Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #1  
    AP NEWSFLASH

    The AP has finally realized we aren't in a "Vietnam" type war. At least, that is what seems to be the "revelation" in their following article.

    'Fragging' Is Rare in Iraq, Afghanistan
    By ESTES THOMPSON
    Associated Press Writer

    Posted: Oct. 17, 2007

    RALEIGH, N.C. — American troops killed their own commanders so often during the Vietnam War that the crime earned its own name - "fragging."

    But since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has charged only one soldier with killing his commanding officer, a dramatic turnabout that most experts attribute to the all-volunteer military.

    And some argue the case of Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez shouldn't even be considered fragging, since his motive was unclear.

    Fragging - derived from the hard-to-trace weapon of choice in such attacks, the fragmentation grenade - has varying definitions, from the killing of any superior to the murder of a soldier's direct commander to avoid combat.

    Martinez, 40, of Troy, New York, and a member of the state's Army National Guard, is scheduled to appear Thursday in a courtroom at Fort Bragg, where the Army's version of a grand jury is hearing evidence in his murder case.

    He faces a possible death sentence if convicted of setting off several grenades and a mine in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces near Tikrit, Iraq.

    http://wral.com/news/national_world/...story/1939952/

    Congratulations to the AP. Apparently they believed we were fighting another Vietnam. It only took them six years to realize how wrong they were.

    Bra--vo to the AP for the non-story.

    Thank God the troops don't buy into the biased drivel we get drilled into our heads everyday.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    AP NEWSFLASH

    The AP has finally realized we aren't in a "Vietnam" type war. At least, that is what seems to be the "revelation" in their following article.

    'Fragging' Is Rare in Iraq, Afghanistan
    By ESTES THOMPSON
    Associated Press Writer

    Posted: Oct. 17, 2007

    RALEIGH, N.C. American troops killed their own commanders so often during the Vietnam War that the crime earned its own name - "fragging."

    But since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has charged only one soldier with killing his commanding officer, a dramatic turnabout that most experts attribute to the all-volunteer military.

    And some argue the case of Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez shouldn't even be considered fragging, since his motive was unclear.

    Fragging - derived from the hard-to-trace weapon of choice in such attacks, the fragmentation grenade - has varying definitions, from the killing of any superior to the murder of a soldier's direct commander to avoid combat.

    Martinez, 40, of Troy, New York, and a member of the state's Army National Guard, is scheduled to appear Thursday in a courtroom at Fort Bragg, where the Army's version of a grand jury is hearing evidence in his murder case.

    He faces a possible death sentence if convicted of setting off several grenades and a mine in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces near Tikrit, Iraq.

    http://wral.com/news/national_world/...story/1939952/

    Congratulations to the AP. Apparently they believed we were fighting another Vietnam. It only took them six years to realize how wrong they were.

    Bra--vo to the AP for the non-story.

    Thank God the troops don't buy into the biased drivel we get drilled into our heads everyday.
    We can agree on the non-story aspects of your post. Talk about nonsensical drivel....
  3. #3  
    I wouldn't say drivel...more like an observation of the the media likes easy labels, in spite the facts.

    You want a Vietnam analogy? Maybe we should pull out of Iraq and let Iran and Turkey take over.

    A strong Iraq is in everyone's best interest...it just doesn't seem that way.
  4. #4  
    Agreed Mike.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    You want a Vietnam analogy? Maybe we should pull out of Iraq and let Iran and Turkey take over.
    If your logic had been followed in Vietnam, had we not evacuated US troops when Saigon fell, would have resulted in what ultimate conclusion?
  6. #6  
    life2short,

    While I don't know what the ultimate outcome would have been, I think the 3M people killed (half the population) in Cambodia and Vietnam would not have happened.

    Know the history...Vietnam may have been an "unpopular" war, but us leaving was devasting to the population. of the area.

    If anything needs to be remembered, it is that.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    While I don't know what the ultimate outcome would have been, I think the 3M people killed (half the population) in Cambodia and Vietnam would not have happened.
    Statement of faith?

    Know the history...Vietnam may have been an "unpopular" war
    This has nothing to do with the "popularity" of a war and everything to do with history. To know the history, you'd have to go back another 130 years prior to the fall of Saigon in order to really understand why the US never had a prayer.

    but us leaving was devasting to the population. of the area.
    Compared to what? Are you aware that the communists in North Vietnam were not even originally militarized.
  8. #8  
    Life2short, you know nothing of history. Your posts show it.

