Lift Up The Rock....

Tom Kunich

So, Bill, I noted that the London Mirror reported similar acts from British
soldiers. The problem was that the photos were not only doctored but one
General stated that the vehicle in the background of one of the photos isn't
a type that is in Iraq.

Perhaps we ought to wait for a real report or will you simply label that a
whitewash if it turns out to be nothing more than photoshop phunnies from
Osama and friends?

"TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040503080257.09206.00000681@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >From: Howard Kveck YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com
>
> > When you say:
> >"So what "war crimes" were those? And what "prisoner abuse" was that?",
it
> >would tend to make it seem that you don't think it's a big deal at all
that
> >it went on.
> >
> >--
> > tanx,
> > Howard
> >
>
> Unfortunately the response seems to be just what Iwas afraid it was going
to
> be from experience.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3680025.stm
> A real quick whitewash and a slap on the wrist compared to what could've
and
> very well maybe should've been done. Wait a few more days and watch the
lower
> enlisted involved get hammered as several should, but definitely not by
> themselves.
> Anybody who has dobne any serious military time can give you literally
dozens
> of examples like this.
> The ones I always loved were the ones with an officer having an affair
with an
> enlisted type. The officer, unless they were a leutenant, would get a
> reprimand, while in almost every case the enlistted would get hammered and
> usually discharged.
> Bill C
>

Beer, Piss, Water & Shit

Yesterday, the Mirror issued a rebuttal including photos of UK soldiers in
Iraq, wearing the hats they supposedly don't where ther. You should contact
the UK MoD to tell them your conclusion about the photos.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnew...-name_page.html

The BBC is taking more of a wait and see attitude:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3682393.stm

The Guardian is leaning toward fake photos:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1208907,00.html


"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YfGlc.6616$V97.3655@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> So, Bill, I noted that the London Mirror reported similar acts from
British
> soldiers. The problem was that the photos were not only doctored but one
> General stated that the vehicle in the background of one of the photos
isn't
> a type that is in Iraq.
>
> Perhaps we ought to wait for a real report or will you simply label that a
> whitewash if it turns out to be nothing more than photoshop phunnies from
> Osama and friends?
>
> "TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040503080257.09206.00000681@mb-m13.aol.com...
> > >From: Howard Kveck YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com
> >
> > > When you say:
> > >"So what "war crimes" were those? And what "prisoner abuse" was that?",
> it
> > >would tend to make it seem that you don't think it's a big deal at all
> that
> > >it went on.
> > >
> > >--
> > > tanx,
> > > Howard
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately the response seems to be just what Iwas afraid it was
going
> to
> > be from experience.
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3680025.stm
> > A real quick whitewash and a slap on the wrist compared to what
could've
> and
> > very well maybe should've been done. Wait a few more days and watch the
> lower
> > enlisted involved get hammered as several should, but definitely not by
> > themselves.
> > Anybody who has dobne any serious military time can give you literally
> dozens
> > of examples like this.
> > The ones I always loved were the ones with an officer having an affair
> with an
> > enlisted type. The officer, unless they were a leutenant, would get a
> > reprimand, while in almost every case the enlistted would get hammered
and
> > usually discharged.
> > Bill C
> >
>
>

TritonRider

>From: "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo.com

>So, Bill, I noted that the London Mirror reported similar acts from British
>soldiers. The problem was that the photos were not only doctored but one
>General stated that the vehicle in the background of one of the photos isn't
>a type that is in Iraq.
>
>Perhaps we ought to wait for a real report or will you simply label that a
>whitewash if it turns out to be nothing more than photoshop phunnies from
>Osama and friends?
>

Tom I'm waiting for more facts on the UK photos. Noone is denying the US pics
and a lot of the people involved are all pointing at and blaming each other.
None of them are dispute that this was happening, just who exactly did what.
Bill C

Curtis L. Russell

On Tue, 04 May 2004 05:49:51 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>North Vietnam WAS DEFEATED. A small push would have toppled them over after
>the Tet Offensive failed. Liberals were aghast and pulled the US out before
>they could "win".

Tet was in '68. Nixon was sworn into office in '69. The great
rapprochement was '71-'72 (starting with China). We had more than a
'small push' going on from 1969 to 1975 when the show was closed down
for most parts of the war zone. The best date in my mind for the start
of the gradual pull-out was in 1971 when they stopped sending pure
draftees to Viet Nam (they sent volunteers and voluntary draft,
beginning with the end 0f 1971), and the numbers dropped
significantly. But it wasn't as if the bombing stopped or the troops
pulled up tent pegs and headed home.

