PDA

View Full Version : Question to War Vets.



Mr. Hyde
October 8th, 2005, 10:16 PM
I think Fruit and CC are the only vets on the board. But I have to ask this since it concerns a theory I have regarding war vets.

Today was my Grand Uncle Harold "Duke" Daily's 60th birthday. Honestly, I didn't even know Duke wasn't his real name until today. But my other grand Uncle Bill was there. Duke served in Vietnam, and Bill served in WWII. BOTH refuse to talk about their experiences outside a few things.

For Duke, if he talks about Vietnam, all he talks about is the weather and how they had some monstrous leeches. I heard ONE story regarding his less than happy time there, and I had to hear it from my Aunt Linda, who was NOT happy to tell it...and I understand why. It's horrifying.

My uncle Bill however, he talks about how he used to have this Harley back during the war and how he used to ride it everywhere when he was on leave. But even then, he has that same look in his eyes that my uncle Duke has. They look like at any moment in telling the story they could cry.

I wanna know if this is common among veterans. I know why most vets wouldn't talk about the parts of war we hear so often, though not being a veteran myself I can't say I UNDERSTAND why. But I just wanna know, is this common?

Jamie
October 9th, 2005, 05:33 AM
We have a few vets in my family and they don't like to talk about it, but will on occasion. They always look very uneasy when they do talk about it.

CC
October 9th, 2005, 07:16 AM
Spart is a vet as well. I know many vietnam era vets, (including myself though fortunatly I never saw combat) I used to process them in when they returned to the states. Some talked about it. My first room mate tossed me a string of what looked like dog chew toys. He told me that they were the ears he cut off the viet congs as souveninrs(sp?).
One vet who served 18 months in Nam, while sobbing heavily told me a story I will never forget.
One of the soldiers in his platoon got his penis sliced while having sex with a prostitute. She had a ball of wax inserted in her vagina with a razor fixed so that it pointed the blade perfectly. Once it happened of course that soldier was sent back to the states. However, things like that happened all too often and the soldiers were well beyond frustrated. He watched as three others fopund a different prostitute. They stuck a flare signal gun up her vagina that blew away most of her torso when the fired it off.

Another told me of a story where the viet cong had captured a 3 year old and had strapped explosives to him They ordered him (at gunpoint) to walk into the compound where of course he was then to detonate himself. As one of the perimeter guards saw him walking up a path leading directly to their camp he called to his commander. The commander ordered him to shoot the boy before he could reach the camp. This particular soldier did as ordered then laid down his rifle and refused to pick it up again. Of course he was court-martialed for it.

Some talk but even they wish to forget many attrocities they had witnessed. Some will not talk at all about it. I believe it is the same with most wars. Certainly the soldier who brags about their part in a war are not the norm.............:O)

tinkerbell
October 9th, 2005, 07:27 AM
My Father is now 83. He was a POW in WW2. He was shot down, and in a German camp for some time.
He still paces the floors at night from bad dreams.. I also found his packet of info of Post traumatic Stress. I know he was woounded and is disabled from the war. He has physical injuries, but the emotional ones are far greater.
He speaks a little about it. He talks about watching his friends die, but he doesn't "really" talk about it.
He was so young, I often wonder how the war changed him. What he was like before this all happened to him.
He has written a few things. He has also discussed some things on the internet with other Vets that had the government come after him and tell him he could not discuss, and threaten to remove his computers from his home if he discussed again.

