NationStates Jolt Archive

A Letter of Apology from Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired

"For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will harbor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.

I humbly offer my opinion here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.

I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.

I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.

I am sorry that Yasir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.

I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society, like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other non-combatant civilians are legitimate targets.

I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church -- one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc...etc!

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized viallage in Africa.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.

We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like--so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong! Sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured, we were trying to kill those same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?

Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burned among a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait!

You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins!

Chuck Pitman, Lt. Gen., US Marine Corps (Ret.)

Semper Fi

Wow! Just ... wow!

Thanks, bro. Semper fi! :)

Wow! Just ... wow!

Thanks, bro. Semper fi! :)

Aren't you a veteran yourself?

Aren't you a veteran yourself?
We both are.

General Pitman is a great guy. He was LtCol Pitman when I was in flight school at Pensacola. Before that, he participated (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/mark_essex/13.html?sect=8) in an effort to subdue a sniper in New Orleans.

Chief Giarrusso waved him over and said, "You're the guy with the armored helicopter, right?"

"It's not really armored," Pitman explained. "It's got a little boilerplate over the engine."

"What can you do for me, then?" the chief said, but then, before the pilot could respond, Giarrusso snapped his fingers. "I know," he said. "I want you to pick up my armored car and put it down on the roof?" NOPD had an old armored personnel carrier that weighed close to 16,000 pounds. Pitman explained that his Sea Knight could only lift about 5,000 pounds.

"Well, what can you do?" Giarrusso said.

Pitman told the chief that he could carry a load of police officers above the roof to see what was going on. "We'll try to root him out," he added.



The whole article is great. General Pitman is a real hero.

We both are.

*Salutes*

Thank you for serving our country. It means a lot to us Americans. A lot of my family have served, including my uncle, who's in Iraq right now, and my grandfather, who served in the second world war, the Korean War, and Vietnam.

Thanks for protecting our freedom.

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other non-combatant civilians are legitimate targets.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

:confused:
Riiight, so he thinks that women, babies, children, elderly etc... are not legitimate targets, then advocates dropping bombs on an entire city full of civilians. Sorry, but at that point he lost my respect.

:confused:
Riiight, so he thinks that women, babies, children, elderly etc... are not legitimate targets, then advocates dropping bombs on an entire city full of civilians. Sorry, but at that point he lost my respect.

Oh stop!

It's not like you had any respect for him in the first place. If it hadn't been that, then something else would have made you say that.

In any case, the General is right. Especially about the Daisy Cutters.

:confused:
Riiight, so he thinks that women, babies, children, elderly etc... are not legitimate targets, then advocates dropping bombs on an entire city full of civilians. Sorry, but at that point he lost my respect.
I doubt there are any true civilians left in Fallujah. Daisy cutters would make short work of the rabble that's left.

'The other side did worse, so we don't have to apologise'?

Well, it's certainly very American. (Take /that/ how you will)

'The other side did worse, so we don't have to apologise'?

Well, it's certainly very American. (Take /that/ how you will)
It's the new American Way-justify your actions by finding someone whos done worse. It's no longer about being better, setting an example, leading but rather following, being 'not as bad.'

Makes me sad.

It's the new American Way-justify your actions by finding someone whos done worse. It's no longer about being better, setting an example, leading but rather following, being 'not as bad.'

Makes me sad.

It's the obvious extension of "whose the biggest victim" politics, and group identities.

That said, I think what the Gen. was trying to get at here is not so much that the US is not at fault for these things, but that the people who are most angry are really just displaying sham-outrage for things that they wouldn't otherwise care about (or indeed possibly condone) except for the the fact that the US is doing them. As such, there is no real need to apologize.

I think he has a point.

It's the obvious extension of "whose the biggest victim" politics, and group identities.

That said, I think what the Gen. was trying to get at here is not so much that the US is not at fault for these things, but that the people who are most angry are really just displaying sham-outrage for things that they wouldn't otherwise care about (or indeed possibly condone) except for the the fact that the US is doing them. As such, there is no real need to apologize.

I think he has a point.
I don't buy it. He's doing what extremists do, he's extending the sins of the few to justify actions against the many. No better than what he 'attacks.'

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other non-combatant civilians are legitimate targets.


like....in Vietnam?

...

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

which would probably involve killing pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other non-combatant civilians.

nice hipocrisy, soldier! keep up the good work!

[/devils advocate]

I don't buy it. He's doing what extremists do, he's extending the sins of the few to justify actions against the many. No better than what he 'attacks.'

I could make the same argument about anyone who fired a shot to defeat Germany in WWII.

You're resorting to force, and that makes you no better than Hitler.

No better than what you attacked.

So, why don't you sit out all remaining wars on that basis. Because firing a single shot would be immoral. Try and talk the bad guys out of killing you and subjugating you.

Hitler never apologized, so why should we?

Hitler never apologized, so why should we?
If you're not apologizing, then the US isn't going to either. :rolleyes:

I could make the same argument about anyone who fired a shot to defeat Germany in WWII.

You're resorting to force, and that makes you no better than Hitler.

No better than what you attacked.

So, why don't you sit out all remaining wars on that basis. Because firing a single shot would be immoral. Try and talk the bad guys out of killing you and subjugating you.

... right. Because apologising for the way his country acted would result in his death and the possible destruction of his entire country. I see.

No one is saying that the /other side/ shouldn't apologise, before you play the 'And would it kill them to do the same?' card.

I could make the same argument about anyone who fired a shot to defeat Germany in WWII.

You're resorting to force, and that makes you no better than Hitler.

No better than what you attacked.

So, why don't you sit out all remaining wars on that basis. Because firing a single shot would be immoral. Try and talk the bad guys out of killing you and subjugating you.
Right, cause thats exactly what I said. Nice extrapolation.

You're right, we should dehumanize the entire region because of a few-totally justified. I'm sure that sort of attitude will end the conflict. Great fucking job. That certainly doesn't give lie to our 'ideals' that we humm about while drapping ourselves in the flag...

I don't buy it. He's doing what extremists do, he's extending the sins of the few to justify actions against the many. No better than what he 'attacks.'

I guess don't really read it as justifying. He does admit that these actions are wrong and counter-productive. I just read it as he feels no need to apologize to arab governments. Unfortunately he had to throw in examples that make that less than clear, like the unfortunate daisy cutter remark.

Personally, I think he is wrong to offer any opinion. But I see what he is getting at.

Right, cause thats exactly what I said. Nice extrapolation.

You're right, we should dehumanize the entire region because of a few-totally justified. I'm sure that sort of attitude will end the conflict. Great fucking job. That certainly doesn't give lie to our 'ideals' that we humm about while drapping ourselves in the flag...

I'm more interested in laying waste to the people who want to destroy the US than I am about wrapping myself in a flag.

A flag is only a piece of cloth.

like....in Vietnam?

Yes, the VC did target pregnant women, babies, children, etc. Just like Vietnam- and just like Vietnam, Apologists tried to make out that the yanks were somehow worse. Nice try. My Lai was one incident. There Hundereds of such things in Vietnam perpetrated by the "Communist Liberators" as standard tactical doctrine.

...
[/quote]

which would probably involve killing pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other non-combatant civilians.

nice hipocrisy, soldier! keep up the good work!

[/devils advocate][/QUOTE]

Hey, we tried to evacuate the civilians before rolling into that town. Wasted weeks and weeks doing it too...

My Lai was one incident. There Hundereds of such things in Vietnam perpetrated by the "Communist Liberators" as standard tactical doctrine.

Yes, let's compare the people killed at My Lai to the tens of thousands who were executed by the VC when they took control of Hue.

People executed for the crime of not being Communists.

Hey, we tried to evacuate the civilians before rolling into that town. Wasted weeks and weeks doing it too...
But we failed, so lets just drop a ton of bombs on them? I think the General has no real clue about foreign relations, human rights, any of that stuff that's never really been much of a hindrace to the US Armed Forces.

But we failed, so lets just drop a ton of bombs on them? I think the General has no real clue about foreign relations, human rights, any of that stuff that's never really been much of a hindrace to the US Armed Forces.