Don't see how Tet was what did the trick. It didn't hurt the
propaganda purposes of the North Vietnamese, but it also changed some
sloppiness and complacency in MAC V and MAC Thai.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Tom Paterson

>From: "Tom Kunich"

>North Vietnam WAS DEFEATED.

Well...

> A small push would have toppled them over after
>the Tet Offensive failed.

I think they were hurt very badly. Huge casualties, but Tet didn't fail. To the
contrary.

>Liberals were aghast and pulled the US out before
>they could "win".

It wasn't just "liberals" (please, Tom!) who were aghast at the mounting
casualities, and the reality of the fighting during Tet, where attacks came
from "everywhere". (A VC leader was the "civilian barber" at one airbase. The
VC came up through the manholes during the Tet attacks. My former father-in-law
was an MP at this base, is where the story comes from.)

We get this "hippies lost the war" thing (David Horowitz) from time to time.
Doesn't hold water. "The citizenry" finally got tired of the dead/wounded, the
lies, and Nixon not getting us out per his empty campaign promise (I didn't say
"when" I would get us out.) Tet might have been the final straw, as not only
were we not demonstrably "winning" (even with phony body counts), but we
couldn't even protect our soldiers behinds, anywhere in the country. Up till
then, Johnson/Nixon and the generals were calling the shots. Very, very few
hippies were cabinet members or high-ups in the military, if you think back.
Nixon effectively marginalized anyone with more hair than an old tennis ball.
Remember?

If you want to bewail a war that was (stupidly and criminally) not fought to
win, I'm with you there, FWIW. --Tom Paterson

Tom Paterson

>From: Curtis L. Russell

>Don't see how Tet was what did the trick.

I remember it as being a turning point in public opinion regarding the military
action in Viet Nam. Nixon fought a losing battle against rising public opinion
to keep from being the "first President who lost a war" (I guess Korea didn't
count). Like I said, memory, and opinion. On reflection, if anything, Tet
showed that the VC could suffer terrible losses and still fight. But I don't
think the extent of their losses was really widely understood until much later.
At the time, it seemed more like we were the ones who came out on the losing
end. --TP

Curtis L. Russell

On 04 May 2004 15:23:33 GMT, dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson)
wrote:

>I remember it as being a turning point in public opinion regarding the military
>action in Viet Nam. Nixon fought a losing battle against rising public opinion
>to keep from being the "first President who lost a war"

I remember it as being acretion. The daily focus on battle deaths, the
daily photos, a daily dose on the six o'clock news. Tet was a shock,
but the tide was already waxing.

The Chinese got their butts handed to them in 1979, but they declared
victory, said they had accomplished what they intended and left.
Barely acknowledge the thousands shot, fried and blown apart by a much
more battle hardened North Vietnamese army. Didn't ask for bodies or
an accounting, just left. Worked as well as anything else I've 'seen'.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Tom Paterson

>From: Curtis L. Russell

>The Chinese got their butts handed to them in 1979, but they declared
>victory, said they had accomplished what they intended and left. (Snip)

>Didn't ask for bodies or
>an accounting, just left. Worked as well >as anything else I've 'seen'.

An important lesson from recent history (IMHO). A great way to limit casualties
and spend less money. --TP

TritonRider

>From: Benjamin Weiner bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

>Please use proper DoD terminology: "torture-related program activities."
>
>Thank you for your attention in this matter.
>

Thye'd never use "torture".
I'd guess at something like "alternative medicine intelligence research
facility"
One of the cute phrases that was more on the spook side was to"alter the
health of the target" for kill.
Bill C

Henry Etta

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3aGlc.6607$V97.1576@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Steven L. Sheffield" <stevens@veloworks.com> wrote in message
> news:BCBB1DD6.2F68B%stevens@veloworks.com...
>> On 05/02/2004 09:27 PM, in article
>> R_ilc.3453$Hs1.464@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Tom Kunich"
>> <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > It is almost impossible to find the reasons ANYWHERE that describe the
> true
>> > reasons that the USA entered Vietnam but you can see a million articles
>> > blaming Nixon while ignoring the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as if it
> never
>> > existed.
>>
>> The true reasons? JFK was trying to contain communism pursuant to the
>> Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty and committed troops after the
>> French pulled out.
>
> Psst, I know you think you know what happened but apparently you do not.
> BTW
> It was Dwight David Eisenhower that first put troops into Vietnam to try
> to
> stop Ho Chi Minh from murdering village elders in the south trying to
> frighten viallgers into voting for him OR ELSE.


Psst, was that before or after Uncle Ho adopted the U.S. Constitution as his
own?

Henry Etta

Henry Etta

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:icGlc.6610$V97.136@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Nev Shea" <spamtrap@garbage.net> wrote in message
> news:9Yjlc.3898$V97.3799@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Steven L. Sheffield" <stevens@veloworks.com> wrote in
>> news:BCBB1DD6.2F68B%stevens@veloworks.com:
>>
>> > The true reasons? JFK was trying to contain communism pursuant to the
>> > Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty and committed troops after
>> > the French pulled out.
>>
>> Didn't that start with Eisenhower? And then Kennedy ramped it up, and
>> then
> .
>
> Several reporters were present when Kennedy baldly stated that he intended
> to make Vietnam into a war in order to show his constituency that he was a
> capable war President which was in strong doubt after the Bay of Pigs. His
> words were reported in several places including the letters to the editor
> of
> Look Magazine. I happened to run across that very article only last year.

Well post a reference to it so we all can read it, if you can! <G>

Henry Etta

Henry Etta

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote in message
news:637f90pp2gc5sguf71mgg8ji1t340k5ktr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 May 2004 05:49:51 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>North Vietnam WAS DEFEATED. A small push would have toppled them over
>>after
>>the Tet Offensive failed. Liberals were aghast and pulled the US out
>>before
>>they could "win".
>
> Tet was in '68. Nixon was sworn into office in '69. The great
> rapprochement was '71-'72 (starting with China). We had more than a
> 'small push' going on from 1969 to 1975 when the show was closed down
> for most parts of the war zone. The best date in my mind for the start
> of the gradual pull-out was in 1971 when they stopped sending pure
> draftees to Viet Nam (they sent volunteers and voluntary draft,
> beginning with the end 0f 1971), and the numbers dropped
> significantly. But it wasn't as if the bombing stopped or the troops
> pulled up tent pegs and headed home.
>
> Don't see how Tet was what did the trick. It didn't hurt the
> propaganda purposes of the North Vietnamese, but it also changed some
> sloppiness and complacency in MAC V and MAC Thai.

Please don't confuse Tom by presenting facts. <G>

Henry Etta

> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Howard Kveck

In article <ToZlc.34329$kh4.1694032@attbi_s52>,
"Henry Etta" <Etta@etta.com> wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:icGlc.6610$V97.136@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Nev Shea" <spamtrap@garbage.net> wrote in message
> > news:9Yjlc.3898$V97.3799@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> "Steven L. Sheffield" <stevens@veloworks.com> wrote in
> >> news:BCBB1DD6.2F68B%stevens@veloworks.com:
> >>
> >> > The true reasons? JFK was trying to contain communism pursuant to the
> >> > Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty and committed troops after
> >> > the French pulled out.
> >>
> >> Didn't that start with Eisenhower? And then Kennedy ramped it up, and
> >> then
> > .
> >
> > Several reporters were present when Kennedy baldly stated that he intended
> > to make Vietnam into a war in order to show his constituency that he was a
> > capable war President which was in strong doubt after the Bay of Pigs. His
> > words were reported in several places including the letters to the editor
> > of
> > Look Magazine. I happened to run across that very article only last year.
>
> Well post a reference to it so we all can read it, if you can! <G>
>
> Henry Etta

Hey, it was reported in the letters to the editor, isn't that good
enough for you, Mr. Nitpicker? That's the real shizit...

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich

"Tom Paterson" <dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040504101235.12634.00000805@mb-m01.aol.com...
>
> It wasn't just "liberals" (please, Tom!) who were aghast at the mounting
> casualities, and the reality of the fighting during Tet, where attacks
came
> from "everywhere".

Tom, the problem then was the same as the problem you see RIGHT NOW. "TWO
MORE AMERICAN SOLDIERS DIE IN BUSH'S WAR" screamed from every headline of
almost every major media outlet. The difference now is that we can look back
on Vietnam and see WHY we lost. Fool me once and all that.

> We get this "hippies lost the war" thing (David Horowitz) from time to
time.
> Doesn't hold water. "The citizenry" finally got tired of the dead/wounded,
the
> lies, and Nixon not getting us out per his empty campaign promise (I
didn't say
> "when" I would get us out.) Tet might have been the final straw, as not
only
> were we not demonstrably "winning" (even with phony body counts), but we
> couldn't even protect our soldiers behinds, anywhere in the country.

Actually that isn't true. The war was fought with the generals in handcuffs
almost from the start. North Vietnam complained about ANTOV's on the
de-militarized zone and Johnson removed them against military advice. North
Vietnam then rolled tanks past the border. That sort of thing happend all
over Vietnam.