FruitandNut
October 9th, 2005, 08:31 AM
My father started out his service career in the Territorial 'Royal Artillery' firing 6in and 9.2in coastal guns. He joined the Regular Army (R. Signals) in 1937 and soon found himself posted to Palestine and straight into counter-insurgency duties. He had been told that it gets 'easier' after you have killed 'your first one', he never found it to be the case. As my father was a quite sort it took many years to tease details of 'his' war out of him. It was rich, interesting and extremely gory at times. I have photos as proof of some of it. He spent time in North Africa chasing Italians and Germans up and down, and doing his fair share of being chased as well. (In the early stages before Rommel and the Germans got involved, my dad was part of a 35,000 strong British force [half of whom were non-combattant], who defeated and largely rounded up a 500,000 strong Italian Armt led by their best general!] It was during this period of chase and being chased that he sustained what he called his 'technical wound'. While playing 'silly bu*gers' (as he put it) with an Me109 fighter, he armed only with a .303 Bren LMG. He got a good grazing on his left arm from a cannonshell and it was still evident 'til the day he died. With a wink he said that it was worth it as he saw the aircraft wobble away streaming gycol. (Like tinks dad, my father saw friends die in front of him and suffer terrible wounds.) Then on to Greece, Crete, India and Burma after that. Post war he stayed on in the Army, he had married mum in April 1945. As a young and growing family we spent 3.5 years in Singapore/Malaya and experienced some action against the Communist insurgency. I can just vaguely recall a fleeing 'terrorist' legging it off the roof of our bungalow and away down the back garden. We spent another 3.5 years in Hong Kong during a 'restless' period along the Chinese border. The British had about 35,000 troops on one side and the Chinese Peoples Army about 2,000,000 on the other side. The Brits. reckoned that the Chinese Army had some special breeding programme going, on their side! Later, during the MAD Dr. Strangelove period, along with American and West German troops, my father rattled his sword along the 'no-mans' land' fence between NATO, the Warsaw Pact and Oblivion. Dad left the Army in 1962 and took with him a long service and good conduct medal, half a dozen campaign medals, a gratuity, a pension and a heap of memories. He never felt inclined to get involved in veteran activity after that.

ps. My father-in-law of whom I normally don't like to speak saw a fellow aircraft technician/fitter walk into the revving blades of a Spitfire propeller :!: It was during the Battle of Britain period and everyone was getting tired and losing concentration. Occasionally it was spectacularly fatal.

My f-i-l also saw a number of the British (Christmas Island) nuclear tests during the 1950s. He is just one of many who felt the 'atomic breeze'.

Dad told me of the time that the guys he was with had run out of armour piercing ammo and a number of Rommel's tank's were coming at them with infantry close behind. He was the radio man and he remembered that HMS Warspite (a battleship) and a big gun monitor (either Roberts or Abercrombie) - total of 10 x 15in. guns were about 9-10 miles offshore. A quick 'phone call and 10 one tonne high explosive shells were whistling overhead and had rather a dramatic impact on the oncoming tanks. He didn't describe the human carnage, but he did say most of the tanks were only fit for the scrap heap. Even a Tiger tank can't take that kind of punishment. ( I mentioned the incident in my poem about HMS Warspite. :blush:)

After he left the forces it was as though he was trying to close the door on painful memories as he never spoke of the war again, except on the odd occasions we visited a military museum and he was confronted by something that triggered a particular memory.

I am now nearly 60 and I myself have never been in battle, I have just 'played' at soldiers in the military cadets; I thank my dad, tink's dad and all the others for it.

ps. My father's war was a much 'cleaner' one than Spart. and his buddies experienced it seems. Even the 'colonial wars' generally were not as 'evil', yes, there were booby traps, but situations were children and girls had to be shot, and the likes of My Lai were very rare. Generally there were some rules. I suppose if he had been more involved with the Japanese his perspective might have modified. As it was, it was a case of a few Banzai's, a barrage of fire from the British, Empire and Commonwealth troops and then a clearing up job. By that time in the war the Japanese were on the retreat in Burma.

Mr. Hyde
October 9th, 2005, 11:03 AM
I had no idea Spart was a vet. He's never mentioned it or hinted at it since I've been here.

Interesting stories. I'm starting to get an idea for an article to write that may go hand in hand with a Human RIghts article I might write.

KevinBrowning
October 9th, 2005, 11:14 AM
My grandfather is a veteran of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. He volunteered for all three. He is not afraid to talk about his experiences, although if something reminds him of a part of it he has not thought about in a while, one can observe a pained look in his eyes when he thinks no one is looking. Up until a few years ago he had severe post-traumatic stress disorder, but it seems lately he has achieved a sort of inner peace, especially since he was diagnosed with prostate cancer a few months ago. I'd be happy to give you any other details you might need for your article. As an aside, Apok is also an ex-Soldier.

CliveStaples
October 9th, 2005, 11:15 AM
My father never talks about his Vietnam combat experience. He will occasionally give an amusing anecdote about the antics of one of his war buddies--broken windshields, etc.--but he doesn't have any necklaces of ears, prostitute stories, or anything else from Full Metal Jacket or whatever whacked-out Vietnam movies there are.

Mr. Hyde
October 9th, 2005, 11:24 AM
As an aside, Apok is also an ex-Soldier.
Tell me you're joking. I just made a gay joke about him about fifteen or so minutes ago in the roast thread about him being Jeff Gannon's site....and now you tell me he was a soldier. Well that just makes it feel inappropriate now.

