34 Dead as Baghdad Bombers Hit Red Cross, Police

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by skywalker


The soviets had FAR higher casualty rates (per enemy killed and per day) than we do.

They also had a political system/culture that could absorb a much higher casualty rate. Their KIA over 9 years was about 5 soldiers per day, while the American KIA in Iraq is roughly 1 per day so far, but with an increasing intensity the latest weeks. Are you sure you can take five more years of that?

[Ned]

MtG, I have no doubt that the quality of the US Army is tremedously dependent upon the quality if its sergeants. Hopefully, we will pay special attention to this area in creating the new Iraqi army.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I was taking issue with the "chicken hawk" motif that suggests that to make security policy, you have to have been in the military

A "chickenhawk" is someone who is loudly prowar, who, when they had the chance to be in the military, weasaled out. Examples include: Rush Limbaugh, who got an exemption for having a pimple on his bum, Cheney, who claimed to have a bad knee, Dubya, whose father's friend got him moved up to the top of the list to be in the champagne division, despite having the lowest pilot test scores while his dad was a supporter of the war, etc.

Clinton was not a chickenhawk, because he opposed the war he would have been called upon to fight.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


A "chickenhawk" is someone who is loudly prowar, who, when they had the chance to be in the military, weasaled out. Examples include: Rush Limbaugh, who got an exemption for having a pimple on his bum, Cheney, who had a bad knee, Dubya, whose father's freind got him moved up to the top of the list to be in the champagne division, despite having the lowest pilot test scores, etc.

Clinton was not a chickenhawk, because he opposed the war he would have been called upon to fight.

the word is routinely applied to neocons like Wolfie without any reference to what their position on Viet Nam was.

BTW, we havent had a draft since 1971. So is anyone who turned 18 after 1971 automatically exempt from being a chickenhawk?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The implication was that the main reason the ARVN failed was lack of competent leadership, not unreliable grunts.

What I've read about Vietnam agrees with MtG. ARVN was thoroughly corrupt and basically useless for anything other than making sure the people of SV really hated their government.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the word is routinely applied to neocons like Wolfie without any reference to what their position on Viet Nam was.

Given that Wolfie is an exTrot, it's rather likely he opposed the war in Vietnam. However, as a Trot back in those days, if you were called to serve, you went, in order to spread the message to the troops. And they did so with great effect. But I don't know when Wolfie brok with his politics.

BTW, we havent had a draft since 1971. So is anyone who turned 18 after 1971 automatically exempt from being a chickenhawk?

I wouldn't say so.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ramo
It doesn't even have proper units listed. Thousands of what? Newtons? Looks like Shrub fails his math assignment again.

Men of course. Bimbo.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Bananas! That's it! 275,000 Bananas have been deployed against the terrorist threat in Iraq...

Another unfortunate case of Bush saying one thing and getting a different outcome...

That cartoon is anti-american filth.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] Originally posted by lord of the mark

BTW, we havent had a draft since 1971. So is anyone who turned 18 after 1971 automatically exempt from being a chickenhawk?

I wouldn't say so.

Ahh, of course.. Someone who turned 18 when the country was at peace, and when there was no draft is a chickenhawk whenever they support any US war. Basically that confirms that its simply a rhetorical method to silence as many voices in support of any particular war as possible.

Its interesting to do a quick net search on chickenhawk. You get lots of lists of who didnt serve in Viet Nam, with NO explanation of why, whether they had a legitimate exemption, etc. YOu get it from far leftie web sites, paleocon websites, and even Larouchies web sites. Some of the rhetoric is quite vile.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ahh, of course.. Someone who turned 18 when the country was at peace, and when there was no draft is a chickenhawk whenever they support any US war. Basically that confirms that its simply a rhetorical method to silence as many voices in support of any particular war as possible.

Its interesting to do a quick net search on chickenhawk. You get lots of lists of who didnt serve in Viet Nam, with NO explanation of why, whether they had a legitimate exemption, etc. YOu get it from far leftie web sites, paleocon websites, and even Larouchies web sites. Some of the rhetoric is quite vile.

I was in the Army ROTC in high school and the Air Force ROTC in college. Had to leave the ROTC due to my bad eyesight. Even so, after college I was drafted, but washed out, 4F, due to my eyesight. By the time I was drafted I thoroughly did not want to go to Vietnam. No one I knew did.

When the war was young, I was in favor of it. But I agreed with Nixon that we had to pull out. The real liar in that war was LBJ. But there is also a good amount of opinion that Westmoreland was a liar as well for saying there was "light at the end of the tunnel" when he knew better.

BTW, here are some links to several "Bright Shining Lie" reviews. Many of you may not have seen it as it was an HBO movie. It is not a great film but it does chronical the failures of the ARVN.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1083439/reviews.php?critic=all&sortby=default&page=1&rid=210541

http://www.americanwriters.org/classroom/resources/tr_sheehan.asp

"Based on a true story, this made for cable television movie is both a heavy indictment of our involvement in Vietnam and a rallying story of American patriotism.

Bill Paxton plays Army colonel John Paul Vann. In March 1962, he is sent to Vietnam as a military advisor. The advisors are supposed to be hands-off instructors, helping the South Vietnamese drive back the North Vietnamese. Vann is looking for action and he knows Vietnam is going to be a hot spot. He is right in more ways than he will ever know.