Well, at this point we OWN Fallujah. And there are about 3000 insurgents whose bones are piled outside the city limits that can testify to that.

Most of them burned alive. Standard operating procedure for getting insurgents out of a building was NOT to call for an airstrike. They were surrounded, asked to come out and surrender. If they refused, the Marines threw in a mortar shell by hand (in through the window). Not high explosive, but a white phosphorus shell with a small amount of primed C-4 to make the shell burst inside the house.

Since the buildings were made of stone, this had the salient effect of roasting the insurgents and the furniture, and leaving the building intact.

A Letter of Apology from Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired

"For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will harbor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.

I humbly offer my opinion here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.

I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.

I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.

I am sorry that Yasir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."

I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.

I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society, like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other non-combatant civilians are legitimate targets.

I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.

I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.

I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church -- one of our Holy Sites.

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc...etc!

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized viallage in Africa.

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.

We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like--so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong! Sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured, we were trying to kill those same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?

Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burned among a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait!

You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins!

Chuck Pitman, Lt. Gen., US Marine Corps (Ret.)

Semper Fi

This is the typical right-wing rhetoric. Does it not at all bother you that human rights monitors are blowing the whistle on our detention facilities? Does it not bother you that our civil rights are under assault by the President and his cronies?

You know what? The militants are doing horrible things, that is true, and they should be caught and brought to justice. But it does not in any way, shape, or fashion excuse the sins of our country. And we are NOT being honest about these sins...either to the American people or the rest of the world. This is not the "liberal guilt train". This is a demand that if our country proposes to stand up and pontificate about our supposed freedom and liberty that we live up to our own words, even when it is not politically expedient. You will receive no such widsom with Herr Bush and the Republicans in charge of all branches of the government.

You know what? Let me tell you what I am sorry about:

1.) I am sorry that the Pentagon LIED about the circumstances regarding Pat Tillman's death to the American people, turning the national funeral service into a spectacle.

2.) I am also sorry that the Pentagon lied about the circumstances regarding the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch. I am sorry it was turned into a publicity stunt to undercut resistance here at home to the Iraq War. (Note...this is not an opinion. Lynch herself has criticized the US government's portrayal of her rescue)

3.) I am sorry that we found no damn weapons of mass destruction, even though that is why I supported the war to start with. I am also sorry I was so stupid that I could not see through the smoke and mirrors that Team Bush put up to fool and goad the American people into a confrontation with Saddam Hussein.

4.) I am sorry that, despite being told for two years that the insurgency is in the last stages that it seems to be as strong now as it was then. I am sorry that the Bush Administration continues to habitually lie about the conditions in Iraq.

You know what? I have always backed the soldiers before. But I am finding it increasingly difficult to justify all the murderous mayhem that is going on in Iraq. The Right talks big about being the party of "moral values". Where, precisely, is the morality in the deaths of some 20,000 Iraqi civilians who have been killed since the beginning of the war?

I would like to make an apology to the whole world for the Unites States' blood-lusting knee-jerk reactionaries who put aside diplomacy in favor of killing those stinkin' muslims.

3.) I am sorry that we found no damn weapons of mass destruction, even though that is why I supported the war to start with. I am also sorry I was so stupid that I could not see through the smoke and mirrors that Team Bush put up to fool and goad the American people into a confrontation with Saddam Hussein.

I'm sorry you can't read a newspaper, or an UNSCOM report. I'm sorry you didn't read the findings of the WMD survey team.

As of the day the invasion started, EVERYONE including UNSCOM believed, on the basis of UN (not US) reports, that there were 1800 gallons of anthrax missing.

We found out what happened to it - but there's no way that any UN inspection would have turned up the reason.

Perhaps you should Google the name Taha - the woman captured by US forces who was the leader of Iraq's bioweapons program. Under interrogation, she revealed what happened to it - and why, up until the last minute, even Saddam thought he had WMD. Her story was verified by digging up the site where she dumped it. That's in the survey team report.

Stop telling yourself a lie.

Aren't you a veteran yourself?
[ points to his signature below ] :)

I would like to make an apology to the whole world for the Unites States' blood-lusting knee-jerk reactionaries who put aside diplomacy in favor of killing those stinkin' muslims.

Correction - only the ones who fight against us or plot against us.

It's the new American Way-justify your actions by finding someone whos done worse. It's no longer about being better, setting an example, leading but rather following, being 'not as bad.'

Makes me sad.
Oh stop it. You know very well that was written in response to what many of us consider unfair criticism. It wasn't intended to be a statement of principle, just a response. :rolleyes:

Correction - only the ones who fight against us or plot against us.


Which is apparently all of them, if you listen to the man in charge.

*packs for Canada*

like....in Vietnam?

which would probably involve killing pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other non-combatant civilians.

nice hipocrisy, soldier! keep up the good work!

[/devils advocate]
WTF do YOU know about Vietnam, you wet-behind-the-ears neophyte? :rolleyes:

Yes, the VC did target pregnant women, babies, children, etc. Just like Vietnam- and just like Vietnam, Apologists tried to make out that the yanks were somehow worse. Nice try. My Lai was one incident. There Hundereds of such things in Vietnam perpetrated by the "Communist Liberators" as standard tactical doctrine.

I know. My people had to "clean up" after several of them. Not something I like to remember.

I'm sorry you can't read a newspaper, or an UNSCOM report. I'm sorry you didn't read the findings of the WMD survey team.

As of the day the invasion started, EVERYONE including UNSCOM believed, on the basis of UN (not US) reports, that there were 1800 gallons of anthrax missing.

We found out what happened to it - but there's no way that any UN inspection would have turned up the reason.

Perhaps you should Google the name Taha - the woman captured by US forces who was the leader of Iraq's bioweapons program. Under interrogation, she revealed what happened to it - and why, up until the last minute, even Saddam thought he had WMD. Her story was verified by digging up the site where she dumped it. That's in the survey team report.

Stop telling yourself a lie.

And the final report to the U.S. Congress should just lightly be cast aside? It came to a somewhat different conclusion. Nevertheless, no matter how you slice it, Saddam had no WMD when we invaded.

so what?! he was still a sadistic mass killer! yes, it is very sad that American troops are loosing their lives, but its for a greater good, getting rid of saddam and trying to stabilize his country is worthy cause

This is the typical right-wing rhetoric. Does it not at all bother you that human rights monitors are blowing the whistle on our detention facilities? Does it not bother you that our civil rights are under assault by the President and his cronies?

You know what? The militants are doing horrible things, that is true, and they should be caught and brought to justice. But it does not in any way, shape, or fashion excuse the sins of our country. And we are NOT being honest about these sins...either to the American people or the rest of the world. This is not the "liberal guilt train". This is a demand that if our country proposes to stand up and pontificate about our supposed freedom and liberty that we live up to our own words, even when it is not politically expedient. You will receive no such widsom with Herr Bush and the Republicans in charge of all branches of the government.

You know what? Let me tell you what I am sorry about:

1.) I am sorry that the Pentagon LIED about the circumstances regarding Pat Tillman's death to the American people, turning the national funeral service into a spectacle.

2.) I am also sorry that the Pentagon lied about the circumstances regarding the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch. I am sorry it was turned into a publicity stunt to undercut resistance here at home to the Iraq War. (Note...this is not an opinion. Lynch herself has criticized the US government's portrayal of her rescue)

3.) I am sorry that we found no damn weapons of mass destruction, even though that is why I supported the war to start with. I am also sorry I was so stupid that I could not see through the smoke and mirrors that Team Bush put up to fool and goad the American people into a confrontation with Saddam Hussein.

4.) I am sorry that, despite being told for two years that the insurgency is in the last stages that it seems to be as strong now as it was then. I am sorry that the Bush Administration continues to habitually lie about the conditions in Iraq.

You know what? I have always backed the soldiers before. But I am finding it increasingly difficult to justify all the murderous mayhem that is going on in Iraq. The Right talks big about being the party of "moral values". Where, precisely, is the morality in the deaths of some 20,000 Iraqi civilians who have been killed since the beginning of the war?
This post is wrong on so many levels that I scarcely know where to begin.

