Time for US to face up to truth of Vietnam.

[a_unique_person]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1530&ncid=1276&e=10&u=/afp/20031021/wl_asia_afp/us_vietnam_warcrimes



Army defends probe of alleged Vietnam-era war crimes
Tue Oct 21, 2:28 AM ET


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Army said it acted properly more than three decades ago in dropping an investigation into alleged war crimes by an elite army unit whose members were accused of killing and mutilating large numbers of civilians during the Vietnam War.

A spokesman, however, said the army was looking into statements by veterans of the unit who were quoted over the weekend by the Toledo Blade, an Ohio newspaper, as admitting having killed civilians.

The Blade reported that hundreds of civilians were killed over a seven-month period in 1967 by the 101st Airborne Division's Tiger Force unit in the central highlands of South Vietnam.

An official investigation, which was opened in 1971 at the instigation of an outraged soldier, found evidence of some 20 war crimes, he said. The allegations included murder, rape, mutilation and failure to report a war crime.


But the Blade reported that six soldiers were allowed to resign during the investigation, putting them beyond the reach of military prosecution.

Two soldiers who tried to stop the atrocities were warned by commanders to stay quiet before being transferred from the unit, the newspaper said.

Sworn statements to army investigators, as well as interviews by the Blade, portray a unit on a rampage with the knowledge and encouragement of their commanders.

The newspaper said women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers and were practically buried alive in mass graves. Elderly farmers were shot as they worked in their fields.

In one incident, a field commander, Lieutenant James Hawkins, allegedly shot and killed an elderly carpenter as he begged for his life.


Hawkins denied it to army investigators, but in an interview with the Blade acknowledged killing the man because his loud cries would attract the enemy.


"I eliminated that right there," he was quoted as saying.


Four other soldiers told investigators there were other ways of silencing the man.

Prisoners were tortured and executed while their ears and scalps were severed for souvenirs, the report said. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings.

"We would go into villages and just shoot everybody," a former Tiger Force medic, Harold Fischer, is quoted as saying. "We didn't need an excuse. If they were there, they were dead. It just made me sick."



Gold Fillings? Isn't that what the Nazi's did to the Jews?

You will note that there were US troops who tried to stop the massacres. However, their pleas for justice were ignored. The real blame for these atrocities must lie higher up the chain.

[peptoabysmal]

From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and schoolteachers.

The difference was that the commies got commendations for their actions and we got prosecuted because it was the official policy to minimize civilian casualties.

And before you go off on the other tangent that the hippies like to get on:
86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races.

[a_unique_person]

First, sources.

Second, the South Vietnamese regime was basically the remnants of the Colonialist regime. Many of those killed, if they were killed by Viet Cong, would have been killed by their own people.

Third, you ducked the whole point. The US had a policy of allowing or intending for innocent civilians to be killed and protecting those who were guilty. Whistleblowers were ignored, the guilty helped to get off. This pattern of behaviour persists to this day. As I said, time for the US to face up to facts.

[peptoabysmal]

Forgot the link, my bad:

http://www.vhcma.org/fact.html
All the sources (books mostly) are posted at the bottom of this page.

The US had a policy of allowing or intending for innocent civilians to be killed and protecting those who were guilty. Whistleblowers were ignored, the guilty helped to get off. This pattern of behaviour persists to this day. As I said, time for the US to face up to facts.

There were isolated incidents of every atrocity you can imagine, most of them commited by the North Vietnamese. And yes, there are those in the military who will protect their own, but it is again, not the norm. Now I have to ask you for sources which state that killing civilians was ever a US policy anywhere.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Forgot the link, my bad:

http://www.vhcma.org/fact.html
All the sources (books mostly) are posted at the bottom of this page.



There were isolated incidents of every atrocity you can imagine, most of them commited by the North Vietnamese. And yes, there are those in the military who will protect their own, but it is again, not the norm. Now I have to ask you for sources which state that killing civilians was ever a US policy anywhere.

If you read "a bright shining lie", the US openly tolerated the South and it's atrocities. For example, paid informers would report communist activity to the ARVN, which would then duly bombard the target area. However, there was no attempt at verifying the information, and it was just as likely to be a village that was being blackmailed to avoid being targetted.

What makes an incident "isolated"? I have already told the story of the son of my parents friends who volunteered to fight the commies. He was ordered to drive an APC over a hut containing civilians.

The empirical evidence is that at some point this has to be policy, even of the "plausible deniability" kind. This story, and others, specify officers clearly being aware of and ordering killings, cover ups of prosecutions being carried out, and whistleblowers being ignored.

Until the US armed forces can face up to these failings, they will continue. For example, the incident in Italy where joy riding airmen cut a cable of a cable car, killing it's passengers, or attacks on civilians living near bases. The events may be individually isolated, but the response is consistent. This implies a policy that is being followed.

[Mycroft]

Nobody born and raised in the US could say that we haven’t "faced up to the truth about Vietnam". It's been a national obsession for decades, everybody wants to dredge up the horror and repeat it endlessly. The left still moans about our involvement, the right is still angry about our treatment of our own veterans, and everybody wants to talk about the atrocities, Agent Orange, PTSS, or whatever.

This article is just more of the same. Proof that even after more than three decades, the obsession hasn’t gone away.

[a_unique_person]

If it had been faced up to, the same events would not be getting replayed over again in the present.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If you read "a bright shining lie", the US openly tolerated the South and it's atrocities. For example, paid informers would report communist activity to the ARVN, which would then duly bombard the target area. However, there was no attempt at verifying the information, and it was just as likely to be a village that was being blackmailed to avoid being targetted.

What makes an incident "isolated"? I have already told the story of the son of my parents friends who volunteered to fight the commies. He was ordered to drive an APC over a hut containing civilians.

The empirical evidence is that at some point this has to be policy, even of the "plausible deniability" kind. This story, and others, specify officers clearly being aware of and ordering killings, cover ups of prosecutions being carried out, and whistleblowers being ignored.

Until the US armed forces can face up to these failings, they will continue. For example, the incident in Italy where joy riding airmen cut a cable of a cable car, killing it's passengers, or attacks on civilians living near bases. The events may be individually isolated, but the response is consistent. This implies a policy that is being followed.

The book by Sheehan? Yeesh. The commie left media's puppet-boy who helped re-write the pentagon papers with a team from the New York Times?

So that's it for your "empirical evidence"? An anecdote and a book written by a left wingnut?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The book by Sheehan? Yeesh. The commie left media's puppet-boy who helped re-write the pentagon papers with a team from the New York Times?

So that's it for your "empirical evidence"? An anecdote and a book written by a left wingnut?

He was there, in Vietnam, risking his life. He saw and talked to the people and saw the incidents.

Fact is, the US Army knew about the atrocities and did nothing about them. Still does today.

[a_unique_person]

He also won the Pulitzer Prize with it. There must be more substance to it than just a left wing crank ranting.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If it had been faced up to, the same events would not be getting replayed over again in the present.

What makes you think that those events are being replayed in the present?
:rolleyes:

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He also won the Pulitzer Prize with it. There must be more substance to it than just a left wing crank ranting.

The Pulitzer organization should demand a refund.

[Jon_in_london]

the Pullitzer commitee is all jew-hating anti-american feminazi pinkos!!!!!!