Vann leaves his wife Mary Jane (Amy Madigan) in the States with his young children, and immediately takes up with English language teacher Lee (Vivian Wu). We learn that Vann has little respect for his marriage vows, and sleeping around is in his nature. Right away, the wool is being pulled over everyone's eyes, as photos of dead Viet Cong are being doctored to increase the number of dead the South Vietnamese are "killing." Vann repeatedly butts heads with South Vietnamese brass, and after a disastrous raid that kills many undertrained South Vietnamese as well as some of the "advisors," Vann goes to reporter Steven Burnett (Donal Logue). Vann has had it with the corruption, and pours his heart out to Burnett, who prints the story.

Vann is taken on a tour of briefings around Washington, where he comes up with a new strategy for the Vietnam War- win the hearts and minds of the peasants and they will stay on our side. He is rejected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and resigns in protest. Vann and Mary Jane work on their deteriorating marriage, and see a counselor (Richard Libertini). Vann seems to be a sex addict, and it stems from a deep dark secret involving his mother. JFK is assassinated, and Vann tries to get back into Vietnam after Johnson begins increasing troop presence there. He is offered a job with Civilian Aid, and sent back to Vietnam, where he is assisted by Doug (Eric Bogosian) to help the people there. Corruption is now rampant as the Americans fix a school's leaky roof. In the meantime, he offends the local criminal colonel Dinh (Les J.N. Mau), who kills Vann's native staff and orders the bombing of the village in retaliation.

Vann launches a campaign against the corruption, still preaching his idea about helping the people directly. He finds out his mother dies, and returns for her funeral. We find out why he treats women the way he does, his murdered mother was a prostitute. Mary Jane asks for a divorce, and Vann heads back to Vietnam. He also shuns Lee, getting another local girl pregnant and marrying her. Doug returns to the states, where he becomes an anti-war demonstrator. Vann predicts the Tet Offensive, but General Westmoreland (Kurtwood Smith) ignores him. The Offensive is defeated, and Westmoreland is out. Vann soon finds himself a civilian running things in a capacity normally reserved for active duty officers. He is referred to as a senior advisor, and finally gets his own battle and routs the enemy troops in a daring maneuver involving carpet bombing of his own location. On the way back from a medal ceremony, Vann is killed in an unceremonious helicopter crash due to poor weather, ten years after arriving in Vietnam.

Bill Paxton is probably the last actor you would think of to play a major part like this, but he pulls it off. His style is so laid back, he makes his character more real than some other performer who might spend the whole film chewing the scenery and making little scenes that could be shown to the Emmy nominations committee. Amy Madigan is good in the clicheed long suffering wife role, and Donal Logue is okay as the reporter. My problem was more with the character of Lee than Vivian Wu's portrayal. The character is completely unnecessary, and I could not figure out what her function in the film was.

Despite the self important title, the film is surprisingly not anti-military. Paxton has a great line to Logue at the end, where he blames the Vietnam War on Kennedy and all the reporters who said we should be there to help these poor unfortunate people in the first place, then these same reporters worked to end the war by questioning why we were there in the first place. Westmoreland is clearly portrayed as less than effective, the South Vietnamese military cannot seem to put one foot in front of the other, but Vann is no saint either. His sexual dysfunction and personal ambition cloud his judgement.

George wrote and directed the film, and his budget seems to be larger than your average cable film. He handles the war scenes with appropriate horror and gore, and the Thailand locations work perfectly.

No matter what your politics are, this film addresses a number of issues. The people involved and the constant change of strategy (the press conference after Westmoreland's departure is a comedy of semantics) all cloud the fact that, according to end credits, almost 60,000 U.S. troops and close to a million Vietnamese died in the conflict.

While we pay attention to our dying World War II generation, we should also be getting the stories of our Korean, Vietnam, and later war veterans. Waiting until these veterans get their own "Saving Private Ryan" will prove too late. "A Bright Shining Lie" is another thought provoking war film that I highly recommend."

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1083439/reviews.php?critic=all&sortby=default&page=1&rid=820998

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ned

...

While we pay attention to our dying World War II generation, we should also be getting the stories of our Korean, Vietnam, and later war veterans. Waiting until these veterans get their own "Saving Private Ryan" will prove too late. "A Bright Shining Lie" is another thought provoking war film that I highly recommend."

Aren't there plenty of those movies? The kind that support the troops but criticise the war?

Hamburger Hill
Full Metal Jacket
Platoon
Born on the 4th July
Hey, even "First Blood" and "Rambo" for that matter

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I think the whole concept is misguided.

Yes, I think the notion of people with no experience, who are unwilling to accept for themselves the risks, hardships, living conditions, poor pay, and more often than not, general derision during peace time, should be in the position of ordering others to fight and die in carrying out impractical shortsighted foreign policy objectives is absurd.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Fez


That cartoon is anti-american filth.

So, you're an Argentinean of Spaniard descent, pocho.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


So, you're an Argentinean of Spaniard descent, pocho.

Your arrogance doesn't convince anybody.

And your lies are more than retarded... showing how developed your mind is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, I have no doubt that the quality of the US Army is tremedously dependent upon the quality if its sergeants. Hopefully, we will pay special attention to this area in creating the new Iraqi army.

Assuming you already have the institutions in place, the training cadres, the experience NCO pool to draw from, the leadership selection and evaluation courses, etc., it takes about ten years to make a good platoon sergeant, and about four years to make a good squad leader or AFV commander. We gonna stick around that long?