1. Yes, they did. I hope someone has been severely disciplined for that one.

2. Yes, they did, although it was more of an exaggeration than a "lie."

3. Everyone was mislead by the incorrect intel on this. There seems to be some question about the WMD being moved to Syria's Bekkah Valley, but no proof is available on this just yet.

4. Operant phrase "seems to be." They said the same thing during Vietnam after the Tet Offensive, even though the Viet Cong were soundly defeated.

No one is asking you to "justify" anything, much less anything approaching "murderous mayhem." Why oh why do you rant about everything that the US does, yet totally ignore what Saddam, and now the insurgecy, did? It sounds to me as if you are simply looking for anything and everything which will make you feel better about opposing everything the military does.

BTW ... your figure of "20,000 Iraqi civilians ... killed" is way off base, especially since that figure includes those killed by the so-called "insurgents."

And the final report to the U.S. Congress should just lightly be cast aside? It came to a somewhat different conclusion. Nevertheless, no matter how you slice it, Saddam had no WMD when we invaded.

The information about the 1800 gallons WAS in the final report. Maybe you should read it.

And although only one person in the world knew that he didn't have the anthrax (Taha, the woman who dumped it without telling Saddam), everyone, and I mean everyone else in the world believed it was still there.

With no way to verify it - Taha wasn't going to tell Saddam out of fear of death, and certainly would never tell the UN inspectors - what risk do you suppose the idea that there are 1800 gallons of anthrax provokes in the political mind?

If we said, "best evidence, from the UN inspectors, tells us that he has 1800 gallons of anthrax, enough to kill everyone in the world", would you say, "that's ok, Saddam is a nice guy"?

so what?! he was still a sadistic mass killer! yes, it is very sad that American troops are loosing their lives, but its for a greater good, getting rid of saddam and trying to stabilize his country is worthy cause

Trying yet failing.

I do, however, agree with what you are saying.

Please remember the CAPITAL LETTERS. Sorry, that just bugs me.

I would like to make an apology to the whole world for the Unites States' blood-lusting knee-jerk reactionaries who put aside diplomacy in favor of killing those stinkin' muslims.
I suppose you place me in that category as well. I neither need nor want anyone to make an apology on behalf of me or my nation, thank you. Keep your irrational, mindless hatred to yourself.

WTF do YOU know about Vietnam, you wet-behind-the-ears neophyte? :rolleyes:

That people who weren't involved are more likely to have an objective opinion than people who were?

The information about the 1800 gallons WAS in the final report. Maybe you should read it.

And the thing that brought Britain into the war was that Saddam could hit us in 45 minutes. That and a certain Prime Minister. Tell me, was this magical teleporting anthrax?

Oh stop it. You know very well that was written in response to what many of us consider unfair criticism. It wasn't intended to be a statement of principle, just a response. :rolleyes:
Tell me, Eutrusca, did you ever let your kids use the 'But he started it' excuse? Or the "Tommy down the street is doing it?"

:rolleyes: I suppose you place me in that category as well. I neither need nor want anyone to make an apology on behalf of me or my nation, thank you. Keep your irrational, mindless hatred to yourself.


Sorry, first off this is MY nation not yours. You don't deserve a to lay claim nation when you belong to a party that is trying to run it into the ground. Yes lets create more terrorists with our actions. Lets sour world opinion about us with every step we take. Lets ruin the economy. Lets take away benefits from our homeless, our disabled, our ailing vets... hell, anyone that needs assistance are just a bunch of lazy wankers.

Also, you DO need someone to make an apology for your support of mindlessly irrational hatred and violence because you certainly aren't going to make it yoruself. Yours is a party of people who think they cannot make a mistake so will never admit to one even when it's glaring you directly in your scowling faces.

Lastly, the "Keep your irrational, mindless hatred to yourself" comment of yours was merley a lame attempt to say to me exactly what I was saying to your kind. I don't hate anyone. I just don't like the mindset that the way to solve a problem with someone is not to look at its causes and tackle it there but to kill off anyone who might believe differently than you. Yes i'm a terrorist because I don't support the Bush administration.

And the thing that brought Britain into the war was that Saddam could hit us in 45 minutes. That and a certain Prime Minister. Tell me, was this magical teleporting anthrax?

You're merging two assertions into one.

The possession of the anthrax was a completely separate assertion by UNSCOM and the US.

Separately, no one has proven the 45 minute claim to be a lie - which you claim it is. Right now, it looks like it was bad intelligence - which is not a lie.

Keep thinking it's a lie. Don't you think that between two world leaders, if they were masterminding a lie, they would have had an example of every claim they were making - just to cover their asses? Like faking a mobile WMD lab? Like faking a missile launch facility with nerve gas warheads?

Eh? Or is it far, far more likely that they were eager to believe the intel reports - some of which were unable to determine the true status of the anthrax, and some of which were bollocks about 45 minutes.

And that you can never really know what's going on in a police state - even if you send UN inspectors? Hell, they didn't know Taha dumped the stuff, either, and they had nearly ten years to try and find out.

That people who weren't involved are more likely to have an objective opinion than people who were?
Ever hear of "eyewitness accounts?" They are the most widely accepted source of valid evidence.

I suppose you place me in that category as well. I neither need nor want anyone to make an apology on behalf of me or my nation, thank you. Keep your irrational, mindless hatred to yourself.

This whole damn thing is so politically charged. Its impossible to point fingers at induviduals without pointing at entire groups. Eutrusca, you know that many of us love our veterans and support them any way we can. We undertand that things happen in war that are horrible and sad, that perhaps is the very definition of war.

But it does not mean condoning this! Abu Graib was not something I can shrug off lightly, its not something I can forgive our leaderhsip for not preventing, nor can I forgive those induviduals involved for doing. They crossed the line between actions in the line of duty and premeditated atrocity.

This problem should have generated a massive investigation on all levels, reviews on policy should have been widespread and highly publicized. Instead we saw cover-ups, understatements, and justifications. It was SHAMEFUL. Heads should have rolled for this! Rather than protecting the torturers in the ranks we should have been court-martialing them! There is no reason to let this problem fester!

This does not mean I hate all veterans, this does not mean I don't support the US military. It DOES mean I question our handling of this war, the leadership that so frequently has allowed these problems to occur, and blithely sits by and refuses to condemn it! We are condoning these actions by our silence!

This marine in the article has no reason to feel guilty for HIS personal conduct. Serve well and honorably and you have earned the gratitude and respect of your nation. However, his honor has been tarnished by the lack of house cleaning in the military.

We are letting a problem grow worse, by ignoring it, justifying it, excusing it, its simply not right. This is OUR problem, both as a honorable military service and as a nation as a whole. We must not let this continue. We don't need to aplogise for others, but we do need to attend to the actions of our fellows.

Frankly I would think the service in general would be horrified and angry by the actions of those soldiers, they've deserted their principles and abandoned their comrades in arms to the media circus and the wrath of those we were trying to help. Because of those fools in Abu Graib, the entire corps has been smeared with mud. The actions of the few reflect on the unit, the commander in charge of the unit is responsible for the actions of those under his command. We owe it to ourselves and each other to take responsibilty, and to take a stand against, the actions of the few.

Ever hear of "eyewitness accounts?" They are the most widely accepted source of valid evidence.


So why do you discount what John Kerry said?

So why do you discount what John Kerry said?
Because there were multiple eyewitnesses whose stories did not support those of John Kerry.

A Letter of Apology from Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired

*Blah blah, apologist, murderous, uncaring sanctimonious blather*

Chuck Pitman, Lt. Gen., US Marine Corps (Ret.)

Semper Fi


To paraphrase the General:


"The actions of a few Muslims who were not even from your country have made it impossible for me to care if we wipe out every last one of you based only upon your subscribing to the same religion. Of course, we American's are perfect hence any actions by a few of us are not to be taken in the same manner of transferring blame on all of us.

Really, it is just that you are all scum who deserve to die."

Semper-Fuck-you-too,
A Pinhead.

Since stupid 13 year olds, or people with equivalent brain function, like bashing vets of all the unpopular wars - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan -

I salute you guys. You folks did/are doing hard, disgusting, and literally thankless jobs and the fact that you are slandered by the statistic-spewing socialist peons I have to call my neighbors makes me respect you all the more.

That people who weren't involved are more likely to have an objective opinion than people who were?
Seriously, are you fucking stupid? You're actually implying that you understand Vietnam better than an actual veteran? Go fuck yourself, you presumptuous prick, you fucking dolt, you retarded butt-fucking piece of shit.

Honestly, that was just sarcasm. It's not your fault you're uneducated. But try to show some respect.

Ever hear of "eyewitness accounts?" They are the most widely accepted source of valid evidence.

So which should we believe? The eyewitness accounts of one person, who presumably was not present at every event in the war, or the recorded eyewitness accounts of many people, as written down in history, including people who actually ordered these things? (Note that I have no idea what your role in that war was, so if you were the President or something, you can ignore everything after 'including')

Because there were multiple eyewitnesses whose stories did not support those of John Kerry.


Who the swift boat vets who were not even on the same boat as Kerry and who were found to be complete liars? uh huh

Sorry, first off this is MY nation not yours. You don't deserve a to lay claim nation when you belong to a party that is trying to run it into the ground. Yes lets create more terrorists with our actions. Lets sour world opinion about us with every step we take. Lets ruin the economy. Lets take away benefits from our homeless, our disabled, our ailing vets... hell, anyone that needs assistance are just a bunch of lazy wankers.
Not my nation? Excuse me??? And to what party do you refer? I don't belong to any political party. And you obviously know nothing about what I do or do not advocate. Your facts are missing, your reasoning is weak, and your conclusions are inaccurate.



Also, you DO need someone to make an apology for your support of mindlessly irrational hatred and violence because you certainly aren't going to make it yoruself. Yours is a party of people who think they cannot make a mistake so will never admit to one even when it's glaring you directly in your scowling faces.

Again, what friggin' "party" are you talking about?



Lastly, the "Keep your irrational, mindless hatred to yourself" comment of yours was merly a lame attempt to say to me exactly what I was sayign to your kind. I don't hate anyone. I just don't like the mindset that the way to solve a problem with someone is not to look at its causes and tackle it there but to kill off anyone who might believe differently than you. Yes i'm a terrorist because I don't support the Bush administration.
You are in serious need of a reality check. No one is "killing off anyone who might believe differently." You leave me wondering just what sort of innane propaganda you have been reading.

Seriously, are you fucking stupid? You're actually implying that you understand Vietnam better than an actual veteran? Go fuck yourself, you presumptuous prick, you fucking dolt, you retarded butt-fucking piece of shit.

Honestly, that was just sarcasm. It's not your fault you're uneducated. But try to show some respect.


don't plan on hanging around long do ya?

Who the swift boat vets who were not even on the same boat as Kerry and who were found to be complete liars? uh huh

There were 32 out of 33 veterans who served with Kerry whose story did not match.

We're talking about boats a few meters apart on a small river.

We're talking about people in the same small battle.

32 people say one thing. Kerry and 1 person say another.

Kerry paid the 1 person to be on his campaign staff after the Swift boat stories came out.

The Swifties didn't get paid to say anything.

If 32 people are saying one thing, and 2 are saying another, who is lying?

Seriously, are you fucking stupid? You're actually implying that you understand Vietnam better than an actual veteran? Go fuck yourself, you presumptuous prick, you fucking dolt, you retarded butt-fucking piece of shit.

Honestly, that was just sarcasm. It's not your fault you're uneducated.

Uh, yeah, actually. Because I studied it. I wasn't involved in it. Or are you now going to claim that every single soldier in, say, Iraq, has better knowledge of the overall situation there than the people who have the wonders of the global news networks telling them what's going on all over the country?

Add to that the fact that we've had several decades to compile all the information on Vietnam, and that my country didn't lose a war there, so doesn't have any vestiges of injured pride over it, and you'll discover that actually, yes, I can claim that without being all those lovely things you - sarcastically - said.

Not my nation? Excuse me??? (sorry there is no excuse for your behavior) And to what party do you refer? I don't belong to any political party. And you obviously know nothing about what I do or do not advocate. Your facts are missing, your reasoning is weak, and your conclusions are inaccurate.

Again, what friggin' "party" are you talking about?

You are in serious need of a reality check. No one is "killing off anyone who might believe differently." You leave me wondering just what sort of innane propaganda you have been reading.

In case you haven't been paying attention to your own posts on Nationstates General...

I'm talking about your unwavering support of the Republican party and dismissal of anything ever said against the present administration. Please try to keep up.

Uh, yeah, actually. Because I studied it. I wasn't involved in it. Or are you now going to claim that every single soldier in, say, Iraq, has better knowledge of the overall situation there than the people who have the wonders of the global news networks telling them what's going on all over the country?Yes. Because what they see is real, vs the propaganda - from all sides - that is a "media report".
Add to that the fact that we've had several decades to compile all the information on Vietnam, and that my country didn't lose a war there, so doesn't have any vestiges of injured pride over it, and you'll discover that actually, yes, I can claim that without being all those lovely things you - sarcastically - said.You can claim to have read reports by people who weren't there, and who have an agenda to push (and have had an agenda to push ever since we took over from the French...). History written by observers is propaganda. All history is propaganda - because History is written by the "winners". As for 'Nam, the winners were the Anti-US Media & intelligentsia, and they wrote the history tou "studied".

Yes. Because what they see is real, vs the propaganda - from all sides - that is a "media report".

Which is what the time factor is for. Despite what you may believe, historians are not some sort of conspiracy to make the US look bad. They are actually trying to give an accurate representation of what happened.

You can claim to have read reports by people who weren't there,

I thought I was claiming to have read reports by people who were there, and were in positions to know more about the overall state of affairs than Eutrusca. Perhaps I was unclear?

and who have an agenda to push (and have had an agenda to push ever since we took over from the French...). History written by observers is propaganda. All history is propaganda - because History is written by the "winners". As for 'Nam, the winners were the Anti-US Media & intelligentsia, and they wrote the history tou "studied".

If all history is propaganda, I guess you're going to say the Nazis weren't as bad as we made them out to be? Or, actually, that the US was worse in Vietnam than we were told - after all, it was a war against Communism, and Communism is something we're all meant to hate and fear.

Considering that last point, I'd like to thank you for supporting my viewpoint.

We are letting a problem grow worse, by ignoring it, justifying it, excusing it, its simply not right. This is OUR problem, both as a honorable military service and as a nation as a whole. We must not let this continue. We don't need to aplogise for others, but we do need to attend to the actions of our fellows.

Frankly I would think the service in general would be horrified and angry by the actions of those soldiers, they've deserted their principles and abandoned their comrades in arms to the media circus and the wrath of those we were trying to help. Because of those fools in Abu Graib, the entire corps has been smeared with mud. The actions of the few reflect on the unit, the commander in charge of the unit is responsible for the actions of those under his command. We owe it to ourselves and each other to take responsibilty, and to take a stand against, the actions of the few.
I agree. And I know many, many veterans and soldiers who are as upset about things like Abu Graib as you are. Try to place my comments in context. I was responding to the knee-jerk rantings of someone who would most likely oppose virtually anything the US did or said, and who obviously looks for things with which to beat us over the head. There are a number of his ilk who have all crawled out of the woodwork to lambaste the US just because we make an easy target and because they feel free to do so, largely courtesy of the dead American soldiers who saved their sorry asses repeatedly over the years.

This is the last post I will make in this thread, largely because I tend to get entirely too upset about all of this. My apologies. :(

Uh, yeah, actually. Because I studied it. I wasn't involved in it. Or are you now going to claim that every single soldier in, say, Iraq, has better knowledge of the overall situation there than the people who have the wonders of the global news networks telling them what's going on all over the country?
Yeah, they know what the fuck is really going on, as opposed to what information is reported and what's heard on the news and what's said by politicians and government higher-ups that are trying to show it in a certain light. You don't understand half of what the vets understand, period. You don't know shit compared to what they know - nor do I.

