fight and die to take some hill, then be withdrawn the next day, then a week later be ordered to take the same hill again.

There is little doubt the US military could easily have defeated the VN and conquered North Vietnam. There is also little doubt that had they done so the Chineese would have entered the war, quite possibly forcing a nuclear confrontation. Therefore, the US military was fighting a holding action waiting for the South VN army to become strong enough to defend themselves from the North - but it became increasingly apparent this would never happen. Therefore, the prospect was an unending holding action, and even given the 1:20 or lower relative combat causalty rates, the USA was not willing to endure such losses forever.

Einsenhower was an idiot - it's as simple as that. He forgot the principal we fought for in WWII - the right of a people to self-determination. In violation of the principals set down by FDR in the Atlantic Charter, Eishenhower supported the French attempt to re-establish their colony in Indochina, a colony they had always ruled harshly and unfairly. It is no wonder the VN people were not willing to accept such foriegn rule, and they could see no difference between the French and the USA given the way things progressed.

Eisenhower (and Truman before him) could have prevented the whole fiasco by simply telling the French to screw themselves and making a deal with Ho-chi-mein to establish a unified VN Democracy in the early to mid 50's, something he was more than willing to do - actually wanted to do! Instead, we forced him into bed with the Commies. The whole thing was stupid and wasteful of both resources and human life.

=S=

Lunatic

FLYBOYJ · Apr 19, 2005

RG_Lunatic said:
Udet that is really not true.

In most Vietnam clashes US losses were very low, VN losses very very high. Even so, something around 50,000 Americans were killed.

Troops were demoralized because of the senselessness of their orders. They'd fight and die to take some hill, then be withdrawn the next day, then a week later be ordered to take the same hill again.

There is little doubt the US military could easily have defeated the VN and conquered North Vietnam. There is also little doubt that had they done so the Chineese would have entered the war, quite possibly forcing a nuclear confrontation. Therefore, the US military was fighting a holding action waiting for the South VN army to become strong enough to defend themselves from the North - but it became increasingly apparent this would never happen. Therefore, the prospect was an unending holding action, and even given the 1:20 or lower relative combat causalty rates, the USA was not willing to endure such losses forever.

Einsenhower was an idiot - it's as simple as that. He forgot the principal we fought for in WWII - the right of a people to self-determination. In violation of the principals set down by FDR in the Atlantic Charter, Eishenhower supported the French attempt to re-establish their colony in Indochina, a colony they had always ruled harshly and unfairly. It is no wonder the VN people were not willing to accept such foriegn rule, and they could see no difference between the French and the USA given the way things progressed.

Eisenhower (and Truman before him) could have prevented the whole fiasco by simply telling the French to screw themselves and making a deal with Ho-chi-mein to establish a unified VN Democracy in the early to mid 50's, something he was more than willing to do - actually wanted to do! Instead, we forced him into bed with the Commies. The whole thing was stupid and wasteful of both resources and human life.

=S=

Lunatic

RG - YOU'RE DA MAN!

Nonskimmer · Apr 19, 2005

And he's so well mannered.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 19, 2005

I bet he dresses well to 8)

Udet · Apr 19, 2005

I know what the approximante total losses of the US Army were in Vietnam.

Bear in mind such casualties were suffered fighting an enemy that had no air support: no fighters, no bombers, no recon. The vietnamese also had no artillery and no significant navy other than some fast river or coastal crafts. The USA had tanks, although there were many parts where tanks were simply useless. The VC lacked tanks.

It was pure personal weapons: AK-47s, bombs, personal rocket launchers and lots of deadly traps the US soldiers faced.

From such perspective the losses of the US Army while in fact not high were not low either.

Well of course the Vietnamese took far greater losses illustrating they were relentless on attempting the destruction of the enemy.

Present-day Chinese soldiers have a not too different way of fighting. They are far better equipped than the vietnamese men of the 1960s were.

The US soldiers fought the crocodile in the water during the Vietnam.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 19, 2005

Actually during TET, the NVA brought out tanks on a coupe of occasions. Here's a link; http://www.thebattleofkontum.com/phase1.html

FLYBOYJ · Apr 19, 2005

Udet said:
Actually I had never seen any images of that Saigon evacuation thing.

Soren · Apr 19, 2005

RG_Lunatic said:
Udet that is really not true.

In most Vietnam clashes US losses were very low, VN losses very very high. Even so, something around 50,000 Americans were killed.

Troops were demoralized because of the senselessness of their orders. They'd fight and die to take some hill, then be withdrawn the next day, then a week later be ordered to take the same hill again.