    Not a statement of faith, just a statement of fact.

    I suggest the local library for some education on that period. (Chances are you grew up in the 90's and aren't too well verse on the subject.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    Life2short, you know nothing of history. Your posts show it.

    Not a statement of faith, just a statement of fact.

    I suggest the local library for some education on that period. (Chances are you grew up in the 90's and aren't too well verse on the subject.
    Despite my better judgment, I held out hope that you could be engaged you in serious discussion. Lesson learned.
  10. #10  
    Ah, the derisive comment, instead dealing with the facts. Hallmark of the person who asserts a snakry comment, and then runs away when the facts make ya go "hmmmm..."
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Nice flame bait mikec. Shame really...I had high hopes for you.
    You're not alone.
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    Ah, the derisive comment, instead dealing with the facts. Hallmark of the person who asserts a snakry comment, and then runs away when the facts make ya go "hmmmm..."
    Typical...isn't it?

    Getting back on topic, is it not funny how history is repeating itself? It was a Democratically controlled Congress that strangled aid to South Vietnam when the war was far from being lost (a war, lest we forget, that was originally a Democrat war initiated by Truman, later dramatically escalated by Kennedy and Johnson), and it is now a Democratically controlled Congress that is attempting to do the same in Iraq.

    Bah....let us just blame everything on McNamara.

    History lessons go unheeded by some it seems.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Getting back on topic, is it not funny how history is repeating itself?
    I don't find it to be funny at all.

    It was a Democratically controlled Congress that strangled aid to South Vietnam when the war was far from being lost (a war, lest we forget, that was originally a Democrat war initiated by Truman, later dramatically escalated by Kennedy and Johnson),
    Agreed. They started it - they finished it. But I see the withdrawal more as righting a wrong since we shouldn't have bothered going in there to begin with. That said, I think the war was winnable because once those B-52s started carpet bombing the war suddenly became something different. But there were still thousands lives that would have been lost, and for what? We were told the world would end if communism moved into the south and we're all still here. So in retrospect, the war was not worth fighting and I fear the Iraq vets will feel the same angst that the Vietnam vets feel having seen the horrors of war for no apparent reason.

    Lost in all this absolutism you love to practice is the fact that Nixon campaigned for ending the war and was in fact instrumental in ending the war. http://www.vietnamwar.com/presidentnixonsrole.htm

    and it is now a Democratically controlled Congress that is attempting to do the same in Iraq.
    Yes, but unlike the GOP, I should hope the Dems have the balls to finish something that should have never been started to begin with by a criminal neoconservative lot not worthy of the office of the Presidency. Now the tactics in doing so are questionable (e.g. the whole Turkey fiasco) but at least they're not rubber-stamping our imperial cowboy.

    Bah....let us just blame everything on McNamara.
    He certainly shares some blame. But that may be too grey for you to comprehend.

    History lessons go unheeded by some it seems.
    Indeed. Powell warned Bush, "if you break it, you own it" and there were plenty of others that attempted to remind him of the lessons learned in Vietnam, and yet armed with cherry picked data and the entire world standing in opposition, Bush went ahead anyway.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/21/2007 at 09:03 AM.
  14. #14  
    I guess we will wait 20 years to see if this is Vietnam again.

    I sort of doubt it, because they were two different things at two different times.

    Right now it's fashionable to bash Iraq, etc., but in the long run, I think history will show it was the right move.

    The biggest lesson I am seeing is neighboring states (like Iran and Syria) are inflaming things and getting involved, amd we are not dropping the hammer on them. That is a big mistake, for they will keep doing it.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    I guess we will wait 20 years to see if this is Vietnam again.

    I sort of doubt it, because they were two different things at two different times.
    We can agree on that.

    Right now it's fashionable to bash Iraq, etc., but in the long run, I think history will show it was the right move.
    I know you won't believe this, but I hope you are right.

    The biggest lesson I am seeing is neighboring states (like Iran and Syria) are inflaming things and getting involved, amd we are not dropping the hammer on them. That is a big mistake, for they will keep doing it.
    As you said, different war, different times. Comparing Cambodia to Iran for instance would require some pretty big stretches.

    In the end I think we'll find in Iraq that we never did learn the lessons of Vietnam - military intervention without clear motives or objectives almost always ends badly.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Agreed. They started it - they finished it. But I see the withdrawal more as righting a wrong since we shouldn't have bothered going in there to begin with. That said, I think the war was winnable because once those B-52s started carpet bombing the war suddenly became something different. But there were still thousands lives that would have been lost, and for what? We were told the world would end if communism moved into the south and we're all still here. So in retrospect, the war was not worth fighting and I fear the Iraq vets will feel the same angst that the Vietnam vets feel having seen the horrors of war for no apparent reason.
    Truman only started the US-Vietnam war if you conclude that sending 35 military advisors plus purely financial aid in support of the French as "starting" it. It was not until the French were defeated in 1954, that Eisenhower committed US troops into Vietnam. Twists of historical fact deserve to be shown for what they are. Furthermore, no grand escalation took place 1964 when Johnson ordered the initial response to the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident.

    http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...ndex-1945.html

    Lost in all this absolutism you love to practice is the fact that Nixon campaigned for ending the war and was in fact instrumental in ending the war. http://www.vietnamwar.com/presidentnixonsrole.htm
    Nothing like secret plans to end the war during an election season to get out the vote, eh Dickie? Or secret wars inside Laos and Cambodia, information purposely withheld from Congress, to drop the esteem of the world for its greatest democracy.

    Yes, but unlike the GOP, I should hope the Dems have the balls to finish something that should have never been started to begin with by a criminal neoconservative lot not worthy of the office of the Presidency. Now the tactics in doing so are questionable (e.g. the whole Turkey fiasco) but at least they're not rubber-stamping our imperial cowboy.
    History will convict these neocons for their depravity, and within a short timeframe.

    He certainly shares some blame. But that may be too grey for you to comprehend.
    Difference between Mac and the neocon crew is that Mac has explicitly accepted his personal faults and bad judgments made.

    Indeed. Powell warned Bush, "if you break it, you own it" and there were plenty of others that attempted to remind him of the lessons learned in Vietnam, and yet armed with cherry picked data and the entire world standing in opposition, Bush went ahead anyway.
    These extremists don't learn lessons. When was the last time you heard of any neocon, throughout history, hold themselves directly accountable and show the depth of their personal regret?
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I don't find it to be funny at all.
    The notion of sarcasm has, apparently, gone over your head.

    Agreed. They started it - they finished it.
    They "finished" what exactly? Ending a war that resulted in our defeat when the war was far from being lost, and re-neging on our commitments to South Vietnam (as Westmoreland famously said) was a just finish?

    Awarding the country a trauma from which it has yet to recover from is a "finish"? Funny, to many it is a wound that has yet to heal.

    But I see the withdrawal more as righting a wrong since we shouldn't have bothered going in there to begin with. That said, I think the war was winnable because once those B-52s started carpet bombing the war suddenly became something different. But there were still thousands lives that would have been lost, and for what?
    Preservation of the South? Communist containment? Keeping China in check? Just to name three...

    We were told the world would end if communism moved into the south and we're all still here.
    "We were told...." by whom exactly? Care to cite who said this?

    Lost in all this absolutism you love to practice is the fact that Nixon campaigned for ending the war and was in fact instrumental in ending the war. http://www.vietnamwar.com/presidentnixonsrole.htm
    I think Operation Linebacker shows that Nixon was not shy about fighting the North. Given the Congress was strangling the war effort, I fail to see what recourse the President had.

    Yes, but unlike the GOP, I should hope the Dems have the balls to finish something that should have never been started to begin with by a criminal neoconservative lot not worthy of the office of the Presidency. Now the tactics in doing so are questionable (e.g. the whole Turkey fiasco) but at least they're not rubber-stamping our imperial cowboy.
    Yes, instead they are more supremely worried about a historical event that happened 95 years ago instead.


    He certainly shares some blame. But that may be too grey for you to comprehend.
    Another cop-out response.

    Indeed. Powell warned Bush, "if you break it, you own it" and there were plenty of others that attempted to remind him of the lessons learned in Vietnam, and yet armed with cherry picked data and the entire world standing in opposition, Bush went ahead anyway.
    The lesson learned in Vietnam is that a defeatist attitude is not the way to win a war.

    Of course, lest we forget, that "cherry picked" data (whatever that means) was data that was accepted by the UN and the international community at large. No one doubted that Iraq's intents, only on how they should deal with the threat.

Posting Permissions