Add to that the fact that we've had several decades to compile all the information on Vietnam, and that my country didn't lose a war there, so doesn't have any vestiges of injured pride over it, and you'll discover that actually, yes, I can claim that without being all those lovely things you - sarcastically - said.
It has nothing to do with injured pride, you assumptive fuck. I did not like how the Vietnam War was fought, or how it turned out, or how the Presidents we had during that era handled it. But I'm sure not stupid enough to start fucking bashing soldiers and acting like my second-hand knowledge on the subject can even remotely compare to what they actually experienced there.

Yeah, they know what the fuck is really going on, as opposed to what information is reported and what's heard on the news and what's said by politicians and government higher-ups that are trying to show it in a certain light. You don't understand half of what the vets understand, period. You don't know shit compared to what they know - nor do I.


It has nothing to do with injured pride, you assumptive fuck. I did not like how the Vietnam War was fought, or how it turned out, or how the Presidents we had during that era handled it. But I'm sure not stupid enough to start fucking bashing soldiers and acting like my second-hand knowledge on the subject can even remotely compare to what they actually experienced there.errr Rogue Newbie... I highly suggest you tone down and eliminate the personal attacks. they will most certainly bring down the Wrath of the Mods on ya.

Just a humble suggestion.

errr Rogue Newbie... I highly suggest you tone down and eliminate the personal attacks. they will most certainly bring down the Wrath of the Mods on ya.

Just a humble suggestion.

Sorry, I get really worked up when people talk out their ass when they truly don't know shit. I'll tone it down, although I'm probably already screwed - the mods and I don't get along too well. Just in case, see y'all in five days.

Yeah, they know what the fuck is really going on, as opposed to what information is reported and what's heard on the news and what's said by politicians and government higher-ups that are trying to show it in a certain light. You don't understand half of what the vets understand, period. You don't know shit compared to what they know - nor do I.

No. They know what is going on in the location they are at. Unless the US has started training soldiers in telepathy, they are not aware of what is occuring outside of their limited perception, except through reports from other soldiers - which aren't likely to be sent to the common troops - and, wait for it, media reports.

It has nothing to do with injured pride, you assumptive fuck. I did not like how the Vietnam War was fought, or how it turned out, or how the Presidents we had during that era handled it. But I'm sure not stupid enough to start fucking bashing soldiers and acting like my second-hand knowledge on the subject can even remotely compare to what they actually experienced there.

I wasn't specifically targetting anyone with the injured pride comment, merely pointing out that the USA doesn't get beaten very often, and that it's not likely to just shrug off this defeat. That's why it fought a losing war - sorry, 'police action' - for so long.

Oh, and I wasn't 'bashing' anyone - merely pointing out that one person's word does not the absolute truth make. Hence, before you respond with something about how I think mine does, the presence of so many qualifiers in my words.

Since stupid 13 year olds, or people with equivalent brain function, like bashing vets of all the unpopular wars - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan -

I salute you guys. You folks did/are doing hard, disgusting, and literally thankless jobs and the fact that you are slandered by the statistic-spewing socialist peons I have to call my neighbors makes me respect you all the more.


I second that. Our military did the hard, disgusting and literally thankless jobs that will continue to allow their detractors to continue to shriek and warble on things they learn from both a biased media and our enemies and believe it soley because they hate the system, they hate our current President and obviously, cannot even stand themselves.

I agree. And I know many, many veterans and soldiers who are as upset about things like Abu Graib as you are. Try to place my comments in context. I was responding to the knee-jerk rantings of someone who would most likely oppose virtually anything the US did or said, and who obviously looks for things with which to beat us over the head. There are a number of his ilk who have all crawled out of the woodwork to lambaste the US just because we make an easy target and because they feel free to do so, largely courtesy of the dead American soldiers who saved their sorry asses repeatedly over the years.

This is the last post I will make in this thread, largely because I tend to get entirely too upset about all of this. My apologies. :(

On the COntrary - I love the U.S with all my heart (Something you can't get thru your head it seems is that when someone dislikes the administration they aren't necessarity *more likely very rarely* US-bashers/haters - think about it ;) ). I just dislike and distrust the Bush administration and they horrific ways in which they handle pretty much everything.

Which is what the time factor is for. Despite what you may believe, historians are not some sort of conspiracy to make the US look bad. They are actually trying to give an accurate representation of what happened. Are they? It depends on who wrote the book, but even the most scrupulous Historian lets their personal bias show.
I thought I was claiming to have read reports by people who were there, and were in positions to know more about the overall state of affairs than Eutrusca. Perhaps I was unclear?Who might they be? The people who are in a position to see "the big picture" usually don't get to see what their decisions are doing to either the Grunts OR the Opposition. They don't get to see the bodies untill they are all neatly bagged. It is their job to write reports that make them look good and somebody else look bad. Telling it like you saw it makes for good AARs but lousy Media/History.
If all history is propaganda, I guess you're going to say the Nazis weren't as bad as we made them out to be? I declare a Godwin. No, I don't particularly trust the media reports of the Shoah, I do, however, trust the reports of the people that were in the Camps and the documentation created by the Nazi's themselves - which verify the claims of the Jewish survivors. Subsequent reports and "fact finding" are, by definition, all going to be slanted to the prejudices of the writer.Or, actually, that the US was worse in Vietnam than we were told - after all, it was a war against Communism, and Communism is something we're all meant to hate and fear.That doesn't follow.
Considering that last point, I'd like to thank you for supporting my viewpoint.Not.

I agree. And I know many, many veterans and soldiers who are as upset about things like Abu Graib as you are. Try to place my comments in context. I was responding to the knee-jerk rantings of someone who would most likely oppose virtually anything the US did or said, and who obviously looks for things with which to beat us over the head. There are a number of his ilk who have all crawled out of the woodwork to lambaste the US just because we make an easy target and because they feel free to do so, largely courtesy of the dead American soldiers who saved their sorry asses repeatedly over the years.

This is the last post I will make in this thread, largely because I tend to get entirely too upset about all of this. My apologies. :(


You dont owe any one an appology. There are many of us- a majority of us-that are thankful for you and your brothers sacrafice, efforts and intentions. Its your kind that make it possible for everyone else to continue the style of life they are comfortable with.

Thank you and we are sorry you feel badly about this...

I also thank and support the troops for serving our country. This is very different from agreeing with a war. Sorry for those of you who really can't understand this.

No. They know what is going on in the location they are at. Unless the US has started training soldiers in telepathy, they are not aware of what is occuring outside of their limited perception, except through reports from other soldiers - which aren't likely to be sent to the common troops - and, wait for it, media reports.
That's funny, moron, my uncle heard shit from his buddies from all over the northern edge of South Vietnam all the fuckin' time, and that's where the real shit was going on. Soldiers are a fuck of a lot more likely to hear shit from people they know or trained with or were stationed away from than from the media.

I wasn't specifically targetting anyone with the injured pride comment, merely pointing out that the USA doesn't get beaten very often, and that it's not likely to just shrug off this defeat. That's why it fought a losing war - sorry, 'police action' - for so long.
Ummm, I thought you said you "studied Vietnam." The problem was the stupid fucking government officials and stupid-ass Presidents listening to bullshit battle guidelines and rules instead of covering North Vietnam and southeastern Cambodia in napalm, especially Hanoi and the Ho Chi Minh trail. Way to demonstrate your complete ignorance.

Oh, and I wasn't 'bashing' anyone - merely pointing out that one person's word does not the absolute truth make. Hence, before you respond with something about how I think mine does, the presence of so many qualifiers in my words.
You just don't fucking get it do you? You will never ever understand Vietnam like the soldiers do. Never. You can look up all the fucking death tolls you want, you can commit the timelines to memory, you can research the fucking Presidents to the point where you know when they first got the flu, and you still won't understand. Ever.

Pathetic.

Conclusion: Even retired Generals can be total dimwits.

Pathetic.

Conclusion: Even retired Generals can be total dimwits.

Nine words, one mistake. "Generals" is not capitalized. That's pretty bad, you dimwit. In fact, that's downright pathetic. That general is a fucking genius, as far as I'm concerned.

That's funny, moron, my uncle heard shit from his buddies from all over the northern edge of South Vietnam all the fuckin' time, and that's where the real shit was going on. Soldiers are a fuck of a lot more likely to hear shit from people they know or trained with or were stationed away from than from the media.

That's nice for him. Isn't there some sort of unwritten rule that gets invoked on these forums from time to time about 'appeal to an unverified authority'?

Ummm, I thought you said you "studied Vietnam." The problem was the stupid fucking government officials and stupid-ass Presidents listening to bullshit battle guidelines and rules instead of covering North Vietnam and southeastern Cambodia in napalm, especially Hanoi and the Ho Chi Minh trail. Way to demonstrate your complete ignorance.

Yes, I did. It was several years ago, so I apologise for not remembering every tiny details. The fact is, even when they knew they were losing, the US Government did not pull out, and did not invoke the genocidal measures you propose.

You just don't fucking get it do you? You will never ever understand Vietnam like the soldiers do. Never. You can look up all the fucking death tolls you want, you can commit the timelines to memory, you can research the fucking Presidents to the point where you know when they first got the flu, and you still won't understand. Ever.

Yes, you're right. I won't understand what it was like to be there. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that having been there does not give a greater understanding of the overall situation.

I also thank and support the troops for serving our country. This is very different from agreeing with a war. Sorry for those of you who really can't understand this.

Xerox this.

Pathetic.

Conclusion: Even retired Generals can be total dimwits.


Many people may have the same opinion of you and your thoughts on this.

Nine words, one mistake. "Generals" is not capitalized. That's pretty bad, you dimwit. In fact, that's downright pathetic. That general is a fucking genius, as far as I'm concerned.

Nice attempt at flaming, Herr Troll.

As far as I'm concenred, that general deals out about as much "intelligence" and "genius" as a drunk nazi brownshirt dribbling some anti-semtic rant about the bolshevik-world-conspiracy.

That's nice for him. Isn't there some sort of unwritten rule that gets invoked on these forums from time to time about 'appeal to an unverified authority'?
Unverified authority? My uncle? Wow, would he find you and kick your ass if he heard you say that.

Yes, I did. It was several years ago, so I apologise for not remembering every tiny details. The fact is, even when they knew they were losing, the US Government did not pull out, and did not invoke the genocidal measures you propose.
Exactly... isn't that what I just said?

Yes, you're right. I won't understand what it was like to be there. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that having been there does not give a greater understanding of the overall situation.
You're still not hearing me. What the soldiers saw - that was this overall situation. That is the "big picture," so to speak. The death tolls and battle overviews are not the overall situations; the real battles - the true specifics - are the big pictures. The first-person accounts, those are the overall situations - not the little typewriter statiscian fucks in the office that write up casualty reports and battle summaries.

Nice attempt at flaming, Herr Troll.
She flamed the general, and he's much less deserving.

As far as I'm concenred, that general deals out about as much "intelligence" and "genius" as a drunk nazi brownshirt dribbling some anti-semtic rant about the bolshevik-world-conspiracy.

As far as I'm "concenred," you deal out about as much "intelligence" and "genius" as a toothless wifebeating KKK member with half of his brain removed to save him from a tumor that God gave him for being such a dipshit.

As far as I'm "concenred," you deal out about as much "intelligence" and "genius" as a toothless wifebeating KKK member with half of his brain removed to save him from a tumor that God gave him for being such a dipshit.

Too bad, so I'm just like you.

Seriously, if you think what that general said is "great" and "okay", you're beyond help. Sorry.

I also thank and support the troops for serving our country. This is very different from agreeing with a war. Sorry for those of you who really can't understand this.

I couldn't have said it better, myself... perhaps because I'm too much of an asshole. :)

Unverified authority? My uncle? Wow, would he find you and kick your ass if he heard you say that.

Unless you can produce him on the forums, we don't know that you aren't making him up, and therefore he is unverified and unverifiable.

Exactly... isn't that what I just said?

I assumed not, seeing as it was what I said before and you were arguing with.

You're still not hearing me. What the soldiers saw - that was this overall situation. That is the "big picture," so to speak. The death tolls and battle overviews are not the overall situations; the real battles - the true specifics - are the big pictures. The first-person accounts, those are the overall situations - not the little typewriter statiscian fucks in the office that write up casualty reports and battle summaries.

Good grief. No. No one soldier saw everything that happened. No one soldier knew everything that happened. The 'big picture' is the entire war. No one soldier was present at every engagement, and unless every engagement was handled in the exact same way, that means that no one soldier saw the big picture. They saw the subjective view, what was happening in their area. We have the compiled views of all of them. To put it simply, the report of two veterans is better than the report of one, and the report of all veterans is better than the report of two. Hence, someone who has studied the situation and seen data compiled from the report of all veterans - or all who were willing to give reports - knows more about the situation than a single veteran who has only their own data to go on.

Too bad, so I'm just like you.

Oh, man! Oh, the sting! I'm goin' down! I've never heard such a creative, original reply in all of my days of insulting people. You'd have done better with a movie quote from Anchorman.

Seriously, if you think what that general said is "great" and "okay", you're beyond help. Sorry.

None of it's okay, it's all great.

Unless you can produce him on the forums, we don't know that you aren't making him up, and therefore he is unverified and unverifiable.
Gee, under this ridiculous, stupid fucking argument, I can just deny the existence of any cited person unless they are delivered to my doorstep.

I assumed not, seeing as it was what I said before and you were arguing with.
Ummm, you never said anything remotely like that. You made it sound like our failure in Vietnam was some morale issue. It wasn't. It was a leadership issue.

Good grief. No. No one soldier saw everything that happened. No one soldier knew everything that happened. The 'big picture' is the entire war. No one soldier was present at every engagement, and unless every engagement was handled in the exact same way, that means that no one soldier saw the big picture. They saw the subjective view, what was happening in their area. We have the compiled views of all of them. To put it simply, the report of two veterans is better than the report of one, and the report of all veterans is better than the report of two. Hence, someone who has studied the situation and seen data compiled from the report of all veterans - or all who were willing to give reports - knows more about the situation than a single veteran who has only their own data to go on.
I really don't know how to put this to you any other way. It just seems to go in one eye and out the other. A person that understands a situation through post battle interviews and second hand information and reports can never know what the veterans know, even if the veterans' views are subjective and focused. No amount of statistics and interviews and explanations can amount to what a soldier will know from just one experience in the heat of things. Period. This isn't difficult to understand, for most people.

Gee, under this ridiculous, stupid fucking argument, I can just deny the existence of any cited person unless they are delivered to my doorstep.

Which is why people cite their sources, ie websites.

Ummm, you never said anything remotely like that. You made it sound like our failure in Vietnam was some morale issue. It wasn't. It was a leadership issue.

And why didn't the leadership back out once they knew they were winning? It had nothing to do with the mindset that 'The United States cannot be defeated'?

I really don't know how to put this to you any other way. It just seems to go in one eye and out the other. A person that understands a situation through post battle interviews and second hand information and reports can never know what the veterans know, even if the veterans' views are subjective and focused. No amount of statistics and interviews and explanations can amount to what a soldier will know from just one experience in the heat of things. Period. This isn't difficult to understand, for most people.

And I've agreed with you. They will know more about the situation on the ground. If a veteran wandered through saying how horrible it was to be shot at, I wouldn't argue with it. If they wandered through declaring that the US never did anything wrong or immoral in the war, I most certainly would, because they were not there for every situation. See the point I'm trying to make?

you guys need to take a deep breath. This has turned into a festival or moronic statements.

<snip> If they wandered through declaring that the US never did anything wrong or immoral in the war, I most certainly would, because they were not there for every situation. See the point I'm trying to make?Which, BTW, neither the cited general, nor Eutrusca, nor WL, nor I (also a Vet, though not combat), have said.

Which is why people cite their sources, ie websites.
Gee, want me to find his fucking address for you?

And why didn't the leadership back out once they knew they were winning? It had nothing to do with the mindset that 'The United States cannot be defeated'?
No, it had to do with the mindset, "Commienism must not spread farther than it already has."