There is little doubt the US military could easily have defeated the VN and conquered North Vietnam. There is also little doubt that had they done so the Chineese would have entered the war, quite possibly forcing a nuclear confrontation. Therefore, the US military was fighting a holding action waiting for the South VN army to become strong enough to defend themselves from the North - but it became increasingly apparent this would never happen. Therefore, the prospect was an unending holding action, and even given the 1:20 or lower relative combat causalty rates, the USA was not willing to endure such losses forever.

Einsenhower was an idiot - it's as simple as that. He forgot the principal we fought for in WWII - the right of a people to self-determination. In violation of the principals set down by FDR in the Atlantic Charter, Eishenhower supported the French attempt to re-establish their colony in Indochina, a colony they had always ruled harshly and unfairly. It is no wonder the VN people were not willing to accept such foriegn rule, and they could see no difference between the French and the USA given the way things progressed.

Eisenhower (and Truman before him) could have prevented the whole fiasco by simply telling the French to screw themselves and making a deal with Ho-chi-mein to establish a unified VN Democracy in the early to mid 50's, something he was more than willing to do - actually wanted to do! Instead, we forced him into bed with the Commies. The whole thing was stupid and wasteful of both resources and human life.

=S=

Lunatic

Im with you all the way on this one !

-------------------------------------------------

The U.S. forces were much superior in both training and equipment compared to the VC, and it clearly shows in the loss records for both forces.

The VC wouldnt have lasted long if the tactics used by the U.S. wasnt so damn inefficient against Guerilla style tactics.

It was for political reasons the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, not because their forces had been defeated or weakened in any way. Actually this should be quite obvious, as the U.S. power of production was MUCH superior to that of the VC !

FLYBOYJ · Apr 19, 2005

Soren said:
Actually this should be quite obvious, as the U.S. power of production was MUCH superior to that of the VC !

As a matter of fact, the only reason why the North Vietnamese agreed on a peace in 1973 was because Richard Nixon got tired of the "Paris Peace Talks" going nowhere. The NVA and Viet Cong attempted a mass offensive in late 1972 and basically got their butts handed to them. Over North Vietnam, B-52s were reducing Hanoi to an ash tray and by this time the US ground forces actually got a handle of the Viet Cong's guerrilla tactics. This is quite evident in the amount of US casualties during this period. Had the North Vietnamese not negotiated a cease fire, they probably would have been so undermined that even the corrupt and ill-disciplined South Vietnamese Army could have kept them in check. Although the NVA was being pummeled, they knew to cut their losses and wait. With the fall of Nixon during Watergate, it was just a matter of time before the NVA could re-coupe and march right into South Viet Nam.

Without American assistance, each South Vietnamese province fell like a deck of cards. Even the NVA was surprised how easily the south fell! By the time the NVA made it to Saigon, much of the South Vietnamese Army defected.

I am 46 years old, had 6 family members fighting in Viet Nam from 1966-1972, so I remember this time very well. I thank god they all made it back, some scared physically, some scared mentally, but they all got home! The bottom line, when the US left the battle in 1973, South Viet Nam was still standing. I blame its fall squarely on the sholders of the South Viet Nam Corrupt Government and the Ivy League US politicians who thought Viet Nam was the way to contain communisum!

Udet · Apr 19, 2005

You guys are sort of missing the point.

I dislike clarifications but in view of the comments from the many of you here they go:

(i) Who has ever even suggested Vietnam was "outproducing" the military industry of the USA?

(ii) Who has suggested losses for the USA had been very high?

It does not matter how much casualties the US Army inflicted on the Vietnamese. Does not matter how low USA casualties were.

The fact is the US Army spent over a decade in the region, spending billions of dollars along with the lives of some 50,000 men, in military operations that never came close to bring the enemy down on his knees.

Political stupidity may have well played its role for the embarassing outcome of the Vietnam war but you can not deny the kind of warfare waged by the Vietnamese turned out a nightmare for the troops of the USA.

No nation of earth, no matter how big and how powerful might be, can endure 10 or more years of military operations even if the enemy causes it "low" casualties or poses a "minimum" military threat.

You are basically suggesting the military scope of the Vietnam War was succesful or bound to be succesful, aren´t you all?

Kind of suggesting had the politicians been smarter and the war been protracted for some more time (how much longer?) the US Army could have accomplished the task, aren´t you?

Very unlikely. But to be generous i will say we will simply never know.

If the US could have stayed in the region for more time, i see the VC soldiers continuing waging their fight accordingly.

