Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Good Soldier (was Re: WINTER SOLDIER SWORN TESTIMONY
0 views
Skip to first unread message
DGVREIMAN
Jan 31, 2012, 1:47:02 PM1/31/12
to
"!Jones" <hsoi...@kjipu.com> wrote in message
news:qh0ei7har6h0gn2u3...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Jan 2012 21:20:28 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam dino
> <dino_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't recall anyone calling it the boonies. There was the rear
>>and there was
>>the field. I think boonies was post Crocodile Dundee or something.
>>Free fire
>>zone didn't mean shit anyway. We air assaulted in this populated
>>village after
>>the area was prepped with rockets and this teenage girl was filled
>>with shrapnel
>>from a rocket. I don't know if she lived or not; she was covered in
>>blood and
>>unconscious. But that wasn't too bad; our first sergeant shot a
>>woman in the
>>head while she was kneeling before him, crying, and clapping her
>>hands.
>
> What? You didn't know how to write a letter addressed to your
> Congressman? Those letters received attention, Dino. I'd have
> written it; however, I've never seen a first-shirt outta the orderly
> room.
>
> I'm sayin' that people are, by and large, reasonable. Yeah, nine
> outta ten will pretend not to have seen it, ... but, when 50 people
> see it, the probability that one or more will report it converges to
> certainty.
>
> Why don't we rape and kill women, Dino? ... toss babies up in the
> air
> and catch them on bayonets?
>
> And so... you're diddy-boppin' down the street and you see a woman
> kneeling on the ground, covered in blood, with a gun to her head...
> would you intervene? Maybe not, but would you at least use your
> cell
> phone? Most people would. Most men in Vietnam weren't any
> different
> than the people you meet on the street... most of 'em were perfectly
> decent people.
>
> Jones
Doug Says: When you are talking about draftees and "citizen Soldiers"
Mr. Jones, you are probably correct. However, to be a good soldier in
a war of attrition you must be able to kill and not allow it to bother
your conscience. We all know many of the draftees fired into the air
in combat so they would not kill anyone - this fact was well known in
the recruiting commands, and many of the field commanders simply
refused to allow draftees to be assigned to combat duties due to that
reason. But that of course defeats the purpose of a Soldier. (Note
it was not an act of cowardice - the men went and risked their lives
the same as the volunteers - they just knew they could not live with
the thought they killed someone).
In a war of attrition Men that can kill and then instantly forget
about it are promoted quickly through the ranks, and typically become
the leaders of the Platoon or Company. The men in the Platoon will
follow the lead of their NCO's especially Senior NCO's such as Platoon
Sergeants and First Sergeants. Am I saying that in a war of attrition
one must become some type of psychopath to be a good Soldier? If you
want to kill the enemy at every opportunity, then sleep at night, and
live beyond 40 without drinking or drugging yourself to death, Yes.
At times you need to be extremely violent, murderously violent, then
instantly revert back to a thoughtful and calm leader. And you also
must place the accomplishment of the mission (in some cases revenge
against the enemy) above your own life, career and reputation.
The above has been the rule of a "good" Soldier since the Roman
Legions - you must be able to wreck havoc and carnage, but not allow
your violent acts interfere with your psyche or abilities as a leader.
. . Audie Murphy is one example of someone that performed extremely
well in combat but did not have enough Psychopathic tendencies to stop
the nightmares for the rest of his life - until they killed him. I
remember one First Sergeant telling me that is why they made Jack
Daniels - for combat Soldiers.
Our kids returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering psychiatric
trauma not because of what they did, but mostly because of the
constant fear of attack which controls your very life every minute of
the day if you are in that situation. Repeatedly sending these kids
back to a war zone can only result in driving them crazy. If we are
going to have an "all volunteer Army" then we need one about twice the
size as we have now. Less planes, less toys that a RPG can take out
in five seconds, and many more boots is my humble opinion.
Of course the politicians are doing the opposite, and they have no
idea of the demons they will create for these men by using them as
"robotic killers" repeatedly - hopefully these men won't turn on their
own country as they will eventually become crazy enough to do so.
(The Politicians will retire multi-millionaires and write books about
their careers and buy a mansion on the Bay - while their soldier
charges will live in psychiatric wards for the rest of their lives
even if they are in their own homes - does anyone other than me see a
problem with this American reality?)
Also, the rules of war MUST be taught to the NCO corps and to all
troops -pounded into them. When that starts then a NCO would at least
know someone in his platoon will turn him in if he violates those
rules, whether he is loved by most of his men or not. Then the
murders and general war crimes will stop.
We need to learn lessons from Viet Nam if nothing else. Lesson # 1;
Win the war, and win it quickly. Lesson #2: Send units to war for a
specific mission, and when that mission is accomplished, return the
unit to the States. Lesson #3: Conduct daily training classes on the
treatment of Civilians and non-combatants, the difference between a
Lawful order and an Unlawful one, and when the men of the Platoon must
turn in their leaders for crimes committed, including lying on After
Action Reports.
Just my opinion of course.
Doug Grant (Tm)
dino
Jan 31, 2012, 4:15:08 PM1/31/12
to
In article <rJGdnX0OZom0qrXS...@giganews.com>, DGVREIMAN says...
>
>
>We all know many of the draftees
>fired into the air in combat so
>they would not kill anyone - this
>fact was well known in the
>recruiting commands, and many of
>the field commanders simply
>refused to allow draftees to be
>assigned to combat duties due to
>that
I always wondered why there were so few birds in Vietnam...
>
>We all know many of the draftees
>fired into the air in combat so
>they would not kill anyone - this
>fact was well known in the
>recruiting commands, and many of
>the field commanders simply
>refused to allow draftees to be
>assigned to combat duties due to
>that
Bill Clarke
Jan 31, 2012, 6:00:18 PM1/31/12
to
DGVREIMAN
Jan 31, 2012, 6:07:36 PM1/31/12
to
Doug Says: When you are talking about draftees and "citizen Soldiers"
Mr. Jones, you are probably correct. However, to be a good soldier in
a war of attrition you must be able to kill and not allow it to bother
your conscience. We all know many of the draftees fired into the air
Mr. Jones, you are probably correct. However, to be a good soldier in
a war of attrition you must be able to kill and not allow it to bother
in combat so they would not kill anyone - this fact was well known in
the recruiting commands, and many of the field commanders simply
refused to allow draftees to be assigned to combat duties due to that
the recruiting commands, and many of the field commanders simply
refused to allow draftees to be assigned to combat duties due to that
news:jg9lk...@drn.newsguy.com...
in them.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
dino
Jan 31, 2012, 6:19:59 PM1/31/12
to
In article <jg9rq...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
I wonder if he does this just to wind people up? Shit, the guy may be a whole
lot smarter than you take him for... or maybe not...
lot smarter than you take him for... or maybe not...
DGVREIMAN
Jan 31, 2012, 6:40:05 PM1/31/12
to
Doug Says: When you are talking about draftees and "citizen Soldiers"
Mr. Jones, you are probably correct. However, to be a good soldier in
a war of attrition you must be able to kill and not allow it to bother
your conscience. We all know many of the draftees fired into the air
Mr. Jones, you are probably correct. However, to be a good soldier in
a war of attrition you must be able to kill and not allow it to bother
in combat so they would not kill anyone - this fact was well known in
the recruiting commands, and many of the field commanders simply
refused to allow draftees to be assigned to combat duties due to that
the recruiting commands, and many of the field commanders simply
refused to allow draftees to be assigned to combat duties due to that
news:jg9rq...@drn.newsguy.com...
air? Or the DOD report author that said that was happening? Or the
birds that were afraid to fly over the draftees?
Of course ALL draftees did not fire their weapons in the air - but
many did - the DOD said it was a problem in the field. Was the DOD
wrong? Who knows?
Nevertheless, some draftees did become good soldiers -yet they were
stupid mostly - but eventually we could beat the stupid out of them
with making them repeatedly take the point. If they lived they
usually became good soldiers, if they did not, well, they were
draftees and their loss did not represent a big loss to the platoon.
When I say draftees were stupid, I meant what moron would refuse to
sign up for a 2year RA program and thereby receive the school of his
choice (considering his test scores) instead of allowing himself to be
drafted for the same two years kicking and screaming into an infantry
MOS - which did no one any good - especially the RA infantry? Like
I said, draftees HAD to be stupid to start with. Either they were too
stupid to know about the Army's two year RA program, or they were too
stupid to ask. . . pick one.
Some did turn out to be good soldiers, but what I heard mostly from
them in my RF Platoon was whining and bitching about the Army, and
Lifers, and Chow, and the Field, and Patrols, and Training, and just
about everything else - bitch and cry, piss and whine. All that
whining could be contagious in a Platoon, especially during the 1968
Tet offensive and counteroffensive months when contact with the enemy
was almost on a nightly basis.
The only good overall opinions I have ever heard about draftees during
the Viet Nam war came from other draftees - but there were very good
reasons why the US Military wanted to end the draft - and it had
nothing to do with a two year commitment as the Army offered a two
year RA program to its volunteers, depending upon their test scores
and how bad we needed the MOS they qualified for.
Many draftees hated the Army and everything it stood for - and we
NCO's heard about their hatred every day. Draftees were a blight on
the Army in my opinion and I am glad they did away with the draft.
Although forcing the reserves into extended active duty could be just
as bad depending upon their training - and I doubt if that is a
solution to our tiny standing Army. We need good troops - and if we
pay them enough, and train them well, and cut the chickenshit "wins
the hearts and minds" of those that will try to kill us at every
opportunity, our military ranks will fill and stay filled without the
need for draftees or reserves.
I also could never understand why our military personnel are provided
educational benefits when hey leave the military? Those benefits
should be provided if they *stay* in the military - including
automatic promotions (like the Civilan pukes received) and about
double the monthly income for all enlisted ranks at least comparable
to Civilian government tit suckers. If the troop enrolls in College
while on active duty, the Army should provide the troop with at least
two duty hours a day so the troop can attend school, and maintain that
benefit if he achieves passing grades and enrolls in a course the Army
can use.. . and guarantee him a commission when he graduates.
A little "thinking out of the box" could really help our standing
Army's efficiency and recruiting. I could never understand why some
cross eyed Government civilian (Gov't tit sucker) worker that moves
papers from one side of his desk to the other every day would get
better pay and benefits than someone that is placing his life on the
line for his country?? Pay them equally at least - and then watch our
military grow.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Nigel Brooks
Jan 31, 2012, 7:32:03 PM1/31/12
to
Daryl
Jan 31, 2012, 8:22:09 PM1/31/12
to
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
!Jones
Feb 1, 2012, 9:25:01 PM2/1/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:47:02 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam "DGVREIMAN"
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> We need to learn lessons from Viet Nam if nothing else. Lesson # 1;
>Win the war, and win it quickly.
What we, as a country, should learn, Mr. Grant, is that wars are
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> We need to learn lessons from Viet Nam if nothing else. Lesson # 1;
>Win the war, and win it quickly.
seldom "won". They usually drag on and on for generations and
bankrupt the participants. Our social memory is still tainted by
WWII, wherein the US came out *very* well... therefore, we tend to
believe all wars will be thus.
That was why we rushed into Iraq and Afghanistan like a pack of
lemmings. Are you in a betting mood, Mr. Grant? How long do you
expect the Iraqi army to stand? I'm going to bet that they make the
ARVN defending Saig... oops, (I mean Ho Chi Mihn City) look like
Spartans standing in the pass at Thermopylae. How long will our
current puppet Afghan government stand once we pull out? I give 'em a
week with Tac-Air support.
Jones
!Jones
Feb 1, 2012, 9:28:07 PM2/1/12
to
On 31 Jan 2012 13:15:08 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam dino
We pulled "firefly" duties (fly around with a big-assed search light)
on New Year's Eve, 1968 and I assure you that they fired into the
air... fixed the hole to prove it.
Jones
We pulled "firefly" duties (fly around with a big-assed search light)
on New Year's Eve, 1968 and I assure you that they fired into the
air... fixed the hole to prove it.
Jones
DGVREIMAN
Feb 3, 2012, 6:18:31 PM2/3/12
to
Doug Says: When you are talking about draftees and "citizen Soldiers"
Mr. Jones, you are probably correct. However, to be a good soldier in
a war of attrition you must be able to kill and not allow it to bother
your conscience. We all know many of the draftees fired into the air
Mr. Jones, you are probably correct. However, to be a good soldier in
a war of attrition you must be able to kill and not allow it to bother
in combat so they would not kill anyone - this fact was well known in
the recruiting commands, and many of the field commanders simply
refused to allow draftees to be assigned to combat duties due to that
the recruiting commands, and many of the field commanders simply
refused to allow draftees to be assigned to combat duties due to that
news:9orffm...@mid.individual.net...
DGVREIMAN
Feb 3, 2012, 7:06:06 PM2/3/12
to
news:gcsji71vhuc9c0ets...@4ax.com...
Mr. Jones - You give the Iraqis more time than I would to destroy
themselves and turn on the USA - but you are making my point. Had we
won that war we would not have been required to depend on the
undependable, like we did the ARVN after Viet Nam.
Wars can be won. WW1 was won, WW2 was won, the Civil War was Won, the
Revolutionary War was won, the War of 1812 was Won, it wasn't until
the politicians started using war as a political football before we
starting losing or tying them.
The world needs a single honorable Ideology Mr. Jones - and unless we
want to impose the American "best liar with the most money"
present-day leadership ideology on the world, we need to revert back
to a type of leadership that possesses both Honor and Intelligence -
and in my opinion that means a Veteran of a War, and a leader that is
willing to take the steps necessary to deliver the world from its
horrors - such as General Marshall did after WWII. Of course we need
to win a war first before we can afford to be honorable again.
There is going to be one hellva war in the future Mr. Jones if we do
not take the necessary actions today to prevent it. The civilized
world, at some point in time, will need to stand up to radical Islam.
Better now than later. Don't you believe that is a War we must win
simply to insure our survival?
Or, do you believe we can all "coexist" peacefully? Goom by Ya - and
all that? Surely not . . .you appear to be far too smart for that
naďveté.
Doug Grant (Tm)
themselves and turn on the USA - but you are making my point. Had we
won that war we would not have been required to depend on the
undependable, like we did the ARVN after Viet Nam.
Wars can be won. WW1 was won, WW2 was won, the Civil War was Won, the
Revolutionary War was won, the War of 1812 was Won, it wasn't until
the politicians started using war as a political football before we
starting losing or tying them.
The world needs a single honorable Ideology Mr. Jones - and unless we
want to impose the American "best liar with the most money"
present-day leadership ideology on the world, we need to revert back
to a type of leadership that possesses both Honor and Intelligence -
and in my opinion that means a Veteran of a War, and a leader that is
willing to take the steps necessary to deliver the world from its
horrors - such as General Marshall did after WWII. Of course we need
to win a war first before we can afford to be honorable again.
There is going to be one hellva war in the future Mr. Jones if we do
not take the necessary actions today to prevent it. The civilized
world, at some point in time, will need to stand up to radical Islam.
Better now than later. Don't you believe that is a War we must win
simply to insure our survival?
Or, do you believe we can all "coexist" peacefully? Goom by Ya - and
all that? Surely not . . .you appear to be far too smart for that
naďveté.
Doug Grant (Tm)
!Jones
Feb 4, 2012, 4:04:42 PM2/4/12
to
Versailles that set the stage for WWII. Historians typically view WWI
and WWII as the same war.
Point 2: WWII was, in fact, "won"... it's just about the *only* time
in history that you can say that about a war. The image of our
enemies surrendering upon the deck of our battleship is imprinted upon
our national memory; we forget that wars almost *never* end thus and
we should learn that.
Paragraph 3: I lack a clue how to reply.
Point from paragraph 4 "There is going to be one hellva war in the
future..." Probably. That concept is in all sacred texts. See: the
Christian Bible and the Koran for but two examples; I can provide
more.
Paragraph 5: "It's "Cum ba ya" which is an old Methodist song meaning
"Come by here"... "Oh, Lord, come by here." People never *have*
coexisted peacefully; however, in theory, we could.
My point is that we invaded Iraq with the idea that our enemies would
acknowledge their defeat upon the deck of a US warship... that hasn't
happened and we should not have expected it. We did the old "shock
and awe" bit. They repeatedly replied with 75 pounds of high
explosive, shaped charges under our armored vehicles... our tank crews
were shocked and awed, I'd say... several thousand of them are
vegetating in VA hospitals to prove it. And, for all of it, you still
can't take a taxi from downtown Baghdad to the airport; if that's what
you call "winning", then I'd hate to see "losing" one!
Jones
DGVREIMAN
Feb 4, 2012, 6:21:58 PM2/4/12
to
news:ur5ri7t881av793jd...@4ax.com...
Doug Says: Your conclusion about WW1 is arguable. Obviously the
allies won or Germany would not have been so set on vengeance for the
draconian treaty of Versailles. The treaty of Versailles was cleary
a German surrender - and the reason that historians say that Treaty
led to WWII was because of the draconian conditions of the treaty in
respect to reparations by Germany to the allies - especially to
France. As a case in point if WW1 had not been won by the allies,
then the treaty could not have been so draconian to Germany. No
doubt losing a war is a basis for vengeance by the loser, and that
was the main reason after WWII we adopted the Marshall plan for Japan
and Germany.
General Lee surrendering at Appomattox VA?
happen, the only question is when.
I am accustomed to writing. You have one hellva theory considering
the radical murderous instructions found in the Koran - not unless you
consider killing all non-believers for Allah as a means of coexisting?
Once all radical murderous theological teachings and religious
zealotry are defeated perhaps then we can "co-exist" - nevertheless,
I suspect we will find something else to fight about even then.
is well made. We rushed into Iraq without having a correct military
plan, an exit plan, nor even a comprehensive plan to fight a guerrilla
war. But who do we blame for those errors, the US Military officer
corps or the politicians? I blame the politicians as they never
wanted a total war, only a politically correct punitive war. . .which
historically speaking we *always* lose!
We *can* win wars, but only if we declare a General Sherman type
"total war." And the worst thing about any War is losing one.
The men that are gone and maimed for life because of the gaffs and
politics are the true losers of these absurd "politically correct
wars" which we seem to want to pursue and lose as fast as we can
change administrations. Our present political elite seems to regard
those that are charged to fight the Wars they start as nothing more
than expendable cannon fodder. The only way to change that way of
thinking is to elect more Vets to Congress, and to the executive
branch.
The enemy's use of the IED's, to me, was obvious before they even
started using them considering what went on during the Iraq/Iranian
war - and it was outrageous the military's Logistic command could not
provide the correct optics and detectors to the allied units in the
war zone BEFORE they started those crazy "search and find IED patrols"
that according to many of the officers I have read said "were
unnecessary." Why patrol in an situation in which you are nothing but
bait for an IED, and your intelligence from your patrol is
worthless -considering the efficiency of spy planes and satellites ??
It seems like the Military used its normal, right way, wrong way, Army
way methodology, and it took a lot of dead or maimed men to change it.
. . so I guess at least some of the blame for the Iraqi war mistakes
should rest on the shoulders of our Officer Corps as well.
I wrote a couple of emails back when the Iraqi war started suggesting
the Army place hidden cameras in fake rocks and other camouflaged
areas all along the routes that were most likely to receive an IED -
but I guess that suggestion was too easy as no one ever did it, and
since I am not a General, nor a King, they wouldn't listen to my
suggestions anyway - I did not graduate from Harvard, nor from West
Point, so I guess I am out of the loop forever.
I hope we do not do this again - but as long as the politicians care
less about the lives of our soldiers we seem to be destined to
continually repeat Viet Nam until the public has had enough, and
perhaps starts thinking before they vote. But that day will be a cold
day in Hell also I suspect.
My opinion of course.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> Jones
>
allies won or Germany would not have been so set on vengeance for the
draconian treaty of Versailles. The treaty of Versailles was cleary
a German surrender - and the reason that historians say that Treaty
led to WWII was because of the draconian conditions of the treaty in
respect to reparations by Germany to the allies - especially to
France. As a case in point if WW1 had not been won by the allies,
then the treaty could not have been so draconian to Germany. No
doubt losing a war is a basis for vengeance by the loser, and that
was the main reason after WWII we adopted the Marshall plan for Japan
and Germany.
>
> Point 2: WWII was, in fact, "won"... it's just about the *only* time
> in history that you can say that about a war. The image of our
> enemies surrendering upon the deck of our battleship is imprinted
> upon
> our national memory; we forget that wars almost *never* end thus and
> we should learn that.
Doug Says: How about General Cornwallis surrendering at YorkTown, or
> Point 2: WWII was, in fact, "won"... it's just about the *only* time
> in history that you can say that about a war. The image of our
> enemies surrendering upon the deck of our battleship is imprinted
> upon
> our national memory; we forget that wars almost *never* end thus and
> we should learn that.
General Lee surrendering at Appomattox VA?
>
> Paragraph 3: I lack a clue how to reply.
Doug Says: Good, then I bet we agree.
> Paragraph 3: I lack a clue how to reply.
>
> Point from paragraph 4 "There is going to be one hellva war in the
> future..." Probably. That concept is in all sacred texts. See:
> the
> Christian Bible and the Koran for but two examples; I can provide
> more.
Doug Says: I bet you can. . . and you can also bet it is going to
> Point from paragraph 4 "There is going to be one hellva war in the
> future..." Probably. That concept is in all sacred texts. See:
> the
> Christian Bible and the Koran for but two examples; I can provide
> more.
happen, the only question is when.
>
> Paragraph 5: "It's "Cum ba ya" which is an old Methodist song
> meaning
> "Come by here"... "Oh, Lord, come by here." People never *have*
> coexisted peacefully; however, in theory, we could.
Doug Says: I apologize for misspelling "Cum ba ya" it is not a phrase
> Paragraph 5: "It's "Cum ba ya" which is an old Methodist song
> meaning
> "Come by here"... "Oh, Lord, come by here." People never *have*
> coexisted peacefully; however, in theory, we could.
I am accustomed to writing. You have one hellva theory considering
the radical murderous instructions found in the Koran - not unless you
consider killing all non-believers for Allah as a means of coexisting?
Once all radical murderous theological teachings and religious
zealotry are defeated perhaps then we can "co-exist" - nevertheless,
I suspect we will find something else to fight about even then.
>
> My point is that we invaded Iraq with the idea that our enemies
> would
> acknowledge their defeat upon the deck of a US warship... that
> hasn't
> happened and we should not have expected it. We did the old "shock
> and awe" bit. They repeatedly replied with 75 pounds of high
> explosive, shaped charges under our armored vehicles... our tank
> crews
> were shocked and awed, I'd say... several thousand of them are
> vegetating in VA hospitals to prove it. And, for all of it, you
> still
> can't take a taxi from downtown Baghdad to the airport; if that's
> what
> you call "winning", then I'd hate to see "losing" one!
Doug Says: Of course I agree with your last paragraph, and your point
> My point is that we invaded Iraq with the idea that our enemies
> would
> acknowledge their defeat upon the deck of a US warship... that
> hasn't
> happened and we should not have expected it. We did the old "shock
> and awe" bit. They repeatedly replied with 75 pounds of high
> explosive, shaped charges under our armored vehicles... our tank
> crews
> were shocked and awed, I'd say... several thousand of them are
> vegetating in VA hospitals to prove it. And, for all of it, you
> still
> can't take a taxi from downtown Baghdad to the airport; if that's
> what
> you call "winning", then I'd hate to see "losing" one!
is well made. We rushed into Iraq without having a correct military
plan, an exit plan, nor even a comprehensive plan to fight a guerrilla
war. But who do we blame for those errors, the US Military officer
corps or the politicians? I blame the politicians as they never
wanted a total war, only a politically correct punitive war. . .which
historically speaking we *always* lose!
We *can* win wars, but only if we declare a General Sherman type
"total war." And the worst thing about any War is losing one.
The men that are gone and maimed for life because of the gaffs and
politics are the true losers of these absurd "politically correct
wars" which we seem to want to pursue and lose as fast as we can
change administrations. Our present political elite seems to regard
those that are charged to fight the Wars they start as nothing more
than expendable cannon fodder. The only way to change that way of
thinking is to elect more Vets to Congress, and to the executive
branch.
The enemy's use of the IED's, to me, was obvious before they even
started using them considering what went on during the Iraq/Iranian
war - and it was outrageous the military's Logistic command could not
provide the correct optics and detectors to the allied units in the
war zone BEFORE they started those crazy "search and find IED patrols"
that according to many of the officers I have read said "were
unnecessary." Why patrol in an situation in which you are nothing but
bait for an IED, and your intelligence from your patrol is
worthless -considering the efficiency of spy planes and satellites ??
It seems like the Military used its normal, right way, wrong way, Army
way methodology, and it took a lot of dead or maimed men to change it.
. . so I guess at least some of the blame for the Iraqi war mistakes
should rest on the shoulders of our Officer Corps as well.
I wrote a couple of emails back when the Iraqi war started suggesting
the Army place hidden cameras in fake rocks and other camouflaged
areas all along the routes that were most likely to receive an IED -
but I guess that suggestion was too easy as no one ever did it, and
since I am not a General, nor a King, they wouldn't listen to my
suggestions anyway - I did not graduate from Harvard, nor from West
Point, so I guess I am out of the loop forever.
I hope we do not do this again - but as long as the politicians care
less about the lives of our soldiers we seem to be destined to
continually repeat Viet Nam until the public has had enough, and
perhaps starts thinking before they vote. But that day will be a cold
day in Hell also I suspect.
My opinion of course.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> Jones
>
!Jones
Feb 4, 2012, 9:47:37 PM2/4/12
to
On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 15:21:58 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam "DGVREIMAN"
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You have one hellva theory considering
>the radical murderous instructions found in the Koran - not unless you
>consider killing all non-believers for Allah as a means of coexisting?
I'll have to get back to you on the Qur'an. I have just begun the
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You have one hellva theory considering
>the radical murderous instructions found in the Koran - not unless you
>consider killing all non-believers for Allah as a means of coexisting?
process of reading it in a class at our local mosque and I don't want
to spout about a topic of which I am profoundly ignorant.
But I will have read it within the next year... the class is a year
long and I get seminary credit for it from DarusSalam... I might have
a second career as an imam!
I doubt that you have ever read the Qur'an, have you Mr.Reiman?
Jones
0 new messages