[Scott]

The real blame for these atrocities must lie higher up the chain.

Where does the buck stop?

Many of those killed, if they were killed by Viet Cong, would have been killed by their own people.

This makes their deaths OK?

The US had a policy of allowing or intending for innocent civilians to be killed and protecting those who were guilty.

Source please.

"a bright shining lie"

Just might be one.

He was ordered to drive an APC over a hut containing civilians.

And containing what else?

The empirical evidence is that at some point this has to be policy, even of the "plausible deniability" kind.

The empirical evidence shows that some people allowed atrocities for their own reasons, not that there was a policy allowing these atrocities.

Do you honestly think that the US Military had a policy in Vietnam that said something along the lines of "kill all the civillians you want"?

Or is it more plausible that certain individuals did these things on their own?

This implies a policy that is being followed.

What policy.

You think they hit the cable on purpose?

or attacks on civilians living near bases

When/where?

If it had been faced up to, the same events would not be getting replayed over again in the present.

Sure they would. We could surrender to the french, liquidate all of our assets, allow tyranny run wild throughout the world, and the America haters would still be pulling bunk out of their hat.

He was there, in Vietnam, risking his life. He saw and talked to the people and saw the incidents.

He says he saw the incidents.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If it had been faced up to, the same events would not be getting replayed over again in the present.

Ahhh...

And here, ladies and gentlemen, a_u_p tips his hand and displays his true colors...

Goebbels would be proud. :(

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


He was there, in Vietnam, risking his life.

So was Oliver Stone.

'Nuff said?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
the Pullitzer commitee is all jew-hating anti-american feminazi pinkos!!!!!!

Seems like someone's going through Rush Limbaugh withdrawal!! :D

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If you read "a bright shining lie", the US openly tolerated the South and it's atrocities. For example, paid informers would report communist activity to the ARVN, which would then duly bombard the target area. However, there was no attempt at verifying the information, and it was just as likely to be a village that was being blackmailed to avoid being targetted.


As I recall,
Sheehan wrote about John Paul Vann in the early 60s. The complaint Vann and others had was the US was NOT taking too much control and leaving it to corrupt and inefficent ARVN officers.

BTW, Sheehan is not the ONLY book on Vietnam.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


He was there, in Vietnam, risking his life. He saw and talked to the people and saw the incidents.

Fact is, the US Army knew about the atrocities and did nothing about them. Still does today.

AUP, step out of your USA and Israel are the sole evil things in the world mindset for a minute.

Objectively...

Has there ever been an army that has done more in the past few decades to minimize civilian casualites than the US (and UK during the recent war.)?

One need only look at the carpet bombing of Grozny by the Russians or some of the things the Indonesian army has pulled off.

Had any other army in the world had to deal with the Pannama war, I would be civilian casualties would be in the tens of THOUSANDS.

[Giz]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
First, sources.

Second, the South Vietnamese regime was basically the remnants of the Colonialist regime. Many of those killed, if they were killed by Viet Cong, would have been killed by their own people.


When the country was partitioned over 10 times as many people moved from North to South as went from South to North. In your worldview I assume you think that they weren't fleeing oppression or for a better life (in the "remnants of the Colonialist regime") but were in fact going down South to kill a few bourgouiseis, correct?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


What makes you think that those events are being replayed in the present?
:rolleyes:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29192

[Ed]

Having been draft age during Viet Nam and subsequently living in the US I think that I am better able than you, AUP, to gauge the degree to which the US introspected about the war.

We did. It almost destroyed our military, it informed every policy decision we have made since then and continues to do so. Viet Nam is never far from the national conciousness.

However, enough is enough. We, like a person who lost a loved one, must move on.

Unfortunately there will always be grist for the mill for people like you, AUP, who, under the guise of fairness and inclusiveness, have a basic hatred for western civilization. If you were alive 200 years from now you would find events to complain about.

Bad things happened. Maybe they were countenenced by higher ups, maybe not. I am one american who, at this point, has ceased caring. Your alternative, I presume, are Stalinesque show trials of the internal enemies. It is not going to happen.

Time to move on.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29192

Sorry. Found no correlation between Vietnam and the Invasion of Iraq in the link you provided.

Try again...

[Tricky]

I am of a similar age as Ed, and only missed Viet Nam by virtue of losing the lottery. I initially supported the war, being told by my history teacher that Communism had to be stopped. As time went by, I began to question that support, and eventually began to speak out against it. So much for credentials.

Okay, Iraq is not the same as Viet Nam. It is different in many ways. But there are a number of similarities. Here are a few off the top of my head.
The purpose of the wars was ostensibly to save a country from a ruthless dictatorship.
In both countries, there was a virtual civil war between competing ideologies.
In both situations, the arrival of the US was cheered by many, but as time passed, more of the locals turned against them.
Bombing was used by the US in both wars against a country without significant air power. Many civilians were killed by this.
Unable to muster the military strength, the opponants adopted hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.
These tactics made the US troops suspicious and trigger happy.
While US policy was not to target civilians, incidents where civilians were killed were glossed over.
The number of troops committed and the length of time they were ordered to stay were larger than planned.
Once US troops left, the country reverted to it's previous style of government. (This one is actually a prediction in the case of Iraq).


I'm sure there are other comparisons to be made. I could also make a list of differences, but since I am a left-wing, commie, US hating, peacenik liberal, I peverseley choose not to do so. I will leave that to one of you right-wing, fascist, jingoistic, war-mongering conservatives. ;)

Edited to add:
Oh yeah. Many of you may not know this, but Viet Nam has substantial oil reserves.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If it had been faced up to, the same events would not be getting replayed over again in the present.

And if the government would just come clean about the UFO crash in Roswell in 1947, it would not be getting replayed over and over again in the present.

You want the TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!

[Luke T.]

AUP, the problems the military has are no different than the problems of any society. I suppose a parallel would be your local police. There are good and bad cops. And they are human.

Too often, I get the feeling that people who are overly critical of the military have the impression that military people are something other than human. Like machines or something. And they have expectations of perfection from these "machines."

But we are human. We drink milk, raise babies, worry about bills. "Prick me, do I not bleed?" In fact, we bleed more than most people.

Every war has its atrocities. Not just Viet Nam. Not just the Gulf War. These are only highlighted because of their proximity to the present. But you can bet your grandpappy knows a few stories of the atrocities of American soldiers in World War Two.

Sure, some of them "got away with it." But those who criticize the military don't always have honest intentions or make honest claims, either. They are human, and have their own agendas. Some of the claims you hear are pure manure. And they are believed because of preconcieved notions of the listeners. Just like with UFOologists.

You provided a link to an article about a 14 year old girl killed by our troops in Iraq. Do you think the soldier who shot her is some kind of beast? Do you think he is not right now torn to pieces inside over this tragedy? Do you not think he will spend the rest of his life in his own private hell over the matter? Do you think he wanted to kill a kid? What kind of impression are you trying to give about our men in uniform by linking that article?

If the soldier who killed that kid is not punished, do you think he "got away" with something? Should he be punished? Is the miltary really screwing up or betraying some kind of evil culture if they don't punish him?