The Soviet Union had its turn in Afghanistan. An incredible similarity with the experience of the USA in Vietnam.

A massive army with heavy tanks, mechanized units, heavy artillery, large air force, missiles, blah, blah, blah...against an enemy the had nothing but personal toys to fight the enemy. The Afghan warriors proved extremely tough enemies to deal with as well, and the communists had to let go and return to their nearly crumbling nation.

trackend · Apr 20, 2005

In the case of Afghanistan it was the Russians not learning from the past,
the British fought with the Afghans for years in the 1800's and got no where It was the Afghans home ground and they used hit and run tactics. The same tactics as those employed by the Afghans where used by Tito in Yugoslavia with a very small force he kept thousands of German troops tied up for years (I've been too the mountains there and you could hide 5000 men up in the forests easily) There are times when technology is no substitute for the old foot soldier winkling out the opposition most conflicts cant be won at arms length.
The US and allied forces proved this with their progress across the Pacific Islands Burma, Malaya etc each island or Jungle requiring close quarter contact to weed out the enemy the problem of course in these particular campaigns it become a very costly business going against a do or die enemy such as the Japanese.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 20, 2005

Udet said:
The fact is the US Army spent over a decade in the region, spending billions of dollars along with the lives of some 50,000 men, in military operations that never came close to bring the enemy down on his knees.

Political stupidity may have well played its role for the embarassing outcome of the Vietnam war but you can not deny the kind of warfare waged by the Vietnamese turned out a nightmare for the troops of the USA.

No nation of earth, no matter how big and how powerful might be, can endure 10 or more years of military operations even if the enemy causes it "low" casualties or poses a "minimum" military threat.

You are basically suggesting the military scope of the Vietnam War was succesful or bound to be succesful, aren´t you all?

Kind of suggesting had the politicians been smarter and the war been protracted for some more time (how much longer?) the US Army could have accomplished the task, aren´t you?

Very unlikely. But to be generous i will say we will simply never know.

If the US could have stayed in the region for more time, i see the VC soldiers continuing waging their fight accordingly.

Again, I disagree - in the sping of 1973 North Viet Nam WAS on their knees - Although they put up a good fight an attempted to propagate an offensive in the South, they had no choice but to sign a cease fire in Paris - Hanoi was on the brink of total destruction, and even with Soviet and Chinese assistance, the NVA was running out of SAMS and MIGS and couldn't hold out much longer.

Was the military scope of Viet Nam met? - Initially YES, in the summer of 1973 when hostilities ended, The US military pulled out, POWs were exchanged and everyone seemed to go on their merry way - Was the long term political mission that was supposed to be supported by 10 years of fighting going to succeed? - HELL NO. That was the failure of ill conceived Viet Nam POLITICAL policy, and its utter failure came to pass in 1975 when South Viet Nam totally collapsed. My point is when hostilities ended the US Military didn't leave Viet Nam with their legs between their legs. The fighting stopped and remained almost non-existent until 1975 when North Viet Nam knew the US was not coming back! Despite appalling conditions, ignorant political intervention, poor morale and an extremely determined enemy, the US military fought well in a situation that was doomed to failure.

trackend · Apr 20, 2005

That in my opinion sounds bang on Fly I always thought it was a shame that all those lads went through something that in the end did not really achieve much. I can only say what appeared in the media coverage that I saw over here in the UK but the impression was that the returning service personnel got a rough deal at the hands of the politicians and media despite have carried out the wishes of their leaders.
Almost like it was not good for your politically career if you showed too much in the way of praise or support for the guys.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 20, 2005

Thank you Track! - Its a shame when politicians of any nation ask soldiers to fight, put almost impossible restrictions on them, and then have the same soldiers take the wrath of the media or from other "critics" for not completing the mission.

I'm proud of the Viet Nam Vet, he fought well and no way came home with tail between his legs.

I'm ashamed of the politicians who got us there to begin with, especially former Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara - I hope his days in hell consist of a never-ending combat patrol in the Mekong Delta in 3 feet of water!

trackend · Apr 20, 2005

Unfortunately Fly I think it goes with the rank of largest power around nearly all super powers through out history have sent there forces into no win situations at some time or another. It may unfortunately one day happen again, but of course as always its not the politicians who have to do the fighting or the dieing.
Perhaps if a pre-requisite of taking office was that if you start a punch up you have to lead the first engagement they may think more before they leap.

Moral objections on warfare.

Anonymous

Guest

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Anonymous

Guest

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Attachments

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Banned

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Chief Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads