Ignorance

[stamper]

>Who won out of that illegal war?"

>It's not easy to respond to this sort of thing.  Perhaps you could define a "legal war" and give us a few examples?  The

>perspective would be enlightening I'm sure.

The fact that both America and the Uk went to the UN and asked advice on this matter. The UN states that it is illegal to invade a

sovereign nation with regards to regime change. In this respect Saddam was left in charge in 1992 to "keep the lid on things" and

ten years later they decided that he must go. A clue. OIL


"They should be stripped of it and the middle east would be a more peaceful place."

> For whom?  Certainly not the Israelis who have been repeatedly attacked.

The UN have repeatedly stated that they illegally occupy land that is the Palestines. This is beyond doubt.


  You're probably right though, if we strip a country of its defenses the neighboring countries will be very happy.  Not sure

about peaceful though.  Weapons don't make or break peace.  Its the mindset of the people who exercise ownership over the weapons

which defines peace.

"used nuclear weapons on a civilian population that couldn't defend itself."

>Its a mistake to use modern values in judging the values of the past.

How else can we make judgements? Everything is in the past.

>It's probably a bigger mistake to forget the values of the past.

Contradictory?

 

 >Don't you know attacking civilian populations were all the rage back then?  Everyone was doing it, it was in vogue, and the  

>threat to civilian populations was part of warfare.  You could even say the side with the ability to inflict the most damage to  

>civilian populations was considered "victorious."  And in fact they were.  So were complimenting the USA for it's military  

>prowess, or criticizing it for not doing more to lose the war?

 >"That war was effectively over "

 >I wonder.. well.. this is tongue in cheek of course.. but I wonder if you would have said this if you were one of the men who  

>would have had to invade Japan's mainland or keep fighting on the islands until it was "actually over?"  


At the time of the bombs being dropped America and Japan were actively talking peace. From what I have read all that was to be decided was if the Emporer was to be left in place as head of state. It is widely believed that America was desperate to use the bomb so that they test it's effectiveness on human beings and start a cold war with Russia. If the dropping of the bombs was justifiable then why didn't they use them again on Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan which meant no American lives would have been lost in invasion?

 

[BernardLanguillier]

I hope Bernard is properly punished for starting the thread that lead to the the destruction of, well, I kinda lost tack, who are we killing?

You should have ignored this post.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

At the time of the bombs being dropped America and Japan were actively talking peace. From what I have read all that was to be decided was if the Emporer was to be left in place as head of state. It is widely believed that America was desperate to use the bomb so that they test it's effectiveness on human beings and start a cold war with Russia. If the dropping of the bombs was justifiable then why didn't they use them again on Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan which meant no American lives would have been lost in invasion?

Isn't it pretty well established by now that the real goal of the nuclear bomb on Japan was to show Russia who the new master of the world was?

Cheers,
Bernard

[JohnKoerner]

Quote
If Israel's missiles are launched in advance to destroy Iran's nuclear capability then they're an absolute  deterrent. A much better deterrent would be for Israel or the U.S. to destroy, or at least inhibit Iran's nuclear capability using conventional munitions before the window of opportunity closes so far that a nuclear strike is necessary.
Unquote
Russ have you learnt anything from history? Vietnam....a disaster. Afghanistan..... nine years ongoing and nowhere near winning. Iraq.... an expensive folly. I saw the soldier on TV waving his arms from a truck who was glad he was leaving shouting .... we won. Who won out of that illegal war? Which nations are going to join America in an invasion of Iran? Tony Blair the hubris friend of Bush is no longer in charge of the UK. America will be alone in this folly and if just like Iraq they don't find any weapons of mass destruction, what then? America is bankrupt and your thinking is the same. As to Israel it wouldn't exist without America. 100 million dollars in aid since the end of WW2. How can a small country without natural resources afford a nuclear weapon? They should be stripped of it and the middle east would be a more peaceful place. Iran isn't the threat to world peace it is America who just as Rob C pointed out used nuclear weapons on a civilian population that couldn't defend itself. That war was effectively over but it meant that the Japanese soldiers fought on in the islands for years after because they thought the mainland had been obliterated. Nuff said.

What else should we do to a country that sought to attack us, besides vanquish them? Should we do it as quickly as possible or as slowly as possible?

Perhaps the whole problem with today's US wars is that we don't get them over with as quickly as possible ... too chickenshit perhaps?

Another consideration: our motive with the ultimate fate of Japan/Germany. We weren't trying to destroy Japan/Germany or kill/enslave all of their people. In point of fact, we liberated Japan/Germany and set them up with very prosperous and mutually-beneficial governments/economies, and their nations ultimately benefitted greatly ...

With the incessant conflict in the Middle East, none of those countries is looking to "benefit" the other, nor are any of our antagonists over there ultimately looking to "benefit" us ...

Jack




.

[BernardLanguillier]

With the incessant conflict in the Middle East, none of those countries is looking to "benefit" the other, nor are any of our antagonists over there ultimately looking to "benefit" us ...

Yes... US... but... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97nAvTVeR6o do they?

Cheers,
Bernard

[stamper]

Quote Rob.

That's not exactly the colour of the meaning of what I wrote, stamper; I was stating that I suspect that the Allies were as taumatised by what they had unleashed there as the Japanese must have been. All civilians in any war are pretty much without any defence, but at least in a democratic system they should have the power to control those who might lead us into conflict.

Does the American people really have control over the decision making in regards to going to war? If they elect a Republican government then the hawks will take it as read that they have right to do what they want in the name of the people and by the time the next election comes around then it is done and dusted. Iraq and Afghanistan wars were started by Bush without consulting them. What is it about democracy that everyone thinks it is wonderful and the answer to all of our problems? Tony Blair took the decision in the name of democracy to send forces into Iraq. He told parliament it was lawful and all the warmongers in parliament fell over themselves to believe him and the people of the country didn't get a say. Nearly two hundred of them paid with their lives though. Is that democracy? I am sure the answer will be that you can always vote them out, but too often it is too late. The damage by Blair and Bush was irreversible. One upside of the economic crisis is that there are unlikely to be any conflicts soon?

[stamper]

Quote John

Perhaps the whole problem with today's US wars is that we don't get them over with as quickly as possible ... too chickenshit perhaps?

Unquote

Fifty eight thousand American's dead fighting in Vietnam. Same number again committed suicide afterwards and many more maimed for life. I don't think they were chickenshit?  I think you do your fellow countrymen a disservice?

[JohnKoerner]

Fifty eight thousand American's dead fighting in Vietnam. Same number again committed suicide afterwards and many more maimed for life. I don't think they were chickenshit?  I think you do your fellow countrymen a disservice?

I wasn't speaking of the actual men-at-arms, genius, but rather of the tacticians who decided to initiate war ... and then who planned a less-than-full-scale strategy for victory.

I do understand the reluctance to use nuclear weaponry, but what I don't understand is a half-scale war.

Thus it is our own government who did our countrymen a disservice.

Jack




.

[RSL]

Does the American people really have control over the decision making in regards to going to war? If they elect a Republican government then the hawks will take it as read that they have right to do what they want in the name of the people...

Stamper, Perhaps it's a quibble but it's clear you don't know much about U.S. history. If you'll take the trouble to check you'll find that the Bushes are about the only Republican presidents who took us to war. Check Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson for the big ones. Reagan took us into a small one, but in that one a bunch of U.S. citizens were being threatened. I was going to say that it's always wise to check your sources, but it's pretty obvious your sources are suspect. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, all but a tiny fraction of the U.S. citizenry was with Bush all the way on that one. We've already argued the Iraq thing, so I won't open that again.

[stamper]

I wasn't speaking of the actual men-at-arms, genius, but rather of the tacticians who decided to initiate war ... and then who planned a less-than-full-scale strategy for victory.

I do understand the reluctance to use nuclear weaponry, but what I don't understand is a half-scale war.

Thus it is our own government who did our countrymen a disservice.

Jack

The problem about planning a war and developing tactics is that the enemy doesn't always play ball. General Custer planned a full scale war and ended up being out manoeuvred by opponents whom he thought to be savages at best. It is easy to underestimate your opponents. Did the Americans plan for the Vietnamese to go underground and live their lives there? When they dropped Agent Orange on the country they didn't realise the people would jump into rivers and wash it off their bodies. The reformulated it and it then stuck to their skins which meant their deaths were more horrific. When they planned their strategy did they think about the fact that towards the end of the war the American servicemen would mutiny in great numbers and kill their officers. Have you read Jonathan Neale's book ..... The American War?  That is what the Vietnamese called the conflict. It is impossible - imo - to plan a war and carry it out precisely to the end. The enemy always has ways to scupper your planning.



.

[stamper]

Stamper, Perhaps it's a quibble but it's clear you don't know much about U.S. history. If you'll take the trouble to check you'll find that the Bushes are about the only Republican presidents who took us to war. Check Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson for the big ones. Reagan took us into a small one, but in that one a bunch of U.S. citizens were being threatened. I was going to say that it's always wise to check your sources, but it's pretty obvious your sources are suspect. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, all but a tiny fraction of the U.S. citizenry was with Bush all the way on that one. We've already argued the Iraq thing, so I won't open that again.

Russ you are correct in saying that I don't have a great grasp of America's history. You didn't mention Vietnam. Which President took the decision to involve America? Was it Eisenhower or Kennedy? My point was a more general one about leaders making up their minds and involving their countries in something - which you admit - they don't support. At the end of the day the ordinary people who make up the population of different countries don't decide to make war with each other. It is their leaders that bounce them into it and they pay a heavy price for allowing it to happen.

[Steve Weldon]

"The fact that both America and the Uk went to the UN and asked advice on this matter. The UN states that it is illegal to invade a
sovereign nation with regards to regime change. In this respect Saddam was left in charge in 1992 to "keep the lid on things" and
ten years later they decided that he must go. A clue. OIL"

Okay.. so a war is only "legal" if the UN gives its stamp of approval?  Can you give me an example of when this has happened?

And please, try to leave out the loon talking points.  It doesn't help.

In 1992 Iraq signed an agreement of surrender.  They broke 23 different UN resolutions concerning their surrender.  Any one of which was legal grounds to rescind the surrender and complete what was started.  If I find fault, it's with the UN for allowing the number to grow past one.  Without the will to enforce, the UN becomes an ineffective body.  No one listens to them.


"The UN have repeatedly stated that they illegally occupy land that is the Palestines. This is beyond doubt. "

And this is related to their nuclear capability exactly how?  And how will it bring the peace you say their disarming will bring?  Please, try to answer the question without diverting to a new topic.  When you do this it's obvious to everyone.

"How else can we make judgements? Everything is in the past."

Judgments should be fair yes?  Actions taken 50 years ago should not be judged with values 50 years into the future, which of course are unknowns at the time.  This isn't obvious to you at the most basic level?

"Contradictory?"

Okay, now you have me wondering if English is your first language.  I ask this with all politeness because I can change my writing level if necessary.  It's more important in a discussion to make sure we are understood, than to make a point only we understand no?

"At the time of the bombs being dropped America and Japan were actively talking peace. From what I have read all that was to be decided was if the Emporer was to be left in place as head of state. It is widely believed that America was desperate to use the bomb so that they test it's effectiveness on human beings and start a cold war with Russia. If the dropping of the bombs was justifiable then why didn't they use them again on Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan which meant no American lives would have been lost in invasion?"

Again, you skipped right over my questions without answering.   Here's a clue:  All during ALL wars peace is being discussed.  How many "peace talks" did we have during the Korean conflict and/or Vietnam?  Hundreds.  This is not an indication if a war is almost over.   Plus, I think what you 'read' is very loosely interpreted and not at all accurate.

And that you would ask the last part of your question demonstrates a dearth of knowledge about such matters.. on an extreme level.  Which makes me wonder why you participate other than to throw out your political talking points.  But okay, I'll explain it to you.

1.  Russia was a threat to world peace and yes the nuclear deterrent probably kept them from invading most of Europe and then some and taking advantage of post war weakness and unsurping America's Marshall plan for Germany and rebuilding of Japan.  But I don't think a demonstration on live humans was necessary to show the power of the bomb.  Sharing scientific data and allowed observation would have done the trick.

2.  The world was in an entirely different place towards the end of WWII than it ever was since.  All countries were weak from years of war and more vulnerable to complete takeover than they've ever been since.  Japan had wrecked havoc over a large swath of the globe and committed atrocities that made Hitler seem tame by comparison.  Their goal was to take over the entire Pacific including the invasion of America and they'd demonstrated the ability to do so.  A quick end to the war in the way that was done stopped ALL countries in their tracks.. and ensured stability since.  It's not be done again (using the bomb) because it's never been 'as' necessary since.  

[JohnKoerner]

The problem about planning a war and developing tactics is that the enemy doesn't always play ball. General Custer planned a full scale war and ended up being out manoeuvred by opponents whom he thought to be savages at best. It is easy to underestimate your opponents. Did the Americans plan for the Vietnamese to go underground and live their lives there? When they dropped Agent Orange on the country they didn't realise the people would jump into rivers and wash it off their bodies. The reformulated it and it then stuck to their skins which meant their deaths were more horrific. When they planned their strategy did they think about the fact that towards the end of the war the American servicemen would mutiny in great numbers and kill their officers. Have you read Jonathan Neale's book ..... The American War?  That is what the Vietnamese called the conflict. It is impossible - imo - to plan a war and carry it out precisely to the end. The enemy always has ways to scupper your planning.

I haven't read the book, no, but I do understand not everything goes as planned.

But I also understand not using all the available weaponry and not being 100% committed to finish a fight. Lack of 100% commitment to finish any fight is, in essence, prolonging it---and maybe this is why our own servicemen mutinied.

That being said, there are also environmental and long-term-consequense considerations to be had before the deployment of more serious nuclear weaponry, but I personally believe that if you're going to commit to a war, then it needs to be a full-scale war and over with as soon as possible. Half-measures are never acceptable in any form of life-and-death combat, because that in-and-of itself is an underestimation of the opponent.

Still, in the end, I suppose there are no easy answers and there is a tendency we all have to over-simplify things for discussion. And all the discussion in the world won't change what happened, and what did not happen.

Jack




.

[Misirlou]

Here's a little piece of trivia related to the decision to use nuclear weapons in Japan. As the planners were assessing the number of casualties they expected for an invasion of the main islands, they ordered up a large supply of Purple Heart medals to be awarded to the combat injured. They expected something like half a million men to be hurt or killed, just in the invasion of Kyushu alone. The appropriate number of medals were manufactured and stored, but were never required, due to the Japanese surrender after Nagasaki.

So those surplus WWII Purple Hearts originally created for the Kyushu attack were awarded later as needed, throughout Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and all of the middle east fighting. As far as I know, when I retired in 2005, we still had plenty left. No new ones have been struck since 1944 or 1945.

[stamper]

"The fact that both America and the Uk went to the UN and asked advice on this matter. The UN states that it is illegal to invade a
sovereign nation with regards to regime change. In this respect Saddam was left in charge in 1992 to "keep the lid on things" and
ten years later they decided that he must go. A clue. OIL"

Okay.. so a war is only "legal" if the UN gives its stamp of approval?  Can you give me an example of when this has happened?

As far as I know they haven't given permission because no country has ever provided an overwhelming case for war against another one?

And please, try to leave out the loon talking points.  It doesn't help.

Lowering your self to to making personal attacks doesn't help your questions?

In 1992 Iraq signed an agreement of surrender.  They broke 23 different UN resolutions concerning their surrender.  Any one of which was legal grounds to rescind the surrender and complete what was started.  If I find fault, it's with the UN for allowing the number to grow past one.  Without the will to enforce, the UN becomes an ineffective body.  No one listens to them.


"The UN have repeatedly stated that they illegally occupy land that is the Palestines. This is beyond doubt. "

And this is related to their nuclear capability exactly how?  And how will it bring the peace you say their disarming will bring?  Please, try to answer the question without diverting to a new topic.  When you do this it's obvious to everyone.

Having a nuclear weapon makes them a bully. They depend on it to get their own way. Without it the Arab countries would combine and Palestine would revert to what it was a hundred years ago. United, peaceful and free.

"How else can we make judgements? Everything is in the past."

Judgments should be fair yes?  Actions taken 50 years ago should not be judged with values 50 years into the future, which of course are unknowns at the time.  This isn't obvious to you at the most basic level?

That is an opinion that you seem to think valid. Comparisons are made all the time about the past. When things change for the better then it is valid to look back and comment?

"Contradictory?"

Okay, now you have me wondering if English is your first language.  I ask this with all politeness because I can change my writing level if necessary.  It's more important in a discussion to make sure we are understood, than to make a point only we understand no?

Please change your writing level, preferably for the better and try to leave out the personal stuff. It doesn't help your point of view.

"At the time of the bombs being dropped America and Japan were actively talking peace. From what I have read all that was to be decided was if the Emporer was to be left in place as head of state. It is widely believed that America was desperate to use the bomb so that they test it's effectiveness on human beings and start a cold war with Russia. If the dropping of the bombs was justifiable then why didn't they use them again on Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan which meant no American lives would have been lost in invasion?"

Again, you skipped right over my questions without answering.   Here's a clue:  All during ALL wars peace is being discussed.  How many "peace talks" did we have during the Korean conflict and/or Vietnam?  Hundreds.  This is not an indication if a war is almost over.   Plus, I think what you 'read' is very loosely interpreted and not at all accurate.

In your opinion. Are you sure that you are correct in everything you state? If you were then nobody would even think of contradicting you. Everyone on here is entitled to their opinion without you denigrating them.

And that you would ask the last part of your question demonstrates a dearth of knowledge about such matters.. on an extreme level.  Which makes me wonder why you participate other than to throw out your political talking points.  But okay, I'll explain it to you.

Again a denigrating manner.

1.  Russia was a threat to world peace and yes the nuclear deterrent probably kept them from invading most of Europe and then some and taking advantage of post war weakness and unsurping America's Marshall plan for Germany and rebuilding of Japan.  But I don't think a demonstration on live humans was necessary to show the power of the bomb.  Sharing scientific data and allowed observation would have done the trick.

2.  The world was in an entirely different place towards the end of WWII than it ever was since.  All countries were weak from years of war and more vulnerable to complete takeover than they've ever been since.  Japan had wrecked havoc over a large swath of the globe and committed atrocities that made Hitler seem tame by comparison.  Their goal was to take over the entire Pacific including the invasion of America and they'd demonstrated the ability to do so.  A quick end to the war in the way that was done stopped ALL countries in their tracks.. and ensured stability since.  It's not be done again (using the bomb) because it's never been 'as' necessary since.  

[stamper]

I haven't read the book, no, but I do understand not everything goes as planned.

But I also understand not using all the available weaponry and not being 100% committed to finish a fight. Lack of 100% commitment to finish any fight is, in essence, prolonging it---and maybe this is why our own servicemen mutinied.

They mutinied because they thought that they were being asked to fight and die in a war that couldn't be won. A war that despite the overwhelming fire power they weren't succeeding. Apparently an estimated 11 million tons of Agent Orange was dropped but because most of the Vietnamese were living underground they survived. Unfortunately after the war most of the babies that were born were malformed from the chemicals some of which are still in the ground to this day.

That being said, there are also environmental and long-term-consequense considerations to be had before the deployment of more serious nuclear weaponry, but I personally believe that if you're going to commit to a war, then it needs to be a full-scale war and over with as soon as possible. Half-measures are never acceptable in any form of life-and-death combat, because that in-and-of itself is an underestimation of the opponent.

Still, in the end, I suppose there are no easy answers and there is a tendency we all have to over-simplify things for discussion. And all the discussion in the world won't change what happened, and what did not happen.

Jack




.

[JohnKoerner]

They mutinied because they thought that they were being asked to fight and die in a war that couldn't be won. A war that despite the overwhelming fire power they weren't succeeding. Apparently an estimated 11 million tons of Agent Orange was dropped but because most of the Vietnamese were living underground they survived. Unfortunately after the war most of the babies that were born were malformed from the chemicals some of which are still in the ground to this day.

This re-defines the whole problem. The war "couldn't be won" precisely because we did not wage it at 100% deadly capacity. That is the whole point you continue missing ...

1.  Russia was a threat to world peace and yes the nuclear deterrent probably kept them from invading most of Europe and then some and taking advantage of post war weakness and unsurping America's Marshall plan for Germany and rebuilding of Japan.  But I don't think a demonstration on live humans was necessary to show the power of the bomb.  Sharing scientific data and allowed observation would have done the trick.

This is simply false. (At best, it's an a$$umption.) You apparently failed to read Misirlou's statement above.

It kinda goes like this: when you're IN war, human lives are going to be lost. That's a given. Well, it seems to me the most effective strategy for victory in war would be to take as many of the other country's "human lives" as possible, while losing as few of our own lives as possible. The Atomic Bomb basically provided the US with the means to do this, while a "conventional invasion" meant the loss of FAR MORE human lives, including massive amounts of our own, not just the enemy's.

The simple fact is this: decimating Japan with the bomb accomplished 3 key elements: (1) it minimized casualties to our own American lives; (2) it brought our enemy to its knees as quickly as possible; and (3) it made our other enemies fear us enough NOT to want to get into war with us. There is no way that "sharing scientific data" is going to have the same impact. Literally. It's like a guy "saying" he's tough versus his beating the living daylights out of you so brutally and decisively that you never want to cross him again. The psycholgical difference in "truly understanding" the consequences is astronomical.

2.  The world was in an entirely different place towards the end of WWII than it ever was since.  All countries were weak from years of war and more vulnerable to complete takeover than they've ever been since.  Japan had wrecked havoc over a large swath of the globe and committed atrocities that made Hitler seem tame by comparison.  Their goal was to take over the entire Pacific including the invasion of America and they'd demonstrated the ability to do so.  A quick end to the war in the way that was done stopped ALL countries in their tracks.. and ensured stability since.  It's not be done again (using the bomb) because it's never been 'as' necessary since.

That is exactly right, and that is why the DECISIVE use of total obliteration when we go to war is so much more effective than weakly "agreeing not to hurt them too bad." Fighting conventionally and "at their level" not only keeps the opponent in the game, but it also removes their fear and respect for our superiority, because we're too chickenshit to use it. War is not a game or a sport. If your opponent is weaker than you in a sport, it's okay to go easy on them. If someone is trying to kill you, however, then you need to snuff them ASAP. And if they're weaker, that's their problem.

The more quickly and decisively an opponent is vanquished, the harder and longer another is going to think before they dare try to test you. The slower and more difficult it is for you to vanquish an opponent, or the more half-hearted your self-doubting efforts, the more your would-be opponents are going to come out of the woodwork to test you and take you.

That is just a reality of life, pal.

Waging war should be deadly-serious business and ONLY deadly-serious business. Again, the use of "half-hearted measures" in any life-or-death situation is not only unacceptable, it has a real chance to become suicide.

Jack




.

[Joe Behar]

Having a nuclear weapon makes them a bully. They depend on it to get their own way. Without it the Arab countries would combine and Palestine would revert to what it was a hundred years ago. United, peaceful and free.


You mean like they did in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1972?

[RSL]

Russ you are correct in saying that I don't have a great grasp of America's history. You didn't mention Vietnam. Which President took the decision to involve America? Was it Eisenhower or Kennedy?

Actually I did mention Vietnam when I mentioned Kennedy and Johnson. Eisenhower warned the nation against a land war in Asia. He sent some very limited materiel assistance to the French when they were bogged down at Dien Bien Phu, but he refused to commit American troops. John Kennedy was the one who committed "advisors," who actually were combatants. It's hard to say what Kennedy might have done had he lived, but Lyndon Johnson was the one who began the huge buildup. I know because I was there when the buildup started.

My point was a more general one about leaders making up their minds and involving their countries in something - which you admit - they don't support.

Actually I don't admit any such thing. In a republic such as the U.S., what usually happens is that people support their leaders at the beginning of a war, but if the war goes on too long without decisive results the support begins to evaporate. Democracies seem to have very short attention spans. Which is exactly what went wrong in Korea, Vietnam, and, lately Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're willing to do the research, check the congressional voting record on the U.S. going to war in Iraq. Democrats and Republicans both voted almost unanimously in favor. But then, as Jack pointed out, we didn't proceed to fight the war to win it, and support fell away.

I watched that happen in three wars:

(1) In Korea I watched our fighters pursue Migs over the Yalu river into China, but get ordered back, even though the Migs came out of China to attack. We were only allowed to bomb the southern end of the bridge across the Yalu but as MacArthur said, "How the hell can you bomb half a bridge?"

(2) In Vietnam we won the war militarily during the Tet offensive, but thanks to a Democrat congress and Walter Cronkite and the wussy media we began a political surrender immediately after that. It's still hard for me to think about the Vietnamese I knew who certainly were killed or "reeducated" after we pulled out in 73.

(3) I was at Udon Thani in Thailand when our Democrat congress cut off funding for U.S. support operations while the Khmer Rouge advanced on Phnom Penh, opening the gates for Pol Pot to come in and murder a significant proportion of the Cambodian people. Americans in Asia held their heads down for a long time after that. I still can't believe that large numbers of those craven congressmen actually were reelected.

At the end of the day the ordinary people who make up the population of different countries don't decide to make war with each other. It is their leaders that bounce them into it and they pay a heavy price for allowing it to happen.

I think you're confusing a Constitutional republic with a democracy. In a true democracy everyone gets to vote on everything. In a true democracy, if a majority of your neighbors decide you ought to be thrown in jail or executed, even though you haven't done anything wrong, the majority wins. In a Constitutional republic, of which there are several forms, people vote for the leaders they think are wisest, and expect them to make wise decisions about war. It's true that sometimes that "hopey, changey thing" doesn't work very well. But the alternatives all seem to work orders of magnitude worse.

[RSL]

Did the Americans plan for the Vietnamese to go underground and live their lives there? When they dropped Agent Orange on the country they didn't realise the people would jump into rivers and wash it off their bodies. The reformulated it and it then stuck to their skins which meant their deaths were more horrific. When they planned their strategy did they think about the fact that towards the end of the war the American servicemen would mutiny in great numbers and kill their officers.

Stamper, I'm afraid whatever you're using as reference material is even more flaky than I thought it was.

1. What do you think Agent Orange is?

2. Where and when did all these troops mutiny and murder their officers?

Please give references for your answers to both these questions.