Apokalupsis
October 9th, 2005, 11:33 AM
I'm not a war vet, but I am a USN vet pre Iraq War #1.

But as far as war vets not telling you about their experiences during the war...perhaps it is because of 1) the memory of it is just not a memory they want to have...and by talking about it, it only brings up the memory of loss and pain they actually experienced first hand....and/or 2) no matter how much they describe it to us...we can never fully understand, 3) that we cannot fully understand, nor relate...disallows the existence of that bond between those who experienced the same thing.

Brotherhood during trying times...times that the vast majority of people do not have to experience...is very strong. This is true for law enforcement, military and firemen (as well as other high risk professions I suppose...but these are the top 3). I've known many people (including a lot in my family) in law enforcement and the military and to my knowledge, the above 3 are the "big reasons".

On the other hand...I know of some war vets who don't mind talking about it at all...and in fact, want to try to make the average Joe understand and tell them what really happened...what it was like.

So for this...I think it's really up to the individual's make-up or even personal experiences. I think there is a 2-sided coin here...there isn't one side that fits all.

mrs_innocent
October 9th, 2005, 11:38 AM
My father-in-law is 64 and a Vietnam Vet--2 tours. I've never heard him speak of it, and my husband says he's only heard it maybe once or twice in his almost 30 years. My father-in-law lost his entire life to the war, though. He was lucky enough to come home in one piece physically, but emotionally he didn't fare so well. His [then] wife up and left him with their four boys while he was gone, and trained the boys into believing their father was dead. He's only been able to contact any of them once, I believe, and even then they were pretty awful to him.

KevinBrowning
October 9th, 2005, 12:10 PM
Tell me you're joking. I just made a gay joke about him about fifteen or so minutes ago in the roast thread about him being Jeff Gannon's site....and now you tell me he was a soldier. Well that just makes it feel inappropriate now.

I doubt he cares, don't worry. Anyway, I was incorrect, as he has clarified, he is an ex-Sailor. I left out an important fact about my grandfather, being that he was a PoW of the Nazis for just short of a year, if you did not already know that. He also received a Purple Heart recently for injuries he sustained during the fall after parachuting from his B-17.

To make up for it, however, he was flirted with by a young Austrian farm girl before her father held him at bay with a pitchfork and the SS arrived. He was a Navigator and flew upwards of 80 missions, if I remember correctly, including Korea. In Vietnam he was there as an Army Engineer, as he was an engineer for the entirety of his civilian career, working on several major dams throughout the South and Midwest.

Jamie
October 9th, 2005, 02:14 PM
I'm not a war vet, but I am a USN vet pre Iraq War #1.

But as far as war vets not telling you about their experiences during the war...perhaps it is because of 1) the memory of it is just not a memory they want to have...and by talking about it, it only brings up the memory of loss and pain they actually experienced first hand....and/or 2) no matter how much they describe it to us...we can never fully understand, 3) that we cannot fully understand, nor relate...disallows the existence of that bond between those who experienced the same thing.

Brotherhood during trying times...times that the vast majority of people do not have to experience...is very strong. This is true for law enforcement, military and firemen (as well as other high risk professions I suppose...but these are the top 3). I've known many people (including a lot in my family) in law enforcement and the military and to my knowledge, the above 3 are the "big reasons".

On the other hand...I know of some war vets who don't mind talking about it at all...and in fact, want to try to make the average Joe understand and tell them what really happened...what it was like.

So for this...I think it's really up to the individual's make-up or even personal experiences. I think there is a 2-sided coin here...there isn't one side that fits all.

I agree completely. Also, some people are worried about what others might think of them if they tell stories about what they had to do. Who wants to tell their wife that they had to open up into a field of people and top it off with artillery being called in? I think in some circumstances it is to protect the family.

Spartacus
October 9th, 2005, 05:56 PM
But I just wanna know, is this common?


Yes

sylouette
October 12th, 2005, 07:54 AM
CC, Spart, Fruit, Apok


THANK YOU!

I SALUTE YOU!!!

Spartacus
October 12th, 2005, 05:51 PM
CC, Spart, Fruit, Apok


THANK YOU!

I SALUTE YOU!!!

Can't forget Chad and Padillamore either.

sylouette
October 13th, 2005, 03:28 AM
Can't forget Chad and Padillamore either.