And I've agreed with you. They will know more about the situation on the ground. If a veteran wandered through saying how horrible it was to be shot at, I wouldn't argue with it. If they wandered through declaring that the US never did anything wrong or immoral in the war, I most certainly would, because they were not there for every situation. See the point I'm trying to make?
Yes, I see what you're saying, but nobody here ever said we did nothing wrong... but we do bad things when provoked, not when Allah promises us virgins.

Which, BTW, neither the cited general, nor Eutrusca, nor WL, nor I (also a Vet, though not combat), have said.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was using an extreme example, as all the debating with Rogue Newbie has managed to blank my memories of what I originally said.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was using an extreme example, as all the debating with Rogue Newbie has managed to blank my memories of what I originally said.
LOL! You slip a lot, eh?

Which is why people cite their sources, ie websites.So you actually believe that soldiers are kept in some sort of isolation tank? Unable to communicate to buddies and friends in other parts of Iraq? Do you believe that they are not briefed on situations going on outside of their immediate vicinity? Did you provide "ample" sources of soldiers "not knowing what's outside their immediate vicinity?"

And why didn't the leadership back out once they knew they were winning? It had nothing to do with the mindset that 'The United States cannot be defeated'?there is a difference between winning and doing the right thing. sure, after we captured Saddam, we could've pulled out, and the next leader would be totally anti-US because we left their contry in shambles, no infrastructure, no order, no clear leadership. Yeah, you would pull out and leave a powder keg of a mess behind.

Gee, want me to find his fucking address for you?

No, actually, I'm inclined to believe you, I was just nitpicking.

No, it had to do with the mindset, "Commienism must not spread farther than it already has."

And you believe they only had a single motive?

Yes, I see what you're saying, but nobody here ever said we did nothing wrong... but we do bad things when provoked, not when Allah promises us virgins.

Again, I didn't mean to imply that anyone had. I was presenting two opposing extremes. I'll refer it back to my original statement.

That people who weren't involved are more likely to have an objective opinion than people who were?

Wow, look at that, I wasn't even claiming knowledge of my own at that point.

And double wow, you actually already agreed with me.

...even if the veterans' views are subjective and focused...

So I guess we're debating over nothing.

So you actually believe that soldiers are kept in some sort of isolation tank? Unable to communicate to buddies and friends in other parts of Iraq? Do you believe that they are not briefed on situations going on outside of their immediate vicinity? Did you provide "ample" sources of soldiers "not knowing what's outside their immediate vicinity?"

Um? That has nothing to do with what I was saying, which was that Rogue Newbie shouldn't say 'My uncle says so' without offering proof that says said uncle exists. And no, I didn't, but here you go:

Tell me what's going on on the other side of your town.

You can't?

Now tell me what's going on on the other side of a country torn by war.

there is a difference between winning and doing the right thing. sure, after we captured Saddam, we could've pulled out, and the next leader would be totally anti-US because we left their contry in shambles, no infrastructure, no order, no clear leadership. Yeah, you would pull out and leave a powder keg of a mess behind.

Actually, the pulling-out was about Vietnam. Completely different type of war.

EDIT: And just in case, I'll add that no, I do not support pulling out of Iraq. We shouldn't have gone in in the first place, but pulling out of a half-finished job is even worse. Now there is a responsibility issue.

Um? That has nothing to do with what I was saying, which was that Rogue Newbie shouldn't say 'My uncle says so' without offering proof that says said uncle exists. And no, I didn't, but here you go:true, it should be taken with a grain of salt, but it shouldn't be totally discounted.

Tell me what's going on on the other side of your town.nothing really major, surfs building up on our Northern Shore, according to my relative whom I just talked to who lives on that side. Our State Fair is going well. Traffic is medium heavy (according to my friend who drives a delivery truck.)

Now tell me what's going on on the other side of a country torn by war.your point? You claim that Soldiers there only know what is going on in their vicinity. Soldiers have these little devices you may have heard of... they're called RADIOS. they also have reports and they also meet with friends who are stationed in other parts of the city. You would rather take the word of news sources whom are not privy to all the information and the full situation, over the words of people actually there.

And while I agree that in most cases, an uninvolved third party is objective, it is also relying on information that is, at best, second hand.

All I am saying, there is alot of sources out there that cannot afford to get published, nor are they tech savvy enough or wanting to bother to set up a website. Then there are those websites that are biased. one should take all information with a grain of salt, so RN's Uncle is a source of information, it should be taken into account, for he only used his Uncle to describe how information is spread within the Armed Services, in response, I might add, to your claim that soldiers don't know what's going on given the resources they have (Which is more than civilians excluding Emergency Personnel.)

Actually, the pulling-out was about Vietnam. Completely different type of war.ahh, mis-understood that one. sorry.

And double wow, you actually already agreed with me.



So I guess we're debating over nothing.

Wow! You really managed to hack that quote up nicely.

Here's something you said:

I... actually already agreed...
So, I guess you agreed with me. I can hack quotes to pieces, too, you know.

And no, stopping commienism wasn't the only focus, but it was the biggest one.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was using an extreme example, as all the debating with Rogue Newbie has managed to blank my memories of what I originally said.
I understand - but here's the problem:

Sherman, set the wayback machine to http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9037623&postcount=33

Eutrusca rightly chastised Nadkor for equating the regrettable, but few, US incidents in Viet Nam with the suggestion that we level Falluja.

You implied that non-combatants with "objective opinions" were more qualified to assess the "evils of Viet Nam" (IMO, and likely Eurtrusca's as well)

We argued that eye witnesses were more reliable in determining the reality of the incidents on the ground than were the REMFs who wrote about the "big picture".

This lead to your & Newbie's pissing match.

The reasoning for leaving or not leaving Nam really had nothing to do with the original assertion that the isolated incidents in Nam can be extrapolated into a pattern of behavior - as the media is/has been wont to do ever since that time.

US troops that violate the ROEs get punishied. You don't punish institutional behavior. Nothing gets the Back up of a Vet than to be told that He (she) is somehow a monster because of the criminal actions of others - actions that are roundly denounced and punished (unlike the atrocities of the other maelafactors mentioned...)

We tend to be really sensitive about that.

Tell me what's going on on the other side of your town.

You can't?

Now tell me what's going on on the other side of a country torn by war.
Bad analogy... pretty much all that you have to do all day when stationed and not fighting is discuss defense plans, clean your gun, and talk about what you heard from your buddies about how things are going. When you're at home you can sit on your ass and play on your computer and waste away.

Ever hear of "eyewitness accounts?" They are the most widely accepted source of valid evidence.

i disagree. i took a criminal justice class and it taught that eyewitness accounts are the least credible.

*edit*

of course, let me stipulate that it was in investigating crime, not war. ;)

i disagree. i took a criminal justice class and it taught that eyewitness accounts are the least credible.

you disagree do you. you took a criminal justice course huh. well that must make what you learned right for sure.

Even if you did take a criminal justice class, which I doubt seriously, I doubt seriously you did very well in it. Eyewitness accounts are gold in court. Period. Why? Because they're more credible than accounts by guys that interviewed the eyewitnesses.

you disagree do you. you took a criminal justice course huh. well that must make what you learned right for sure.

Even if you did take a criminal justice class, which I doubt seriously, I doubt seriously you did very well in it. Eyewitness accounts are gold in court. Period. Why? Because they're more credible than accounts by guys that interviewed the eyewitnesses.

fuck you rogue. you don't know me. you want me to fax you a fucking transcript? i did very well in that class thank you.

Cops would rather have video evidence than an eye witness account. you think the Michael Jackson case would have been so long in deliberation if they had video instead of only eyewitness accounts?

again, i say fuck you.

fuck you rogue. you don't know me. you want me to fax you a fucking transcript? i did very well in that class thank you.
Sorry, I don't have a fax machine.

Cops would rather have video evidence than an eye witness account. you think the Michael Jackson case would have been so long in deliberation if they had video instead of only eyewitness accounts?
Videos are better than eyewitness accounts, yes, but that's about the only thing. And even a video can't capture what a soldier will learn in combat.

again, i say fuck you.
"Hell, I like you. You can come over and fuck my sister." :D

*adds Mirchaz to short list of people he respects*

fuck you rogue. you don't know me. you want me to fax you a fucking transcript? i did very well in that class thank you.

