Cowardly American Soldier Seeks Refuge In Canada
D. Spencer Hines
Mon Dec 6, 1:51 PM ET Canada - AFP
"TORONTO (AFP) - A US soldier who walked out on the 82nd Airborne
Division and his country after learning he was being sent to Iraq,
launched a long-shot bid for political refuge in Canada.
Jeremy Hinzman, 26, a veteran of the US-led war in Afghanistan, appeared
before Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to formally plead
that he would face persecution if sent home to the United States.
"I was in a culture that looked upon the army as a good thing to do.
The missions that they carried out were with the aim of (doing) good and
spreading democracy," South Dakota-born Hinzman said.
"To me that was more meaningful than just working in the workaday
world," said Hinzman, who admitted he also enlisted for four years in
January 2001 to take advantage of a US army college sponsorship fund.
His case, and that of another fugitive American soldier Brandon Hughey,
has ignited controversy and some sympathy in Canada, which opposed the
Iraq war and refused to send troops to the conflict.
But it has also raised fears that a positive ruling could spark a flood
of US deserters across the border, as the toll of the Iraq war and
occupation, which has already cost more than 1,000 US lives, deepens.
Odds against a decision favourable to Hinzman however, are seen as slim,
as no such verdict has ever been handed down to a US soldier who sought
refuge in Canada.
The former soldier appeared at the IRB, wearing a black sweater and
brown pants, still with a short military-style haircut, accompanied by
his Laotian-born wife Nga Nguyen and three-year-old son Liam.
Outside, a knot of anti-war supporters, some waving banners reading "Let
him stay" braved a blizzard to cheer as he entered the building.
Early arguments on Monday covered legal arguments over evidence to be
admitted in the hearing, expected to last three days.
Hinzman was later expected to explain why he quit the US army, and a US
Marine Corps sergeant was due to be called by his lawyer to detail
alleged war crimes by US soldiers in Iraq to back up the plea.
The IRB was set up to consider the merits of refugee claims at arms
length from the Canadian government.
Arms length indeed -- and for good and understandable reasons. ---- DSH
Presiding member Brian Goodman will judge whether Hinzman would face
persecution if sent back to the United States by dint of his political
or religious beliefs or his status as an objector to US military action.
The judgement will also question whether Hinzman will face "cruel and
unusual" punishment, during what would likely be a long prison term if
he was sent back to duty.
Hinzman decided to flee to Canada earlier this year, after the US
military denied his request for conscientious objector status in 2003
and he told him he was to be deployed to Iraq.
His hopes for asylum, and also those of his compatriot Hughey were
dented after Goodman ruled earlier this year that the question of
whether the Iraq war was legal had no bearing on his claim."
-----------------------
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Jason Gorringe
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8altd.265$Pk5....@eagle.america.net...
> "AWOL US soldier pleas for refuge in Canada"
>
> Mon Dec 6, 1:51 PM ET Canada - AFP
>
> "TORONTO (AFP) - A US soldier who walked out on the 82nd Airborne
> Division and his country after learning he was being sent to Iraq,
> launched a long-shot bid for political refuge in Canada.
>
> Jeremy Hinzman, 26, a veteran of the US-led war in Afghanistan, appeared
> before Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to formally plead
> that he would face persecution if sent home to the United States.
>
> "I was in a culture that looked upon the army as a good thing to do.
> The missions that they carried out were with the aim of (doing) good and
> spreading democracy," South Dakota-born Hinzman said.
>
> "To me that was more meaningful than just working in the workaday
> world," said Hinzman, who admitted he also enlisted for four years in
> January 2001 to take advantage of a US army college sponsorship fund.
>
> His case, and that of another fugitive American soldier Brandon Hughey,
> has ignited controversy and some sympathy in Canada, which opposed the
> Iraq war and refused to send troops to the conflict.
>
> But it has also raised fears that a positive ruling could spark a flood
> of US deserters across the border, as the toll of the Iraq war and
> occupation, which has already cost more than 1,000 US lives, deepens.
So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
It seems to get more like it every day.
Jason
Sheila J
This is old news here...
There is actually another gentleman from the US going through the exact
same things..
Pete Stephenson
Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cowardly? He served in Afghanistan. Perhaps he doesn't want to stop a
> bullet for George W. Bush's purely political war.
Perhaps, but that is not his choice as long as he remains in the
military.
I swore the same oath that he did and did my time. I was only stopped
from going to Iraq because of a foot injury that occurred during the
train-up to head over there. I wasn't too keen on going, but it's part
of the job. When I enlisted, the nation was at peace. Still, I enlisted
in the army in a combat role (tanks, specifically, though I later
cross-trained as infantry) knowing full well that it was possible for
me to be deployed to see combat. I may not have been too keen on going
to Iraq, but that was part of the job.
It is not the soldier's choice to decide where and when he fights. That
is the decision of the politicial and governmental bodies that have
power over the military.
Correction: It *is* his choice, but he must face the consequences of
his action (desertion charges, possible jail time, dishonorable
discharge, a stain on his record, etc.).
Oh, Harry, it would seem that your newsreader is posting messages with a
Content-Type of "ISO-2022-JP" which is causing some rendering
difficulties here. If you're posting in English, please post with an
appropriate character set for the language as opposed to the Japanese
character set.
Cheers!
--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com
Pete Stephenson
Pete Stephenson <pe...@heypete.com> wrote:
> I wasn't too keen on going, but it's part of the job. [...snip...] I
> may not have been too keen on going to Iraq, but that was part of the
> job.
My apologies for the duplicated text. That was a bit of a "brain fart"
likely generated from lack of sleep.
"Good morning" is an oxymoron.
--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com
W. D. Allen Sr.
military-style haircut...."
The traitor's tonsorial appearance is some journalism-school-graduate
reporter's idea of "news"? No wonder newspaper circulation continues
dropping!
end
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8altd.265$Pk5....@eagle.america.net...
Julian Richards
<jasong...@antispam.com> wrote:
>So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
>It seems to get more like it every day.
The Vietnam War had better music.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Sheila J
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:57:13 -0000, "Jason Gorringe"
> <jasong...@antispam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
>>It seems to get more like it every day.
>
>
> The Vietnam War had better music.
The 100 years War probably had better music. Today's music SUCKS!
Renia
Two. . .
Renia
Renia
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:57:13 -0000, "Jason Gorringe"
> <jasong...@antispam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
>>It seems to get more like it every day.
>
>
> The Vietnam War had better music.
I wonder if they'll make an updated version of M*A*S*H?
Renia
Kel Rekuta
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> His case, and that of another fugitive American soldier Brandon Hughey,
> has ignited controversy and some sympathy in Canada, which opposed the
> Iraq war and refused to send troops to the conflict.
No, dickhead. Canada sent all of them to Afghanistan and Haiti so
American troops could be pulled out of there and sent to Iraq. We don't
even have enough rifles for the troops abroad and you want us to send
more troops to prop up your mess?
If your president won't send enough personnel and equipment to fight
*his own damned war*, why the hell should any other country?
You are a myopic retard, aren't you?
Kel
Pete Stephenson
Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, it deson't make him cowardly.
From Websters:
\Cow"ard*ly\, a. 1. Wanting courage; basely or weakly timid or fearful;
pusillanimous; spiritless.
2. Proceeding from fear of danger or other consequences; befitting a
coward; dastardly; base; as, cowardly malignity. --Macaulay.
He sure seems to be fleeing from his military obligation, which has a
distinct element of danger.
That, in my book, counts as cowardly. Not quite as cowardly as deserting
your comrades in the heat of battle, but certainly meeting the
qualifications of cowardly.
> > Oh, Harry, it would seem that your newsreader is posting messages
> > with a Content-Type of "ISO-2022-JP" which is causing some
> > rendering difficulties here. If you're posting in English, please
> > post with an appropriate character set for the language as opposed
> > to the Japanese character set.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
>
> Ouch! I will look into that right now. I just did...sez I am using
> Western ISO 8859-1. I will change to ISO 8859-15...I have no idea
> what either means. Yours is the first complaint.
It's back to 8859 now. How odd. *shrugs*
It's not really a complaint, as the characters still render (though they
use a different style and look somewhat different) in English properly.
Just figured you'd like to know.
Pete Stephenson
> Oh, Harry, it would seem that your newsreader is posting messages with a
> Content-Type of "ISO-2022-JP" which is causing some rendering
> difficulties here. If you're posting in English, please post with an
> appropriate character set for the language as opposed to the Japanese
> character set.
My error -- it was actually D. Spencer Hines' newsreader that was
posting in the Japanese character set. Upon replying, your newsreader
adopted the same character set.
Whoops.
--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com
Scott Ferrin
wrote:
Yeah. John Kerry could play Frank Burns. They got their Purple
Hearts the same way.
Mark Test
news:41b5e0e9$0$19158$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
> It seems to get more like it every day.
>
get it.
1) We were attacked by ruthless Islamic fanatics
2) Democracy in the mid-east is worth fighting for
3) Mid-east regimes that support terror will cease said support
Mark
--
"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."
Robert E. Lee
U9...@sbcglobal.net
Sheila J
Pete Stephenson
Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> He served in Afghanistan. He's proved he's no coward. I don't blame
> him for not wanting to die in Iraq for Bush.
There's no "one war limit" in the military. The military could have you
deployed and fighting in a war non-stop for your entire enlistment.
That's just the way it works.
A buddy of mine did a tour in Afghanistan, came back, had about three
months with his wife and kid, then got called back for another year in
Iraq. Did he bitch about it? Sure as hell he did! Did he still go? Of
course; it was his job.
If you don't like it, don't join the military. Simple enough. Once you
sign that contract, you work for the military for the time you're in.
Within the bounds of lawful orders, you do what you're told.
I bet if the military said, "Ok, everybody who doesn't want to fight in
the war can go home", then nearly all of the soldiers over there would
gladly pack their bags and run, swim, fly, hitchhike, whatever back to
their homes and families. I seriously doubt more than a very few
soldiers over there actually _want_ to be there, but they're all there
nonetheless -- prior combat vets and rookies alike -- because it's
their job.
Running away to Canada just because you don't like the job you signed
up to do certainly seems cowardly to me.
--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com
James H. Hood
Jason Gorringe <jasong...@antispam.com> wrote in message
news:41b5e0e9$0$19158$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
> It seems to get more like it every day.
Oh, it does? Please tell us how.
Bruce Sinclair
>In article <wsednSzPU9A...@comcast.com>,
> Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> He served in Afghanistan. He's proved he's no coward. I don't blame
>> him for not wanting to die in Iraq for Bush.
>
>There's no "one war limit" in the military. The military could have you
>deployed and fighting in a war non-stop for your entire enlistment.
>That's just the way it works.
Really good reason for not enlisting then, isn't it :)
Bruce
------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.
-Redd Foxx
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
Sheila J
> In article <wsednSzPU9A...@comcast.com>,
> Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>He served in Afghanistan. He's proved he's no coward. I don't blame
>>him for not wanting to die in Iraq for Bush.
>
>
> There's no "one war limit" in the military. The military could have you
> deployed and fighting in a war non-stop for your entire enlistment.
> That's just the way it works.
>
> A buddy of mine did a tour in Afghanistan, came back, had about three
> months with his wife and kid, then got called back for another year in
> Iraq. Did he bitch about it? Sure as hell he did! Did he still go? Of
> course; it was his job.
Ok...but that is just poor planning on part of the higher ups. Combat
operational effectiveness is compromised when people are burnt out.
It's one of the very basic rules of command.
After a tour like Afghanistan, soldiers need at least 18 months to
regroup both mentally and physically. All the studies show that.
You put the individual as well as his/her unit at risk when you
re-deploy to quickly.
It may be his job but he has a right to be given the very best chance of
survival while in theatre. Putting him in a position where his wellbeing
is compromised because of combat stress is just not good planning.
I think this is also some of the concerns that are being put forth right
now by some American soldiers. Heck, both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz
postured on the risk of overworking soldiers.
>
> If you don't like it, don't join the military. Simple enough. Once you
> sign that contract, you work for the military for the time you're in.
> Within the bounds of lawful orders, you do what you're told.
See above.
Sheila J
I just finished reading several studies from specialists in PTSD that
are saying this *exact* thing. The stats now show that just as many
Iraqi 'vets' are suffering from PTSD as Vietnam vets.
Pete Stephenson
Sheila J <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> It may be his job but he has a right to be given the very best chance
> of survival while in theatre. Putting him in a position where his
> wellbeing is compromised because of combat stress is just not good
> planning.
As a soldier, I agree. However, there are some circumstances where one
simply cannot avoid overworking soldiers (World War II comes to mind).
Regardless of the logic/reason/necessity of the present war in Iraq, I
don't think it's too much to agree that the military is being stretched
rather thin. Giving soldiers 12-months-on/18-months-off (or even 12
months off) would rapidly deplete the number of available soldiers to
fight.
This is particularly noticeable with specialized units (Army Rangers,
Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, etc.) that are in short supply and high
demand.
To maintain the current operational tempo, the military must either
acquire fresh soldiers (either through increasing recruiting and
retention, a draft, etc.) or sending soldiers back for repeat tours.
Otherwise, the only alternative is to reduce the operational tempo --
something which does not seem to be in the immediate future.
--
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com
Howard Berkowitz
Stephenson <pe...@heypete.com> wrote:
> In article <xwwtd.437926$Pl.171477@pd7tw1no>,
> Sheila J <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > It may be his job but he has a right to be given the very best chance
> > of survival while in theatre. Putting him in a position where his
> > wellbeing is compromised because of combat stress is just not good
> > planning.
>
> As a soldier, I agree. However, there are some circumstances where one
> simply cannot avoid overworking soldiers (World War II comes to mind).
>
> Regardless of the logic/reason/necessity of the present war in Iraq, I
> don't think it's too much to agree that the military is being stretched
> rather thin. Giving soldiers 12-months-on/18-months-off (or even 12
> months off) would rapidly deplete the number of available soldiers to
> fight.
That depends on what you mean by "off". One of the reasons Japan lost
WWII is that it started with a superb group of naval aviators, but kept
them constantly in combat until they were killed off. In contrast, the
US rotated combat-experienced pilots back to the US as instructors and
doctrine developers, so there was a constant flow of fresh and
reasonably trained replacements. Toward the end of the war, these
replacements had far more hours in the air than new Japanese pilots.
>
> This is particularly noticeable with specialized units (Army Rangers,
> Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, etc.) that are in short supply and high
> demand.
>
> To maintain the current operational tempo, the military must either
> acquire fresh soldiers (either through increasing recruiting and
> retention, a draft, etc.) or sending soldiers back for repeat tours.
> Otherwise, the only alternative is to reduce the operational tempo --
> something which does not seem to be in the immediate future.
There is a fundamental problem with many of the proposals for increasing
the force: a Congressional limit on the number of persons in the
military. If this is raised, there are reasonable estimates it could be
met with volunteers. No one in the military wants draftees.
Based both on the WWII experience and the successful recent experienced
with advanced, sort-of-virtual-reality training centers such as NTC and
JRTC. it may be a good idea to expand the training centers in the US.
For example, JRTC (Fort Polk) has facilities for low-intensity and urban
combat by lighter units, but does not have the Middle East weather and
terrain that does NTC (Fort Irwin) or the Marine center at Twentynine
Palms. There may or may not be room at NTC or Twentynine Palms for a
training center more like Middle Eastern cities, but, whereever it could
be placed, it might be a wise investment. Fort Hood or Fort Bliss are
other possible locations.
Fred J. McCall
:Perhaps if we limited our warmongering to legitimate fights, eh?
Which we are, so what's your complaint again?
:Well, I suspect the impact of Iraq and the back door drafts will result
:in a tougher time for military recruiters and a deterioration in the
:quality of recruits it does manage to finagle.
The evidence so far says you're wrong. The only thing limiting
recruiting so far is the legally authorized end strength allowed.
Oh, and the use of phrases like "back door drafts" merely makes you
look like an idiot. Kerry couldn't get any traction with it, which
you would think would have taught you something.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Jim Voege
"Pete Stephenson" <pe...@heypete.com> wrote in message
news:pete-28ECCC.2...@news.isp.giganews.com...
one. Fatigue like everything else in warfare is a relative thing --
relative to the enemy's situation. Should you slow things down due to
fatigue if the enemy's fatigue is even greater? To do so might compromise
an opportunity to shorten the conflict. Of course, a major difficulty is
that such intangibles are typically hidden under a thick shroud of fog. If
a commander believes that his troops are in relatively better shape than the
enemy, logically he should push the envelope. If he is right it will save
lives in the long run. If he is wrong it will, like every other military
mistake, cost lives. Admittedly this is a very cold-blooded way to approach
things.
Jim
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>
:> :Perhaps if we limited our warmongering to legitimate fights, eh?
:>
:> Which we are, so what's your complaint again?
:
:There is nothing legitimate about our invasion of Iraq. The premises
:stated by the Bush Administration have turned out to be lies,
:misstatements, exaggerations and deceptions.
No evidence for ANY of the preceding. You probably think Michael
Moore is a documentary filmmaker, too.
:Regime change isn't on the
:list of legitimate reasons to invade a foreign country.
Of course it is.
:Have you seen
:the estimates of the number of non-combatant Iraqis we've killed since
:our invasion?
Yes, and I've also seen the MISestimates being pushed by the anti-war
side.
:> :Well, I suspect the impact of Iraq and the back door drafts will result
:> :in a tougher time for military recruiters and a deterioration in the
:> :quality of recruits it does manage to finagle.
:>
:> The evidence so far says you're wrong. The only thing limiting
:> recruiting so far is the legally authorized end strength allowed.
:
:The Guard is suffering,
Yep, but that isn't "military recruiters", now is it?
:and as for general recruiting, so long as the
:economy sucks, the military remains the employer of last resort.
Perhaps true, but the economy doesn't suck THAT badly. Unemployment
was MUCH worse under Carter, for example.
:It
:takes time for perceptions to form and sink in...you'll see the results
:of Bush's warmongering in the not too distant future.
Ignoring the yellow prose, perhaps we will and perhaps we won't.
However, unlike you, I prefer to wait for some actual evidence (rather
than just making it up) before I start claiming the sky is falling.
:If there is one .
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
What do you expect to happen that will end the Earth in the closer
than near future?
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Sheila J
> In article <xwwtd.437926$Pl.171477@pd7tw1no>,
> Sheila J <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>It may be his job but he has a right to be given the very best chance
>>of survival while in theatre. Putting him in a position where his
>>wellbeing is compromised because of combat stress is just not good
>>planning.
>
>
> As a soldier, I agree. However, there are some circumstances where one
> simply cannot avoid overworking soldiers (World War II comes to mind).
>
Even during WW 2, however, there were frequent breaks between battles
where men were removed from the front line and returned to the 'real
world'. I'm not sure what the current policy in Iraq is on this? Are
they removing people every few weeks back to a reasonable safety?
My grandfather was in Europe from 1939-1946. In this time he was able to
get married, and sire 3 children. I'm not sure that is something that
would equate with the situation in Iraq...
(although, I do appreciate the fact that we are not talking about
soldiers in Iraq being there for 7 years....)
I do understand, however, that there has been some outcry-especially
from reservists-that duty times have been extended. Soldiers that
thought they were going for 6 months have been there a year or longer. I
believe *that* is very dangerous to morale...
> Regardless of the logic/reason/necessity of the present war in Iraq, I
> don't think it's too much to agree that the military is being stretched
> rather thin. Giving soldiers 12-months-on/18-months-off (or even 12
> months off) would rapidly deplete the number of available soldiers to
> fight.
Well, it certainly is what we are dealing with in Canada. But when you
have a limited amount of troops, you can't wear *them* out because you
are stretched so thin. Your just putting yourself in a situation where
you will have NO troops fit for duty at some point.
>
> This is particularly noticeable with specialized units (Army Rangers,
> Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, etc.) that are in short supply and high
> demand.
As are doctors and pilots here, but once again, wearing them out is not
the answer. Perhaps writing cheques your armed forces can't cash, is.
We recently had a naval Admiral refuse to send his sailors out on to sea
for their usual 6 months. Said they just couldn't sustain that, given
everything else. Until some of the big muck-mucks start being brutally
honest with the politicians about the 'true' state of troop strength, we
are going to see impossible requests being made on our Armed Forces.
>
> To maintain the current operational tempo, the military must either
> acquire fresh soldiers (either through increasing recruiting and
> retention, a draft, etc.) or sending soldiers back for repeat tours.
> Otherwise, the only alternative is to reduce the operational tempo --
> something which does not seem to be in the immediate future.
Agreed. But, as usual, it is the solider, sailor and airperson that suffer!
>
Jim Voege
news:uOednSDSAIT...@comcast.com...
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> No evidence for ANY of the preceding. You probably think Michael
>> Moore is a documentary filmmaker, too.
>
> deep, deep denial.
>
> Of course he is a documentary filmmaker. You think because he has a point
> of view, that is a disqualifier? Absurd.
>
Michael Moore, like 60 Minutes, is entirely dependant upon editing out that
footage which does not advance the message he is proselytizing.
>>
>> :Regime change isn't on the :list of legitimate reasons to invade a
>> foreign country. Of course it is.
>
It certainly is. What the devil do you think WWII was all about?
Jim
Al Dykes
To state the obvious, we were attacked by Japan, and then Germany
declared war on us. We didn't choose to change those regimes
until after the war started.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
----
Jim Voege
news:cp7hk0$p77$1...@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <fvHtd.30806$l%5.12...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Jim Voege <jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote:
>>"Harry Krause" <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:uOednSDSAIT...@comcast.com...
>>>> foreign country. Of course it is.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>
>>It certainly is. What the devil do you think WWII was all about?
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>
> To state the obvious, we were attacked by Japan, and then Germany
> declared war on us. We didn't choose to change those regimes
> until after the war started.
>
Jim
Keith Willshaw
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cp7hk0$p77$1...@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <fvHtd.30806$l%5.12...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>
> To state the obvious, we were attacked by Japan, and then Germany
> declared war on us. We didn't choose to change those regimes
> until after the war started.
>
To state the even more obvious the US was giving substantial
aid to the enemies of Germany and Japan LONG before
Dec 7 1941.
In the case of Germany the actions of the USN in particular
went WAY beyond neutrality. By November 1941 USN
ships had been ordered to sink all axis ships found on the
high seas and were escorting supply convoys to the UK.
The aim of regime change in Germany was clearly there
long before Germany declared war.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> Jim Voege wrote:
>
> They were indeed, but the poster is accurate. Regime change was not part
> of our strategy as we responded to the acts of war perpetrated against us.
Of course it was, thats why the demand was for unconditional surrender.
Hell FDR spelled it in his speech on the 6th Jan 1942
<Quote>
Our own objectives are clear:
*The objective of smashing the militarism imposed
by warlords upon their enslaved peoples*
</Quote>
If that isnt regime change I'm a Dutchman
Keith
Bruce Sinclair
Apparently the obvious difference is that vietnam was a conscript army. Iraq
is volunteer. Body bags, people seem to think, are 'worse' in some way if
they are conscripted bodies.
Bruce Sinclair
>"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cp7hk0$p77$1...@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <fvHtd.30806$l%5.12...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>> Jim Voege <jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>"Harry Krause" <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:uOednSDSAIT...@comcast.com...
>>>>> :Regime change isn't on the :list of legitimate reasons to invade a
>>>>> foreign country. Of course it is.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>
>>>It certainly is. What the devil do you think WWII was all about?
>>
>> declared war on us. We didn't choose to change those regimes
>> until after the war started.
>>
>I think the dynamics were just a little more complicated than that.
The reasons given for invading iraq were ... flimsy is the politest word I
can use.
They were found to be wrong. Regime chjange was not a given reason.
If the US wanted to punish a country for 11 september, they had much more
reson to pick saudi arabia. There were actually some connections to them.
There weren't to iraq (despite the repeated staements that ther were
connections, those statements are still wrong).
Jumpin Jack
> "AWOL US soldier pleas for refuge in Canada"
>
> Mon Dec 6, 1:51 PM ET Canada - AFP
>
> "TORONTO (AFP) - A US soldier who walked out on the 82nd Airborne
> Division and his country after learning he was being sent to Iraq,
> launched a long-shot bid for political refuge in Canada.
>
> Jeremy Hinzman, 26, a veteran of the US-led war in Afghanistan, appeared
> before Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to formally plead
> that he would face persecution if sent home to the United States.
>
> "I was in a culture that looked upon the army as a good thing to do.
> The missions that they carried out were with the aim of (doing) good and
> spreading democracy," South Dakota-born Hinzman said.
>
> "To me that was more meaningful than just working in the workaday
> world," said Hinzman, who admitted he also enlisted for four years in
> January 2001 to take advantage of a US army college sponsorship fund.
<snipped for brevity>
From the Fayetteville Times, Feb 19, 2004
http://www.fayettevillenc.com/search.php?storyId=927743&year=2004
"Hinzman, who grew up in Rapid City, S.D., joined the Army in January 2001.
The socialist structure of the military appealed to him, he said. He liked
the subsidized housing and groceries and, at the end of his service, the
money for college.
It seemed like a good financial decision, he said. And, he said, I had a
romantic vision of what the Army was."
He gambled and lost...
--
JJ...
Fort Bragg, NC
James H. Hood
> Regime change isn't on the
> list of legitimate reasons to invade a foreign country.
It's never on the left's list. In another decade, you'd be one of those
protesting against armed action against the Third Reich.
> Have you seen
> the estimates of the number of non-combatant Iraqis we've killed since
> our invasion?
All we've seen so far is an unproven six-figure number thrown up at every
possible opportunity by cynics.
> The Guard is suffering, and as for general recruiting, so long as the
> economy sucks, the military remains the employer of last resort.
For some, it's a last resort even in the best of times.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :Perhaps if we limited our warmongering to legitimate fights, eh?
:> :>
:> :> Which we are, so what's your complaint again?
:> :
:> :There is nothing legitimate about our invasion of Iraq. The premises
:> :stated by the Bush Administration have turned out to be lies,
:> :misstatements, exaggerations and deceptions.
:>
:> No evidence for ANY of the preceding. You probably think Michael
:> Moore is a documentary filmmaker, too.
:
:No evidence? Hehehe.
That's right. Sorry to disappoing you, but laughing at it doesn't
change reality.
:Dubya and his cohorts lied us into Iraq...you're in
:deep, deep denial.
Again, no evidence for that and quite a bit against it.
:Of course he is a documentary filmmaker. You think because he has a
:point of view, that is a disqualifier? Absurd.
No, I think because he distorts the facts that he is not a documentary
filmmaker. Unless you consider propaganda as 'documentary', of
course, in which case Goebbels was a great documentary filmmaker.
:> :Regime change isn't on the
:> :list of legitimate reasons to invade a foreign country.
:>
:> Of course it is.
:
:No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Bruce Sinclair
>Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:Dubya and his cohorts lied us into Iraq...you're in
>:deep, deep denial.
>
>Again, no evidence for that and quite a bit against it.
Agreed. He could just be amazingly trusting and/or stupid. Your choice :)
Mark Test
news:xwwtd.437926$Pl.171477@pd7tw1no...
>
>
> Ok...but that is just poor planning on part of the higher ups. Combat
> operational effectiveness is compromised when people are burnt out.
> It's one of the very basic rules of command.
BS Sheila, tell that to the WWII vets who fought in the South Pacific
for nearly 4 consecutive years, no leave, no going home until
the war was over. Perhaps the problem is that we as
Americans have gotten too soft.
The stories I could tell you about being "burnt out" and still
getting the job done, and I've never even experienced flight ops
on a carrier. All the same the guys and gals in Iraq are doing
a great job, hopefully the elections occur on time like in Afghanistan
so we can start bringing them home.
Rant Warning
IMHO terrorists could have been rooted out very
effective by hitting their hiding places, Mosques and Hospitals.
Less bad guys, quicker victory, and we'll help re-build
the Mosques. Apparently Mosques are more "precious"
than Churches, no one screamed when the European
cathedrals were being destroyed in WWII.
Rant Concluded
Mark
--
"It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it."
Robert E. Lee
Mark Test
> I just finished reading several studies from specialists in PTSD that
> are saying this *exact* thing. The stats now show that just as many
> Iraqi 'vets' are suffering from PTSD as Vietnam vets.
Is that like ADS???? Aren't these PTSD's, ADS, and whatever other
syndrome of the month just a scam in order for phamacies to make a killing?
BTW anyone in combat suffers after the action is over, some handle
it better than others, but hey, these days you get paid if you have
PTSD, so I bet all vets claim they got it, and good on them
they earned the extra cash!
Sheila J
> "Sheila J" <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:xwwtd.437926$Pl.171477@pd7tw1no...
>
>>
>>Ok...but that is just poor planning on part of the higher ups. Combat
>>operational effectiveness is compromised when people are burnt out.
>>It's one of the very basic rules of command.
>
>
> BS Sheila, tell that to the WWII vets who fought in the South Pacific
> for nearly 4 consecutive years, no leave, no going home until
> the war was over. Perhaps the problem is that we as
> Americans have gotten too soft.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that it effects the
operational capability of an unit.
It is because of the fall out from the conflicts of the early 20th C
that data illustrating this has been able to be collected and analysed.
Military strategists now know that keeping people in theatre for years
on end just results in horrendous physical/psychological problems after
the action. And it also has a great effect during ops. If people are
worried about families back home, exhaustad and depressed, they are just
not going to function at their maximum potential.
>
> The stories I could tell you about being "burnt out" and still
> getting the job done, and I've never even experienced flight ops
> on a carrier. All the same the guys and gals in Iraq are doing
> a great job, hopefully the elections occur on time like in Afghanistan
> so we can start bringing them home.
I could also tell the same stories. In fact, this is one of the reasons
that I feel (somewhat controversially on here, I might add) that
military historians need to have spent some time in uniform to truly
understand the 'fog of war'.
My husband is gone up to 9 months a year. He is the first one to admit
that his flying is affected near the end of an op because all he can
think about is getting home...simple things like putting kids to bed or
shoveling the driveway. Your mind wanders and you are no longer as
sharp as you might have been. You make mistakes that way.
What is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan by the forces there is
nothing short of amazing. I"m sure they are committed with every cell
of their bodies - but it doesn't stop them from being maxed beyond human
potentional and therefore at risk of making mistakes. Mistakes in
theatre can be fatal.
Sheila J
> "Sheila J" <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Mywtd.437938$Pl.96124@pd7tw1no...
>
>>I just finished reading several studies from specialists in PTSD that
>>are saying this *exact* thing. The stats now show that just as many
>>Iraqi 'vets' are suffering from PTSD as Vietnam vets.
>
>
> Is that like ADS???? Aren't these PTSD's, ADS, and whatever other
> syndrome of the month just a scam in order for phamacies to make a killing?
>
> BTW anyone in combat suffers after the action is over, some handle
> it better than others, but hey, these days you get paid if you have
> PTSD, so I bet all vets claim they got it, and good on them
> they earned the extra cash!
>
> Mark
This is just so ignorant I'm not even going to wade in. I can feel my
blood pressure rising as I type......and such out and out stupidity is
beyond comment.
SaPeIsMa
"Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:KzQtd.9484$Va5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
1) Sheila definitely has a tendency to shover the manure
And when she's shown that it is manure. She then tries to split
hairs to avoid facing the facts.
2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European front of
WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
.
Joe Osman
news:hcb-D3FDC8.0...@news-central.giganews.com...
> In article <pete-28ECCC.2...@news.isp.giganews.com>, Pete
> Stephenson <pe...@heypete.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <xwwtd.437926$Pl.171477@pd7tw1no>,
> > Sheila J <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > It may be his job but he has a right to be given the very best chance
> > > of survival while in theatre. Putting him in a position where his
> > > wellbeing is compromised because of combat stress is just not good
> > > planning.
> >
> > As a soldier, I agree. However, there are some circumstances where one
> > simply cannot avoid overworking soldiers (World War II comes to mind).
> >
> > don't think it's too much to agree that the military is being stretched
> > rather thin. Giving soldiers 12-months-on/18-months-off (or even 12
> > months off) would rapidly deplete the number of available soldiers to
> > fight.
>
> WWII is that it started with a superb group of naval aviators, but kept
> them constantly in combat until they were killed off. In contrast, the
> US rotated combat-experienced pilots back to the US as instructors and
> doctrine developers, so there was a constant flow of fresh and
> reasonably trained replacements. Toward the end of the war, these
> replacements had far more hours in the air than new Japanese pilots.
>
> >
> > This is particularly noticeable with specialized units (Army Rangers,
> > Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, etc.) that are in short supply and high
> > demand.
>
> >
> > acquire fresh soldiers (either through increasing recruiting and
> > retention, a draft, etc.) or sending soldiers back for repeat tours.
> > Otherwise, the only alternative is to reduce the operational tempo --
> > something which does not seem to be in the immediate future.
>
> the force: a Congressional limit on the number of persons in the
> military. If this is raised, there are reasonable estimates it could be
> met with volunteers. No one in the military wants draftees.
>
> Based both on the WWII experience and the successful recent experienced
> with advanced, sort-of-virtual-reality training centers such as NTC and
> JRTC. it may be a good idea to expand the training centers in the US.
> For example, JRTC (Fort Polk) has facilities for low-intensity and urban
> combat by lighter units, but does not have the Middle East weather and
> terrain that does NTC (Fort Irwin) or the Marine center at Twentynine
> Palms. There may or may not be room at NTC or Twentynine Palms for a
> training center more like Middle Eastern cities, but, whereever it could
> be placed, it might be a wise investment. Fort Hood or Fort Bliss are
> other possible locations.
The saying goes "29 Palms has miles and miles of nothing but miles and
miles."
Joe
Dallas Patterson
Harry Krause wrote:
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European
>> front of WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
>
>
>
> World War II was not based on the POTUS telling lies so as to save his
> political hide. The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie. The
> soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick are doing
> so in vain. They are being wasted.
Such is the false opinion voiced by every defeatist, collaborator, and
enemy who seeks to destroy morale to effect a change in policy. Such
opponents said the same thing about President Roosevelt and the Second
World War.
SaPeIsMa
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European front
>> of WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
>
>
> political hide. The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie. The
> soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick are doing
> so in vain. They are being wasted.
Feel free to demonstrate that
"the POTUS telling lies so as to save his political hide"
Considering that the POTUS had been elected about a year earlier, he stil
hadn't been in power long enough to be at risk.
(Particularly when you consider that he wans't fooling around with interns,
nor did he have a property scandal hanging over his head, like his
predecessor)
Interestingly the majority of soldiers don't think that they are in Iraq or
Afghanistan in vain.
Only bitter lib-dems seem to have the need to nake that claim.
William Black
"James H. Hood" <jhh...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:41b7c3cd$0$91011$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>
> Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:SYidnWGW-O9...@comcast.com...
> > Regime change isn't on the
> > list of legitimate reasons to invade a foreign country.
>
> It's never on the left's list.
Yes it was.
In fact in the UK part of the left said it was the ONLY justification.
The reason was that they, like me, have no problem with the USA toppling
dictators and replacing them with democratic systems.
Unfortunately the post war organisation and management of Iraq has been such
a shocking cock up that any sympathy the US government had from the European
left has disappeared in the dust haze left by exploding hospitals.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Dallas Patterson
Harry Krause wrote:
> Dallas Patterson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Harry Krause wrote:
>>
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European
>>>> front of WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> World War II was not based on the POTUS telling lies so as to save
>>> his political hide. The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie.
>>> The soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick
>>> are doing so in vain. They are being wasted.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Such is the false opinion voiced by every defeatist, collaborator, and
>> enemy who seeks to destroy morale to effect a change in policy.
>
>
> Yawn. Foreign policy based upon "my country right or wrong" is bullshit.
>
No, just the simple recognition that your statements are those of a
defeatist who seeks to destroy morale and the will to win just to
satisfy your political delusions and no matter what the additional cost
in blood to friend and enemy alike. No matter what the cause and no
matter how justified the cause may ever be, you will still be spouting
false and defeatist propaganda against it and our troops' real
accomplishments. The only wars you have ever supported as a just cause
are the genocides perpetrated by totaliarian regimes like that of Saddam
Hussein and the insurgency he organized in January 2003.
>
>
> Such
>
>> opponents said the same thing about President Roosevelt and the Second
>> World War.
>
>
> Their numbers were few. The numbers of those believing the Bush War will
> really acocmplish anything are at or below 50% and shrinking.
Only in your delusional and defeatist imagination.
Dallas Patterson
William Black wrote:
> "James H. Hood" <jhh...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
> news:41b7c3cd$0$91011$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>
>>Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:SYidnWGW-O9...@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Regime change isn't on the
>>>list of legitimate reasons to invade a foreign country.
>>>
>>It's never on the left's list.
>>
>
> Yes it was.
>
> In fact in the UK part of the left said it was the ONLY justification.
>
> The reason was that they, like me, have no problem with the USA toppling
> dictators and replacing them with democratic systems.
>
> Unfortunately the post war organisation and management of Iraq has been such
> a shocking cock up that any sympathy the US government had from the European
> left has disappeared in the dust haze left by exploding hospitals.
>
>
What little credibility your statement ever had disappeared in the "dust
haze" of your "exploding hospitals" jibe.
Jim Voege
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> "Harry Krause" <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jK-dnT22N8E...@comcast.com...
>>
>>>SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European front
>>>>of WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
>>>
>>>
>>>World War II was not based on the POTUS telling lies so as to save his
>>>political hide. The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie. The
>>>soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick are doing
>>>so in vain. They are being wasted.
>>
>>
>> Feel free to demonstrate that
>> "the POTUS telling lies so as to save his political hide"
>
> been documented in detail at least 1000 times.
>
>
>> Considering that the POTUS had been elected about a year earlier, he stil
>> hadn't been in power long enough to be at risk.
>
>
>
>
>> (Particularly when you consider that he wans't fooling around with
>> interns, nor did he have a property scandal hanging over his head, like
>> his predecessor)
>
>
>
>>
>> Interestingly the majority of soldiers don't think that they are in Iraq
>> or Afghanistan in vain.
>
Well that just earned you 2 things. A complete loss of credibility with
most people and plonks from the rest.
Jim
D. Spencer Hines
While JOHN KERRY was doing precisely the same thing in 1971.
DSH
"Dallas Patterson" <n...@fidalgo.net> wrote in message
news:41B884C4...@fidalgo.net...
Sheila J
HAAHAAJAHAAA
Fred J. McCall
:SaPeIsMa wrote:
:>
:> 2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European front of
:> WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
:
:World War II was not based on the POTUS telling lies so as to save his
:political hide.
Of course it was! The people were against it, Congress made rules to
prevent it, and the President had folks break all those rules to get
arms to the Chinese and the British, causing sufficient trouble as a
'non-belligerent that eventually someone (Japan, in this case) figured
that if they were going to have to fight a war with us on the other
side (which is what was going on prior to Pearl Harbor) they might as
well hit back.
:The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie.
No, you are nothing more than a lie.
:The
:soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick are doing
:so in vain. They are being wasted.
Oddly, most of THEM disagree with you. You really are quite the
scum-sucker, aren't you?
To believe the idiocy you spew, YOU must be wasted....
<plonk>
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Fred J. McCall
:SaPeIsMa wrote:
:> "Harry Krause" <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:> news:jK-dnT22N8E...@comcast.com...
:>
:>>SaPeIsMa wrote:
:>>
:>>
:>>>2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European front
:>>>of WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
:>>
:>>
:>>World War II was not based on the POTUS telling lies so as to save his
:>>political hide. The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie. The
:>>soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick are doing
:>>so in vain. They are being wasted.
:>
:> Feel free to demonstrate that
:> "the POTUS telling lies so as to save his political hide"
:
:Oh, puh-lease. The lies of the Bush Administration regarding Iraq have
:been documented in detail at least 1000 times.
Well, no. Lots of claims have been made. Every REAL investigation
says the Administration was telling the story based on the best
information anyone had available.
:> Considering that the POTUS had been elected about a year earlier, he stil
:> hadn't been in power long enough to be at risk.
:
:Before 9-11, was dropping like a stone in the polls...
Oh, hogwash!
:> (Particularly when you consider that he wans't fooling around with interns,
:> nor did he have a property scandal hanging over his head, like his
:> predecessor)
:
:Yawn.
Now take that dick out of your mouth....
:> Interestingly the majority of soldiers don't think that they are in Iraq or
:> Afghanistan in vain.
:
:They're in the military...they opted for Bush's kind of stupidity.
In other words, everyone is stupid but you and only you have The
Truth.
Yeah, right....
Fred J. McCall
:Dallas Patterson wrote:
:>
:> Harry Krause wrote:
:>
:>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
:>>>
:>>> 2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European
:>>> front of WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
:>>
:>> World War II was not based on the POTUS telling lies so as to save his
:>> political hide. The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie. The
:>> soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick are
:>> doing so in vain. They are being wasted.
:>
:> Such is the false opinion voiced by every defeatist, collaborator, and
:> enemy who seeks to destroy morale to effect a change in policy.
:
:Yawn. Foreign policy based upon "my country right or wrong" is bullshit.
Yawn. Criticism based on lies and ideological spin is the true
bullshit. That would be YOU.
: Such
:> opponents said the same thing about President Roosevelt and the Second
:> World War.
:
:Their numbers were few. The numbers of those believing the Bush War will
:really acocmplish anything are at or below 50% and shrinking.
Yet he just won reelection with over 50% of the vote.
The voters must just be stupid, huh?
Welcome to Stage Two of the usual Democratic Party denial syndrome.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Mark Test
My sarcasm, but I am sceptical to some degree regarding
PTSD, like how large of a percentage are effected for life,
so bad that they can no longer function?
Mark Test
> Mark Test wrote:
>
> > "Sheila J" <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:xwwtd.437926$Pl.171477@pd7tw1no...
>
> that his flying is affected near the end of an op because all he can
> think about is getting home...simple things like putting kids to bed or
> shoveling the driveway. Your mind wanders and you are no longer as
> sharp as you might have been. You make mistakes that way.
True, which is why supervisors in the field an onboard the ships, or
in the squadron need to know the status of their men/women, since
no two are alike. If you see signs of fatigue, or homesickness
work with the soldier/sailor to help them get thru it.
Unfortunately, the days of a huge military are long gone, never gonna
happen, and the optempo even in peacetime, is going to pick up.
We are going to have to make it work, like always.
>
> What is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan by the forces there is
> nothing short of amazing. I"m sure they are committed with every cell
> of their bodies - but it doesn't stop them from being maxed beyond human
> potentional and therefore at risk of making mistakes. Mistakes in
> theatre can be fatal.
Agreed, but that's where their leadership should be involved as I mentioned
above.
Sounds like you and I have the same concerns, but our ways
of how we would deal with them is slightly different.
Howard Berkowitz
Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> "Sheila J" <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:AQQtd.444639$Pl.164226@pd7tw1no...
> > Mark Test wrote:
> >
> > > "Sheila J" <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:Mywtd.437938$Pl.96124@pd7tw1no...
> > >
> > >>I just finished reading several studies from specialists in PTSD that
> > >>are saying this *exact* thing. The stats now show that just as many
> > >>Iraqi 'vets' are suffering from PTSD as Vietnam vets.
> > >
> > >
> > > Is that like ADS???? Aren't these PTSD's, ADS, and whatever other
> > > syndrome of the month just a scam in order for phamacies to make a
> killing?
> > >
> > > BTW anyone in combat suffers after the action is over, some handle
> > > it better than others, but hey, these days you get paid if you have
> > > PTSD, so I bet all vets claim they got it, and good on them
> > > they earned the extra cash!
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> >
> > This is just so ignorant I'm not even going to wade in. I can feel my
> > blood pressure rising as I type......and such out and out stupidity is
> > beyond comment.
>
> My sarcasm, but I am sceptical to some degree regarding
> PTSD, like how large of a percentage are effected for life,
> so bad that they can no longer function?
>
I'm most familiar with PTSD and related issues as it affects medical and
emergency service personnel, being on some professional mailing lists in
those areas. It's probably fair to say:
1) PTSD definitely exists, and there are DSM-IV criteria for its
clinical diagnosis. These are probably going to be supplemented
with laboratory tests (see below).
2) Some of the preventive and treatment methods, such as critical
incident stress debriefings, are being challenged.
3) There is ongoing basic research on coming up with better ways
of diagnosing the syndrome and quantifying its severity, including
molecular medicine and functional imaging.
See http://www.gulflink.osd.mil. There seems to be increasing
evidence that there are biochemical and/or structural markers for
the condition.
4) Serious efforts are now in place to understand the incidence and
course of the syndrome among military personnel.
See
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/GeneralHealthPhysicalSym/General/Ge
neral_home.shtml
SaPeIsMa
> Dallas Patterson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Harry Krause wrote:
>>
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European
>>>> front of WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> World War II was not based on the POTUS telling lies so as to save his
>>> political hide. The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie. The
>>> soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick are doing
>>> so in vain. They are being wasted.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Such is the false opinion voiced by every defeatist, collaborator, and
>> enemy who seeks to destroy morale to effect a change in policy.
>
>
So are arguments based on the unsupported premises that you spout.
So why don't you practice that which you are trying to impose on others.
SaPeIsMa
"Jim Voege" <jfvo...@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:812ud.47858$l%5.15...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I think you're right.
He is a waste of reading time.
SaPeIsMa
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> "Harry Krause" <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jK-dnT22N8E...@comcast.com...
>>
>>>SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European front
>>>>of WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
>>>
>>>
>>>World War II was not based on the POTUS telling lies so as to save his
>>>political hide. The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie. The
>>>soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick are doing
>>>so in vain. They are being wasted.
>>
>>
>> Feel free to demonstrate that
>> "the POTUS telling lies so as to save his political hide"
>
> been documented in detail at least 1000 times.
>
Demonstrate it once or shut the fuck up.
>
>> Considering that the POTUS had been elected about a year earlier, he stil
>> hadn't been in power long enough to be at risk.
>
>
> Before 9-11, was dropping like a stone in the polls...
>
Sure bub.
Too bad it was only in the wettest of your wet dreams.
>
>> (Particularly when you consider that he wans't fooling around with
>> interns, nor did he have a property scandal hanging over his head, like
>> his predecessor)
>
>
> Yawn.
>
Apparently that is totally excusable in your thinking.
What a non-surprise.
>>
>> Interestingly the majority of soldiers don't think that they are in Iraq
>> or Afghanistan in vain.
>
> They're in the military...they opted for Bush's kind of stupidity.
Try again, idiot
Just because they're in the military does not mean that they have to agree
with the policy.
The fact that they do, even though it means that they are at risk
demonstrate something that you clearly can't understand.
You should have a look at the pictures of the the White House Marine guards
under Clinton and Bush.
For anybody with any kind of military training, it is very clear how the
Marines disrespected Clinton and respect Bush.
SaPeIsMa
> Dallas Patterson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Harry Krause wrote:
>>
>>> Dallas Patterson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Harry Krause wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) For an example of what soldiers when through on the European
>>>>>> front of WWII, just read the career of Charles Durning, the actor
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> World War II was not based on the POTUS telling lies so as to save his
>>>>> political hide. The war against Iraq is nothing more than a lie. The
>>>>> soldiers who are dying there, or losing limbs, or getting sick are
>>>>> doing so in vain. They are being wasted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Such is the false opinion voiced by every defeatist, collaborator, and
>>>> enemy who seeks to destroy morale to effect a change in policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yawn. Foreign policy based upon "my country right or wrong" is bullshit.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, just the simple recognition that your statements are those of a
>> defeatist who seeks to destroy morale and the will to win just to satisfy
>
> there is now, it will be worse when we pull out.
And what brand of crystal ball do you use ?
Weren't idiots of your ilk say the same thing about Afghanistan ?
And didn't they just have a successfull election proving you wrong ?
Iraq is just a bigger version of Afghanistan.
Obviously there's also more at stake because it is such a central
location in the Arab world and terrorist network.
Harold Robbins
>
> So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
> It seems to get more like it every day.
>
> Jason
>
>
Hopefully we'll learn from Vietnam and not make the same mistake to cut
and run like cowards. We ran out on a promise to the South Vietnamese
people and left them to a fate worse than death. I hope we don't do it
again.
Harold
Harold Robbins
Harry Krause wrote:
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>>"AWOL US soldier pleas for refuge in Canada"
>>
>>Mon Dec 6, 1:51 PM ET Canada - AFP
>>
>>"TORONTO (AFP) - A US soldier who walked out on the 82nd Airborne
>>Division and his country after learning he was being sent to Iraq,
>>launched a long-shot bid for political refuge in Canada.
>>
>>Jeremy Hinzman, 26, a veteran of the US-led war in Afghanistan, appeared
>>before Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to formally plead
>>that he would face persecution if sent home to the United States.
>
>
>
> Cowardly? He served in Afghanistan. Perhaps he doesn't want to stop a
> bullet for George W. Bush's purely political war.
Isn't that what a "coward" does? As for "purely political war" most
wars are exactly that, that doesn't determine whether or not is is
right, only that it is being done for political purposes. The
"political purpose" of this war is to free the Iraqi people and create a
stable country to replace the political government they had with one the
Iraqi can live with.
Harold
John Cartmell
SaPeIsMa <SaPe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> For anybody with any kind of military training, it is very clear how the
> Marines disrespected Clinton and respect Bush.
If they really are that stupid then my pessimism is doubled. ;-(
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines
Harold Robbins
Renia wrote:
> Julian Richards wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:57:13 -0000, "Jason Gorringe"
>> <jasong...@antispam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
>>> It seems to get more like it every day.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Vietnam War had better music.
>
>
> I wonder if they'll make an updated version of M*A*S*H?
>
> Renia
That was the Korean war.
Harold
Brian McDaniels
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:57:13 -0000, "Jason Gorringe"
> <jasong...@antispam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
>>It seems to get more like it every day.
>
>
> The Vietnam War had better music.
True that
>
>
> --
>
> Julian Richards
> medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
>
> Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
> with people that you would never want in your house.
>
> THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Harold Robbins
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh, and the use of phrases like "back door drafts" merely makes you
> look like an idiot. Kerry couldn't get any traction with it, which
> you would think would have taught you something.
>
When I hear the phrase "back door drafts" I want to say "button it up".
In case my reference is too old, I'm referring to the back door on
long johns..... ;^D
Harold
Brian McDaniels
> Julian Richards wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:57:13 -0000, "Jason Gorringe"
>> <jasong...@antispam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, Iraq is not another Vietnam?
>>> It seems to get more like it every day.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Vietnam War had better music.
>
>
> I wonder if they'll make an updated version of M*A*S*H?
>
> Renia
That was the Korean War
Harold Robbins
Harry Krause wrote:
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> :Perhaps if we limited our warmongering to legitimate fights, eh?
>>
>> Which we are, so what's your complaint again?
>
>
> There is nothing legitimate about our invasion of Iraq. The premises
> stated by the Bush Administration have turned out to be lies,
> misstatements, exaggerations and deceptions. Regime change isn't on the
> list of legitimate reasons to invade a foreign country. Have you seen
> the estimates of the number of non-combatant Iraqis we've killed since
> our invasion?
>
The so-called lies you refer to were first spoken by members of the
Clinton administration, to include Madelaine Albright, both Clintons,
and the Democratic Congress to include Edwards and Kerry. It was firmly
believed then and since the majority of the CIA were hangovers from that
administration those so-called lies were passed to the present
administration. So who are YOU going to blame? If you do a google on
most of the democrats in Congress you will fild that anyone familiar
with the dominant voice in intelligence, believed those "so-called lies"
THe fact that Bush believed it to, means that he wasn't any more
up-to-date than the Clinton administration. So if you want to blame
someone, how about Clinton?
Harold "not Harry"
James H. Hood
> Yawn. Foreign policy based upon "my country right or wrong" is bullshit.
Far better than you defeatists cowardly policy of "my country, always
wrong".
James H. Hood
> Ahhh. Like Vietnam? Chile? Nicaraugua? What we have a habit of doing is
> propping up right-wing dictators.
And taking them out when necessary.....or were you asleep all of December
1989?
Howard Berkowitz
Hood" <jhh...@urdirect.net> wrote:
Of course, the history of successful international relations is replete
with examples of people who could envision compromises between
incompatible extremes. As Machiavelli wrote, if you would be moral, be
not a Prince. If you would be a Prince, you must not be moral.
Amorality does not equal immorality.
Howard Berkowitz
hero...@netscape.net wrote:
I suppose that's a nice idea in principle, but the Johnson
Administration actually made no such promise. Not for public eyes, the
best statement of the US position comes from the Pentagon Papers, from a
memorandum to Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton to
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
(http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon3/doc253.htm):
> 3/24/65 (first draft)
>
> ANNEX-PLAN OF ACTION FOR SOUTH VIETNAM
>
> 1. US aims:
>
>
> 70% --To avoid a humiliating US defeat (to our reputation as a
> guarantor).
> 20%--To keep SVN (and then adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.
> 10%--To permit the people of SVN to enjoy a better, freer way of life.
>
> ALSO--To emerge from crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.
> NOT--To "help a friend," although it would be hard to stay in if asked
> out.
>
In other words, 90% of US policy was concerned with other than the South
Vietnamese people. In all fairness, this isn't fantastically far from
the present situation -- an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq would do
extremely bad things to the credibility of the US, either as a guarantor
or as a threat.
It's also highly debatable that SVN could have been a viable nation
until its government became less of a kleptocracy and more meaningful to
its citizens.
D. Spencer Hines
Nothing out of the ordinary -- and to be expected from this "WITHNAIL
WANNABE."
DSH
"Marc" <Marcd...@btinterent.com> wrote in message
news:cpdfcd$3r1$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
| On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:14:36 GMT, Martin Reboul wrote:
|
| > The sergeant (McKay?) who was awarded the VC was more deserving IMO,
but even he
| > didn't do anything more exceptional than a bit of hand to hand
bayonet work.
|
| Anyone that thinks that about " a bit of hand to hand bayonet work"
| has never tried it.
Nohbody
the bellsouth.net server]
> > Harry Krause <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:cbadnQ0PefV...@comcast.com...
> >
> > > Yawn. Foreign policy based upon "my country right or wrong" is bullshit.
Out of curiosity, are you deliberately ignoring the rest of the quote,
or do you simply not know the whole thing?
The whole quote from Carl Schurz, in a speech to the US Senate on Feb
29, 1872:
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to
be set right!"
Kinda changes the tone of the quote when you include the stuff after
the first semicolon, doesn't it?
--
Dan Poore
ICQ UIN: 3908950 <http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3908950>
A Meeting of Minds <http://nohbody.com/schtuff/meeting.html> - a
(mostly) cliche-free first contact story (updated periodically)
SaPeIsMa
"John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d1b489...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> In article <10rjvva...@corp.supernews.com>,
> SaPeIsMa <SaPe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For anybody with any kind of military training, it is very clear how the
>> Marines disrespected Clinton and respect Bush.
>
> If they really are that stupid then my pessimism is doubled. ;-(
>
Maybe they're just smarter than you.
But then, apparently it doens't take much to do that.
By the way, to be a combat marine today, takes a lot more brains than people
realize.
Gone are the days when soldiers were Cannon fodder.
SaPeIsMa
Oh wow...
An attempt at puns.
Stick to spouting nonsense.
Even that, you do better.