That is some screwed up thinking, man.

edited to add: Read the article you linked carefully. Does it in any way sound objective? It reads like a novel. Not necessarily fiction, but it is heavily laden with emotion. It doesn't even get around to describing the actual incident until over halfway into it. The author spends a lot of time luridly describing the aftermath first so you have a certain impression of horror first. Everybody's a critic when they have all the time in the world to judge something that took place in split-seconds.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
He also won the Pulitzer Prize with it. There must be more substance to it than just a left wing crank ranting.


Ahh the Pulitzer!

All their awardees are above reproach...like Peter Arnett (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,13436,00.html)

Apologies were flowing and heads were rolling today as CNN retracted a story which asserted that the United States had used nerve gas to kill American defectors during Vietnam-era missions, but which its own internal investigation concluded could not be supported.


and later, more accuracy from the Pulitzer winner:

Arnett -- who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the Vietnam War, and covered the 1991 Persian Gulf War for CNN -- was one of the last reporters in Baghdad reporting for a U.S. network when he was interviewed by Iraqi TV over the weekend.

In that interview, he said, "The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan. Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces."


...year that Pulitzer prize! Some prize. :rolleyes:

-z

Edited to add: More funny business from Pulitzer winners:
N.Y. Times Suspends Reporter
Pulitzer Winner Failed To Give Freelancer Credit
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 24, 2003; Page C01


The fallout over the Jayson Blair debacle at the New York Times has hit a far more prominent Times reporter, Pulitzer Prize winner Rick Bragg.




In an editor's note yesterday, the paper said that Bragg had only briefly visited the Florida town of Apalachicola, from which he filed a story last June, and that most of the reporting had been done by a stringer.

Must one be a liar to be considered for a Pulitzer? Hey AUP, you should put in for one yourself! ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
But there are a number of similarities. Here are a few off the top of my head.

The purpose of the wars was ostensibly to save a country from a ruthless dictatorship.

The US leadership had no problems with the government of South Vietnam. US troops were there to try and prevent the spread of communism.
Iraq was invaded to oust the regime in control at the time.


Originally posted by Tricky
In both countries, there was a virtual civil war between competing ideologies.

No such North Iraq and South Iraq existed. Kurds and Shiites were obliterated whenever they put up opposition. Exactly which ideologies were in competition when the invasion occured?


Originally posted by Tricky
In both situations, the arrival of the US was cheered by many, but as time passed, more of the locals turned against them.

Subjective. ABC has even admitted its bias (though not necessarily purposeful) in its reporting on the Iraqi occupation. People going about their daily lives in relative normalcy just isn't news. That doesn't change the fact though, that the masses are receiving running water and electricity. That almost all the schools and universities are up and running. That thousands of Iraqi police are patrolling the streets...


Originally posted by Tricky
Bombing was used by the US in both wars against a country without significant air power. Many civilians were killed by this.

So long as there is war, there will be civilian casualties. No superpower has ever made more of an effort to reduce and eliminate civilian casualties than has the U.S.

The laser and GPS guided munitions of today are far more accurate than the crudely guided missiles and bombs used in the Vietnam War.


Originally posted by Tricky
Unable to muster the military strength, the opponants adopted hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.

Both the VC and NVA employed guerrilla tactics in that long-lasting conflict.

In Iraq, the war was won swiftly and, though you may not realize it, there is no longer a war in Iraq. It is not Iraqis attacking coalition outposts, convoys, and sentry positions, but foreign jihadists sneaking into the country to strike at "western imperialism".


Originally posted by Tricky
These tactics made the US troops suspicious and trigger happy.

Getting shot at by men, women, and sometimes even children dressing as civilians will do that. I would defy you to not do the same in their place!


Of your last three comparisons - one is an opinion regarding the nature of reporting about civilian casualties, one is common to most military actions, and the last, as you admitted, is nothing more than a prediction.

[Luke T.]

I guess it is only a matter of time before someone calls our soldiers in Iraq "baby-killers," if they haven't already.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I guess it is only a matter of time before someone calls our soldiers in Iraq "baby-killers," if they haven't already.

Alas... (http://www.babykiller.com/)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The US leadership had no problems with the government of South Vietnam. US troops were there to try and prevent the spread of communism.
Iraq was invaded to oust the regime in control at the time.
It was still a situation when we built up a horror story about the bad guys to garner support for a war against a regime which was not threatening us. I think the comparison is valid. As my initial disclaimer said, things were not exactly the same, but had similarities.

Originally posted by Kodiak
No such North Iraq and South Iraq existed. Kurds and Shiites were obliterated whenever they put up opposition. Exactly which ideologies were in competition when the invasion occured?
Shiite vs. Sunni for one. Baathist vs. fundamentalist Islamics is another. These differences tend to be regional, even though there may have not been a designated border. Most people are aware that Saddam had very little control over the north part of Iraq.

Originally posted by Kodiak
Subjective. ABC has even admitted its bias (though not necessarily purposeful) in its reporting on the Iraqi occupation. People going about their daily lives in relative normalcy just isn't news. That doesn't change the fact though, that the masses are receiving running water and electricity. That almost all the schools and universities are up and running. That thousands of Iraqi police are patrolling the streets...
If anything, the amount of news on violence in Iraq is softened by the coalition forces. Newsmen are not allowed access to everything. I think it is likely that there is much more anti-US stuff going on than is reported.

But the fact remains that there is still a very significant amount. And, like in Viet Nam, people continued to make their best attempt to live their lives normally, in spite of the war.

Originally posted by Kodiak
So long as there is war, there will be civilian casualties. No superpower has ever made more of an effort to reduce and eliminate civilian casualties than has the U.S.

The laser and GPS guided munitions of today are far more accurate than the crudely guided missiles and bombs used in the Vietnam War.
What other superpower is there?

By it's nature, though, bombing causes more civilian casualties than other types of warfare. This type of warfare was used by the US in both Iraq and Viet Nam. Not all US military actions have involved so much bombing. The comparison is valid.

Originally posted by Kodiak
Both the VC and NVA employed guerrilla tactics in that long-lasting conflict.

Which does not diminish the comparison whatsoever. It would be easy to describe some of the tactics the US has used in Iraq as "guerrilla".


Originally posted by Kodiak
In Iraq, the war was won swiftly and, though you may not realize it, there is no longer a war in Iraq. It is not Iraqis attacking coalition outposts, convoys, and sentry positions, but foreign jihadists sneaking into the country to strike at "western imperialism".
And there was never a war in Viet Nam. It was a "police action". If our soldiers are over there getting killed, it is a war. It may not be a "full scale war", but anything else you call it is just a euphemism. (In fact I think Bush himself called this a "war on terrorism". Is that war over?)

I also don't think you have enough information to place all of the people who have attacked the US into a single category. I think they are more likely to be ousted Baathists, although certainly some may be foreign. Surely the US would have noticed the influx of foreigners carrying weapons. I don't think their security is that poor.

Also, every now and then they turn up one of the "wanted" people. That is further evidence that the attackers are Iraqi.

Originally posted by Kodiak
Getting shot at by men, women, and sometimes even children dressing as civilians will do that. I would defy you to not do the same in their place!
I do not deny it. I am pointing out the similarities, not making moral judgments on them.

Originally posted by Kodiak
Of your last three comparisons - one is an opinion regarding the nature of reporting about civilian casualties, one is common to most military actions, and the last, as you admitted, is nothing more than a prediction.

Still valid comparisons (except the prediction). As you may have noted, this is not an anti-war screed (when I do those, you'll notice ;) ). It is an attempt to point out that those who compare Iraq to Viet Nam have valid reason to doing so. Those who point out differences also have valid points.

The main reason for pointing up similarities is to remind ourselves not to make the same mistakes again. Don't you agree that is wise?

Oh yes, one other big comparison:
Domestic support for both wars started very high but dropped sharply as the public realized that we had failed to meet key objectives that had been stated.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
The main reason for pointing up similarities is to remind ourselves not to make the same mistakes again. Don't you agree that is wise?

Similarities need not be present for one to learn from history.

Horror stories about the communists weren't "built up". They were horrific enough on their face.

As you say, the differences were religious and regional, not political and national.

Your opinion about the freedom of the press is just that - an opinion.

Since the invention of gunpowder, no superpower has ever made more of an effort to reduce and eliminate civilian casualties than has the US. Better?

Munitions, whether fired from a cannon, thrown by an infantryman, or dropped from a plane have been used since men first made war upon other men.

Sorry, but soldiers simply being killed is not a war. At its vaguest, war is the struggle between opposing forces. Would you have said that occupied France was still at war with Nazi Germany in WWII just because of the attacks of the French resistence??

[Malachi151]

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_involvement_in_vietnam.htm

I'll be adding some of that into to my website, thanks UAP.

There is no legitimate way to explin this all way.

The fact remains, if you want ot support these actions, that these actions were covered up for a long, long time.

If you want to support the actions then fine, what about the coverup?

Why have we not taught this in shcool for the past 20 years? If this is acceptable behavior then why have we not taught about it and taught that it was good?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla



Ahh the Pulitzer!

All their awardees are above reproach...like Peter Arnett (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,13436,00.html)



and later, more accuracy from the Pulitzer winner:



...year that Pulitzer prize! Some prize. :rolleyes:

-z

Edited to add: More funny business from Pulitzer winners:


Must one be a liar to be considered for a Pulitzer? Hey AUP, you should put in for one yourself! ;)




Excuse me Rikzilla, but your post should tell you plenty.

In the case of the news organizations, they found out that they disseminated bad data then publicly retracted it. They sure were not happy about doing so, but they did it all the same.

As opposed to say the more recent case of Iraq where Bush and Co. were telling us that Iraq had nuclear weapons, was smuggling in uranium, was using RPVs as weapons, had tons of biological and chemical weapons, was supporting terrorists, had mobile biological weapons labs, and so on and so forth.

There has not been any accounting on these issues and it involved the killing of thousands and the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Whereas the one news story you discuss concerned an erroneous report regarding an event that occurred some 25 years before.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Malachi151
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_involvement_in_vietnam.htm

I'll be adding some of that into to my website, thanks UAP.

There is no legitimate way to explin this all way.

The fact remains, if you want ot support these actions, that these actions were covered up for a long, long time.

If you want to support the actions then fine, what about the coverup?

Why have we not taught this in shcool for the past 20 years? If this is acceptable behavior then why have we not taught about it and taught that it was good?

Actually we did teach it in schools. I don't know about past 20 years, but 10 years for sure. I know because the book I had in High School talked about it, as well as the teacher. You probably would not know this seeing as how you do not view history books as "real history."

[Skeptic]

Nobody born and raised in the US could say that we haven’t "faced up to the truth about Vietnam".

Well, it depends what kind of USA-bashing AUP feels like engaging in at the moment. On monday, bashing US's Iraq policy, he posts how the "spectre of Vietnam haunts the USA forces in Iraq", while using the word "quagmire" a lot. On tuesday, in a general "USA is evil" rant, he claims the USA had "forgotten" about Vietnam and would not "face up to it".

Apparently the USA is haunted by the memories of a war it had forgotten about. Ah well, AUP and consistency were never friends.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Actually we did teach it in schools. I don't know about past 20 years, but 10 years for sure. I know because the book I had in High School talked about it, as well as the teacher. You probably would not know this seeing as how you do not view history books as "real history."

We never even discussed Vietnam in my highschool.

In fact we hardly covered any 20th century history at all. The majority of US history was pre-Civil War and Civil War history. We briefy touched on WWI.

I still hear people all the time complaining that we "lost Vietnam because of the protestors."

Nevermind the fact that THE PROTESTORS WERE RIGHT!

[Segnosaur]

I'm suprised Rikzilla hasn't responded to this yet, so I figure I would...

Originally posted by Crossbow


Excuse me Rikzilla, but your post should tell you plenty.

In the case of the news organizations, they found out that they disseminated bad data then publicly retracted it. They sure were not happy about doing so, but they did it all the same.


The actions of the news organizations was not the issue that started the topic.

Remember, if you follow the thread, a claim was made that a certain journalist should be assumed to be 'honest', based on the fact that he won a Pulitzer prize. (AUP had stated: He also won the Pulitzer Prize with it. There must be more substance to it than just a left wing crank ranting.) Rikzilla seemed to be pointing out that perhaps winning the Pulitzer was not good evidence of being "honest", by pointing out cases where the Pulitzer was awarded based on bad work.

So the issue was the quality of work, and the qualifications of the individual authors, not the news organizations.

Even if the issue was the news organizations, I'm sure people could come up with plenty of news articles and/or opinion columns which contain bad data that never get retracted. And even if a retraction is issued, it is often too late; any damage has already been done.

Here's an example...

I'm reminded of when certain news organizations claimed someone in the Bush administration admited the Iraq war was about oil by taking a quote from a speech they made comparing the North Korean situation with Iraq.... The speech had the comment "Iraq floats on a sea of oil"; and with those words, many news organizations were reporting how the US government was admitting they invaded Iraq over oil. However, when the entire speech was analyzed, it was found that the quote was taken out of context. The issue was the effectiveness of sanctions against North Korea (who has energy problems) compared with the problems if sanctions against Iraq.

Some news organizations posted followups explaining the mistake, some did not. Even the ones that did post followups, by that time the 'quote' was already out there. (And it was used by at least one poster here, even after the complete quote was made known.)

Originally posted by Crossbow

As opposed to say the more recent case of Iraq where Bush and Co. were telling us that Iraq had nuclear weapons, was smuggling in uranium, was using RPVs as weapons, had tons of biological and chemical weapons, was supporting terrorists, had mobile biological weapons labs, and so on and so forth.


You really do have to be careful when you accuse Bush of lying. I agree, he probably did lie and or distort the truth in some cases, but I really suggest you look into some of the background of his 'lies'....

For example, the "Uranium smuggling" claim.... Although pretty much everyone knows that the "Nigerian" document was false, the claim that Bush made in his state of the Union address was something along the lines of "We were told The British have evidence that Saddam tried to get uranium", not that the US had it themselves. So, on that issue, Bush may not have lied. (The issue of the Uranium claims is still to be determined.... at the time, there was the belief that the British got their information from another country, possibly France, but couldn't disclose the evidence to the US because of agreements between intelligence agencies.)