Cops would rather have video evidence than an eye witness account. you think the Michael Jackson case would have been so long in deliberation if they had video instead of only eyewitness accounts?

again, i say fuck you.Video is preferable to Eyewitness accounts, but Eyewitness accounts are stil viable.

Yes, let's compare the people killed at My Lai to the tens of thousands who were executed by the VC when they took control of Hue.
Let's not forget that it was an American officer, Hugh Thompson, that put an end to the My Lai massacre when he set his helicopter between Calley's forces and the refugees, ordering his door gunner to fire on the American forces if they advanced.

Let's not forget that it was an American officer, Hugh Thompson, that put an end to the My Lai massacre when he set his helicopter between Calley's forces and the refugees, ordering his door gunner to fire on the American forces if they advanced.


Now theres a real hero.

Let's not forget that it was an American officer, Hugh Thompson, that put an end to the My Lai massacre when he set his helicopter between Calley's forces and the refugees, ordering his door gunner to fire on the American forces if they advanced.So shines a good deed in a weary world.

This is the typical right-wing rhetoric. Does it not at all bother you that human rights monitors are blowing the whistle on our detention facilities? Does it not bother you that our civil rights are under assault by the President and his cronies?

You know what? The militants are doing horrible things, that is true, and they should be caught and brought to justice. But it does not in any way, shape, or fashion excuse the sins of our country. And we are NOT being honest about these sins...either to the American people or the rest of the world. This is not the "liberal guilt train". This is a demand that if our country proposes to stand up and pontificate about our supposed freedom and liberty that we live up to our own words, even when it is not politically expedient. You will receive no such widsom with Herr Bush and the Republicans in charge of all branches of the government.
As a democrat, largely because of the behavior of my state's republican party, let me just say, I'm one of the "Nuke'em all and create high paying jobs shoveling radioactive ash" liberals. And we're not the ones wearing hemp caps protesting the evils and dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

His comments aren't particularly right wing, nationalistic sure, but not right wing. His comments for me are clear illustration of exactly why no Americans should be in Iraq. Iraqi freedom isn't worth American lives. They, and all Arabs on the Arabian (perhaps Qatar excepted), peninsula prefer to live and die in the squalor provided by brutal Stalinist regimes. Good for them. That's exactly what they should have then.

I think our coutry can, and should be better. We should be as generous as possible to our friends, compassionate to those who need our aid. But to our enemies, and those who shelter them, their wages should be swift merciless death from far over the horizon. They should never see their doom. We should treat them exactly as if we were fighing WWIII for the survival of our not our nation, but our people and our culture. If we treated them like that, and not as children, like we do now, we wouldn't be in this mess. Islam would be reformed or dead.

Video is preferable to Eyewitness accounts, but Eyewitness accounts are stil viable.


sure they're viable, but they're not the best method of investigation. That's the point i was trying to get across.

Sorry, I don't have a fax machine.
not even at work? :P


Videos are better than eyewitness accounts, yes, but that's about the only thing. And even a video can't capture what a soldier will learn in combat.
true about the soldier learning in combat, however. There are other methods of investgation that police would still prefer. (but if we're talking about war investigation, different animal methinks and therefore eye witness accounts are more reliabe, since they come from trained soldiers)


"Hell, I like you. You can come over and fuck my sister."

*adds Mirchaz to short list of people he respects*
is she cute? :D

Why oh why do you rant about everything that the US does, yet totally ignore what Saddam, and now the insurgecy, did?

Because? Simple. America ignored what Saddam did while he was on "our side" during the late 70s and 80s. In fact while he was nerve gassing Iranians he was one of America's pet dictators. Nothing he did was too atrocious as long as he did it to "contain Fundamentalist Islam" in the Middle East. The American government certainly didn't bring up his brutal purges and treatment of Iraqi citizens while he did the dirty work for us.

In fact, if he had been paranoid enough to not trust April Glaspie's innuendo that America would stay out of the whole Kuwait invasion deal, he'd still be one of our "Most Trusted Allies in the War on Terror" up there with Pervez Musharraf.

Saddam needed to go, but the point I'm bringing up here is that America has a habit of creating or nurturing monsters like Saddam Hussein and yet not have this need to owe up to the world for creating dictators like him.

Correct the mistake, sure, but will it kill America to admit it makes major mistakes? In fact, it's Bush's Never Admit Any Wrong attitude that's turning world opinion on the United States. If America said "We fucked up, we supported Saddam in the past but now we're coming around and we got rid of the bastard for you," I bet world opinion would improve some.

Correct the mistake, sure, but will it kill America to admit it makes major mistakes? In fact, it's Bush's Never Admit Any Wrong attitude that's turning world opinion on the United States. If America said "We fucked up, we supported Saddam in the past but now we're coming around and we got rid of the bastard for you," I bet world opinion would improve some.
Fact is we do admit mistakes all the time. As the General said, "We air our dirty laundry in public." That is exactly what makes us better than the rest of the world. We don't need to win no stinkin' popularity contest, we just need to do the right thing.

What a bunch of drivel. People agree with this sort of garbage and then claim some sort of higher ground. The people who support that kind of thought from that first post on this thread are no better than the people they are trying to condemn. Sickening really

WTF do YOU know about Vietnam, you wet-behind-the-ears neophyte? :rolleyes:Refrain from the personal attacks; you are bordering on an official warning for flaming.

Pathetic.

Conclusion: Even retired Generals can be total dimwits.Nice attempt at flaming, Herr Troll.

As far as I'm concenred, that general deals out about as much "intelligence" and "genius" as a drunk nazi brownshirt dribbling some anti-semtic rant about the bolshevik-world-conspiracy.Ulrichland - Official Warning: Trolling.


fuck you rogue. you don't know me. you want me to fax you a fucking transcript? i did very well in that class thank you.

Cops would rather have video evidence than an eye witness account. you think the Michael Jackson case would have been so long in deliberation if they had video instead of only eyewitness accounts?

again, i say fuck you.Mirchaz: Official Warning - Flaming.

Seriously, are you fucking stupid? You're actually implying that you understand Vietnam better than an actual veteran? Go fuck yourself, you presumptuous prick, you fucking dolt, you retarded butt-fucking piece of shit.

Honestly, that was just sarcasm. It's not your fault you're uneducated. But try to show some respect.No, I don't believe that that was sarcasm.

Rogue Newbie: Official Warning - Flaming.

It has nothing to do with injured pride, you assumptive fuck.Rogue Newbie: Official Warning - Flaming.

That's funny, moron, my uncle heard shit from his buddies from all over the northern edge of South Vietnam all the fuckin' time, and that's where the real shit was going on. Soldiers are a fuck of a lot more likely to hear shit from people they know or trained with or were stationed away from than from the media.Borderline flaming.

Ummm, I thought you said you "studied Vietnam." The problem was the stupid fucking government officials and stupid-ass Presidents listening to bullshit battle guidelines and rules instead of covering North Vietnam and southeastern Cambodia in napalm, especially Hanoi and the Ho Chi Minh trail. Way to demonstrate your complete ignorance.Rogue Newbie: Official Warning - Flamebaiting.

Nine words, one mistake. "Generals" is not capitalized. That's pretty bad, you dimwit. In fact, that's downright pathetic. That general is a fucking genius, as far as I'm concerned.Rogue Newbie: Official Warning - Flaming and Flamebaiting.

As far as I'm "concenred," you deal out about as much "intelligence" and "genius" as a toothless wifebeating KKK member with half of his brain removed to save him from a tumor that God gave him for being such a dipshit.Rogue Newbie: Official Warning - Flaming.

Rogue Newbies has been forumbanned for two weeks. ...and he's a UN multi, to boot. iModbomb.

If there's any other rulebreaking that anyone wants to point out, they can post in "Moderation". If "Rogue Newbies" wants to report something, he can do it by Getting Help request.

I'm tired of the incivility in this topic. If you cannot debate civilly, then do not debate on NationStates. That's the bottom line. iLock.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator