OT: RIP: David Hackworth
Chris Thompson
*****
Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 Col. David H. Hackworth, the United
States Army's legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and lifelong
champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and grunt, died
Wednesday in Mexico. He was 74 years old. The cause of death was a form
of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency among Vietnam veterans
exposed to the defoliants called Agents Orange and Blue.
Col. Hackworth spent more than half a century on the country’s hottest
battlefields, first as a soldier, then as a writer, war correspondent
and sharp-eyed critic of the Military-Industrial Complex and
ticket-punching generals he dismissed as "Perfumed Princes."
He preferred the combat style of World War II and Korean War heroes like
James Gavin and Matthew Ridgeway and, during Vietnam, of Hank "The
Gunfighter" Emerson and Hal Moore. General Moore, the co-author of We
Were Soldiers Once and Young, called him "the Patton of Vietnam", and
Gen. Creighton Abrams, the last American commander in that disastrous
war, described him as "the best battalion commander I ever saw in the
United States Army."
Col. Hackworth’s battlefield exploits put him on the line of American
military heroes squarely next to Sgt. Alvin York and Audie Murphy. The
novelist Ward Just, who knew him for forty years, described him as "the
genuine article, a soldier’s soldier, a connoisseur of combat." At 14,
as World War II was sputtering out, he lied about his age to join the
Merchant Marine, and at 15 he enlisted in the U.S. Army. Over the next
26 years he spent fully seven in combat. He was put in for the Medal of
Honor three times; the last application is currently under review at the
Pentagon. He was twice awarded the Army’s second highest honor for
valor, the Distinguished Service Cross, along with 10 Silver Stars and
eight Bronze Stars. When asked about his many awards, he always said he
was proudest of his eight Purple Hearts and his Combat Infantryman’s
Badge.
A reputation won on the battlefield made it impossible to dismiss him
when he went on the attack later as a critic of careerism and
incompetence in the military high command. In 1971, he appeared in the
field on ABC’s "Issue and Answers" to say Vietnam "is a bad war ... it
can’t be won. We need to get out." He also predicted that Saigon would
fall to the North Vietnamese within four years, a prediction that turned
out to be far more accurate than anything the Joint Chiefs of Staff were
telling President Nixon or that the President was telling the American
people.
*****
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Robert J. Kolker
> Crap.
>
> *****
> Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 Col. David H. Hackworth, the United
> States Army's legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and lifelong
> champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and grunt, died
> Wednesday in Mexico. He was 74 years old. The cause of death was a form
> of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency among Vietnam veterans
> exposed to the defoliants called Agents Orange and Blue.
Another Warrior gone to Valhallah. The good ones go more often than they
come. A salute to a valiant soldier.
Bob Kolker
Chris Thompson
news:3feitoF...@individual.net:
Screw Valhallah and all myths. If it wasn't for the fact my government
dumped thousands of tons of carcinogens on innocent people he'd still be
alive.
Mitchell Coffey
Hackworth was a great man. He was also involved in this amazing
organization: http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm
Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Victor Eijkhout
> In 1971, he appeared in the
> field on ABC's "Issue and Answers" to say Vietnam "is a bad war ... it
> can't be won. We need to get out." He also predicted that Saigon would
> fall to the North Vietnamese within four years, a prediction that turned
> out to be far more accurate than anything the Joint Chiefs of Staff were
> telling President Nixon or that the President was telling the American
> people.
His take on the Iraq war was just as much a revelation to me.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/04/hackworth/
It sounds like he was one of the good ones. Even barely knowing about
him, I'll miss him.
V.
--
email: lastname at cs utk edu
homepage: www cs utk edu tilde lastname
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>His take on the Iraq war was just as much a revelation to me.
>
>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/04/hackworth/
>
>It sounds like he was one of the good ones. Even barely knowing about
>him, I'll miss him.
You should know that many soldiers refered to him as "Hack Job", and
found his positions questionable at best, and silly at worst.
Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
the Army and have spent the previous twenty years complaining about
them) Hack violated Saudi law and went snooping. He visited newly
arrived support units of the VIIth Corps in early October and asked if
they were ready to fight the Iraqis.
Those units had been in Iraq for a matter of weeks. Of course they
weren't ready! Had Hackworth gone to an unit of the XVIIIth Airborne
Corps, or the Marine Division in place, he would have found that we
had been ready for over a month.
That was his problem, he truly believed that only he cared about the
troops, so only saw things that reinforced his views.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Victor Eijkhout
> After being denied press
> credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
> the Army
I'm sorry. Who "dodged" out of the army? Surely not the guy who carries
eight purple hearts and assorted other medals? You must be referring to
someone else.
> Those units had been in Iraq for a matter of weeks. Of course they
> weren't ready!
What's a unit that isn't ready doing right at the start of a battle?
Sounds like a bad idea to me.
Ken Shaw
Douglas Berry wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 21:24:14 -0400, see...@for.addy (Victor Eijkhout)
> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
> proclaimed the following
>
>
>>His take on the Iraq war was just as much a revelation to me.
>>
>>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/04/hackworth/
>>
>>It sounds like he was one of the good ones. Even barely knowing about
>>him, I'll miss him.
>
>
> You should know that many soldiers refered to him as "Hack Job", and
> found his positions questionable at best, and silly at worst.
>
Not any soldier, sailor, airmen or marine I have heard. He was widely
respected as a former officer who actually cared about the quality of
life and safety of the enlisted.
> Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
> credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
> the Army and have spent the previous twenty years complaining about
> them) Hack violated Saudi law and went snooping. He visited newly
> arrived support units of the VIIth Corps in early October and asked if
> they were ready to fight the Iraqis.
>
Denying him press credentials was an unconstitutional act and evidence
of the pathetic cowardice of the DoD leadership.
> Those units had been in Iraq for a matter of weeks. Of course they
> weren't ready! Had Hackworth gone to an unit of the XVIIIth Airborne
> Corps, or the Marine Division in place, he would have found that we
> had been ready for over a month.
>
So what? He reported on troops he interviewed. The fact was and remains
true today that the US Army is ridiculously slow to deploy and
inflexible. A unit in country for several weeks that wasn't ready for
combat was scandalous. What would the war have been like if Saddam had
guessed the right way about the US response to his invasion and simply
gone ahead and taken Mecca and Riyadh in the first weeks after the
invasion of Kuwait? Would the US Army have been able to do anything at
all to oppose the action? Why does the US Army still not truly rapid
reaction forces beyond the 82nd and 101st?
> That was his problem, he truly believed that only he cared about the
> troops, so only saw things that reinforced his views.
He did care about the troops, he was one of the very few voices for
better enlisted pay and working conditions. Anyone who has served in the
military any time in the last several decades is aware that the
deplorable working conditions and pay for the enlisted must be improved
and that the extreme contempt for officers by the enlisted endangers
good order and discipline.
Ken
formerly ET2 USN
Rowan Malin
> You should know that many soldiers refered to him as "Hack Job", and
> found his positions questionable at best, and silly at worst.
>
> Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
> credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
> the Army and have spent the previous twenty years complaining about
> them) Hack violated Saudi law and went snooping. He visited newly
> arrived support units of the VIIth Corps in early October and asked if
> they were ready to fight the Iraqis.
>
> Those units had been in Iraq for a matter of weeks. Of course they
> weren't ready! Had Hackworth gone to an unit of the XVIIIth Airborne
> Corps, or the Marine Division in place, he would have found that we
> had been ready for over a month.
>
> That was his problem, he truly believed that only he cared about the
> troops, so only saw things that reinforced his views.
Errm...
What's the difference between "a matter of weeks" and "over a month"?
Cheers,
Rowan
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>
>> After being denied press
>> credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
>> the Army
>
>I'm sorry. Who "dodged" out of the army? Surely not the guy who carries
>eight purple hearts and assorted other medals? You must be referring to
>someone else.
He was ordered home from Vietnam to answer several charges about his
command. Notably, he ignored Army regs on drug use, ran a brothel,
and was charged with insubordination.
Rather than return, he instead fled to Australia and stayed there for
several years. He was allowed to resign his commission.
He freely admits all of this in his book "About Face."
>> Those units had been in Iraq for a matter of weeks. Of course they
>> weren't ready!
>
>What's a unit that isn't ready doing right at the start of a battle?
>Sounds like a bad idea to me.
Hello? He interviewed those soldiers in October. The earliest plan
for war wasn't until January, and even then the ground phase didn't go
until late February.
It takes time to set up a Corps, especially in a hell-hole like Saudi.
Nobody hit the ground ready to fight, except for the Marines (who are
supposed to do that) and the first brigade from the 82nd Airborne that
landed in August.
In the XVIIIth Airborne Corps, which had been boots on the ground for
an extra month, we were about ready to go.
Mitchell Coffey
He lived in your land, at least for a while, didn't he?
What was he like?
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
<ctho...@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>news:3feitoF...@individual.net:
>
>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> Crap.
>>>
>>> *****
>>> Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 Col. David H. Hackworth, the United
>>> States Army's legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and
>>> lifelong champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and
>>> grunt, died Wednesday in Mexico. He was 74 years old. The cause of
>>> death was a form of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency
>>> among Vietnam veterans exposed to the defoliants called Agents Orange
>>> and Blue.
>>
>> Another Warrior gone to Valhallah. The good ones go more often than
>> they come. A salute to a valiant soldier.
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>
>Screw Valhallah and all myths. If it wasn't for the fact my government
>dumped thousands of tons of carcinogens on innocent people he'd still be
>alive.
"Screw Valhallah and all myths!" If I can help it, that'll be a
regular toast at Howlerfests.
To be fair, it was not our intent to give those innocent people
cancer. What we meant to do with the thousands of tons of defoliants
was to starve them.
Mitchell
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:36:02 +1000, John Wilkins
> <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>=20
>>Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:31:39 +0000 (UTC), Chris Thompson
>>><ctho...@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Crap.
>>>>
>>>>*****
>>>>Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 Col. David H. Hackworth, the United
ong
>>>>champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and grunt, died
rm
>>>>of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency among Vietnam veter=
ans
>>>>exposed to the defoliants called Agents Orange and Blue.=20
>>>>
>>>>Col. Hackworth spent more than half a century on the country=92s hott=
est
>>>>battlefields, first as a soldier, then as a writer, war correspondent
>>>>and sharp-eyed critic of the Military-Industrial Complex and
>>>>
>>>>He preferred the combat style of World War II and Korean War heroes l=
ike
>>>>James Gavin and Matthew Ridgeway and, during Vietnam, of Hank "The
>>>>Gunfighter" Emerson and Hal Moore. General Moore, the co-author of We
>>>>Were Soldiers Once and Young, called him "the Patton of Vietnam", and
>>>>Gen. Creighton Abrams, the last American commander in that disastrous
>>>>war, described him as "the best battalion commander I ever saw in the
>>>>United States Army."
>>>>
an
>>>>military heroes squarely next to Sgt. Alvin York and Audie Murphy. Th=
e
>>>>novelist Ward Just, who knew him for forty years, described him as "t=
he
>>>>genuine article, a soldier=92s soldier, a connoisseur of combat." At =
14,
>>>>as World War II was sputtering out, he lied about his age to join the
t
>>>>26 years he spent fully seven in combat. He was put in for the Medal =
of
>>>>Honor three times; the last application is currently under review at =
the
>>>>Pentagon. He was twice awarded the Army=92s second highest honor for
>>>>valor, the Distinguished Service Cross, along with 10 Silver Stars an=
d
>>>>eight Bronze Stars. When asked about his many awards, he always said =
he
>>>>was proudest of his eight Purple Hearts and his Combat Infantryman=92=
s
>>>>Badge.=20
>>>>
>>>>A reputation won on the battlefield made it impossible to dismiss him
>>>>when he went on the attack later as a critic of careerism and
e
>>>>field on ABC=92s "Issue and Answers" to say Vietnam "is a bad war ...=
it
>>>>can=92t be won. We need to get out." He also predicted that Saigon wo=
uld
>>>>fall to the North Vietnamese within four years, a prediction that tur=
ned
>>>>out to be far more accurate than anything the Joint Chiefs of Staff w=
ere
>>>>telling President Nixon or that the President was telling the America=
n
>>>>people.=20
>>>>*****
>>>>
>>>>http://www.hackworth.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>Hackworth was a great man. He was also involved in this amazing
>>>organization: http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm
>>>
>>>Mitchell Coffey
>>>
>>
>>I met Hack a while back, and I blogged his passing.
>=20
> He lived in your land, at least for a while, didn't he?
> What was he like?
>=20
He had Presence. He was a tallish fellow as I recall, softly spoken, and =
very=20
generous with his time. The thing that stuck with me most is what I blogg=
ed -=20
that he heard LBJ try to nuke North Vietnam because "I don't want to be t=
he=20
first American President to lose a war". Fortunately, Nixon had fewer=20
compunctions, instead destroying American democracy, which was already si=
ck...
--=20
Mitchell Coffey
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 May 2005 21:24:14 -0400, see...@for.addy (Victor Eijkhout)
>drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
>proclaimed the following
>
>>His take on the Iraq war was just as much a revelation to me.
>>
>>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/04/hackworth/
>>
>>It sounds like he was one of the good ones. Even barely knowing about
>>him, I'll miss him.
>
>You should know that many soldiers refered to him as "Hack Job", and
>found his positions questionable at best, and silly at worst.
>
>Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
>credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
>the Army and have spent the previous twenty years complaining about
>them)
[snip]
Let's stop right there. Let's see you attempt to justify claiming the
most decorate soldier in the United States " dodged out of the Army".
> Hack violated Saudi law and went snooping.
[snip]
This was the same Saudi law that, when it counted, took vigorous
action against the members of the Royal Family that were the deep
pockets for Al Qaeda?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:23:10 -0400, see...@for.addy (Victor Eijkhout)
>drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
>proclaimed the following
>>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> After being denied press
>>> credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
>>> the Army
>>
>>I'm sorry. Who "dodged" out of the army? Surely not the guy who carries
>>eight purple hearts and assorted other medals? You must be referring to
>>someone else.
>
>He was ordered home from Vietnam to answer several charges about his
>command. Notably, he ignored Army regs on drug use, ran a brothel,
>and was charged with insubordination.
>
>Rather than return, he instead fled to Australia and stayed there for
>several years. He was allowed to resign his commission.
>
>He freely admits all of this in his book "About Face."
[snip]
Now, now: what did he *really* say?
Mitchell Coffey
Stuart
Douglas Berry wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 21:24:14 -0400, see...@for.addy (Victor
Eijkhout)
> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
> proclaimed the following
> Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
> credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
> the Army
You're not of them "swift boat vets" are ya?
Stuart
wcb
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:23:10 -0400, see...@for.addy (Victor Eijkhout)
> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
> proclaimed the following
>>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> After being denied press
>>> credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
>>> the Army
>>
>>I'm sorry. Who "dodged" out of the army? Surely not the guy who carries
>>eight purple hearts and assorted other medals? You must be referring to
>>someone else.
>
> He was ordered home from Vietnam to answer several charges about his
> command. Notably, he ignored Army regs on drug use, ran a brothel,
> and was charged with insubordination.
>
> Rather than return, he instead fled to Australia and stayed there for
> several years. He was allowed to resign his commission.
>
> He freely admits all of this in his book "About Face."
At least he didn't lie us into a war.
And with a chest full of medals, he is most certainly
a different sort of AWOL officer than AWOL Bush.
And at least Hackworth had the honesty to admit his
failings.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Chris Thompson
in news:drj5915ibtml5bguk...@4ax.com:
IIRC he was totally intolerant of drug use in his command (except for
alcohol, and he was intolerant of alcohol use by soldiers on duty).