Another claim is that they were supporting terrorists... People seem to make the claim that because Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, that they don't support terrorism. Yet Iraq has been involved in terrorist activities, such as in payments to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Basically, I'll I'm saying is that when you accuse Bush of lying, make sure you accuse him in areas where you have a stronger case.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by rikzilla



Edited to add: More funny business from Pulitzer winners:


Must one be a liar to be considered for a Pulitzer? Hey AUP, you should put in for one yourself! ;)



And yet another few cases of Pulitzer fraud:

Janet Cooke, who was awarded the prize in 1982, based on a story about a young heroin addict, who later returned the prize after she admitted that the heroin addict never existed. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_fraud)

Or the 1932 award given to Walter Duranty, who reported from the Soviet Union, but is currently beeing seen as covering up severe abuses in Russia at the time. (See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/11/national/main558009.shtml)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151


We never even discussed Vietnam in my highschool.

In fact we hardly covered any 20th century history at all. The majority of US history was pre-Civil War and Civil War history. We briefy touched on WWI.

I still hear people all the time complaining that we "lost Vietnam because of the protestors."

Nevermind the fact that THE PROTESTORS WERE RIGHT!


Where did you go to high school?

I graduated in '99, my freshman year was 95-96. We talked EXTENSIVLY about Vietnam. One of the history teachers was a Vietnam vet and spoke in-depth about his experiences in Vietnam. You are either lying, skipped class, really stupid or went to a really crappy school.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Ahh the Pulitzer!

All their awardees are above reproach...like Peter Arnett (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,13436,00.html)


And here is yet more information on Peter Arnett, this time from Vietnam: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20030401.shtml


Remember the phrase, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it"? It has become totemic. Arnett was the originator of the phrase. The trouble is, as first B.G. Burkett and then I discovered after a little investigation, the report was wrong. It wasn't the United States that destroyed Ben Tre (a town, not a village), but the Vietcong. And the soldier Arnett was most likely quoting remembers saying, "It was a shame the town was destroyed," not the fatuity Arnett made famous.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony



Where did you go to high school?

I graduated in '99, my freshman year was 95-96. We talked EXTENSIVLY about Vietnam. One of the history teachers was a Vietnam vet and spoke in-depth about his experiences in Vietnam. You are either lying, skipped class, really stupid or went to a really crappy school.

Or maybe its the fact that none of my techers were Vietnam Vets :rolleyes: Gee like maybe a Vietnam Vet my understand the importance a little more then other people eh?

Not to mention the fact that you graduated almost 10 years after me, and the ciriculum has changed.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Malachi151


We never even discussed Vietnam in my highschool.

In fact we hardly covered any 20th century history at all. The majority of US history was pre-Civil War and Civil War history. We briefy touched on WWI.

I still hear people all the time complaining that we "lost Vietnam because of the protestors."

Nevermind the fact that THE PROTESTORS WERE RIGHT!

I am really sorry you attended a more than poor quality school, it obviously had an affect on you since you have a rather distorted view of the world.

The school I went to have the same social studies curriculum as the rest of LAUSD schools did. We had 3 different History classes: World History, US History and History of the Modern World. Was there bias there? You better believe it. However, we talked about all the bad things US did -- especially in the US History Class -- taking Indian land, starting a war with Mexico for practically no reason, problems in Vietnam, McCarthyism, strike breakers, etc. I would still sum up that all the history classes leaned heavily toward favoring USA as the great freedom country. But, if you were paying attention, you would learn that it did not have a squeaky clean history.

Also, I have no clue who you talking to that tell you "We lost Vietnam because of the protestors." Perhaps you should hang out with better-educated people? :)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Or maybe its the fact that none of my techers were Vietnam Vets :rolleyes: Gee like maybe a Vietnam Vet my understand the importance a little more then other people eh?

Not to mention the fact that you graduated almost 10 years after me, and the ciriculum has changed.

You know, in a previous post you stated: In fact we hardly covered any 20th century history at all. The majority of US history was pre-Civil War and Civil War history. We briefy touched on WWI. Sorry, but if they can't bother reporting on WW2 at all (which had a bigger impact on the US and the world than Vietnam), then the problem isn't that they're ignoring Vietnam, the problem is that they're ignoring almost the entire century.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Or maybe its the fact that none of my techers were Vietnam Vets :rolleyes: Gee like maybe a Vietnam Vet my understand the importance a little more then other people eh?


I doubt it. We were not taught Vietnam because the teacher was a vet. His experiences just added a human perspective to what we were learning.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I am really sorry you attended a more than poor quality school, it obviously had an affect on you since you have a rather distorted view of the world.


Hmmmm... think you are on to something there....

Poor quality education in high school, yet loves to post long messages (taken from his web site) that try to show how wonderful socialism is.

Originally posted by Grammatron


Also, I have no clue who you talking to that tell you "We lost Vietnam because of the protestors." Perhaps you should hang out with better-educated people? :)

I really don't want him hanging around me.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron


The school I went to have the same social studies curriculum as the rest of LAUSD schools did. We had 3 different History classes: World History, US History and History of the Modern World. Was there bias there? You better believe it. However, we talked about all the bad things US did -- especially in the US History Class -- taking Indian land, starting a war with Mexico for practically no reason, problems in Vietnam, McCarthyism, strike breakers, etc. I would still sum up that all the history classes leaned heavily toward favoring USA as the great freedom country. But, if you were paying attention, you would learn that it did not have a squeaky clean history.




In 7th grade we had Texas history. Eighth grade was US history from the first settlement at Jamestown (i think) to the mid 19th century. 9th grade we had US history from the mid 19th century to the present. In the following grades we had World History and world cultures, of course there were also AP and advanced classes.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony



In 7th grade we had Texas history. Eighth grade was US history from the first settlement at Jamestown (i think) to the mid 19th century. 9th grade we had US history from the mid 19th century to the present. In the following grades we had World History and world cultures, of course there were also AP and advanced classes.

Of course, I completely forgot about AP courses. I did not take AP History class because I hated the teacher :p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


As I recall,
Sheehan wrote about John Paul Vann in the early 60s. The complaint Vann and others had was the US was NOT taking too much control and leaving it to corrupt and inefficent ARVN officers.

BTW, Sheehan is not the ONLY book on Vietnam.

The ARVN leadership epitomised the whole problem. The "south vietnamese government" was nothing of the sort, it was just a cargo cult remnant from the French Colonialist days. If the US did take control of the war, then the fiction of it fighting on behalf of the South Vietnamese disappeared into smoke.

Sheehan's book is not the only book, but the scope and detail of it is amazing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Giz


When the country was partitioned over 10 times as many people moved from North to South as went from South to North. In your worldview I assume you think that they weren't fleeing oppression or for a better life (in the "remnants of the Colonialist regime") but were in fact going down South to kill a few bourgouiseis, correct?

The people fleeing south would have probably been Catholic or Colonialist remnants. It was clear to all that a civil war was in the wind. The Viet Cong were largely the 'South Vietnamese' themselves.

A corrupt Government instituted a corrupt administration. The descriptions of Diem remind me of the descriptions of Kim Il Sung.

The reason the vote was not taken to remove the partitioning of the country after the ceasefire was that the US knew the vote would put Ho Chi Minh into power.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sorry. Found no correlation between Vietnam and the Invasion of Iraq in the link you provided.

Try again...

I was referring to the citizens being killed. Putting soldiers trained to attack with overwhelming force into the role of policeman is going to get you a disaster. If you look on the internet, there are many similar stories to this one. A threat is mistakenly seen, then pow, ask questions later.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed
Having been draft age during Viet Nam and subsequently living in the US I think that I am better able than you, AUP, to gauge the degree to which the US introspected about the war.



I was only a couple of years away from being eligeable to be drafted. Don't forget, Austalians fought there too.



We did. It almost destroyed our military, it informed every policy decision we have made since then and continues to do so. Viet Nam is never far from the national conciousness.

However, enough is enough. We, like a person who lost a loved one, must move on.



It is time to move on when you have resolved the issue. The evidence clearly is that the US armed forces will not prosecute atrocities. The story clearly states, civilians were just shot and mown down. People begged for their lives and were killed. Remind you of anything?



Unfortunately there will always be grist for the mill for people like you, AUP, who, under the guise of fairness and inclusiveness, have a basic hatred for western civilization. If you were alive 200 years from now you would find events to complain about.



I don't hate the West. I would be surprised if any of the people on this forum would committ any of the atrocities mentioned. I do expect the West to uphold higher standards of behaviour, though.



Bad things happened. Maybe they were countenenced by higher ups, maybe not. I am one american who, at this point, has ceased caring. Your alternative, I presume, are Stalinesque show trials of the internal enemies. It is not going to happen.

Time to move on.

That is the problem. You have to care still, and in the future. You never can stop caring.

A New Zealand soldier involved in the peace keeping mission in East Timor was to be court marshalled for abusing the body of a dead combatant. That is, they were seriously going to lay charges for this, in a war situation. That is the sort of attitude that needs to be taken.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla



Ahh the Pulitzer!

All their awardees are above reproach...like Peter Arnett (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,13436,00.html)

and later, more accuracy from the Pulitzer winner:

...year that Pulitzer prize! Some prize. :rolleyes:

-z

Edited to add: More funny business from Pulitzer winners:


Must one be a liar to be considered for a Pulitzer? Hey AUP, you should put in for one yourself! ;)




You keep mentioning instances where errors were found and acknowledged. No one has done that in the case of this book.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Luke T.
AUP, the problems the military has are no different than the problems of any society. I suppose a parallel would be your local police. There are good and bad cops. And they are human.



That is one of the interesting aspects of corruption and atrocities. The Victorian Police force has just had the most amazing number of police on trial for various corrupt activities in the drug force.

Why is this? I don't believe it is because all corrupt police choose to move to the drug squad. I think it is more to do with the life of being a drug squad detective is corrupting. There is a new rule about being a member of the squad, no one can be in it for more than 5 years, IIRC.

Ordinary people get corrupted. They get corrupted to varying degrees. Most of those involved in the atrocities, I believe, would not have done anything like these acts if they had stayed at home and just got a normal 9 to 5 job.

So the responsibility lies with those in the Army who managed a workplace culture where atrocities are committed, and not prevented or investigated.



Too often, I get the feeling that people who are overly critical of the military have the impression that military people are something other than human. Like machines or something. And they have expectations of perfection from these "machines."

But we are human. We drink milk, raise babies, worry about bills. "Prick me, do I not bleed?" In fact, we bleed more than most people.



No, just as much as anyone else.



Every war has its atrocities. Not just Viet Nam. Not just the Gulf War. These are only highlighted because of their proximity to the present. But you can bet your grandpappy knows a few stories of the atrocities of American soldiers in World War Two.

Sure, some of them "got away with it." But those who criticize the military don't always have honest intentions or make honest claims, either. They are human, and have their own agendas. Some of the claims you hear are pure manure. And they are believed because of preconcieved notions of the listeners. Just like with UFOologists.



The issue here is not "getting away with it". People often tend to keep to the 'norm' in behaviour. The issue is that when crimes are committed, they are not prosecuted and punished. If a standard had been set, then officers and soldiers would have known clearly what the standards of behaviour were. This would have prevented many deaths, and, presumably, lives racked with guilt.



You provided a link to an article about a 14 year old girl killed by our troops in Iraq. Do you think the soldier who shot her is some kind of beast? Do you think he is not right now torn to pieces inside over this tragedy? Do you not think he will spend the rest of his life in his own private hell over the matter? Do you think he wanted to kill a kid? What kind of impression are you trying to give about our men in uniform by linking that article?



I have made no comment on the individual soldier. I am more concerned with the processes and standards the armed forces hold as an institution.



If the soldier who killed that kid is not punished, do you think he "got away" with something? Should he be punished? Is the miltary really screwing up or betraying some kind of evil culture if they don't punish him?

That is some screwed up thinking, man.



getting into deep straw here.



edited to add: Read the article you linked carefully. Does it in any way sound objective? It reads like a novel. Not necessarily fiction, but it is heavily laden with emotion. It doesn't even get around to describing the actual incident until over halfway into it. The author spends a lot of time luridly describing the aftermath first so you have a certain impression of horror first. Everybody's a critic when they have all the time in the world to judge something that took place in split-seconds.


I do not think that anyone here would go out and commit an atrocity. I do know, however, that in a difficult situation, when you have to conform to the group's standards or risk ostracism, many will go with the majority.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

If you look on the internet, there are many similar stories to this one. A threat is mistakenly seen, then pow, ask questions later.

I have little doubt that some of these stories are true, but it matters quite a lot how frequently such accidents happen and what happens afterwards (not just regarding prosecuting mistakes but also making ammends to victims). But I recall another "story" you dug up on the internet some time ago about how the Israelis had used never gas on Palestinians which I showed was false. So I don't trust your evaluation of the scope of the problem here from your internet sources, because frankly you don't have a lot of credibility with me.

[American]

Boo ***** hoo. Plenty of our men are on that wall because of enemy "civilians", including child soldiers.


So F- you too, UniqueDickhead.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


I have little doubt that some of these stories are true, but it matters quite a lot how frequently such accidents happen and what happens afterwards (not just regarding prosecuting mistakes but also making ammends to victims). But I recall another "story" you dug up on the internet some time ago about how the Israelis had used never gas on Palestinians which I showed was false. So I don't trust your evaluation of the scope of the problem here from your internet sources, because frankly you don't have a lot of credibility with me.

The story was from the BBC. It is usually pretty reliable. Much more so than sources like Fox, for example.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Scott

He was there, in Vietnam, risking his life. He saw and talked to the people and saw the incidents.

He says he saw the incidents.

I have heard several times that Sheehan was under the gun to produce the book since he had taken advances on the book in the sum of $200,000 a couple of times, and um, took some "editorial freedoms" to make it more interesting, provocative and sell more copies. Also that he had either altered or edited out portions of the "pentagon papers" which were leaked out of the White House in order to sell more copies.

To me, this guy is right up there with Hanoi Jane.

Since we seem destined to once again relive this nightmare. Here is an article which I find to be extraordinarily accurate on the hows and whys we got into the Vietnam War. But then again, I am no PHD historian and don't have a top level security clearance, so what do I know?

I highly reccomend that you youngsters read this if you want to know about Vietnam:
How the U.S. Got Involved In Vietnam (http://25thaviation.org/id766.htm#how_the_u_s__got_involved_in_vietnam)

You will see that Vietnam was a f*cked up mess for a long time and guess who else had their share of atrocities there? You guessed it, the French.

The only ones who really wanted South Vietnam was the puppet government that we had appointed. The ARVN didn't really want to fight, which explains why they sucked so badly at it. You remember that photo of the child burned from napalm and crying that was one of the two most shown pics of the war? That was a S.N.A.F.U. by a South Vietnamese fighter pilot, the napalm was not dropped by US planes. (The other photo is a suspected spy getting capped in the head right out in the street).

This nightmare went on for more than 10 years for the US and brough out the absolute best and the absolute worst that you will ever see in humankind. Don't whine to me about a "quagmire" in Iraq where it has only been six months and, oh yeah, one other difference; we were allowed to win in Iraq, so we did. We were not allowed to win in Vietnam, just provide support to the ARVN.

The whole (US-Vietnam) thing started with a lie by the US about our intentions during the Geneva conference declaring France the loser of their war. However, before that, the US and France were discussing using nukes on Vietnam! At least that didn't happen.


Dienbienphu turned out to be the biggest battle of the war and ended in the French garrison being overrun. The whole world now realized that France's military power in Vietnam had suffered a significant defeat.
Back home, Washington was buzzing with the fallout from the news. In May, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Radford, sent a memorandum to Defense Secretary Charles Wilson which stated that "The employment of atomic weapons is contemplated in the event that such course appears militarily advantageous."(31) General Charles Willoughby, MacArthur's director of intelligence, put it more poetically when he advocated the use of atomic bombs to create "a belt of scorched earth across the avenues of communism to block the Asiatic hordes."(32)

By this time, two American aircraft carriers equipped with atomic weapons had been ordered into the Gulf of Tonkin, in the north of Vietnam, and Dulles is said to have offered his French counterpart, Georges Bidault, atomic bombs to save Dienbienphu. Bidault was obliged to point out to Dulles that the use of atomic weapons in such close conflict would destroy the French troops as well as the Vietminh.(33)
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by American
Boo ***** hoo. Plenty of our men are on that wall because of enemy "civilians", including child soldiers.


So F- you too, UniqueDickhead.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

There were about 50,000 Americans who died, but over one million Vietnamese. Look beyond the tip of your nose for a change.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I have heard several times that Sheehan was under the gun to produce the book since he had taken advances on the book in the sum of $200,000 a couple of times, and um, took some "editorial freedoms" to make it more interesting, provocative and sell more copies. Also that he had either altered or edited out portions of the "pentagon papers" which were leaked out of the White House in order to sell more copies.

To me, this guy is right up there with Hanoi Jane.



You've hear it? Hmmm, must be true, then.

MacArthur was a psycho. His career was terminated with extreme prejudice for very good reason.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You've hear it? Hmmm, must be true, then.

MacArthur was a psycho. His career was terminated with extreme prejudice for very good reason.

I take it all back!

Jane Fonda bought the screen rights to "A bright and shining lie" in 1988 for $75,000. It is a wonderful piece of Pulitzer Prize winning journalism. It should be on everyone's bookshelf. Accurate to the last detail and truly a damning look at the US conspiracy to slaughter civilians. The only book on the Vietnam War you will ever need to own.

[a_unique_person]

I see a made for TV version of the book on videotape. It was very interesting, but omitted much that was in the book. His numerous affairs became two, for example.

Jane Fonda was crucified for calling US troops baby killers, but there is clear evidence in the first link that civilians were killed in massacres, and the events covered up.

Unlike Roswell, real people were witnesses to these events and have spoken up about them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I take it all back!

Jane Fonda bought the screen rights to "A bright and shining lie" in 1988 for $75,000. It is a wonderful piece of Pulitzer Prize winning journalism. It should be on everyone's bookshelf. Accurate to the last detail and truly a damning look at the US conspiracy to slaughter civilians. The only book on the Vietnam War you will ever need to own.

People have exposed Pulitzer fraud. Fair enough, what has been exposed about this?

[Scott]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The evidence clearly is that the US armed forces will not prosecute atrocities.Evidence suggests the US Armed Forces do prosecute atrocities, two quick examples right off the top of my head...

My Lai, and eight US Marines are currently being held in the death of an Iraqi POW

The list goes on.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The US had a policy of allowing or intending for innocent civilians to be killed and protecting those who were guilty. Still no sources on this "policy?"

Do you honestly think that the US Military had a policy in Vietnam that said something along the lines of "kill all the civillians you want, we'll just call it collateral damage or label them as collaborators?"

Or is it more plausible that certain individuals did these things on their own?

With all due respect AUP, you simply must be smarter than that. after all, you can log on to the internet.

[Scott]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I take it all back!

Jane Fonda bought the screen rights to "A bright and shining lie" in 1988 for $75,000. It is a wonderful piece of Pulitzer Prize winning journalism. It should be on everyone's bookshelf. Accurate to the last detail and truly a damning look at the US conspiracy to slaughter civilians. The only book on the Vietnam War you will ever need to own. HEY! She should know, she was there!

If Hanoi Jane is involved, America can count on it being 110% accurate and unbiased...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Scott
Evidence suggests the US Armed Forces do prosecute atrocities, two quick examples right off the top of my head...

My Lai,



Lt Calley was the only person found guilty, when there were many involved, and he was later pardoned, IIRC, by Nixon.



and eight US Marines are currently being held in the death of an Iraqi POW



There are many more such deaths. Eight marines? If this prosecution takes the path of other such cases, they will be held till everything blows over.



The list goes on.



Not much of a list



Still no sources on this "policy?"



Just going on the evidence.



Do you honestly think that the US Military had a policy in Vietnam that said something along the lines of "kill all the civillians you want"?

Or is it more plausible that certain individuals did these things on their own?

Ditto.

You tell me a reasonable explanation.

1) Massacre happens, hundreds killed.
Concerned members of the armed forces complain.
Nothing happens.

2) Massacre happens.
One soldier convicted, and place under house arrest on base.
Soldier pardoned.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I see a made for TV version of the book on videotape. It was very interesting, but omitted much that was in the book. His numerous affairs became two, for example.

Jane Fonda was crucified for calling US troops baby killers, but there is clear evidence in the first link that civilians were killed in massacres, and the events covered up.

Unlike Roswell, real people were witnesses to these events and have spoken up about them.


And Lt. William Calley's court martial was a Hollywood production, just like the moon launch was! You just can't trust those sneaky Americans! :eek:

The incident which labeled US troops "baby killers" was this photo (which is the incident where the napalm was dropped by a South Vietnamese fighter pilot, not US troops):

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesE/phuc.jpg

[a_unique_person]

Not to labour a point, but the incompetence of the ARVN was well known, and it's tendency to brutality. Yet here is the US handing out Napalm bombs to them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
[B]


And Lt. William Calley's court martial was a Hollywood production, just like the moon launch was! You just can't trust those sneaky Americans! :eek:



That's exactly the point. A show trial of one person, and only after much public agitation for action. Then he is place in 'prison', a home arrest on the base, and then pardoned.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The story was from the BBC. It is usually pretty reliable. Much more so than sources like Fox, for example.

Is that supposed to mean anything to me? I don't care about Fox, I never watch it or read it, the comparison is irrelevant. And the news sources I do use I will check if something smells wrong about a story. Regardless of how reliable a source "usually" is, that's common sense. And nerve gas on civilians should have made you very sceptical, but it didn't. You ran with it, without checking, because of your bias, not because of the reliability of the BBC. That doesn't rescue your credibility as far as I'm concerned.

[a_unique_person]

Did you see the documentary? It had some pretty compelling evidence.

[peptoabysmal]

If you really want to dredge up this case against this unit that supposedly went on a rampage and killed civilians, fine, war crimes should be investigated. No doubt about that. Investigate other allegations of US crimes, no problem. There is not likely any new evidence to turn up in the case of Tiger Force to legally justify a re-trial.

If we do this, we damn well better investigate war crimes committed by the North Vietnamese, French and the Cubans who were brought into Vietnam to interrogate US POW's, as well.
War Crimes: The Cuban-Vietnam Connection (http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/warcrimes.cuba.vietnam.html)

Anything less than investigating all countries concerned would be just another biased attempt by the enemies of the US to discredit the US.

Edited to add:
One more thing before I give up on this lousy ISP connection I have tonight...
For the Blade to bring this issue up now, right after the Iraq war, it is nothing but a really, really, transparent attempt to discredit the US military.

[a_unique_person]

I think the wrongs of the Vietnamese regime are not the issue. They were the ones forced into a war, after all. And they were the ones who lost over a million people.

However, as the thread title says, America has to face up to it's past, and I am not convinced it has.

I also think Australia should face up to it's past concerning Aboriginies, but I can't see a topic like that generating too much interest.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think the wrongs of the Vietnamese regime are not the issue. They were the ones forced into a war, after all. And they were the ones who lost over a million people.

However, as the thread title says, America has to face up to it's past, and I am not convinced it has.

I also think Australia should face up to it's past concerning Aboriginies, but I can't see a topic like that generating too much interest.

So you're saying that if a country is forced into a war, then all Geneva convention bets are off? - B.S. - I don't accept the double standard.

Are you at all aware how much the US has agonized over the Vietnam war already? Not to mention Native Americans, slavery and on and on. If anyone in this world has agonized about it's past and attempted to make restitution, it is the US.

[a_unique_person]

I don't know about that. The constant message I am seeing here and in the international news is that the blacks are just to blame for all their problems.

The trial of Calley, is, once again, a good case in point. He was in a massive show trial, found guilty, then quietly let off the leash. That is, the public was kept happy that justice was done, while keeping the military happy that it's members are above justice.

[Skeptic]

The "logic" of the argument about the USA being "no better than North Vietnam" because it sometimes MISTAKENLY killed civilians and sometimes its officers deliverately killed civilians AGAINST ORDERS AND WITHOUT PERMISSION is ludicrous.

On this view, of course, the allies in WWII were no better than Hitler because of Dresden and "bomber" Harris, the cops are no better than criminals because of Rodney King, doctors no better than murderers because both sometimes kill people with knives, a would-be burglar no better than someone who shoots him in self-defense because they both used force, and so on and so forth.

To restate the obvious, yes, the south vietnamese government was corrupt. Yes, the US botched the war in many cases, and so on and so forth. But to compare the corrupt South Vietnamese government to the genocidal North Vietnamese one; to compare a botched bombing run to the intentional starvation of millions in the name of the "communist revolution"; that is insane.

(What starvaion of millions? The one that happened in Vietnam and their puppets, Cambodia and Laos, after the "glorious victory against the imperialist American agression", of course. THAT is, naturally, of no concern at all to AUP and his cohorts. It can't be blamed on the USA or the jews...)

The south vietnamese leaders were corrput. The north vietnamese ones were war criminals. It was no more "unjust" on the US's part to fight against north Vietnam than it was for the US to fight against nazi Germany.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What starva{t}ion of millions? The one that happened in Vietnam and their puppets, Cambodia and Laos, after the "glorious victory against the imperialist American agression", of course. THAT is, naturally, of no concern at all to AUP and his cohorts. It can't be blamed on the USA or the jews...

Sure it can!! The facts have never stopped them before, why should they suddenly have some affect now??

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Sure it can!! The facts have never stopped them before, why should they suddenly have some affect now??

A superpower has just done a pretty good job of trying to bomb a country back into the stone age. It then finds it is having trouble feeding it's people.

I don't recall any widespread starvation, and nothing like the forced startvation of Stalin. The problem was the end of the civil war left a lot of scores to settle. Promised aid from the US never arrived. Pol Pot was actually supported by the US as a means of retribution against Vietnam, IIRC.

Still, that has got little to do with the US. It makes pretensions at being the leader of the free world, but cannot face up to it's own military.

[Skeptic]

Pol Pot was actually supported by the US as a means of retribution against Vietnam, IIRC.

As usual, you "remember" incorrectly. Pol Pot was a North Vietnamese puppet, and was never supported by the west. His was the usual home-grown "marxist paradise of the workers", e.g., millions dead.

But thanks for proving Koidak's and my point about you mindlessly blaming the US for everything, contrary to all evidence.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Pol Pot was actually supported by the US as a means of retribution against Vietnam, IIRC.

As usual, you "remember" incorrectly. Pol Pot was a North Vietnamese puppet, and was never supported by the west. His was the usual home-grown "marxist paradise of the workers", e.g., millions dead.

But thanks for proving Koidak's and my point about you mindlessly blaming the US for everything, contrary to all evidence.

Pol Pot a South Vietnamese puppet? Are you trying to make a joke here?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The "logic" of the argument about the USA being "no better than North Vietnam" because it sometimes MISTAKENLY killed civilians and sometimes its officers deliverately killed civilians AGAINST ORDERS AND WITHOUT PERMISSION is ludicrous.


You would think, though, that if this sort of behaviour came to the attention of military command, it would at least be punished.

Not so, apparently (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1071214,00.html)

What starva{t}ion of millions? The one that happened in Vietnam and their puppets, Cambodia and Laos, after the "glorious victory against the imperialist American agression", of course. THAT is, naturally, of no concern at all to AUP and his cohorts. It can't be blamed on the USA or the jews...
You may have to elaborate on your point with this one. Plenty of countries experience starvation, including democratic ones like India. I may have mis-read your point though, so feel free to expand.

[a_unique_person]

America's larger dailies and TV networks were left scrabbling to make up the ground - no easy task. Two Blade reporters had spent eight months working solely on the scoop. Another had joined part-way through. Together, they interviewed more than 100 people, tracking down former soldiers in Tiger Force and finally travelling to Vietnam to interview survivors and witnesses.

'The reaction has been overwhelming. The attitude of the government for the past 36 years has been to keep this quiet,' said Ron Royhab, a Blade executive editor.



The US armed forces have provided tacit support for massacres by refusing to prosecute them, even when presented with credible evidence from their own personnel. Now, if the US had prosecuted events such as this massacre as they occurred, I would believe it was just the odd 'bad apple'. When events such as this are covered up and ignored, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are not seen to be worth prosecuting, the moral evidence for justice is not compelling enough.