Iraq's My Lai

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sandman
(from Wikipedia)

Christ. I thought that there were 20,000 or something.

I don't approve of multiple parallel armed forces structures like this. But I bet nobody questions the existence of what seems like a duplicate army.

I do, regularly. The reason they got built up so much is largely because of their role in WW2, where they served as the ground force for a large part of the Pacific theatre. After that the Marines have had a very effective lobby in congress, and any attempt to cut their numbers meets with intense resistance.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Two sides of the same coin and you could put one under the umbrella of the other depending on what semantics you are using

No, not really.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peacekeeping

peace·keep·ing Audio pronunciation of "peacekeeping" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pskpng)
adj.

Of or relating to the preservation of peace, especially the supervision by international forces of a truce between hostile nations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=counterinsurgency

coun·ter·in·sur·gen·cy Audio pronunciation of "counterinsurgency" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kountr-n-sûrjn-s)
n.

Political and military strategy or action intended to oppose and forcefully suppress insurgency.

But you will go first in Double Jeopardy.

[Ted Striker]

Notice there is an optional clause there, mostly it's about official treaties (you know "especially"), so yeah usually it's about official treaties but overall they are keeping the peace.

So, not really but good try bud.

I love it when people quote dictionary.com and don't even read the definition.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I love how Ned blames the Democratic Congress but convinently ignores that the Republican President (the one who controls the military) didn't do anything either.

Originally posted by Ned

I blame Ford, though, for not using the Air Force in support of the SV as we had promised. I think that he could have used his authority as Commander in Chief.

But he didn't. And the rest is history.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Notice there is an optional clause there, mostly it's about official treaties (you know "especially"), so yeah usually it's about official treaties but overall they are keeping the peace.

So, not really but good try bud.

I love it when people quote dictionary.com and don't even read the definition.

That's some really good irony there Ted, but it will be wasted on most of the people here who will conclude that you are simply a not particularly intelligent tool.

Let's leave out the optional clause: Of or relating to the preservation of peace....

Exactly how is our presence in Iraq "of or relating to the preservation of peace"? There was peace until we invaded, and then there was not. If anything what we are doing there is the antithesis of peacekeeping.

[Ted Striker]

Heh, I don't disagree with you there

How about "trying to keep the peace but failing" ?

GG

[Sikander]

A not particularly successful example of "Peace Enforcement Operations" perhaps.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned

Yes you can. The Brits did it several times.

Before the existence of modern weaponry and mass communications. You can't do it any more.

The age of classic war (invading other countries) is over. Nuclear weapons have made the cost of large scale war between great powers unacceptable. Wars between lesser powers or great powers and lesser powers are also off the table, since you cannot occupy a country at acceptable cost any more. Sooner or later the population will get sick of you and nip at you until you leave or until the domestic cost of the war is such that your own population demands you leave.

Osama Bin Laden knows this. That is why he is currently leading in the war on terror.

The military are yesterday's men. A pity they have not realized this yet.

[notyoueither]

That's a curious reading, Aggie, considering that the NVA successfully occupied SV, the Serbs were well and truely kicked in the nads in the Balkens, the British outwaited the IRA, etc...

I can see that it is a revolutionary wet dream, that the US, NATO, and some others might be as limp as the Soviets in Afghanistan, but I don't see it as fact as of this point in time.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander
A not particularly successful example of "Peace Enforcement Operations" perhaps.

It's an example at an attempt of one

How to Occupy and **** Up a Country in 90 Days, by Donald Rumsfeld

[Arrian]

Just checking in after the weekend... has this (the info in the original article) been confirmed?

-Arrian

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
There's no official prohibition against that. For the most part, I try to avoid getting into media issues outside of the job because, for heaven's sake, I originally came to 'Poly for the glorious game known as CIV!

Examine thyself, and see how far thou hast fallen.
Repent! Return to Civ2!

[Arrian]

CIV rocks. CivII is *not* worthy of the praise heaped upon it by so many here. It was a good game, but it's got major flaws. But I guess for those who crave old, worn, comfortable things...

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The issue wasn't withholding of troops, it was withholding of needed, and promised, military aid (munitions, fuel, and supplies).

Or am I wrong?

Withhold? The US gave SV over 700 million dollars worth of military aid that year, and had left tens of billions of dollars worth of bases and other military infrastructure.

The south vietnamese government was corrupt and inefficient. No amouint of American hand holding was going to stave off the North Vietnamese. They fought for 30 uears straight with one single Vietnam unde rtheir power as their aim.
The North Vietnamese were far more higly motivated than the ARVN forces. They were bound to win, no matter how much dough the US sank into the issue. If 500,000 US soldiers could not stop NV, then extra military aid would have not made the difference either. The fools in Saigon would have ****ed it up anyways.

The ARVN regime was a total failure. I find it incredible many people here think a failure like it should have been proped up, or even that it could be propped up.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Withhold? The US gave SV over 700 million dollars worth of military aid that year, and had left tens of billions of dollars worth of bases and other military infrastructure.

The south vietnamese government was corrupt and inefficient. No amouint of American hand holding was going to stave off the North Vietnamese. They fought for 30 uears straight with one single Vietnam unde rtheir power as their aim.
The North Vietnamese were far more higly motivated than the ARVN forces. They were bound to win, no matter how much dough the US sank into the issue. If 500,000 US soldiers could not stop NV, then extra military aid would have not made the difference either. The fools in Saigon would have ****ed it up anyways.

The ARVN regime was a total failure. I find it incredible many people here think a failure like it should have been proped up, or even that it could be propped up.

Do you have any speculation as to why the ARVN regime failed so miserably while the south korean regime and ROC regime both did exceptionally well?