Like most C.O.'s he hired Vietnamese women to serve as housekeepers and
maids. They also performed other duties. War zones are hell, and
everything is multiplied tenfold for women in war zones. At the very
least, life for (civilian) women in a war zone is complex and
terrifying. Hackworth was tolerant of his soldiers' sexual activities,
knowing that the worst thing you can do is give an order you know will
not be obeyed (he said that in his book, too).
Hackworth was recalled by colonels and generals who had probably had 2
or 3 Vietnamese mistresses while collecting combat pay for sitting on
their asses behind concrete walls in Saigon. I am unsure whether he
"fled" to Australia but I believe he did so- in the sense of fleeing a
possible nuclear war (I believe John Wilkins actually spoke, or heard
him speak) about this.
To put it mildly, the timing of these charges is highly suspect. None of
this was of any concern until his interview on television. Nor, to my
knowledge, were any *other* battalion commanders charged with the same
offenses.
In short, he got into trouble for telling the truth. In case you didn't
know, Hackworth was the one that broke the story about "Hillbilly Armor"
on our vehicles in Iraq. He broke the story about generals and admirals
using C130's- desperately needed for shuttling supplies both to and
within Iraq- as personal aircraft, so they could spend two nights a
month in Iraq and collect 30 days' combat pay.
For every whiner who complained about Hackworth (and they were usually
the f**kups) there seemed to be 10 who trusted him enough to tell him
what was really going on.
Chris Thompson
in news:q5c591hsr45rc5c3l...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Chris Thompson
> <ctho...@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
>>"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>news:3feitoF...@individual.net:
>>
>>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Crap.
>>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> Washington, D.C., May 5, 2005 Col. David H. Hackworth, the United
>>>> States Army's legendary, highly decorated guerrilla fighter and
>>>> lifelong champion of the doughboy and dogface, ground-pounder and
>>>> grunt, died Wednesday in Mexico. He was 74 years old. The cause of
>>>> death was a form of cancer now appearing with increasing frequency
>>>> among Vietnam veterans exposed to the defoliants called Agents
>>>> Orange and Blue.
>>>
>>> Another Warrior gone to Valhallah. The good ones go more often than
>>> they come. A salute to a valiant soldier.
>>>
>>> Bob Kolker
>>
>>Screw Valhallah and all myths. If it wasn't for the fact my government
>>dumped thousands of tons of carcinogens on innocent people he'd still
>>be alive.
>
> "Screw Valhallah and all myths!" If I can help it, that'll be a
> regular toast at Howlerfests.
Why thank you.
> To be fair, it was not our intent to give those innocent people
> cancer. What we meant to do with the thousands of tons of defoliants
> was to starve them.
>
> Mitchell
<Emily Latella>
Oh. Never mind.
</Emily Latella>
John Wilkins
He told me that he chose central NSW as the least targeted place on the
planet. But this was *after* he was on the President's personal staff, so I
doubt he was "fleeing" from the Army.
>
> To put it mildly, the timing of these charges is highly suspect. None of
> this was of any concern until his interview on television. Nor, to my
> knowledge, were any *other* battalion commanders charged with the same
> offenses.
>
> In short, he got into trouble for telling the truth. In case you didn't
> know, Hackworth was the one that broke the story about "Hillbilly Armor"
> on our vehicles in Iraq. He broke the story about generals and admirals
> using C130's- desperately needed for shuttling supplies both to and
> within Iraq- as personal aircraft, so they could spend two nights a
> month in Iraq and collect 30 days' combat pay.
>
> For every whiner who complained about Hackworth (and they were usually
> the f**kups) there seemed to be 10 who trusted him enough to tell him
> what was really going on.
>
I think he was a man of great personal integrity (but what would I know - I've
never been in the armed services) who had political views that were at odds
with those in power in Washington. That is, of course, the worst sin one can
commit in the armed forces.
--
Victor Eijkhout
> He was ordered home from Vietnam to answer several charges about his
> command. Notably, he ignored Army regs on drug use, ran a brothel,
> and was charged with insubordination.
He was a creative type :-)
But your characterization of "dodged out of the army" is totally
unwarranted. He more or less threw himself into every battle that came
along, and acted competently and honourably in every sense that counts.
As someone else remarked, "dodging" is more appropriate for Bush and "I
had other priorities" Cheney.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> To be fair, it was not our intent to give those innocent people
> cancer. What we meant to do with the thousands of tons of defoliants
> was to starve them.
The government was wrong to deny the effects of Agent Orange. Many
veterans suffered because they did not receive the right treatment. The
government made it sound that complaints about the physical effects of
A.O. was bellyaching. The government has done this in avery major war
and operations.
When the gummint was testing atomic weapons in Utah and soldiers came
down with the symptoms of radiation sickness the gummint denied it,
because they were afraid of being open to law suits for negligence if
they admitted it.
Bob Kolker
Chris Thompson
news:d6v4tg$1oqk$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
Au contraire. The worst sin is going public with them. If you just let
it eat away at you your whole life, eroding your honor while your
reputation grows ever greater, it's no big deal.
Douglas Berry
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>> You should know that many soldiers refered to him as "Hack Job", and
>> found his positions questionable at best, and silly at worst.
>
>Not any soldier, sailor, airmen or marine I have heard. He was widely
>respected as a former officer who actually cared about the quality of
>life and safety of the enlisted.
As I said, I know many of my fellow veterans who feel the same way.
>> Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
>> credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
>> the Army and have spent the previous twenty years complaining about
>> them) Hack violated Saudi law and went snooping. He visited newly
>> arrived support units of the VIIth Corps in early October and asked if
>> they were ready to fight the Iraqis.
>
>Denying him press credentials was an unconstitutional act and evidence
>of the pathetic cowardice of the DoD leadership.
The Constitution applies in Saudi Arabia? News to me, the Saudis and
the US government.
CENTCOM, to preserve security, established a set of rules for the
press. Hackworth decided that the rules didn't apply to him (what
else is new) and headed out into the desert on his own (violating
Saudi law in the process.)
>> Those units had been in Iraq for a matter of weeks. Of course they
>> weren't ready! Had Hackworth gone to an unit of the XVIIIth Airborne
>> Corps, or the Marine Division in place, he would have found that we
>> had been ready for over a month.
>>
>
>So what? He reported on troops he interviewed. The fact was and remains
>true today that the US Army is ridiculously slow to deploy and
>inflexible. A unit in country for several weeks that wasn't ready for
>combat was scandalous.
Not several, more like three. And these were heavy support units.
The combat units were ready to defend themselves. Hackworth was
wandering around near KKMC, which was a long way from the Iraq forces.
> What would the war have been like if Saddam had
>guessed the right way about the US response to his invasion and simply
>gone ahead and taken Mecca and Riyadh in the first weeks after the
>invasion of Kuwait? Would the US Army have been able to do anything at
>all to oppose the action? Why does the US Army still not truly rapid
>reaction forces beyond the 82nd and 101st?
The 101st is not a rapid reaction unit. It takes time to ship all our
helicopters overseas. In the two weeks after the invasion of Kuwait,
we had two brigades of the 82nd Airborne on the ground, along with a
complete MEU, two fighter wings, and a carrier group was already on
station. Had Saddam rolled south, he would have faced some of the
best light infantry in the world well support by air assets.
Liberating Kuwait and destroying to forces threatening Saddam's
southern neighbors required more and heavier forces. It does take
months to assemble that kind of force. A M1A1 tank weighs 65 tons.
They have to be shipped by sea, and that takes time. We put half a
million troops into SA, and needed to establish the infrastructure to
keep those troops feed, watered, and sheltered. Then there was the
problem of acclimating to one of the harshest environments on Earth.
Ever read up on Overlord? It took three *years* to prepare for that
little jaunt. It took us just over 6 months.
The US Army is not supposed to be a rapid reaction force. That's the
USMC. We are the arm of heavy battle. We do have light elements that
can be moved quicky (Ranger battalions, the 82nd Airborne) but the
main job is to engage and destroy the enemy using manuver and
overwhelming firepower.
>
>> That was his problem, he truly believed that only he cared about the
>> troops, so only saw things that reinforced his views.
>
>He did care about the troops, he was one of the very few voices for
>better enlisted pay and working conditions. Anyone who has served in the
>military any time in the last several decades is aware that the
>deplorable working conditions and pay for the enlisted must be improved
>and that the extreme contempt for officers by the enlisted endangers
>good order and discipline.
I was an infantryman, and enjoyed my time in the service. Yes, the
pay was low, but Ilso got all my meals for free, free shelter,
compelte health and dental (free), all my equipment free, and flew
around the world on MAC for pennies.
All in all, a good deal.
>Ken
>formerly ET2 USN
Former SSG, 11B2Y92Y, USA
Douglas Berry
<m.dot.coffey.at....@giganews.com> drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
>>Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
>>credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
>>the Army and have spent the previous twenty years complaining about
>>them)
>[snip]
>
>Let's stop right there. Let's see you attempt to justify claiming the
>most decorate soldier in the United States " dodged out of the Army".
He was given a direct order to report to the Pentagon for an
investigation into his conduct in Vietnam. Instead, he went to
Australia and refused to come home. He was allowed to retire from
Australia.
That is called Disobeying a Direct Order. It is a violation of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Look, I don't deny that he was a great soldier, at one time. But he
went over the edge, and became convinced that he was the only person
who understood the military.
Here's a good article on him.
http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2381/
Ken Shaw
Douglas Berry wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 04:03:04 GMT, Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> drained
> his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
> proclaimed the following
>
>
>>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>
>>>You should know that many soldiers refered to him as "Hack Job", and
>>>found his positions questionable at best, and silly at worst.
>>
>>Not any soldier, sailor, airmen or marine I have heard. He was widely
>>respected as a former officer who actually cared about the quality of
>>life and safety of the enlisted.
>
>
> As I said, I know many of my fellow veterans who feel the same way.
>
>
>>>Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
>>>credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
>>>the Army and have spent the previous twenty years complaining about
>>>them) Hack violated Saudi law and went snooping. He visited newly
>>>arrived support units of the VIIth Corps in early October and asked if
>>>they were ready to fight the Iraqis.
>>
>>Denying him press credentials was an unconstitutional act and evidence
>>of the pathetic cowardice of the DoD leadership.
>
>
> The Constitution applies in Saudi Arabia? News to me, the Saudis and
> the US government.
>
The US Constitution applies to the DoD everywhere.
> CENTCOM, to preserve security, established a set of rules for the
> press. Hackworth decided that the rules didn't apply to him (what
> else is new) and headed out into the desert on his own (violating
> Saudi law in the process.)
>
CENTCOM does not have the ability to control US press access to US
troops. CENTCOM derives its authority from Congress which "shall make no
law... abridging the freedom... of the press". Therefore CENTCOM can
NEVER legally do what it did in 1991. That no attempts to prosecute the
reporters who ignored the illegal rules is proof positive of that fact.
>
>>>Those units had been in Iraq for a matter of weeks. Of course they
>>>weren't ready! Had Hackworth gone to an unit of the XVIIIth Airborne
>>>Corps, or the Marine Division in place, he would have found that we
>>>had been ready for over a month.
>>>
>>
>>So what? He reported on troops he interviewed. The fact was and remains
>>true today that the US Army is ridiculously slow to deploy and
>>inflexible. A unit in country for several weeks that wasn't ready for
>>combat was scandalous.
>
>
> Not several, more like three. And these were heavy support units.
> The combat units were ready to defend themselves. Hackworth was
> wandering around near KKMC, which was a long way from the Iraq forces.
>
So? A unit in country 3 weeks that wasn't ready to do its job calls for
Courts Martial.
>
>>What would the war have been like if Saddam had
>>guessed the right way about the US response to his invasion and simply
>>gone ahead and taken Mecca and Riyadh in the first weeks after the
>>invasion of Kuwait? Would the US Army have been able to do anything at
>>all to oppose the action? Why does the US Army still not truly rapid
>>reaction forces beyond the 82nd and 101st?
>
>
> The 101st is not a rapid reaction unit. It takes time to ship all our
> helicopters overseas. In the two weeks after the invasion of Kuwait,
> we had two brigades of the 82nd Airborne on the ground, along with a
> complete MEU, two fighter wings, and a carrier group was already on
> station. Had Saddam rolled south, he would have faced some of the
> best light infantry in the world well support by air assets.
>
I'm glad you agree. The US Army should be abolished and an actual useful
and effective force should replace it.
> Liberating Kuwait and destroying to forces threatening Saddam's
> southern neighbors required more and heavier forces. It does take
> months to assemble that kind of force. A M1A1 tank weighs 65 tons.
> They have to be shipped by sea, and that takes time. We put half a
> million troops into SA, and needed to establish the infrastructure to
> keep those troops feed, watered, and sheltered. Then there was the
> problem of acclimating to one of the harshest environments on Earth.
>
What are you talking about? Air assets and special forces defeated the
Iraqi forces. No significant ground combat occurred and almost all US
casualties were from friendly fire.
The M1A1 is an expensive joke. A tank that needs resupply after less
than 6 hours on the move without firing a shot means the tank is useless
in anything less than huge forces supported by an extensive supply
train. We should have maybe a brigade of this sort of super heavy tanks
and our main armor should be a lighter more deployable vehicle usable in
smaller forces with less support.
> Ever read up on Overlord? It took three *years* to prepare for that
> little jaunt. It took us just over 6 months.
>
Overlord was a lot more difficult. It involved developing entire new
technologies and training civilians to be modern combat troops. That you
dared to compare Overlord to Desert Storm indicates the bankruptcy of
your arguments.
> The US Army is not supposed to be a rapid reaction force. That's the
> USMC. We are the arm of heavy battle. We do have light elements that
> can be moved quicky (Ranger battalions, the 82nd Airborne) but the
> main job is to engage and destroy the enemy using manuver and
> overwhelming firepower.
>
A job that hasn't been needed since the very early 90's. That the US
Army is only now adapting to the changed conditions is further evidence
for the complete liquidation of the service and starting over with new
personnel.
>>>That was his problem, he truly believed that only he cared about the
>>>troops, so only saw things that reinforced his views.
>>
>>He did care about the troops, he was one of the very few voices for
>>better enlisted pay and working conditions. Anyone who has served in the
>>military any time in the last several decades is aware that the
>>deplorable working conditions and pay for the enlisted must be improved
>>and that the extreme contempt for officers by the enlisted endangers
>>good order and discipline.
>
>
> I was an infantryman, and enjoyed my time in the service. Yes, the
> pay was low, but Ilso got all my meals for free, free shelter,
> compelte health and dental (free), all my equipment free, and flew
> around the world on MAC for pennies.
>
> All in all, a good deal.
>
You never spent a dime on a meal? You made E6 and never lived off base?
I'm sorry that just doesn't ring true.
Also you never addressed working conditions or the officer/enlisted
relationship.
Who are the only US citizens subject to arrest for expressing the desire
to unionize? What kind of hierarchical structure puts a person with zero
experience in charge of a group led by a 10+ year veteran? Why should
the uniformed services be exempt from OSHA rules during peacetime? Why
isn't enlisted pay raises tied to congressional pay raises or at the
very least to officer pay raises? Is it not unacceptable to have
enlisted personnel drawing food stamps?
Ken
Chris Thompson
news:vnk691tv574porq48...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:39:54 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
> <m.dot.coffey.at....@giganews.com> drained his beer,
> leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
> following
>
>>>Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
>>>credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
>>>the Army and have spent the previous twenty years complaining about
>>>them)
>>[snip]
>>
>>Let's stop right there. Let's see you attempt to justify claiming the
>>most decorate soldier in the United States " dodged out of the Army".
>
> He was given a direct order to report to the Pentagon for an
> investigation into his conduct in Vietnam. Instead, he went to
> Australia and refused to come home. He was allowed to retire from
> Australia.
>
> That is called Disobeying a Direct Order. It is a violation of the
> Uniform Code of Military Justice.
>
> Look, I don't deny that he was a great soldier, at one time. But he
> went over the edge, and became convinced that he was the only person
> who understood the military.
>
> Here's a good article on him.
>
> http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2381/
Um. You wouldn't think that article is just a tad over the top, would
you? Sounds an awful lot like a Swift Boat Vet piece, actually.
Incident
> "reporters" who dodged out of the Army and have spent the
> previous twenty years complaining about them)
Yeah, you don't want reporters that are critical of the military,
because the military is above criticism ...
"Dodged out"? That's laughable. And pathetic.
> Hack violated Saudi law and went snooping.
Oh, to violate the security laws of a despotic theocracy in the name of
journalism! How low can one go?!
> He visited newly arrived support units of the VIIth Corps in early
> October and asked if they were ready to fight the Iraqis.
Any units in country for "a matter of weeks" damn well better be ready
to fight. Do you think the units which began arriving in Saudi on
August 7 (a mere 5 days after Iraq moved into Kuwait) we're ready?
Damn right they were. Not as ready as they would have liked, but they
were ready. That's why they were there - to fight if the Iraqis moved
to seize the Saudi oil fields.
Soldiers tend to be of a mindset that criticism of the mility is
criticism of them. Sounds like you're of a similar (simple) mind.
AC
Quid
Ken Shaw wrote:
> You never spent a dime on a meal? You made E6 and never lived off
base?
> I'm sorry that just doesn't ring true.
>
> Also you never addressed working conditions or the officer/enlisted
> relationship.
Be damned if I'll eat the swill served at our galley. The food in
basic, Hell, in public schools, is better. As for working
relationships, any officer who is not prior enlisted receives all the
courtesies, but not an ounce of real respect. Quite a few here would
like to see an end to the seperate officer/enlisted promotion ladders
and see them unified into a single system. There isn't a single good
reason why an E-7 with a masters should be taking orders from an O-1
with a bachelors.
Douglas Berry
<ctho...@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>> Here's a good article on him.
>>
>> http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2381/
>
>Um. You wouldn't think that article is just a tad over the top, would
>you? Sounds an awful lot like a Swift Boat Vet piece, actually.
A bit hyperbolic, but the facts are in place.
Ken Shaw
I agree with everything you had to say but want to warn you that if you
are on active duty you are perilously close to several violations of the
UCMJ. I would hate for someone to go to jail over this.
Ken
Douglas Berry
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 04:03:04 GMT, Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> drained
>> his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
>> proclaimed the following
>>
>> The Constitution applies in Saudi Arabia? News to me, the Saudis and
>> the US government.
>
>The US Constitution applies to the DoD everywhere.
Yup. But not in Saudi Arabia. As long as Hackworth was on US soil,
or a base leased to the US for the duration, he had all his
Constitutional rights.
>> CENTCOM, to preserve security, established a set of rules for the
>> press. Hackworth decided that the rules didn't apply to him (what
>> else is new) and headed out into the desert on his own (violating
>> Saudi law in the process.)
>
>CENTCOM does not have the ability to control US press access to US
>troops. CENTCOM derives its authority from Congress which "shall make no
>law... abridging the freedom... of the press". Therefore CENTCOM can
>NEVER legally do what it did in 1991. That no attempts to prosecute the
>reporters who ignored the illegal rules is proof positive of that fact.
Actually there is a long tradition of muzzling the press during war.
>> Not several, more like three. And these were heavy support units.
>> The combat units were ready to defend themselves. Hackworth was
>> wandering around near KKMC, which was a long way from the Iraq forces.
>
>So? A unit in country 3 weeks that wasn't ready to do its job calls for
>Courts Martial.
Why? Because RORO ships don't move like cigarette boats? Because
there were only two usable deep water ports? A lot of the sitting
around was caused by the logistical logjam at Al Jubayl. There were
only so many quays available!
>> The 101st is not a rapid reaction unit. It takes time to ship all our
>> helicopters overseas. In the two weeks after the invasion of Kuwait,
>> we had two brigades of the 82nd Airborne on the ground, along with a
>> complete MEU, two fighter wings, and a carrier group was already on
>> station. Had Saddam rolled south, he would have faced some of the
>> best light infantry in the world well support by air assets.
>
>I'm glad you agree. The US Army should be abolished and an actual useful
>and effective force should replace it.
Considering that we won that war, and conquered Iraq with a far
smaller build up, i disagree. The US Army does its job very well,
thank you.
>> Liberating Kuwait and destroying to forces threatening Saddam's
>> southern neighbors required more and heavier forces. It does take
>> months to assemble that kind of force. A M1A1 tank weighs 65 tons.
>> They have to be shipped by sea, and that takes time. We put half a
>> million troops into SA, and needed to establish the infrastructure to
>> keep those troops feed, watered, and sheltered. Then there was the
>> problem of acclimating to one of the harshest environments on Earth.
>
>What are you talking about? Air assets and special forces defeated the
>Iraqi forces. No significant ground combat occurred and almost all US
>casualties were from friendly fire.
I take it you've never heard of 73 Eastling? The Battle of Basra?
Those were the largest tank battles since the Battle of Kursk in WWII.
But to you an entire US armored division (several hundred tanks and
associated fighting vehicles) smashing not one, but two Iraqi
Republican Guard divisions in eight hours of intense fighting isn't
"significant ground combat".
Right.
As for the air war, shall we ask an Iraqi armor commander about that?
"When I went into Kuwait I had 39 tanks. After six weeks of aerial
bombardment, I had 32 left. After twenty minutes in action against the
M1s, I had none." Iraqi Battalion commander, quoted in Tom Clancy's
_Armored Cav_
>The M1A1 is an expensive joke. A tank that needs resupply after less
>than 6 hours on the move without firing a shot means the tank is useless
>in anything less than huge forces supported by an extensive supply
>train.
Which is exactly what the Army planned for in Desert Storm.
>We should have maybe a brigade of this sort of super heavy tanks
>and our main armor should be a lighter more deployable vehicle usable in
>smaller forces with less support.
And less survivable. We didn't lose a single M1 to enemy tank fire in
DS. I know a guy who took three hits from T-72 guns, and bounced them
all.
You seem to be confusing the Army with the Marine Corps, who are
lighter and use some great light vehicles (the LAV-25 comes to mind, I
wish the Army had bought those instead of the damn Stryker.)
Different organizations with different missions. A MEU (SOC) is going
to get rolled over if faced with a serious armored threat. It's
designed to get in fast, seize objectives, and then get relieved by
heavier, follow-on forces.
>> Ever read up on Overlord? It took three *years* to prepare for that
>> little jaunt. It took us just over 6 months.
>
>Overlord was a lot more difficult. It involved developing entire new
>technologies and training civilians to be modern combat troops. That you
>dared to compare Overlord to Desert Storm indicates the bankruptcy of
>your arguments.
Name the new technologies. The Higgens boat? And infantry basic
training takes 8 weeks. We had been at war since (effectively) early
1942!
What took time was marshaling all the troops, all the equipment, and
making the plans.
>> The US Army is not supposed to be a rapid reaction force. That's the
>> USMC. We are the arm of heavy battle. We do have light elements that
>> can be moved quicky (Ranger battalions, the 82nd Airborne) but the
>> main job is to engage and destroy the enemy using manuver and
>> overwhelming firepower.
>
>A job that hasn't been needed since the very early 90's. That the US
>Army is only now adapting to the changed conditions is further evidence
>for the complete liquidation of the service and starting over with new
>personnel.
What the hell did the Army ever do to you?
Remember the "War to End All Wars"? The one we now call World War I?
A lot of people swore that after that little dust up, armies weren't
going to be needed anymore.
After Korea and Vietnam, some people claimed that tanks would never
again be needed on the battlefield.
Now you are claiming we don't need the heavy force of the army.
>> I was an infantryman, and enjoyed my time in the service. Yes, the
>> pay was low, but Ilso got all my meals for free, free shelter,
>> compelte health and dental (free), all my equipment free, and flew
>> around the world on MAC for pennies.
>>
>> All in all, a good deal.
>
>You never spent a dime on a meal? You made E6 and never lived off base?
>I'm sorry that just doesn't ring true.
Never lived off base, and yes, I occasionally splurged and ate at a
restaurant. But if I had wanted to, I could have eaten in the mess
hall (or dining facility, if you want to be technical about it) three
meals a day, seven days a week.
The fact that I chose to spend some of my own money on food doesn't
change the fact that I didn't have too. Outside food was a luxury
item.
>Also you never addressed working conditions or the officer/enlisted
>relationship.
It's a hard job. No one ever claimed that military life was like a
vacation. And so I had to slaute officers and call them sir. Big
deal. I understood the need for military discipline, and accepted it.
You can bet when I got my Corporal stripes I was a bit picky about how
I was addressed!
>Who are the only US citizens subject to arrest for expressing the desire
>to unionize? What kind of hierarchical structure puts a person with zero
>experience in charge of a group led by a 10+ year veteran? Why should
>the uniformed services be exempt from OSHA rules during peacetime? Why
>isn't enlisted pay raises tied to congressional pay raises or at the
>very least to officer pay raises? Is it not unacceptable to have
>enlisted personnel drawing food stamps?
The military is a different world. It's not for everybody, and not
everybody understands it.
As for the OSHA rules, they would make realistic training excercises
impossible. Or would you like to explain how I'm supposed to teach
realistic building clearing tecniques when I cant climb walls with a
grappling hook and rope, use smoke grenades with gleeful frequency,
and in general run people around in hazardous conditions? Likewise,
how would you train for a night action when everyone has to be well
lit and wearing safety vests?
OK, the food stamp thing. I'll tell you right now, you're going to
scream at me.
The only soldiers I ever knew who were on food stamps were the morons
who got married, punped out two or three kids on an assembly line,
then discovered that a PFC's pay and seperate rations/housing
allowance isn't going to come close to covering all the expenses. If
I had my way, I would forbid soldiers below E-4 from marrying. If you
must be a junior enlisted and married, understand that you are going
to be poor, because the Army isn't set up for supporting a family at
that level. Be better if you got out and got a job that not only pays
better, but makes fewer demands on your time.
Douglas Berry
<incident_at...@yahoo.com> drained his beer, leaned back in
the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>> After being denied press credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on
>> "reporters" who dodged out of the Army and have spent the
>> previous twenty years complaining about them)
>
>Yeah, you don't want reporters that are critical of the military,
>because the military is above criticism ...
Nope. what we don't want are people who lie through their teeth,
which is what Hack did.
>"Dodged out"? That's laughable. And pathetic.
And supported by the facts.
>> Hack violated Saudi law and went snooping.
>
>Oh, to violate the security laws of a despotic theocracy in the name of
>journalism! How low can one go?!
A repressive autocracy, thank you. And also our ally in the war
against Saddam.
>> He visited newly arrived support units of the VIIth Corps in early
>> October and asked if they were ready to fight the Iraqis.
>
>Any units in country for "a matter of weeks" damn well better be ready
>to fight. Do you think the units which began arriving in Saudi on
>August 7 (a mere 5 days after Iraq moved into Kuwait) we're ready?
>Damn right they were. Not as ready as they would have liked, but they
>were ready. That's why they were there - to fight if the Iraqis moved
>to seize the Saudi oil fields.
Those units were the ready brigade of 82nd Airborne Division and the
7th MEB, two units designed to be ready to fight the moment they hit
the ground.
The units Hackworth was seeing were support groups from the VIIth
Corps. Their equipment was coming by sea from Bremerhaven in Germany,
they hadn't acclimated to the climate yet, and the Corps was still
moving into position. Of course they weren't ready! Had Hackworth
bothered to move a little father west, he would have found the XVIIIth
Airborne Corps, which was combat ready.
>Soldiers tend to be of a mindset that criticism of the mility is
>criticism of them. Sounds like you're of a similar (simple) mind.
Nice little insult there. Yawn.
Legitimate criticism is one thing. Pointless, uninformed whinging is
another.
Quid
Ken Shaw wrote:
> I agree with everything you had to say but want to warn you that if you
> are on active duty you are perilously close to several violations of the
> UCMJ. I would hate for someone to go to jail over this.
>
> Ken
At my command, the worst that would happen is a stern warning given in
public. It's why I enjoy the military despite its drawbacks. Common
sense prevails in most cases when it can.
And I should mention that I am on the whole satisfied with what I've
been given. Though the galley is dreadful, I'm given an allowance
instead so I can buy groceries. My biggest beef is integrating military
and civilian personnel, but in three years I'll care a good deal less
about it.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> I thought soldiers couldn't sue the US government.
Quite right. The p.s.b's were just fodder for the gummint canons. I
think a special place in Hell should be reserved for gummints that do
not treat the men they are asking to die, the right wasy.
Bob Kolker
>
Ken Shaw
Douglas Berry wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:55:35 GMT, Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> drained
> his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
> proclaimed the following
>
>
>>Douglas Berry wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 May 2005 04:03:04 GMT, Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> drained
>>>his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
>>>proclaimed the following
>>>
>>>The Constitution applies in Saudi Arabia? News to me, the Saudis and
>>>the US government.
>>
>>The US Constitution applies to the DoD everywhere.
>
>
> Yup. But not in Saudi Arabia. As long as Hackworth was on US soil,
> or a base leased to the US for the duration, he had all his
> Constitutional rights.
>
>
>>>CENTCOM, to preserve security, established a set of rules for the
>>>press. Hackworth decided that the rules didn't apply to him (what
>>>else is new) and headed out into the desert on his own (violating
>>>Saudi law in the process.)
>>
>>CENTCOM does not have the ability to control US press access to US
>>troops. CENTCOM derives its authority from Congress which "shall make no
>>law... abridging the freedom... of the press". Therefore CENTCOM can
>>NEVER legally do what it did in 1991. That no attempts to prosecute the
>>reporters who ignored the illegal rules is proof positive of that fact.
>
>
> Actually there is a long tradition of muzzling the press during war.
>
A long tradition of violating the Constitution does not change the fact
that it is a violation.
>>>Not several, more like three. And these were heavy support units.
>>>The combat units were ready to defend themselves. Hackworth was
>>>wandering around near KKMC, which was a long way from the Iraq forces.
>>
>>So? A unit in country 3 weeks that wasn't ready to do its job calls for
>>Courts Martial.
>
>
> Why? Because RORO ships don't move like cigarette boats? Because
> there were only two usable deep water ports? A lot of the sitting
> around was caused by the logistical logjam at Al Jubayl. There were
> only so many quays available!
>
Deploying personnel without their gear was a waste of money and
transport capacity. If planning was that bad then the top brass needed
to be facing a court.
>
>>>The 101st is not a rapid reaction unit. It takes time to ship all our
>>>helicopters overseas. In the two weeks after the invasion of Kuwait,
>>>we had two brigades of the 82nd Airborne on the ground, along with a
>>>complete MEU, two fighter wings, and a carrier group was already on
>>>station. Had Saddam rolled south, he would have faced some of the
>>>best light infantry in the world well support by air assets.
>>
>>I'm glad you agree. The US Army should be abolished and an actual useful
>>and effective force should replace it.
>
>
> Considering that we won that war, and conquered Iraq with a far
> smaller build up, i disagree. The US Army does its job very well,
> thank you.
>
It does? Better check operational reports from Desert Storm and the
Iraqi invasion. All evidence indicates that the US Army is completely
unable to defeat a force without greatly outnumbering the opposing force
and without heavy use of aircraft to do the actual fighting.
>
>>>Liberating Kuwait and destroying to forces threatening Saddam's
>>>southern neighbors required more and heavier forces. It does take
>>>months to assemble that kind of force. A M1A1 tank weighs 65 tons.
>>>They have to be shipped by sea, and that takes time. We put half a
>>>million troops into SA, and needed to establish the infrastructure to
>>>keep those troops feed, watered, and sheltered. Then there was the
>>>problem of acclimating to one of the harshest environments on Earth.
>>
>>What are you talking about? Air assets and special forces defeated the
>>Iraqi forces. No significant ground combat occurred and almost all US
>>casualties were from friendly fire.
>
>
> I take it you've never heard of 73 Eastling? The Battle of Basra?
> Those were the largest tank battles since the Battle of Kursk in WWII.
>
Yes, I've heard of them. Counting the number of armored vehicles doesn't
make them major combat. The after action studies showed that the
Republican Guard forces mostly escaped undamaged and that the forces we
destroyed were nearly untrained and in 2nd line equipment.
What was more significant was that most of the destruction of Iraqi
forces occurred along the highway of death. That was almost all done by
attacks by air craft.
> But to you an entire US armored division (several hundred tanks and
> associated fighting vehicles) smashing not one, but two Iraqi
> Republican Guard divisions in eight hours of intense fighting isn't
> "significant ground combat".
>
What are you talking about? Republican Guard losses were on the order of
two battalions of men and material.
> Right.
>
> As for the air war, shall we ask an Iraqi armor commander about that?
>
> "When I went into Kuwait I had 39 tanks. After six weeks of aerial
> bombardment, I had 32 left. After twenty minutes in action against the
> M1s, I had none." Iraqi Battalion commander, quoted in Tom Clancy's
> _Armored Cav_
>
Look into the actual DoD studies of the entire invasion. Don't rely on
anecdotal evidence.
>
>>The M1A1 is an expensive joke. A tank that needs resupply after less
>>than 6 hours on the move without firing a shot means the tank is useless
>>in anything less than huge forces supported by an extensive supply
>>train.
>
>
> Which is exactly what the Army planned for in Desert Storm.
>
How many Kuwaitis died because we couldn't deploy a combat force in less
than 5 months? How much environmental damage was done because the Iraqis
had set fire to the well heads during the retreat?
>
>>We should have maybe a brigade of this sort of super heavy tanks
>>and our main armor should be a lighter more deployable vehicle usable in
>>smaller forces with less support.
>
>
> And less survivable. We didn't lose a single M1 to enemy tank fire in
> DS. I know a guy who took three hits from T-72 guns, and bounced them
> all.
>
The fact is that it is extremely unlikely that we will be facing a
numerically equivalent force in a war of open field maneuver. What we
need is armored vehicles able to operate effectively in urban
environments as well as being rapidly deployable and cost effective.
> You seem to be confusing the Army with the Marine Corps, who are
> lighter and use some great light vehicles (the LAV-25 comes to mind, I
> wish the Army had bought those instead of the damn Stryker.)
> Different organizations with different missions. A MEU (SOC) is going
> to get rolled over if faced with a serious armored threat. It's
> designed to get in fast, seize objectives, and then get relieved by
> heavier, follow-on forces.
>
Only if that serious armored threat is another NATO power or a Chinese
division. I doubt the russians could field such a force.
>
>>>Ever read up on Overlord? It took three *years* to prepare for that
>>>little jaunt. It took us just over 6 months.
>>
>>Overlord was a lot more difficult. It involved developing entire new
>>technologies and training civilians to be modern combat troops. That you
>>dared to compare Overlord to Desert Storm indicates the bankruptcy of
>>your arguments.
>
>
> Name the new technologies. The Higgens boat? And infantry basic
> training takes 8 weeks. We had been at war since (effectively) early
> 1942!
>
Artificial ports to start with. The development and construction of
those were not completed until just in time for the invasion and meeting
that deadline required scaling back production to the absolute minimum
needed. Google MULBERRIES for info.
Glad to see you are as uninformed about Overlord as you are about DS.
> What took time was marshaling all the troops, all the equipment, and
> making the plans.
>
>
>>>The US Army is not supposed to be a rapid reaction force. That's the
>>>USMC. We are the arm of heavy battle. We do have light elements that
>>>can be moved quicky (Ranger battalions, the 82nd Airborne) but the
>>>main job is to engage and destroy the enemy using manuver and
>>>overwhelming firepower.
>>
>>A job that hasn't been needed since the very early 90's. That the US
>>Army is only now adapting to the changed conditions is further evidence
>>for the complete liquidation of the service and starting over with new
>>personnel.
>
>
> What the hell did the Army ever do to you?
>
Absolutely nothing. That is the problem.
> Remember the "War to End All Wars"? The one we now call World War I?
> A lot of people swore that after that little dust up, armies weren't
> going to be needed anymore.
>
> After Korea and Vietnam, some people claimed that tanks would never
> again be needed on the battlefield.
>
> Now you are claiming we don't need the heavy force of the army.
>
We need a more flexible Army not geared for fighting the USSR on the
German plains. Since it is clear that the present Army will not adapt to
the changed circumstances the time has come to get rid of the dead
weight and start over.
>
>>>I was an infantryman, and enjoyed my time in the service. Yes, the
>>>pay was low, but Ilso got all my meals for free, free shelter,
>>>compelte health and dental (free), all my equipment free, and flew
>>>around the world on MAC for pennies.
>>>
>>>All in all, a good deal.
>>
>>You never spent a dime on a meal? You made E6 and never lived off base?
>>I'm sorry that just doesn't ring true.
>
>
> Never lived off base, and yes, I occasionally splurged and ate at a
> restaurant. But if I had wanted to, I could have eaten in the mess
> hall (or dining facility, if you want to be technical about it) three
> meals a day, seven days a week.
>
> The fact that I chose to spend some of my own money on food doesn't
> change the fact that I didn't have too. Outside food was a luxury
> item.
>
So the low pay was an issue. Don't try and pretend the pay was remotely
adequate.
>
>>Also you never addressed working conditions or the officer/enlisted
>>relationship.
>
>
> It's a hard job. No one ever claimed that military life was like a
> vacation. And so I had to slaute officers and call them sir. Big
> deal. I understood the need for military discipline, and accepted it.
> You can bet when I got my Corporal stripes I was a bit picky about how
> I was addressed!
>
>
>>Who are the only US citizens subject to arrest for expressing the desire
>>to unionize? What kind of hierarchical structure puts a person with zero
>>experience in charge of a group led by a 10+ year veteran? Why should
>>the uniformed services be exempt from OSHA rules during peacetime? Why
>>isn't enlisted pay raises tied to congressional pay raises or at the
>>very least to officer pay raises? Is it not unacceptable to have
>>enlisted personnel drawing food stamps?
>
>
> The military is a different world. It's not for everybody, and not
> everybody understands it.
>
> As for the OSHA rules, they would make realistic training excercises
> impossible. Or would you like to explain how I'm supposed to teach
> realistic building clearing tecniques when I cant climb walls with a
> grappling hook and rope, use smoke grenades with gleeful frequency,
> and in general run people around in hazardous conditions? Likewise,
> how would you train for a night action when everyone has to be well
> lit and wearing safety vests?
>
Try and find those rules in OSHA's rules.
> OK, the food stamp thing. I'll tell you right now, you're going to
> scream at me.
>
> The only soldiers I ever knew who were on food stamps were the morons
> who got married, punped out two or three kids on an assembly line,
> then discovered that a PFC's pay and seperate rations/housing
> allowance isn't going to come close to covering all the expenses. If
> I had my way, I would forbid soldiers below E-4 from marrying. If you
> must be a junior enlisted and married, understand that you are going
> to be poor, because the Army isn't set up for supporting a family at
> that level. Be better if you got out and got a job that not only pays
> better, but makes fewer demands on your time.
>
During the mid 80's US troop's dependents in West Germany were forced to
return to the US since the West Germans had started giving welfare aid
to our troop's families. This wasn't E1's and E2's the order was all
dependents of E6's and below.
In California today their are families of E4's and E5's receiving
various kinds of welfare. That you think a E4 or E5 shouldn't be allowed
to have a family is bizarre and sure to further degrade retention and
morale.
Pay for enlisted personnel is one of the most shameful things the US
does. We are recruiting young people with few options and then paying
them starvation wages to defend the nation.
Ken
Douglas Berry
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>
>> You never spent a dime on a meal? You made E6 and never lived off
>base?
>> I'm sorry that just doesn't ring true.
>>
>> Also you never addressed working conditions or the officer/enlisted
>> relationship.
>
>Be damned if I'll eat the swill served at our galley. The food in
>basic, Hell, in public schools, is better.
My experience in the Army was different. Food in the D-fac was good,
plentiful, and varied. Of course, when you got into the field things
were different.. scrambled eggs in mermite cans are going to be gray
and rubbery no matter what you do, but at least we got food.
> As for working
>relationships, any officer who is not prior enlisted receives all the
>courtesies, but not an ounce of real respect.
Depends on the officer. Those who aren't tin-plated gods and actually
do their jobs get respect. Those who think their Academy rings mean
they are George Patton reborn tend to get a lot of shit.
>Quite a few here would
>like to see an end to the seperate officer/enlisted promotion ladders
>and see them unified into a single system. There isn't a single good
>reason why an E-7 with a masters should be taking orders from an O-1
>with a bachelors.
Except of course that the O-1 is a commissioned officer, and the NCO
isn't.
I'm curious, what rank are you? As you get into the NCO corps, you
see how often those "orders" from the O-1 to the E-7 were suggestions
from the E-7 to begin with.
The military pairs inexperienced officers with long-service NCOs so
the NCO can advise and aid the officer while he learns his trade.
Douglas Berry
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>> Why? Because RORO ships don't move like cigarette boats? Because
>> there were only two usable deep water ports? A lot of the sitting
>> around was caused by the logistical logjam at Al Jubayl. There were
>> only so many quays available!
>
>Deploying personnel without their gear was a waste of money and
>transport capacity. If planning was that bad then the top brass needed
>to be facing a court.
OK, Ken, since you have all the answers, how do you get all the
equipment of a Heavy Engineering battalion from Stuggart, FRG, to The
Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia.
And what do you do with the troops, who are coming from a temperate
fall to one of the hottest places on Earth?
>> Considering that we won that war, and conquered Iraq with a far
>> smaller build up, i disagree. The US Army does its job very well,
>> thank you.
>
>It does? Better check operational reports from Desert Storm and the
>Iraqi invasion. All evidence indicates that the US Army is completely
>unable to defeat a force without greatly outnumbering the opposing force
>and without heavy use of aircraft to do the actual fighting.
I read the reports. And you do understand that the Army uses combined
arms, right? We work with attack helicopters and USAF assets as a
team.
>> I take it you've never heard of 73 Eastling? The Battle of Basra?
>> Those were the largest tank battles since the Battle of Kursk in WWII.
>
>Yes, I've heard of them. Counting the number of armored vehicles doesn't
>make them major combat. The after action studies showed that the
>Republican Guard forces mostly escaped undamaged and that the forces we
>destroyed were nearly untrained and in 2nd line equipment.
Cite, please.
>What was more significant was that most of the destruction of Iraqi
>forces occurred along the highway of death. That was almost all done by
>attacks by air craft.
That was the Iraqi forces in the KTO. Not the forces we engaged in
Iraq.
I see that you are determined to be dishonest. 73 Eastling and Basra
were huge battles, with fronts measuring in dozens of kilometers.
>> But to you an entire US armored division (several hundred tanks and
>> associated fighting vehicles) smashing not one, but two Iraqi
>> Republican Guard divisions in eight hours of intense fighting isn't
>> "significant ground combat".
>
>What are you talking about? Republican Guard losses were on the order of
>two battalions of men and material.
They were forced from their positions into retreat. We destroyed
their ability to fight.
>> As for the air war, shall we ask an Iraqi armor commander about that?
>>
>> "When I went into Kuwait I had 39 tanks. After six weeks of aerial
>> bombardment, I had 32 left. After twenty minutes in action against the
>> M1s, I had none." Iraqi Battalion commander, quoted in Tom Clancy's
>> _Armored Cav_
>
>Look into the actual DoD studies of the entire invasion. Don't rely on
>anecdotal evidence.
Funny, and here I thought that someone who was actually attacked by
American forces would be a good source.
I have read the reports. Six weeks of heavy air attacks didn't move a
single Iraqi unit out of Kuwait. When the Marines, JAF, and the
British 1st Armoured and our own 1st Cavalry went in, they bugged out.
>>>The M1A1 is an expensive joke. A tank that needs resupply after less
>>>than 6 hours on the move without firing a shot means the tank is useless
>>>in anything less than huge forces supported by an extensive supply
>>>train.
>>
>> Which is exactly what the Army planned for in Desert Storm.
>
>How many Kuwaitis died because we couldn't deploy a combat force in less
>than 5 months? How much environmental damage was done because the Iraqis
>had set fire to the well heads during the retreat?
First of all, the invasion of Kuwait was over in hours. What forces
do you think could deploy to the Gulf in less than eight hours, hm?
List them, please.
Secondly, the initial mission was to protect the Saudis. The Marines
and 82nd Airborne (along with the naval and USAF assets moved to the
region) lined up to do just that. Only later did the mission become
the liberation of Kuwait (about the time the VIIth Corps was alerted
for movement.)
Again, since you're a military genius on the order of MacArthur and
Alexander, what would you have done? It's 2 AUG 90, and the Iraqis
have siezed Kuwait.
>> And less survivable. We didn't lose a single M1 to enemy tank fire in
>> DS. I know a guy who took three hits from T-72 guns, and bounced them
>> all.
>
>The fact is that it is extremely unlikely that we will be facing a
>numerically equivalent force in a war of open field maneuver. What we
>need is armored vehicles able to operate effectively in urban
>environments as well as being rapidly deployable and cost effective.
We have them. Called the LAV-25.
It was extremely unlikely that Germany would ever be a threat after
1918. Sometimes, the unlikely happened. Ever read the study the Navy
did on the defense of Pearl harbor in 1940? Seems the best minds the
Navy had stated it would be impossible for Japanese carriers to reach
Hawaii, and even if they did, no signicant damage could result.
Oops.
>> You seem to be confusing the Army with the Marine Corps, who are
>> lighter and use some great light vehicles (the LAV-25 comes to mind, I
>> wish the Army had bought those instead of the damn Stryker.)
>> Different organizations with different missions. A MEU (SOC) is going
>> to get rolled over if faced with a serious armored threat. It's
>> designed to get in fast, seize objectives, and then get relieved by
>> heavier, follow-on forces.
>
>Only if that serious armored threat is another NATO power or a Chinese
>division. I doubt the russians could field such a force.
Famous last words. The Russians are down now. That won't last.
>> Name the new technologies. The Higgens boat? And infantry basic
>> training takes 8 weeks. We had been at war since (effectively) early
>> 1942!
>
>Artificial ports to start with. The development and construction of
>those were not completed until just in time for the invasion and meeting
>that deadline required scaling back production to the absolute minimum
>needed. Google MULBERRIES for info.
>
>Glad to see you are as uninformed about Overlord as you are about DS.
Those weren't needed for the actual invasion, but for the follow up.
Without the Mulberries, the invasion would have proceeded. Seizing Le
Havre would have just been added to the priority list. As it was,
once Le Havre was taken, the Mulberries were left to rot.
>> Remember the "War to End All Wars"? The one we now call World War I?
>> A lot of people swore that after that little dust up, armies weren't
>> going to be needed anymore.
>>
>> After Korea and Vietnam, some people claimed that tanks would never
>> again be needed on the battlefield.
>>
>> Now you are claiming we don't need the heavy force of the army.
>
>We need a more flexible Army not geared for fighting the USSR on the
>German plains. Since it is clear that the present Army will not adapt to
>the changed circumstances the time has come to get rid of the dead
>weight and start over.
We don't have that army anymore. We have a far more flexible force
these days.
>> Never lived off base, and yes, I occasionally splurged and ate at a
>> restaurant. But if I had wanted to, I could have eaten in the mess
>> hall (or dining facility, if you want to be technical about it) three
>> meals a day, seven days a week.
>>
>> The fact that I chose to spend some of my own money on food doesn't
>> change the fact that I didn't have too. Outside food was a luxury
>> item.
>
>So the low pay was an issue. Don't try and pretend the pay was remotely
>adequate.
It was for my needs.
>> The military is a different world. It's not for everybody, and not
>> everybody understands it.
>>
>> As for the OSHA rules, they would make realistic training excercises
>> impossible. Or would you like to explain how I'm supposed to teach
>> realistic building clearing tecniques when I cant climb walls with a
>> grappling hook and rope, use smoke grenades with gleeful frequency,
>> and in general run people around in hazardous conditions? Likewise,
>> how would you train for a night action when everyone has to be well
>> lit and wearing safety vests?
>
>Try and find those rules in OSHA's rules.
No, you do it. You're the one whinging and cryinjg about the big mean
Army.
>> OK, the food stamp thing. I'll tell you right now, you're going to
>> scream at me.
>>
>> The only soldiers I ever knew who were on food stamps were the morons
>> who got married, punped out two or three kids on an assembly line,
>> then discovered that a PFC's pay and seperate rations/housing
>> allowance isn't going to come close to covering all the expenses. If
>> I had my way, I would forbid soldiers below E-4 from marrying. If you
>> must be a junior enlisted and married, understand that you are going
>> to be poor, because the Army isn't set up for supporting a family at
>> that level. Be better if you got out and got a job that not only pays
>> better, but makes fewer demands on your time.
>
>During the mid 80's US troop's dependents in West Germany were forced to
>return to the US since the West Germans had started giving welfare aid
>to our troop's families. This wasn't E1's and E2's the order was all
>dependents of E6's and below.
OK, I was in the 3rd ID at that time, and never heard of this
happening. Who issued the order, and give a cite, please.
>In California today their are families of E4's and E5's receiving
>various kinds of welfare. That you think a E4 or E5 shouldn't be allowed
>to have a family is bizarre and sure to further degrade retention and
>morale.
I said below E-4. Please read what I write. Thank you.
And again, a cite please?
>Pay for enlisted personnel is one of the most shameful things the US
>does. We are recruiting young people with few options and then paying
>them starvation wages to defend the nation.
Except you don't stare, you get free food, medical, shelter, and work
clothing. Add up the value of all that, if you dare.
Hell, I didn't pay for a pair of glasses for 12 years!
Chris Thompson
news:3fhejlF...@individual.net:
IIRC there were several Brit soldiers who were killed when they
volunteered to be exposed to a harmless aerosol. Anthrax, I believe it
was.
Chris
Ken Shaw
Douglas Berry wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:19:35 GMT, Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> drained
> his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
> proclaimed the following
>
>
>>>Why? Because RORO ships don't move like cigarette boats? Because
>>>there were only two usable deep water ports? A lot of the sitting
>>>around was caused by the logistical logjam at Al Jubayl. There were
>>>only so many quays available!
>>
>>Deploying personnel without their gear was a waste of money and
>>transport capacity. If planning was that bad then the top brass needed
>>to be facing a court.
>
>
> OK, Ken, since you have all the answers, how do you get all the
> equipment of a Heavy Engineering battalion from Stuggart, FRG, to The
> Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia.
>
> And what do you do with the troops, who are coming from a temperate
> fall to one of the hottest places on Earth?
>
I would not have shifted troops till their equipment was arriving in
theater or the personnel were otherwise needed.
>
>>>Considering that we won that war, and conquered Iraq with a far
>>>smaller build up, i disagree. The US Army does its job very well,
>>>thank you.
>>
>>It does? Better check operational reports from Desert Storm and the
>>Iraqi invasion. All evidence indicates that the US Army is completely
>>unable to defeat a force without greatly outnumbering the opposing force
>>and without heavy use of aircraft to do the actual fighting.
>
>
> I read the reports. And you do understand that the Army uses combined
> arms, right? We work with attack helicopters and USAF assets as a
> team.
>
So you're back to acknowledging the inadequacy of the present US Army?
>
>>>I take it you've never heard of 73 Eastling? The Battle of Basra?
>>>Those were the largest tank battles since the Battle of Kursk in WWII.
>>
>>Yes, I've heard of them. Counting the number of armored vehicles doesn't
>>make them major combat. The after action studies showed that the
>>Republican Guard forces mostly escaped undamaged and that the forces we
>>destroyed were nearly untrained and in 2nd line equipment.
>
>
> Cite, please.
>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/cpgw.pdf
This is a pretty lengthy study but it should clear up many of your
misconceptions.
>
>>What was more significant was that most of the destruction of Iraqi
>>forces occurred along the highway of death. That was almost all done by
>>attacks by air craft.
>
>
> That was the Iraqi forces in the KTO. Not the forces we engaged in
> Iraq.
>
> I see that you are determined to be dishonest. 73 Eastling and Basra
> were huge battles, with fronts measuring in dozens of kilometers.
>
Battles involve combat not attacking abandoned vehicles and surrendering
or not resisting forces.
>
>>>But to you an entire US armored division (several hundred tanks and
>>>associated fighting vehicles) smashing not one, but two Iraqi
>>>Republican Guard divisions in eight hours of intense fighting isn't
>>>"significant ground combat".
>>
>>What are you talking about? Republican Guard losses were on the order of
>>two battalions of men and material.
>
>
> They were forced from their positions into retreat. We destroyed
> their ability to fight.
>
No the US attack allowed the retreat of those forces and then spent time
attacking conscript forces that were putting up no resistance.
>
>>>As for the air war, shall we ask an Iraqi armor commander about that?
>>>
>>>"When I went into Kuwait I had 39 tanks. After six weeks of aerial
>>>bombardment, I had 32 left. After twenty minutes in action against the
>>>M1s, I had none." Iraqi Battalion commander, quoted in Tom Clancy's
>>>_Armored Cav_
>>
>>Look into the actual DoD studies of the entire invasion. Don't rely on
>>anecdotal evidence.
>
>
> Funny, and here I thought that someone who was actually attacked by
> American forces would be a good source.
>
> I have read the reports. Six weeks of heavy air attacks didn't move a
> single Iraqi unit out of Kuwait. When the Marines, JAF, and the
> British 1st Armoured and our own 1st Cavalry went in, they bugged out.
>
But the air campaign totally eliminated the command and control (C2)
capabilities of the Iraqi military. This was the major element in the US
victory.
>
>>>>The M1A1 is an expensive joke. A tank that needs resupply after less
>>>>than 6 hours on the move without firing a shot means the tank is useless
>>>>in anything less than huge forces supported by an extensive supply
>>>>train.
>>>
>>>Which is exactly what the Army planned for in Desert Storm.
>>
>>How many Kuwaitis died because we couldn't deploy a combat force in less
>>than 5 months? How much environmental damage was done because the Iraqis
>>had set fire to the well heads during the retreat?
>
>
> First of all, the invasion of Kuwait was over in hours. What forces
> do you think could deploy to the Gulf in less than eight hours, hm?
> List them, please.
>
> Secondly, the initial mission was to protect the Saudis. The Marines
> and 82nd Airborne (along with the naval and USAF assets moved to the
> region) lined up to do just that. Only later did the mission become
> the liberation of Kuwait (about the time the VIIth Corps was alerted
> for movement.)
>
> Again, since you're a military genius on the order of MacArthur and
> Alexander, what would you have done? It's 2 AUG 90, and the Iraqis
> have siezed Kuwait.
>
Shift B-52's to Diego Garcia, bring the Indian Ocean CVBG and the
Mediterranean CVBG and corresponding MEU into the Persian Gulf. Shift
the 82nd, and available special forces to SA or Turkey. Begin an
extensive air assault aimed at degrading the Iraqi forces C2 and
stopping construction of defensive positions. Shift some armor as the
air campaign continues. Attack directly into Kuwait with no attack into
Iraq or against Iraqi civilian infrastructure.
>
>>>And less survivable. We didn't lose a single M1 to enemy tank fire in
>>>DS. I know a guy who took three hits from T-72 guns, and bounced them
>>>all.
>>
>>The fact is that it is extremely unlikely that we will be facing a
>>numerically equivalent force in a war of open field maneuver. What we
>>need is armored vehicles able to operate effectively in urban
>>environments as well as being rapidly deployable and cost effective.
>
>
> We have them. Called the LAV-25.
>
> It was extremely unlikely that Germany would ever be a threat after
> 1918. Sometimes, the unlikely happened. Ever read the study the Navy
> did on the defense of Pearl harbor in 1940? Seems the best minds the
> Navy had stated it would be impossible for Japanese carriers to reach
> Hawaii, and even if they did, no signicant damage could result.
>
You need to study the details of that 1940 Pearl Harbor study. The
Japanese used it to guide the attack and it has long been thought the
study was leaked to the Japanese intentionally.
> Oops.
>
>
>>>You seem to be confusing the Army with the Marine Corps, who are
>>>lighter and use some great light vehicles (the LAV-25 comes to mind, I
>>>wish the Army had bought those instead of the damn Stryker.)
>>>Different organizations with different missions. A MEU (SOC) is going
>>>to get rolled over if faced with a serious armored threat. It's
>>>designed to get in fast, seize objectives, and then get relieved by
>>>heavier, follow-on forces.
>>
>>Only if that serious armored threat is another NATO power or a Chinese
>>division. I doubt the russians could field such a force.
>
>
> Famous last words. The Russians are down now. That won't last.
>
If the Russians start to become a serious military threat again then a
change should be implemented then. The US Army must be more flexible.
>
>>>Name the new technologies. The Higgens boat? And infantry basic
>>>training takes 8 weeks. We had been at war since (effectively) early
>>>1942!
>>
>>Artificial ports to start with. The development and construction of
>>those were not completed until just in time for the invasion and meeting
>>that deadline required scaling back production to the absolute minimum
>>needed. Google MULBERRIES for info.
>>
>>Glad to see you are as uninformed about Overlord as you are about DS.
>
>
> Those weren't needed for the actual invasion, but for the follow up.
> Without the Mulberries, the invasion would have proceeded. Seizing Le
> Havre would have just been added to the priority list. As it was,
> once Le Havre was taken, the Mulberries were left to rot.
>
You are wrong. Without the ability to land the needed material the
invasion would have failed. The MULBERRIES were absolutely necessary to
the success of the invasion.
You made a claim about OSHA's rules. Provide a reference or retract the
claim.
>
>>>OK, the food stamp thing. I'll tell you right now, you're going to
>>>scream at me.
>>>
>>>The only soldiers I ever knew who were on food stamps were the morons
>>>who got married, punped out two or three kids on an assembly line,
>>>then discovered that a PFC's pay and seperate rations/housing
>>>allowance isn't going to come close to covering all the expenses. If
>>>I had my way, I would forbid soldiers below E-4 from marrying. If you
>>>must be a junior enlisted and married, understand that you are going
>>>to be poor, because the Army isn't set up for supporting a family at
>>>that level. Be better if you got out and got a job that not only pays
>>>better, but makes fewer demands on your time.
>>
>>During the mid 80's US troop's dependents in West Germany were forced to
>>return to the US since the West Germans had started giving welfare aid
>>to our troop's families. This wasn't E1's and E2's the order was all
>>dependents of E6's and below.
>
>
> OK, I was in the 3rd ID at that time, and never heard of this
> happening. Who issued the order, and give a cite, please.
The Reagan administration issued the command. It was 1986 if memory
serves. The issue was exchange rates IIRC. Google is not being helpful
so I'll need to do some research offline.
>
>
>>In California today their are families of E4's and E5's receiving
>>various kinds of welfare. That you think a E4 or E5 shouldn't be allowed
>>to have a family is bizarre and sure to further degrade retention and
>>morale.
>
>
> I said below E-4. Please read what I write. Thank you.
>
> And again, a cite please?
Press reports. Do some research yourself.
>
>
>>Pay for enlisted personnel is one of the most shameful things the US
>>does. We are recruiting young people with few options and then paying
>>them starvation wages to defend the nation.
>
>
> Except you don't stare, you get free food, medical, shelter, and work
> clothing. Add up the value of all that, if you dare.
>
> Hell, I didn't pay for a pair of glasses for 12 years!
>
In 6 years in the USN I paid for several pairs of glasses. The free
frames were ugly and uncomfortable.
Ken
Douglas Berry
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:19:35 GMT, Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> drained
>> his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
>> proclaimed the following
>> OK, Ken, since you have all the answers, how do you get all the
>> equipment of a Heavy Engineering battalion from Stuggart, FRG, to The
>> Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia.
>>
>> And what do you do with the troops, who are coming from a temperate
>> fall to one of the hottest places on Earth?
>
>I would not have shifted troops till their equipment was arriving in
>theater or the personnel were otherwise needed.
LOL! So going from a cool, wet German October to Saudi Arabia, with
its 100+ degrees summers doesn't require any acclimatization?
Guess what, genius, the Army used that time to get the troops used to
the environment. Even us combat monsters spent time just dealing with
the heat and learning to drink gallons of water everyday.
>> I read the reports. And you do understand that the Army uses combined
>> arms, right? We work with attack helicopters and USAF assets as a
>> team.
>
>So you're back to acknowledging the inadequacy of the present US Army?
Nope. We work as a team, but a bomber can't take and hold ground, nor
can it defeat an enemy in detail.
>> Cite, please.
>
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/cpgw.pdf
>
>This is a pretty lengthy study but it should clear up many of your
>misconceptions.
Doubtful.
>> That was the Iraqi forces in the KTO. Not the forces we engaged in
>> Iraq.
>>
>> I see that you are determined to be dishonest. 73 Eastling and Basra
>> were huge battles, with fronts measuring in dozens of kilometers.
>
>Battles involve combat not attacking abandoned vehicles and surrendering
>or not resisting forces.
And at 73 Eastling and Basra the Iraqis did fight back. Are you
dense?
The "Highway of Death" was an attack on a retreating force.
Boo-fucking-hoo. They were an intact military force, subject to
attack.
>>
>> They were forced from their positions into retreat. We destroyed
>> their ability to fight.
>
>No the US attack allowed the retreat of those forces and then spent time
>attacking conscript forces that were putting up no resistance.
Were you there?
>> Funny, and here I thought that someone who was actually attacked by
>> American forces would be a good source.
>>
>> I have read the reports. Six weeks of heavy air attacks didn't move a
>> single Iraqi unit out of Kuwait. When the Marines, JAF, and the
>> British 1st Armoured and our own 1st Cavalry went in, they bugged out.
>
>But the air campaign totally eliminated the command and control (C2)
>capabilities of the Iraqi military. This was the major element in the US
>victory.
It's C3I in the modern forces. And while overall control was lost
early, divionsal command was still intact, especially in the
Republican Guard.
You seem to be a big zoomie fan. Ever see the actual results of the
bombing? The Iraqi airfields where they painted craters on the
runways after the precision bombs missed?
Fact is that that the bombing campign didn't shift a single Iraqi.
What moved them was a ground offensive.
>> First of all, the invasion of Kuwait was over in hours. What forces
>> do you think could deploy to the Gulf in less than eight hours, hm?
>> List them, please.
>>
>> Secondly, the initial mission was to protect the Saudis. The Marines
>> and 82nd Airborne (along with the naval and USAF assets moved to the
>> region) lined up to do just that. Only later did the mission become
>> the liberation of Kuwait (about the time the VIIth Corps was alerted
>> for movement.)
>>
>> Again, since you're a military genius on the order of MacArthur and
>> Alexander, what would you have done? It's 2 AUG 90, and the Iraqis
>> have siezed Kuwait.
>
>Shift B-52's to Diego Garcia, bring the Indian Ocean CVBG and the
>Mediterranean CVBG and corresponding MEU into the Persian Gulf. Shift
>the 82nd, and available special forces to SA or Turkey. Begin an
>extensive air assault aimed at degrading the Iraqi forces C2 and
>stopping construction of defensive positions. Shift some armor as the
>air campaign continues. Attack directly into Kuwait with no attack into
>Iraq or against Iraqi civilian infrastructure.
Which leaves the bulk of the Iraqi Army avaliable for a
counter-attack. The "left hook" engaged those forces and held them in
place.
The Iraqi C3I for Kuwait was headquartered in Kuwait City. Think the
Kuwatis would object to B-52 raids over their center of government,
culture and commerce? There's a reason why we never bombed Paris.
>> We have them. Called the LAV-25.
>>
>> It was extremely unlikely that Germany would ever be a threat after
>> 1918. Sometimes, the unlikely happened. Ever read the study the Navy
>> did on the defense of Pearl harbor in 1940? Seems the best minds the
>> Navy had stated it would be impossible for Japanese carriers to reach
>> Hawaii, and even if they did, no signicant damage could result.
>
>You need to study the details of that 1940 Pearl Harbor study. The
>Japanese used it to guide the attack and it has long been thought the
>study was leaked to the Japanese intentionally.
So? My point, (which you ignore, of course) is that the best military
minds decided that aircraft carriers couldn't attack Pearl. They did,
decisevely.
You are now going on about there is no need for a heavy force, because
*you* can't see who the enemy will be. Same blinders.
>> Famous last words. The Russians are down now. That won't last.
>
>If the Russians start to become a serious military threat again then a
>change should be implemented then. The US Army must be more flexible.
Which it is.
>> Those weren't needed for the actual invasion, but for the follow up.
>> Without the Mulberries, the invasion would have proceeded. Seizing Le
>> Havre would have just been added to the priority list. As it was,
>> once Le Havre was taken, the Mulberries were left to rot.
>
>You are wrong. Without the ability to land the needed material the
>invasion would have failed. The MULBERRIES were absolutely necessary to
>the success of the invasion.
The invasion was long over when the first Mulberry was settled. D+12,
to be precise. And the American Mulberry was destroyed by a storm on
June 19th.
>>>During the mid 80's US troop's dependents in West Germany were forced to
>>>return to the US since the West Germans had started giving welfare aid
>>>to our troop's families. This wasn't E1's and E2's the order was all
>>>dependents of E6's and below.
>>
>> OK, I was in the 3rd ID at that time, and never heard of this
>> happening. Who issued the order, and give a cite, please.
>
>The Reagan administration issued the command. It was 1986 if memory
>serves. The issue was exchange rates IIRC. Google is not being helpful
>so I'll need to do some research offline.
OK, because I knew a few E-5s who had dependants at that time.
>> I said below E-4. Please read what I write. Thank you.
>>
>> And again, a cite please?
>
>Press reports. Do some research yourself.
You are making the claims.
>> Except you don't stare, you get free food, medical, shelter, and work
>> clothing. Add up the value of all that, if you dare.
>>
>> Hell, I didn't pay for a pair of glasses for 12 years!
>
>In 6 years in the USN I paid for several pairs of glasses. The free
>frames were ugly and uncomfortable.
Birth Control Goggles! They worked, and I'm not vain. They felt fine
to me.
Ken Shaw
dishonest people.
Ken
Jeffrey Turner
The US gummint's been doing that since the Revolution, look up
Shay's Rebellion. There was a brief hiatus for WWII.
--Jeff
--
The shepherd always tries to persuade
the sheep that their interests and
his own are the same. --Stendhal
Victor Eijkhout
> >> Cite, please.
>
> >
> >http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/cpgw.pdf
> >
> >This is a pretty lengthy study but it should clear up many of your
> >misconceptions.
>
> Doubtful.
Well, that's settled then.
Josh Hayes
news:QaydnZhW6sB...@ptd.net:
> Douglas Berry wrote:
>>
>> Those units had been in Iraq for a matter of weeks. Of course they
>> weren't ready! Had Hackworth gone to an unit of the XVIIIth Airborne
>> Corps, or the Marine Division in place, he would have found that we
>> had been ready for over a month.
> Errm...
>
> What's the difference between "a matter of weeks" and "over a month"?
They're spelt differently.
HTH! HAND!
-JAH
Mitchell Coffey
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:39:54 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
><m.dot.coffey.at....@giganews.com> drained his beer,
>leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
>following
>
>>>Take his "reporting" on Desert Shield. After being denied press
>>>credentials (the Pentagon isn't big on "reporters" who dodged out of
>>>the Army and have spent the previous twenty years complaining about
>>>them)
>>[snip]
>>
>>Let's stop right there. Let's see you attempt to justify claiming the
>>most decorate soldier in the United States " dodged out of the Army".
>
>He was given a direct order to report to the Pentagon for an
>investigation into his conduct in Vietnam. Instead, he went to
>Australia and refused to come home. He was allowed to retire from
>Australia.
>
>That is called Disobeying a Direct Order. It is a violation of the
>Uniform Code of Military Justice.
>
>Look, I don't deny that he was a great soldier, at one time. But he
>went over the edge, and became convinced that he was the only person
>who understood the military.
>
>Here's a good article on him.
>
>http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2381/
"In About Face, he says the Army retaliated against him because he
blew the whistle. This is undoubtedly true."
It is possible that prosecuting an officer on unrelated charges in
retaliation for wistleblowing is *not* a violation of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice. It would still be immoral and a violation of the
honor general officers blat about while, say, they lie to the public
or ignore the routine rape of female cadets at a military academy.
The authors are dumb enough to list the allegations against him, which
only makes them look silly. They lack the decency to note the
triviality of the charges against him, carefully select which facts
they wish to report and how they word them, and hope readers are
sufficiently ignorant of the Vietnam War, how it was conducted, how
our soldiers were being asked to live and fight over there, and to be
unaware of the activities of the officers illegally (one hopes)
prosecuting him.
The article is pathetic. Most of the article is a long bitch against
Hackworth's ego. This seems to really burn them.
By they way, in your opinion, what did Hackworth say about the Vietnam
War that was untrue? Be specific.
Mitchell Coffey
catshark
<m.dot.coffey.at....@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>Let's stop right there. Let's see you attempt to justify claiming the
>>>most decorate soldier in the United States " dodged out of the Army".
>>
>>He was given a direct order to report to the Pentagon for an
>>investigation into his conduct in Vietnam. Instead, he went to
>>Australia and refused to come home. He was allowed to retire from
>>Australia.
>>
>>That is called Disobeying a Direct Order. It is a violation of the
>>Uniform Code of Military Justice.
>>
>>Look, I don't deny that he was a great soldier, at one time. But he
>>went over the edge, and became convinced that he was the only person
>>who understood the military.
>>
>>Here's a good article on him.
>>
>>http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2381/
>
>"In About Face, he says the Army retaliated against him because he
>blew the whistle. This is undoubtedly true."
>
>It is possible that prosecuting an officer on unrelated charges in
>retaliation for wistleblowing is *not* a violation of the Uniform Code
>of Military Justice.
It's been a long time since my JAG days but here are some provisions of the
UCMJ that might apply:
898. ART. 98. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL RULES
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) is responsible for unnecessary delay in the disposition of any case of
a person accused of an offense under this chapter; or
(2) knowingly and intentionally fails to enforce or comply with any
provision of this chapter regulating the proceedings before, during, or
after trial of an accused;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any
false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document,
knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing
it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial
may direct.
934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and
neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces,
all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and
crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter
may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or
summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense,
and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
<http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm>
Also don't forget that Federal law doesn't disappear when you put on a
uniform. They could prosecuted by civilian authorities as well.
>It would still be immoral and a violation of the
>honor general officers blat about while, say, they lie to the public
>or ignore the routine rape of female cadets at a military academy.
>
>The authors are dumb enough to list the allegations against him, which
>only makes them look silly. They lack the decency to note the
>triviality of the charges against him, carefully select which facts
>they wish to report and how they word them, and hope readers are
>sufficiently ignorant of the Vietnam War, how it was conducted, how
>our soldiers were being asked to live and fight over there, and to be
>unaware of the activities of the officers illegally (one hopes)
>prosecuting him.
>
>The article is pathetic. Most of the article is a long bitch against
>Hackworth's ego. This seems to really burn them.
>
>By they way, in your opinion, what did Hackworth say about the Vietnam
>War that was untrue? Be specific.
>
>Mitchell Coffey
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.
- Daniel Defoe -
Douglas Berry
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>Many unmarked edits and failures to respond. I don't debate with
>dishonest people.
I accept your surrender. Have a nice day.
Douglas Berry
<m.dot.coffey.at....@giganews.com> drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
>By they way, in your opinion, what did Hackworth say about the Vietnam
>War that was untrue? Be specific.
I'd have to dig "About Face" out of storage to get the specifics, but
he blamed the failure of the Vietnam War on the generals. That
ignores the fact that we were fighting that war with both hands tied
behind our backs for political reasons.
My major complaint about him was his reporting on Desert Shield. He
ran around moaning that the US couldn't possibly beat Saddam (who had
the 4th largest army in the world!) and if we dare attack Iraq (which
had the 4th largest army in the world!) we'd be slaughtered because
our leaders were "perfumed princes" (meaning: they didn't agree with
Hackworth) and didn't understand that Iraq had the 4th largest army in
the world!
After Desert Storm and the 100-hour war, he whinged that we should
have gone onto Bagdhad, since it was obvious to anyone that Iraq
wasn't going to put up any resistance.
Amazing.
I'm the first to admit that the man had a spectacular military career,
but his ego brought him down in the end.
Chris Thompson
news:1197o8q...@corp.supernews.com:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>> AC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I thought soldiers couldn't sue the US government.
>>
>> Quite right. The p.s.b's were just fodder for the gummint canons. I
>> think a special place in Hell should be reserved for gummints that do
>> not treat the men they are asking to die, the right wasy.
>
> The US gummint's been doing that since the Revolution, look up
> Shay's Rebellion. There was a brief hiatus for WWII.
>
> --Jeff
>
I just read the Wikipedia entry for Shay's Rebellion and I admit I
cannot see the connection. Who was mistreated?
wcb
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 03:03:59 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
> <m.dot.coffey.at....@giganews.com> drained his beer,
> leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
> following
>
>>By they way, in your opinion, what did Hackworth say about the Vietnam
>>War that was untrue? Be specific.
>
> I'd have to dig "About Face" out of storage to get the specifics, but
> he blamed the failure of the Vietnam War on the generals. That
> ignores the fact that we were fighting that war with both hands tied
> behind our backs for political reasons.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh BULLSHIT!
This tired, old, debunked, right winged crap!
AGAIN!
We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam
that were dropped in WWII.
At its peak, we had 1 million men in
Vietnam.
Obviously, we were restrained you see.
A lot of people saw that indeed our military
leaders were liars and fools. And their ham-fisted,
evil activities were creating enemies.
But you? After all this time, still don't get it.
"We had to burn the village to save it".
Sorry, we failed because we had stupid leaders.
People decided that they were NOT going to put up with
a corrupt military, stupid leaders and a draft of American
boys to die in a futile war that was failing.
Towards the last of this war, China warned us any mass
invasion of North Vietnam, or attempt to destroy Vietnam
by bombing would bring China into the war.
Basically, China drew a line in the sand and Nixon
and Kissinger took them seriously.
If a million men and more bombs than in WWII
did not do the trick, what would? There was no
way you could win a war even at that level of
committment when you have utterly alienated most
Vitnamese North and South, and any massive increase
of arms would as like as not get you into a ground
war with China.
Since by then it was obvious to anybody with a brain
that we were not winning, and few in the US of draftable
age wanted to die in a futile and stupid war, ability
to send more men there in sufficient numbers to win was
simply out of the question.
All these years later and still people are ill informed and
stupid.
1 million men, and more bombs dropped than in all
of WWII and we were restrained?
The problem was, that to win in Vietnam would have taken
a scorched earth policy that simply was so monstrous, so evil, so pointless,
there was no stomach for that excpet for right winged day dreamers. We had
that with free fire zones, resettlment camps, the pheonix assassination
campaign and massive bombings and it did not and was not going to work.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Jeffrey Turner
> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>AC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I thought soldiers couldn't sue the US government.
>>>
>>>Quite right. The p.s.b's were just fodder for the gummint canons. I
>>>think a special place in Hell should be reserved for gummints that do
>>>not treat the men they are asking to die, the right wasy.
>>
>>The US gummint's been doing that since the Revolution, look up
>>Shay's Rebellion. There was a brief hiatus for WWII.
>
> cannot see the connection. Who was mistreated?
Those "small farmers" were the ones who fought the Revolution
and, as I understand it, being away at war had contributed to
their debts. So, rather than declaring some sort of debt
forgiveness or paying those necessary expenses out of general
revenues, the federal government sent troops to enforce the
claims of the bankers against the very people who put their
lives on the line for independence. It was very similar to the
recent bankruptcy bill, where even people who gave up good
civilian wages for meager military pay when their National
Guard units got called up to Iraq were not exempted from the
harsh punishment for bankruptcy. Plus ca change.
http://www.leavemychildalone.org/
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 May 2005 03:03:59 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
>> <m.dot.coffey.at....@giganews.com> drained his beer,
>> leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
>> following
>>
>>>By they way, in your opinion, what did Hackworth say about the Vietnam
>>>War that was untrue? Be specific.
>>
>> I'd have to dig "About Face" out of storage to get the specifics, but
>> he blamed the failure of the Vietnam War on the generals. That
>> ignores the fact that we were fighting that war with both hands tied
>> behind our backs for political reasons.
>
>Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh BULLSHIT!
>
>This tired, old, debunked, right winged crap!
Pretty amazing, considering I'm a liberal Democrat.
>
>AGAIN!
>
>We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam
>that were dropped in WWII.
>At its peak, we had 1 million men in
>Vietnam.
>
>Obviously, we were restrained you see.
And when did we invade North Vietnam?
When did we move to cut off the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and destroy the
base camps the enemy were using in Cambodia?
When di we declare a Naval Interdiction Zone in the South China Sea to
prevent Soviet frieghters from resupplying the North?
>A lot of people saw that indeed our military
>leaders were liars and fools. And their ham-fisted,
>evil activities were creating enemies.
Back here in reality, we won every engagement of the war.
>But you? After all this time, still don't get it.
>"We had to burn the village to save it".
>Sorry, we failed because we had stupid leaders.
Political leaders who got us into a war and then refused to let the
military fight it with all the tools at hand.
>People decided that they were NOT going to put up with
>a corrupt military, stupid leaders and a draft of American
>boys to die in a futile war that was failing.
I disagree with the corrupt military part, but the rest is true.
Public pressure forced Johnson out of the race, and put Nixon in with
the promise to withdraw the troops.
>Towards the last of this war, China warned us any mass
>invasion of North Vietnam, or attempt to destroy Vietnam
>by bombing would bring China into the war.
Towards the end of the war. Do you understand that Vietnam and China
have been traditional enemies? And that early in the war the
Vietnamese were being supported by the Soviets, who at the time were
having artillery duels with the Chinese over Mongolian borders? Had
we invaded in 1965, China would have been pleased at the Soviet
embarrassment.
>Basically, China drew a line in the sand and Nixon
>and Kissinger took them seriously.
After four years of combat, and after Nixon had already announced we
were leaving.
>If a million men and more bombs than in WWII
>did not do the trick, what would? There was no
>way you could win a war even at that level of
>committment when you have utterly alienated most
>Vitnamese North and South, and any massive increase
>of arms would as like as not get you into a ground
>war with China.
Not if we had agressively pursed the war in 1965-66.
To use you example of WWII, in that war we did not give the enemy safe
havens. We attacked and destroyed his means of supply, took his
homelands and planted our flags there. There was no question of what
would constitute victory: the end of the Germany and Japanese empires.
In Vietnam, we had no clear goal, no clear direction, and were
hamstrung by political restraints. Had the 1st Cav been free to
pursue retreating VC into Cambodia and destroy them it would have been
a very different war.
>Since by then it was obvious to anybody with a brain
>that we were not winning, and few in the US of draftable
>age wanted to die in a futile and stupid war, ability
>to send more men there in sufficient numbers to win was
>simply out of the question.
You seem to think the situation in 1969-70 was the entire war. It
wasn't. The period of 1965-67 was one of constant success against the
VC, culminating in the disastorous Tet '68 offensive, which destroyed
the Viet Cong as a fighting force in the South. General Giap was
forced to commit regular NVA troops years ahead of schedule.
When the US forces finally left, the North was so weakened by combat
in the South and air raids in the North that it took them two full
*years* before they could muster a significant offensive.
>All these years later and still people are ill informed and
>stupid.
Yes, but you can get help for that.
>1 million men, and more bombs dropped than in all
>of WWII and we were restrained?
Yes, we were.
>The problem was, that to win in Vietnam would have taken
>a scorched earth policy that simply was so monstrous, so evil, so pointless,
>there was no stomach for that excpet for right winged day dreamers. We had
>that with free fire zones, resettlment camps, the pheonix assassination
>campaign and massive bombings and it did not and was not going to work.
No, it would have taken the invasion of the North, and the seizing of
the NVA government.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> 1 million men, and more bombs dropped than in all
> of WWII and we were restrained?
And few if any on the dykes and impound. If we wanted to starve NV out
we could have. Blame it on Landslide Lyndon and his genius Secy of War
Robert (send a message to the enemy) Macnamarra.
Bob Kolker
stoney
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:19:35 GMT, Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> drained
>his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
>proclaimed the following
>
>>> Why? Because RORO ships don't move like cigarette boats? Because
>>> there were only two usable deep water ports? A lot of the sitting
>>> around was caused by the logistical logjam at Al Jubayl. There were
>>> only so many quays available!
>>
>>Deploying personnel without their gear was a waste of money and
>>transport capacity. If planning was that bad then the top brass needed
>>to be facing a court.
>
>OK, Ken, since you have all the answers, how do you get all the
>equipment of a Heavy Engineering battalion from Stuggart, FRG, to The
>Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia.
>
>And what do you do with the troops, who are coming from a temperate
>fall to one of the hottest places on Earth?
[]
>>Artificial ports to start with. The development and construction of
>>those were not completed until just in time for the invasion and meeting
>>that deadline required scaling back production to the absolute minimum
>>needed. Google MULBERRIES for info.
>>
>>Glad to see you are as uninformed about Overlord as you are about DS.
>
>Those weren't needed for the actual invasion, but for the follow up.
>Without the Mulberries, the invasion would have proceeded. Seizing Le
>Havre would have just been added to the priority list. As it was,
>once Le Havre was taken, the Mulberries were left to rot.
http://www.findonvillage.com/0356_the_mysterious_mulberries.htm
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
stoney
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 May 2005 03:03:59 -0400, Mitchell Coffey
><m.dot.coffey.at....@giganews.com> wrote:
[]
I seem to remember a general article that specifically pertained to
officers. General Article 88 comes to mind.
wcb
Where were we going to get the millions of
men needed to do that? A little thing called reality
restrained us from that stupid stunt.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rudens-presses.html
As 1966 came to an end McNamara wanted Johnson to change his war policies.
McNamara wanted to stabilize the U.S. air offensive at its existing level,
because increasing the air raids would have little impact on the North
Vietnamese and might lead to an open war with China. He wanted to limit
American combat troops to about 500,000--well under the 700,000fighting
force General William Westmoreland was planning. He wanted to strengthen
the pacification program and coerce political reforms within the South
Vietnam government. He wanted the administration to encourage a political
settlement through another bombing halt and by giving the Viet Cong a voice
in governing the South.(12)
Yes, land war with China.
Its easy to sit on one's big butt yammering about how
all we had to do was invade North Vietnam, when you don't have
to bother with such things as a land war with China, where to
get all
those millions of men needed to invade and thos nasty little details.
Why everybody knows it was those liberal, yellow politcians
and the war protesters that lost us the war by not allowing
the military to run this war.
Why worry about war with China. Only wimps worry about such things!
>
> When did we move to cut off the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and destroy the
> base camps the enemy were using in Cambodia?
The secret bombing of Cambodia that killed hundreds of thousands
and did not do anything at all to stop the North Vietnamese.
We dropped more bombs on Vietnam and Cambodia than all of WWII.
And it didn't do dirt.
> When did we declare a Naval Interdiction Zone in the South China Sea to
> prevent Soviet frieghters from resupplying the North?
So we should do crap likely to start a land war with China AND
hostilities with Russia. Take on the whole world.
It worked for Hitler and Napolean.
>>A lot of people saw that indeed our military
>>leaders were liars and fools. And their ham-fisted,
>>evil activities were creating enemies.
>
> Back here in reality, we won every engagement of the war.
>
Except we lost the war. Mainly because we created enemies
every day. And lost hearts and minds of too many.
>>But you? After all this time, still don't get it.
>>"We had to burn the village to save it".
>>Sorry, we failed because we had stupid leaders.
>
> Political leaders who got us into a war and then refused to let the
> military fight it with all the tools at hand.
Johnson gave the military vast forces.
Sorry, but no way was theer ever going to be a draft big enough
to create an army big enough to tale North Vietnam.
Had Johnson done so, by the time it was obvious 1 million
men were not working at the end of his 1st term, it would have taken
years to plan, and create a large enough army, to do the deed.
These asshole military morons were taking trainees, giving them
a few short months of basic and dumping them in 'Nam.
Not exactly a plan.
Bluntly at that point, the military lost the war by
being assholes. Nobody wanted to die that way.
Realistically, had Johnson given the military everything the
most idiotic right winged drunken general wanted, it would have
taken years to enlarge such and army, field it and supply
it and create a plan and implement it.
But thanks to the military and its ways, it would be utterly
impossible to sell that to the American public.
Johnson knew it.
>
>>People decided that they were NOT going to put up with
>>a corrupt military, stupid leaders and a draft of American
>>boys to die in a futile war that was failing.
>
> I disagree with the corrupt military part,
Corrupt, we had the CIA running dope and other nonsense.
Nobody cared in Washington.
Since my ass was potentially on
the line, I was most interested in what these idiots
were doing.
> but the rest is true.
> Public pressure forced Johnson out of the race, and put Nixon in with
> the promise to withdraw the troops.
I remember with much disgust that Nixon had a "secret plan".
It was a Great Lie. The plan was never seen again.
It was more of the same except that the American public was
simply NOT going to give Nixon and open checkbook and their sons.
in the large numbers Johnson got.
>
>>Towards the last of this war, China warned us any mass
>>invasion of North Vietnam, or attempt to destroy Vietnam
>>by bombing would bring China into the war.
>
> Towards the end of the war. Do you understand that Vietnam and China
> have been traditional enemies?
Do you understand that China, the most radical communist nation
on Earth with the biggest army on Earth was not going to sit
by and let the US occupy North Vietnam?
Let us do be a little realistic.
And through the infamous "back channels" they let us know
that loud and clear. Who would be stupid enough to think
or hope it was just a bluff? Remember that 18 years
earlier, that had no hesitation going to war with us and
South Korea.
They had done poorly because they had been poorly armed.
They had rectified that problem and had no shortage of rifles,
ammunition, artillery and other weapons.
Anybody that thinks that one can ignore China's
threats is stupid. They let us know, they did not want war with
the US. But let us know occupation of North Vietnam was also
not going to be allowed.
> And that early in the war the
> Vietnamese were being supported by the Soviets, who at the time were
> having artillery duels with the Chinese over Mongolian borders? Had
> we invaded in 1965, China would have been pleased at the Soviet
> embarrassment.
Probably not. If they were having artillery duels
with the Soviets, why do you think they
would have no hesitation to have same with US invaders
to the South? For them, it was a bad situation with
one consolation. If we invaded and they took us on, Vietnam
would be their prize.
They did invade after we left. Luckily for Vietnam, not with
much planning or enthusiasm.
>
>>Basically, China drew a line in the sand and Nixon
>>and Kissinger took them seriously.
>
> After four years of combat, and after Nixon had already announced we
> were leaving.
Yes, but Nixon lied a lot.
I suspect the secret bombing of Cambodia
didn't exactly fill them with trust.
>
>>If a million men and more bombs than in WWII
>>did not do the trick, what would? There was no
>>way you could win a war even at that level of
>>committment when you have utterly alienated most
>>Vietnamese North and South, and any massive increase
>>of arms would as like as not get you into a ground
>>war with China.
>
> Not if we had agressively pursed the war in 1965-66.
>
We did. And that did not work.
To up the ante was simply more than the
American public was going to accept.
If 1 million troops was not going to do it,
what would it take? 2 million, 3 million, 5
millon?
Do you think this was Russia where Stalin could airily
order another 5 million rounded up and sent to the front?
Who was going to sell that to the American public?
Johnson knew he couldn't. The North Vietnamese
called him on his war, and the military, despite
assurances, couldn't win with a million men.
To go on would take a major increase in manpower
America was not going to give to our military no
matter who was president.
> To use you example of WWII, in that war we did not give the enemy safe
> havens. We attacked and destroyed his means of supply, took his
> homelands and planted our flags there. There was no question of what
> would constitute victory: the end of the Germany and Japanese empires.
>
And what would we have won?
A land war in China. Lucky us.
They had a safe haven for a reason.
Keeping China out of a land war.
> In Vietnam, we had no clear goal,
Yes! We had one. Attack North Vietnam. faced with
America might, they would crumble and come back to
the bargaining table.
Whoops! well, more man power. Whoops. MORE!
We had a plan and a goal. It simply failed because
the North Vietnamese were willing to fight where
our goal was to force them to the bargaining table
militarily.
This was a total failure.
An abject failure.
We had a goal. It failed.
> no clear direction, and were
> hamstrung by political restraints. Had the 1st Cav been free to
> pursue retreating VC into Cambodia and destroy them
> it would have been
> a very different war.
I somehow very much doubt this.
>
>>Since by then it was obvious to anybody with a brain
>>that we were not winning, and few in the US of draftable
>>age wanted to die in a futile and stupid war, ability
>>to send more men there in sufficient numbers to win was
>>simply out of the question.
>
> You seem to think the situation in 1969-70 was the entire war.
I seem to remember the large crowds of demonstrators.
Where were they going to get the millions of men to
invade?
> It
> wasn't. The period of 1965-67 was one of constant success against the
> VC, culminating in the disastorous Tet '68 offensive, which destroyed
> the Viet Cong as a fighting force in the South. General Giap was> forced
to commit regular NVA troops years ahead of schedule.
>
> When the US forces finally left, the North was so weakened by combat
> in the South and air raids in the North that it took them two full
> *years* before they could muster a significant offensive.
You mean they didn't make rash, American military type decisions?
>
>>All these years later and still people are ill informed and
>>stupid.
>
> Yes, but you can get help for that.
>
>>1 million men, and more bombs dropped than in all
>>of WWII and we were restrained?
>
> Yes, we were.
Yes, 1 million was not enough.
Land war with China was a real possibility.
America's youth were not going to meekly be drafted
for a 3 million strong invasion force for the likes
of the US military or McNamara.
Do you think any president could march his butt
to a podium and announce on TV we were going to start
drafting immense numbers of young men for a 2 1/2 million
man invasion force of North Vietnam?
>
>>The problem was, that to win in Vietnam would have taken
>>a scorched earth policy that simply was so monstrous, so evil, so
>>pointless, there was no stomach for that excpet for right winged day
>>dreamers. We had that with free fire zones, resettlment camps, the pheonix
>>assassination campaign and massive bombings and it did not and was not
>>going to work.
>
> No, it would have taken the invasion of the North, and the seizing of
> the NVA government.
>
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> And when did we invade North Vietnam?
>
>Where were we going to get the millions of
>men needed to do that? A little thing called reality
>restrained us from that stupid stunt.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rudens-presses.html
>
>As 1966 came to an end McNamara wanted Johnson to change his war policies.
>McNamara wanted to stabilize the U.S. air offensive at its existing level,
>because increasing the air raids would have little impact on the North
>Vietnamese and might lead to an open war with China. He wanted to limit
>American combat troops to about 500,000--well under the 700,000fighting
>force General William Westmoreland was planning. He wanted to strengthen
>the pacification program and coerce political reforms within the South
>Vietnam government. He wanted the administration to encourage a political
>settlement through another bombing halt and by giving the Viet Cong a voice
>in governing the South.(12)
>
>Yes, land war with China.
Why millions? The 1st Marine Division takes Haipong, The 82nd drops
around Hanoi, and an armored division offloads at Haipong to move
inland.
And in 1965 North Vietnam was a *Soviet* ally.
>Its easy to sit on one's big butt yammering about how
>all we had to do was invade North Vietnam, when you don't have
>to bother with such things as a land war with China, where to
>get all
>those millions of men needed to invade and thos nasty little details.
I'm told a have a nice butt. Not big at all.
>Why everybody knows it was those liberal, yellow politcians
>and the war protesters that lost us the war by not allowing
>the military to run this war.
No, they lost the war by not allowing the military a clearly defined
goal, even a limited one.
>Why worry about war with China. Only wimps worry about such things!
Which wasn't a concern in 1965.
>> When did we move to cut off the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and destroy the
>> base camps the enemy were using in Cambodia?
>
>The secret bombing of Cambodia that killed hundreds of thousands
>and did not do anything at all to stop the North Vietnamese.
Right. Bombing in 1969. After four years of allowing the NVA/VC free
reign in Cambodia and Laos. That horse was long gone.
What finally worked was the invasion of Cambodia.
>We dropped more bombs on Vietnam and Cambodia than all of WWII.
>And it didn't do dirt.
Nope, because air power doesn't win wars. Never have, never will.
The bombing of Germany didn't end WWII, it was armies pushing in from
the West and East. Even the atomic bombing of Hiroshima didn't cause
Japan to surrender, it took the direct intervention of the Emperor.
>> When did we declare a Naval Interdiction Zone in the South China Sea to
>> prevent Soviet frieghters from resupplying the North?
>
>So we should do crap likely to start a land war with China AND
>hostilities with Russia. Take on the whole world.
>It worked for Hitler and Napolean.
Notice that a few years prior to the arrival of combat formations in
Vietnam, the US had done exactly that in Cuba. The Soviets blinked.
The didn't have a Pacific fleet to speak of at that point.
>> Back here in reality, we won every engagement of the war.
>
>Except we lost the war. Mainly because we created enemies
>every day. And lost hearts and minds of too many.
The politicians lost that war.
>> Political leaders who got us into a war and then refused to let the
>> military fight it with all the tools at hand.
>
>Johnson gave the military vast forces.
Which weren't allowed to pursue the enemy.
Imagine this: Europe, 1944, and the Allies stop at the German
borders. We allow the Wehrmacht a safe haven to requip.
>Sorry, but no way was theer ever going to be a draft big enough
>to create an army big enough to tale North Vietnam.
You imaginings on the size of the needed force is a bit odd. Most of
the NVA was near the borders. Striking at Haipong/Hanoi would be a
masterstroke.
>Had Johnson done so, by the time it was obvious 1 million
>men were not working at the end of his 1st term, it would have taken
>years to plan, and create a large enough army, to do the deed.
I wish you'd pay attention.. I'm talking about doing this at the
onset, in 1965.
>These asshole military morons were taking trainees, giving them
>a few short months of basic and dumping them in 'Nam.
>Not exactly a plan.
Which is exactly what they did in WWII. Da wir nicht Deutsches
sprechen, schätze ich, daß Plan erfolgreich war. Basic training was
six weeks, and you were on the troopship.
Same thing in Korea. Same thing in WWI.
The Civil War was slightly different. Most Union Regiments had one
week worth of training before marching off to the front.
>Bluntly at that point, the military lost the war by
>being assholes. Nobody wanted to die that way.
No, some people didn't want to die that way. In 1965, however, most
draftees considered it to be a duty, and many believed in the mission.
You have blinders that make you see all of Vietnam through the lens of
the Nixon draw-down years. Those were fucked up. The troops knew
they were fighting a losing battle, nobdy wanted to be there, and
morale and disciplined went into the shitter.
>Realistically, had Johnson given the military everything the
>most idiotic right winged drunken general wanted, it would have
>taken years to enlarge such and army, field it and supply
>it and create a plan and implement it.
OK, you tell me. How many combat brigades did the United States Army
and the United States Marine Corps have available in 1965?
How many combat brigades were used on D-Day, June 6, 1944?
>But thanks to the military and its ways, it would be utterly
>impossible to sell that to the American public.
>Johnson knew it.
Oh, if you want to know how fast an Army can enlarge, I have some
terms for you:
National Guard
Army Reserve
>> I disagree with the corrupt military part,
>
>Corrupt, we had the CIA running dope and other nonsense.
The Central Intelligence Agency is not a part of the military. Hasn't
been since the wartime OSS was converted.
>Nobody cared in Washington.
Which doesn't equal military corruption.
>Since my ass was potentially on
>the line, I was most interested in what these idiots
>were doing.
Yet you haven't mentioned a corrupt officer yet!
>> but the rest is true.
>> Public pressure forced Johnson out of the race, and put Nixon in with
>> the promise to withdraw the troops.
>
>I remember with much disgust that Nixon had a "secret plan".
>It was a Great Lie. The plan was never seen again.
>It was more of the same except that the American public was
>simply NOT going to give Nixon and open checkbook and their sons.
>in the large numbers Johnson got.
Actually Nixon began working on the withdrawl the day he got into
office. Part of "Vietnamization" was the destruction of NVA camps in
Cambodia and Laos to ease the pressure on the ARVN. The last US
combat formation left Vietnam in 1972. We had done such a job on
those NVA camps that it took almost three years before the North could
launch their final offensive on the RVN.
>> Towards the end of the war. Do you understand that Vietnam and China
>> have been traditional enemies?
>
>Do you understand that China, the most radical communist nation
>on Earth with the biggest army on Earth was not going to sit
>by and let the US occupy North Vietnam?
They let us use their ports to pass war materials. "The enemy of my
enemy is my friend."
>Let us do be a little realistic.
Oh, good, you're finally coming around.
>And through the infamous "back channels" they let us know
>that loud and clear. Who would be stupid enough to think
>or hope it was just a bluff? Remember that 18 years
>earlier, that had no hesitation going to war with us and
>South Korea.
And they got their asses kicked. At least 300,000 dead. China was
not eager for a rematch, espeically since they were in combat with the
Soviets at the time
>They had done poorly because they had been poorly armed.
>They had rectified that problem and had no shortage of rifles,
>ammunition, artillery and other weapons.
>
>Anybody that thinks that one can ignore China's
>threats is stupid. They let us know, they did not want war with
>the US. But let us know occupation of North Vietnam was also
>not going to be allowed.
Who said occupation? Removing the government of Ho Chi Minh would be
the objective.
>> And that early in the war the
>> Vietnamese were being supported by the Soviets, who at the time were
>> having artillery duels with the Chinese over Mongolian borders? Had
>> we invaded in 1965, China would have been pleased at the Soviet
>> embarrassment.
>
>Probably not. If they were having artillery duels
>with the Soviets, why do you think they
>would have no hesitation to have same with US invaders
>to the South? For them, it was a bad situation with
>one consolation. If we invaded and they took us on, Vietnam
>would be their prize.
Because Mao saw what a two-front war had done to the Nationalists.
>> After four years of combat, and after Nixon had already announced we
>> were leaving.
>
>Yes, but Nixon lied a lot.
>I suspect the secret bombing of Cambodia
>didn't exactly fill them with trust.
Not much of a secret.
>> Not if we had agressively pursed the war in 1965-66.
>
>We did. And that did not work.
>To up the ante was simply more than the
>American public was going to accept.
No we did not. We sat in firebases and went on half-hearted "seek and
destroy" missions. We did not take the fight to the enemy.
>If 1 million troops was not going to do it,
>what would it take? 2 million, 3 million, 5
>millon?
>
>Do you think this was Russia where Stalin could airily
>order another 5 million rounded up and sent to the front?
>Who was going to sell that to the American public?
It wouldn't take 5 million.
>> To use you example of WWII, in that war we did not give the enemy safe
>> havens. We attacked and destroyed his means of supply, took his
>> homelands and planted our flags there. There was no question of what
>> would constitute victory: the end of the Germany and Japanese empires.
>
>And what would we have won?
>A land war in China. Lucky us.
>They had a safe haven for a reason.
>Keeping China out of a land war.
Which was a political decision, ergo my thesis is confirmed by your
own words.
>> In Vietnam, we had no clear goal,
>
>Yes! We had one. Attack North Vietnam. faced with
>America might, they would crumble and come back to
>the bargaining table.
>Whoops! well, more man power. Whoops. MORE!
That's not a goal, that's a strategy.
A goal is something like "Conquer Germany" or "Liberate Kuwait and
destroy Iraq's ability to threaten its southern neighbors."
A goal is something that has a definite finish line. We lacked that
in Vietnam.
>> no clear direction, and were
>> hamstrung by political restraints. Had the 1st Cav been free to
>> pursue retreating VC into Cambodia and destroy them
>> it would have been
>> a very different war.
>
>I somehow very much doubt this.
Really? Tell me, had the BEF been destroyed at Dunkirk, would that
have changed WWII?
>> You seem to think the situation in 1969-70 was the entire war.
>
>I seem to remember the large crowds of demonstrators.
>Where were they going to get the millions of men to
>invade?
From the majority who weren't protesting. And again, you wouldn't
need millions of men.
>> It
>> wasn't. The period of 1965-67 was one of constant success against the
>> VC, culminating in the disastorous Tet '68 offensive, which destroyed
>> the Viet Cong as a fighting force in the South. General Giap was> forced
>to commit regular NVA troops years ahead of schedule.
>>
>> When the US forces finally left, the North was so weakened by combat
>> in the South and air raids in the North that it took them two full
>> *years* before they could muster a significant offensive.
>
>You mean they didn't make rash, American military type decisions?
I'd call Tet '68 rash, and filled with some amazing assumptions.
>> Yes, we were.
>
>Yes, 1 million was not enough.
No, bombs don't win wars. Taking the enemies center of power does.
Germany didn't surrender until Berlin fell.
>Land war with China was a real possibility.
Not a likely one.
>America's youth were not going to meekly be drafted
>for a 3 million strong invasion force for the likes
>of the US military or McNamara.
Where do you get that number?
>Do you think any president could march his butt
>to a podium and announce on TV we were going to start
>drafting immense numbers of young men for a 2 1/2 million
>man invasion force of North Vietnam?
Where do you get that number?
Chris Thompson
Thanks. The Wiki is useful but hardly complete in many articles. They
did not mention the debts incurred during the war, but it makes a lot of
sense.
One little nit, though. If they (Wiki) are correct, the Federal
Government did not send the troops, as under the Articles of
Confederation they had no authority (or troops!) to do so. It seems is
was a consortium of state governments who hired mercenaries to put down
the rebellion.
I didn't realize that about the bankruptcy bill. My word, is there no
shame the whores in congress won't bend over backwards to wallow in? And
does that not directly contradict the law governing Reserve and
federalized National Guard units?
wcb
No shit. So what. Yeah, the marines gonna win it all.
The history of warfare is all too often a fine plan that
did not work. From Augustus's legions in the Teutonberg
forest to Napolean invading Russia.
Invasion of North Vietnam was certainly going to take more
than a few marines, and assuming that since Vietnam was
a Russian ally meant China would not act is simply stupid.
China as a matter of fact was large, radical, extremist,
and most certainly in all ways an unknown quantity with
no way of knowing how they would act in any given future
situation. A true loose canon.
>
>>Its easy to sit on one's big butt yammering about how
>>all we had to do was invade North Vietnam, when you don't have
>>to bother with such things as a land war with China, where to
>>get all
>>those millions of men needed to invade and thos nasty little details.
>
> I'm told a have a nice butt. Not big at all.
>
>>Why everybody knows it was those liberal, yellow politcians
>>and the war protesters that lost us the war by not allowing
>>the military to run this war.
>
> No, they lost the war by not allowing the military a clearly defined
> goal, even a limited one.
We had a goal. Let me repeat that again. We
had a goal. Send in troops, cause the NV to sue for
peace and come back to the bargaining table.
That was the plan Westmoreland and his buddies told
Johnson would indeed work.
It did not. Ho Chi Minh refused to act according
to the script.
There was no backup plan.
If after all this time you never grasped the facts
as they happened, you have no understanding of any
of this.
>
>>Why worry about war with China. Only wimps worry about such things!
>
> Which wasn't a concern in 1965.
It was most certainly a concern.
It was always a concern.
It was one of those factors the goverment had to,
and did take into account all along. We have records
of that. It would be amazinly stupid not to take
China into account when planning a war in Vietnam
>
>>> When did we move to cut off the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and destroy the
>>> base camps the enemy were using in Cambodia?
>>
>>The secret bombing of Cambodia that killed hundreds of thousands
>>and did not do anything at all to stop the North Vietnamese.
>
> Right. Bombing in 1969. After four years of allowing the NVA/VC free
> reign in Cambodia and Laos. That horse was long gone.
>
> What finally worked was the invasion of Cambodia.
>
>>We dropped more bombs on Vietnam and Cambodia than all of WWII.
>>And it didn't do dirt.
>
> Nope, because air power doesn't win wars. Never have, never will.
> The bombing of Germany didn't end WWII, it was armies pushing in from
> the West and East. Even the atomic bombing of Hiroshima didn't cause
> Japan to surrender, it took the direct intervention of the Emperor.
>
Again, the idea that sending in troop would force North Vietnam
to the bargaining table, the Plan, did not work.
The idea that they would fight and naturally use all
resources including going through Cambodia simply
was not on Westmoreland's list of realistic possibilities.
Naturally, there was no backup plan.
>>> When did we declare a Naval Interdiction Zone in the South China Sea to
>>> prevent Soviet frieghters from resupplying the North?
>>
>>So we should do crap likely to start a land war with China AND
>>hostilities with Russia. Take on the whole world.
>>It worked for Hitler and Napolean.
>
> Notice that a few years prior to the arrival of combat formations in
> Vietnam, the US had done exactly that in Cuba. The Soviets blinked.
> The didn't have a Pacific fleet to speak of at that point.
>
We weren't setting ourselves up for a land war in
Asia. And came all too close to nuclear war as was.
>>> Back here in reality, we won every engagement of the war.
>>
>>Except we lost the war. Mainly because we created enemies
>>every day. And lost hearts and minds of too many.
>
> The politicians lost that war.
No, the military did. From the day Westmoreland assured
Johnston we could do the job, without real
planning to the many stupidities of the US military that turned
huge numbers of Vietnamese against us.
"The Plan" did not work. The North did not come back
to the bargaining table. And here the utter lack of
realistic planning by the military showed its ugly head.
The idea thye would fight crossed nobody's minds
seriously enough to plan for that eventuality.
The politicians and the military take the blame equally.
Had the military taken the failure of "the Plan" seriously
and laid out to Johnson a serious plan and showed its costs,
and the time needed to seriously implement
a full invasion of the North, and the men needed if China
did indeed intervene, the obvious costs of a failed
military effort in the South to force the North to the
bargaining table would have been obvious.
The military failed to honestly and competently appraise
the situation and report that.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh was going to fight,
there was no plan from the military to do that. And that
was strictly the military's fault, no one else's.
>>> Political leaders who got us into a war and then refused to let the
>>> military fight it with all the tools at hand.
>>
>>Johnson gave the military vast forces.
>
> Which weren't allowed to pursue the enemy.
Into a land war with China, and condemnation
in the UN among other things.
>
> Imagine this: Europe, 1944, and the Allies stop at the German
> borders. We allow the Wehrmacht a safe haven to requip.
Bogus. Who was Vietnam's neighbor again?
>
>>Sorry, but no way was there ever going to be a draft big enough
>>to create an army big enough to tale North Vietnam.
>
> You imaginings on the size of the needed force is a bit odd. Most of
> the NVA was near the borders. Striking at Haipong/Hanoi would be a
> masterstroke.
I doubt it.
>
>>Had Johnson done so, by the time it was obvious 1 million
>>men were not working at the end of his 1st term, it would have taken
>>years to plan, and create a large enough army, to do the deed.
>
> I wish you'd pay attention.. I'm talking about doing this at the
> onset, in 1965.
The plan was to put enough force on the ground to cause
them to sue for peace. This did not work. Had Westmoreland
not believed in that, he should have planned for the eventual
failure of said plan and presented it to Johnson.
This is not what happened.
The "plan" did not work. There was no backup, no
sign Johnson or Westmoreland and the military had
any plans for a failed plan.
I wish you'd pay attention to the point.
We had one plan and it didn't work, and no real plan
as a backup. Blaming politicians for utter lack
of any real backup plans by the military planners is
stupid.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
rich hammett
> My major complaint about him was his reporting on Desert Shield. He
> ran around moaning that the US couldn't possibly beat Saddam (who had
> the 4th largest army in the world!) and if we dare attack Iraq (which
> had the 4th largest army in the world!) we'd be slaughtered because
> our leaders were "perfumed princes" (meaning: they didn't agree with
> Hackworth) and didn't understand that Iraq had the 4th largest army in
> the world!
Do you have some examples of this? He's not on the web that
far back.
rich
> After Desert Storm and the 100-hour war, he whinged that we should
> have gone onto Bagdhad, since it was obvious to anyone that Iraq
> wasn't going to put up any resistance.
> Amazing.
> I'm the first to admit that the man had a spectacular military career,
> but his ego brought him down in the end.
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Douglas Berry
<bubba...@warmmail.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>In talk.origins Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindobviousspring.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>
>> My major complaint about him was his reporting on Desert Shield. He
>> ran around moaning that the US couldn't possibly beat Saddam (who had
>> the 4th largest army in the world!) and if we dare attack Iraq (which
>> had the 4th largest army in the world!) we'd be slaughtered because
>> our leaders were "perfumed princes" (meaning: they didn't agree with
>> Hackworth) and didn't understand that Iraq had the 4th largest army in
>> the world!
>
>Do you have some examples of this? He's not on the web that
>far back.
You might find it in one of his books. My mom forwarded me his
articles, with much concern about the tone of them. She was picturing
me going in naked against the ten-foot tall fire-breathing Iraqis.