I'm sorry if I left anyone out.


That's what I meant about a "golden" heart under Member Toast, Spart. :kiss:

Dragon
May 14th, 2006, 05:08 PM
Well my grandfather was a WW2 vet. And he told many and many stories of his experiences, well up till he got to why he was sent back, he was wounded by a morter round, but usually he told us but in a sad way. Apparently he was trying to save some of his buddies from this same morter gun when he was struck by one of its rounds. To tell a long story short, he held the heads of the morter gun down while the rest of them got out(what he said is they ran out of ammo). My Uncle was in vietnam, he never wanted to talk about it. My other uncle(my dads other brother) was a military MP during Korea and Vietnem on a base in Japan. My father never went to be in the service because of his being sick and ill all the time as a teen and even as a young adult(later turns out to be a kidney disease).

I guess it really depends how the person handles the experiences.

wanxtrmBANNED
May 14th, 2006, 05:14 PM
The entire male side of my family is either active duty (immediate family) or was active duty. I was not able to join due to several major back surgeries.

I guess the issue at hand is whether or not the traumatic stress issue and all. To be honest only one of my family members has anything coming close, and that is because he was forced (as an m.p.) to be involved in the shooting of a colleague that was shooting at him and others, a friend this has affected him.

tinkerbell
May 14th, 2006, 05:20 PM
My Father is a WW2 Vet..He was also in a German Prison camp..He dropped Bombs and his plane was shot down..He still has Night Terrors and PTS..He will usually talk with other vets, but for the most part he will not discuss many things..There are also things he is not supposed to talk about..

CC
May 15th, 2006, 08:49 AM
I have two brothers who were/are career navy. My baby brother is floating around in the gulf somewhere now. Out of 5 boys we all enlisted. Me and my oldest brother were army, my next oldest brother was navy (carreer), my next youngest brother was Air Force and as I said my baby brother is still in the navy. He is an e-9 and retires when he gets back.
I myself have no scars (emotional) from my experience. But then I joined the day I turned 17. By the time I got out I was 20 and younger than most who enlisted at that age. Heck, I grew up in the army. I had never been treated like an adult and the army gave that to me overnight. Though I was reduced in rank and served nearly six months in the stockade I must say that being in the service at that time in my life forged what is now a part of me. I think everyone should experience something of a sort. That sort being a time in their lives that they commit to serving their country full-time for a few years. I was all the better for it and believe it would be about the same for all.....just my opinion of course..:O)

Dragon
May 15th, 2006, 09:09 AM
In my humble opinion(and yes i said opinion) it is not ment for everyone. But if you want to go, i say hurray! And wish ya the best of luck in your adventures and goals. I say I wouldnt survive a day in military service of any type. I am very hard at taking orders. But then again, will i ever know truely? But now i see no reason to go, since i am married now and i want to be at home to finish my schooling this coming spring. I know i know, you can be in the military and have a family, i understand, but to me, i think it is ment for the single person to me.

southernbelle
May 15th, 2006, 10:57 AM
I am a Air Force brat, who grew up to be an Air Force wife...my father is a retired Master Sgt..he served in the Vietnam war, where he was stationed in Thailand. I don't know what he saw, what he did...he doesn't talk about anything more than explaining the photos in his album. This album shows, Thailand...the open market, a few statues...a few buddies...and that's about it. He talks about riding an elephant, eating a water buffalo steak, and the smell of the chickens hanging in the open market. Other than that..he's never said anything. And I've never asked. My father is amazing..strong, silent type. He's got a great sense of humor (sarcasim that aggravates my mother), and loves his woodworking shop. I see him as that and more..I'm proud that he served his country and know it makes him proud that my husband now does. So, to every one on ODN that has served...or is serving...I'm proud of you and I thank you. As stated by Dragon...it's not a job for everyone....but, those who take it up...are great.

Pibs
May 16th, 2006, 08:37 AM
If you did something utterly stupid, senseless and quite probably involving extreme evil, war being all of those things, would you wanna talk about it?



P.

southernbelle
May 16th, 2006, 09:36 AM
I don't think war is utterly stupid. We stepped in and rescued Jews from Hilter, we saved the Korean people from destruction, and we have resecued thousands from the evil of Sadaam Hussein...I don't think that's stupid. I wish we would step up and save more people.

FruitandNut
May 16th, 2006, 08:34 PM
If you did something utterly stupid, senseless and quite probably involving extreme evil, war being all of those things, would you wanna talk about it?P.

Well, if this was a religion forum or a psychology or psychiatry one, I could give you examples of people doing just that for various reasons.

To fight on behalf of people being oppressed isn't what I would personally choose to call stupid, senseless or extremely evil and maybe worthy of a mention.

To crow about victories in the name of a deity ('Allah wakba' or 'Gott mit uns' style), could perhaps be another reason to speak of and record 'great' or 'dubious' deeds.

As part of cognitive therapy/ confession/ laying a 'ghost' of the past to some sort of rest - these are all possible reasons as well.

Pibs
May 16th, 2006, 09:51 PM
We stepped in and rescued Jews from Hilter

No, you stepped in and rescued the Federal Reserve (which isn't federal and has no reserves) and major US corporations from the massive losses they would endure should Britain and some allies who owed you money were to lose the war.

Jews had little if anything to do with it and you didn't get involved until your president deliberately provoked Pearl Harbor then pretended to be suprised about it (having failed to goad Hitler into attacking America)

Not to mention the military-industrial complex who nearly wet themselves with excitement.


we saved the Korean people from destruction,

*blink* Would you care to explain that exactly?


and we have resecued thousands from the evil of Sadaam Hussein

No, you've established military bases in the ME outside of Saudi Arabia because having them in SA created 9/11 and you wish to control the world's oil supplies, if only because the petrodollar is under threat, especially from Iran and at the time, Iraq.

Not to mention the military-industrial complex who nearly wet themselves with excitement.

Do you have any othe fairy stories?



P.

Dragon
May 17th, 2006, 06:14 AM
Boy pibs you are no different then the guy you are responding to, you are only looking at the small picture.




No, you stepped in and rescued the Federal Reserve (which isn't federal and has no reserves) and major US corporations from the massive losses they would endure should Britain and some allies who owed you money were to lose the war.

Jews had little if anything to do with it and you didn't get involved until your president deliberately provoked Pearl Harbor then pretended to be suprised about it (having failed to goad Hitler into attacking America)

Utter bull****, complete and utter BS. Please show links showing how he did this or said this. Yes, USA cut off the Japanese from oil just before Pearl Harbor, but that was AFTER the fact of Japan invading China and started ITS military conquests. So its ok for Japan to do it, but not USA to PROTECT its interests? Oh by the way, Japans military-industry complexes also wetted themselves too. ;) :yes:


Not to mention the military-industrial complex who nearly wet themselves with excitement.

Only military industry that was growing at the time was trading old ships and tanks to the English for keeping her alive against Germany, but that was miniscule comared to what USA would do after it was attacked by Japan.




*blink* Would you care to explain that exactly?

Yes i actually can. You see, North Korea wanted to invade South Korea, well, the USA is an Ally of S. Korea so we stepped in to help. So when one nation committs an act of aggression for no reason(unlike US in Iraq by the way) on another, US helped them. You do realize that the leader of Korea was a loon right?



No, you've established military bases in the ME outside of Saudi Arabia because having them in SA created 9/11 and you wish to control the world's oil supplies, if only because the petrodollar is under threat, especially from Iran and at the time, Iraq.

No, what created the 9/11 was terrorists bud. They are the ones that committed a crime of murder because they disagreed and couldnt chage the world they wanted peacefully.


Not to mention the military-industrial complex who nearly wet themselves with excitement.

What is with this wetting themselves thing you have? Just like your mind-like kind has issues wetting themselves over the fact we are trying to remove threats?


Do you have any othe fairy stories?

No more then you telling stories.



P.[/QUOTE]

Pibs
May 17th, 2006, 11:12 PM
Utter bull****, complete and utter BS. Please show links showing how he did this or said this.

Entire books have been written on the subject, court cases have cleared those originally blamed, it's pretty common knowledge to most people outside of America.


Only military industry that was growing at the time was trading old ships and tanks to the English for keeping her alive against Germany, but that was miniscule comared to what USA would do after it was attacked by Japan.

If you cannot see the irony in your response I'm not sure I could explain it to you.


Yes i actually can. You see, North Korea wanted to invade South Korea, well, the USA is an Ally of S. Korea so we stepped in to help.

Sure, 'bud'. Geopolitical machinations explained in a nutshell. Thanks for that.


No, what created the 9/11 was terrorists bud. They are the ones that committed a crime of murder because they disagreed and couldnt chage (sic) the world they wanted peacefully.

I think I grasp what you're trying to say but if I do then it's somewhat simple-minded and fails utterly to address quite WHY terrorists "disagreed" (with..?) and "wanted to change the world they wanted"

??



P.

Dragon
May 18th, 2006, 05:11 AM
Entire books have been written on the subject, court cases have cleared those originally blamed, it's pretty common knowledge to most people outside of America.

Nice list of sources by the way. :wtf:




If you cannot see the irony in your response I'm not sure I could explain it to you.

What amazes me is the fact you didnt see the irony of YOU comments which i just pointed out on how your view is no differnt if you flip it around.




Sure, 'bud'. Geopolitical machinations explained in a nutshell. Thanks for that.

I never said that was the whole story unlike you who keep insisting that your view is the true and only light of the path. Meaning you are correct and i am wrong, just because you say. I was just simplifying it for you.




I think I grasp what you're trying to say but if I do then it's somewhat simple-minded and fails utterly to address quite WHY terrorists "disagreed" (with..?) and "wanted to change the world they wanted"

??



P.


If you wish to think that way, your problem. Oh we know plenty of reasons why, but that doesnt change the fact that they used violence to get that change, when they could of used non-violence. As for USA military using force, that a different story, since we are removing a threat(terrorist) that used violence against defenseless civilians. Oh yes we are so much worse. ;) :wtf:

Pibs
May 19th, 2006, 10:42 AM
So US forces have caught bin Laden and invaded Saudi Arabia, which is where most of the hijackers came from?

Even Fox News is more accurate than that.

You want sources that Pearl Harbor was deliberately provoked and allowed to happen?

Michael V. Gannon, Pearl Harbor Betrayed (Henry Holt, 2001) is a recent examination of the issues surrounding the surprise of the attack.
Frederick D. Parker, Pearl Harbor Revisited: United States Navy Communications Intelligence 1924–1941 (Center for Cryptologic History, 1994) contains a detailed description of what the Navy knew from intercepted and decrypted Japanese communications prior to Pearl.
Henry C. Clausen and Bruce Lee, Pearl Harbor: Final Judgement, (HarperCollins, 2001), an account of the secret "Clausen Inquiry" undertaken late in the war by order of Congress to Secretary of War Stimson.
Robert A. Theobald, Final Secret of Pearl Harbor (Devin-Adair Pub, 1954) ISBN 0815955030 ISBN 0317659286 Foreword by Fleet Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr.
Albert C. Wedemeyer, Wedemeyer Reports! (Henry Holt Co, 1958) ISBN 0892750111 ISBN 0815972164
Hamilton Fish, Tragic Deception: FDR and America's Involvement in World War II (Devin-Adair Pub, 1983) ISBN 0815969171
John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (Berkley Reissue edition, 1986 ISBN 042509040X) is an excellent account by a Pulitzer Prize winning author, though thought by some not to back up his claims as thoroughly as expected by academic conventions.
Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit : The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (Free Press, 1999) A study of the Freedom of Information Act documents that led Congress to direct clearance of Kimmel and Short. ISBN 0743201299
Edward L. Beach, Scapegoats: A Defense of Kimmel and Short at Pearl HarborISBN 1557500592

or see

Pearl Harbor
by James Perloff
Hawaii was surprised; Washington was not
http://www.thenewamerican.com/departments/feature/1999/070499.htm

Pearl Harbor: The REAL History -
Mother Of All Conspiracies
http://www.rense.com/general10/consp.htm

Anyone afflicted by watching this historical poison should rush out immediately and get the antidote in the form of Robert B. Stinnett’s blockbuster book, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Judged by the Chicago Sun-Times’ Tom Roeser as "perhaps the most revelatory document of our time," the Stinnett book appeared in hard cover last year and in paperback just in time for the movie. Drawing on a wealth of previously classified material, the author proves beyond all doubt that FDR could not possibly have been surprised by what the Japanese did or where and when they did it.

For at least a year before the attack, FDR pursued a policy of goading the Japanese to do it. He saw no other way to overwhelm American isolationist sentiment and get the country to enter the war against the Axis powers.

For key command posts, he carefully picked and placed naval officers who would not obstruct his provocation plans. Vice-Admiral James O. Richardson, commander-in-chief of the United States Fleet, strenuously objected to White House orders to bottle up the main elements of our Pacific navy in one place, Pearl Harbor. He was sacked. To fill Richardson’s place, FDR vaulted Admiral Husband Kimmel over 32 others. Kimmel was a decent man and no stooge, but the White House systematically denied him information that the Japanese were targeting Hawaii.
http://www.mises.org/story/688



etc etc etc


As for Korea, start here:

At last, truth about Korean War
By Brian Becker


and Rev. Kiyul Chung


Those who have tried to tell the truth about the Holocaust suffered by the Korean people--before and especially during the Korean War--have been punished severely for their efforts.

Thousands of people have been imprisoned in South Korea over the past half-century for the crime of telling the truth about the 1950-53 war.

Under the terms of what is now called the National Security Law, people have been jailed for daring to come forward and reveal the crimes committed by U.S. government forces and its partner or proxy forces in the South Korean military and national intelligence police.

When the hated Syngman Rhee dictatorship was overthrown by an uprising of the people on April 19, 1960, a brief flowering of democracy blossomed throughout the southern half of Korea.

Then the stories of atrocities against civilians by U.S. soldiers began to be told from one end of the country to the other. So widespread were the accounts of survivors, their families and neighbors that an unmistakable picture began to emerge of a strategy of terror employed during the war--in both North and South Korea.

The crimes committed in South Korea also included the mass executions of many thousands of political prisoners, of nationalist patriots, of socialists and communists, and of peasants seeking land reform.

Park coup buried the truth

However, the flood of "truth telling" that swept South Korea came to a sudden, shocking conclusion 13 months after it began when the United States covertly backed a military coup by Gen. Park Chung-Hee on May 16, 1961.

Those who had come forward to report on war crimes and crimes against humanity were sent to prison. Many remained locked up for decades, suffering torture and serving as a chilling threat for others who wanted to speak out. Some of these people stayed in prison for 20, 30 and even 40 years.

As a consequence, thousands of families had to quietly conceal their hurt and anger. Koreans use the word "han" to describe this suppressed grief and rage.

Now that this story is finally being revealed, it is becoming clear that the gruesome features of U.S. strategy in South Korea before and during the 1950-53 war have stark parallels with those pursued a decade later in South Vietnam.
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/tribunal0628.php

and work your way up.



P.
<br><i><font color="red">The below text has been automerged with this post.</i></font><br>

since we are removing a threat(terrorist) that used violence against defenseless civilians. Oh yes we are so much worse

Oh sweet irony.

Orders To Fire On Korean Civilians? (CBS) - "The Army has requested that we strafe all civilian refugee parties. . . approaching our positions... To date, we have complied." USAF Col. Turner Rogers' memo

War Crinimals or War Heroes? -- "Shoot any civilian suspected of being a communist before they become prisoners.", "The Chinese and Koreans are in appearance but a shade above the human beast." - US Army Gen. M. Ridgway, United Nations Commander-in-chief in Korea

Over a bridge:
Incidents of Korean Refugees Killed (New York Times) - It was Aug. 3, 1950, sixth week of the Korean War. Maj. Gen. Hobart R. Gay's 1st Cavalry Division, hammered by the North Korean army, had just retreated over the Naktong. Gen. Gay ordered the bridge, still crowded with South Korean women and children, blown up.

Under a bridge:
Nogun-ri: The Korean My Lai - Bruce Cumings (The Nation) - Repressed memory is the ammunition of history, returning when one least expects it to puncture the complacency of the present. Americans reacted with palpable shock at learning the fate of several hundred Korean civilians, machine-gunned to death by US soldiers in late July 1950 under a bridge near Nogun village. The Nogun massacre can help Americans understand what this "forgotten war" was really about. It was a civil and unconventional war that had its origins long before June 1950, and the official repositories of historical truth in Washington and Seoul have been lying about its basic nature for half a century.

The Nogun-ri Massacre - The Record of the First Cav's 2nd of the 7th in Korea by Michael Munk - Lt. Col. William A. Harris, the regimental commander, implicated in the Nogun-ri massacre was also responsible for the massacre of 35,383 residents of Sinchun, Whang-hae-do. Col Harris's unit occupied Sinchun on October 17, 1950 and killed the "Communist" civilians over a period of 50 days.

Masan villagers claim GIs committed another massacre - A group of villagers in Kokan-ri in Masan, some 400 km south of Seoul, alleged Monday that American soldiers shot to death more than 80 residents who were hiding in a house of ancestral worship on the outskirts of the village on Aug. 11, 1950.

Korean, U.S. Witnesses, Backed by Military Records, Say Refugees Were Strafed (AP) - In reports this fall, The Associated Press told of the killing of South Korean refugees by the U.S. Army in 1950. This report looks at yet another hidden dimension of the Korean conflict, air attacks on civilians. Korean, U.S. witnesses, backed by military records, say refugees strafed.

Witnesses Cite US in Korea Inferno (AP) - When the American firebombs hit, hundreds of terrified refugees trapped in the cave rushed for the entrance, villagers said. But only a dozen escaped with their lives.

The Truth About the Sinchun Massacre - In October of 1950, a major massacre of civilians took place in the Sinchun County. Some 35,000 residents, more than one in four, were murdered in cold blood and today, a museum in Sinchun displays grizzly evidence of the massacre for all to see. Visitors are reminded of the horrible war crimes committed by the American GIs that compare in barbarity with Hitler's Nazi Holocaust.

The Dok-do Massacre - On June 8, 1948, a flight of B29 heavy bombers of the US 5th Air Force bombed and machine-gunned 80 or so South Korean fishing boats in the waters of Dok-do and killed more than 200 fishermen. This massacre occurred while South Korea was still under the rule of the US Military Government in Korea (USMGIK).

American War Crimes: The Two Faces of America by Hee Kyoung Chun, The Cheju April 3rd Massacre Victims' Association -- Nogun-ri is but one of many cases of killing of non-combatants by American troops in this century. At Mylai in Vietnam in 1968, more than 500 Vietnamese civilians were killed. At Masan in 1950, Cheju island in 1948, and many other places in Korea

Massacres by the "United Nations" Troops in Korea -A letter to the UN Secretary General concerning the atrocities committed by the US troops during the Korean War under the name of so-called "UN forces".

The Cheju 4.3 Massacre -- How US Gen. Dean ordered the massacre of more than 30,000 residents of Cheju

Link to all above here:

http://www.kimsoft.com/kr-mass.htm


we saved the Korean people from destruction,


Now perhaps you understand why I blinked at that notion?


P.

Dragon
May 19th, 2006, 03:01 PM
Darn it....my post never went through, grrrr...

But i am willing to look at your "sites" and sources youprovied, even though i have read about half of them in my studies, i am a history scholar and studying it. But i will tell ya now though, about half of the "stuff" these papers say is truth or twisted true and the other half is bull. But let me sort and then i will comment.
<br><i><font color="red">The below text has been automerged with this post.</i></font><br>
And of course some of your sites is propaganda fo the far left: hence:
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/tribunal0628.php ...socialists....

From one of your sites.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/departments/feature/1999/070499.htm

freezing her assets in America;

closing the Panama Canal to her shipping;

progressively halting vital exports to Japan until finally we joined Britain in an all-out embargo;

sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and

on November 26th -- just 11 days before Pearl -- delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all her troops from both China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.


Want to know why they were doing this? I will tell you.
I dont think you realize that FDR didnt want war, but knew it was unaviodable. Bu tit was the Japanese that pushed America and the allies that were against Germany. Japan did several attacks on not only China inthe late 1930s bu talso in SouthEast Asia too. That is why the embargos was put up and many other facets too.
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww2Timeline/1917-45.html

Pibs
May 19th, 2006, 04:36 PM
I dont think you realize that FDR didnt want war

That's utterly laughable for someone calling themselves a history scholar!

Still, I like the way you tackled the argument and facts by pointing out one of the sources was left wing. Very impressive.

Your reaction to what appears to be a revelation to you that unlike the 3,000 or so killed by terrorists, American forces are 'so much better' (after all, 35,000 in one town is better right?) was telling.

See my signature.


P.

Dragon
May 20th, 2006, 06:30 AM
That's utterly laughable for someone calling themselves a history scholar!

Still, I like the way you tackled the argument and facts by pointing out one of the sources was left wing. Very impressive.

Your reaction to what appears to be a revelation to you that unlike the 3,000 or so killed by terrorists, American forces are 'so much better' (after all, 35,000 in one town is better right?) was telling.

See my signature.


P.


And i am ceased to be amazed on how much you fall for the conspiracy theories. I mean come on, do you seriously take all that is not "average taught in schools" info of these sites seriously? Give me a break.

CC
May 20th, 2006, 08:51 AM
I at times will argue a point of view in the hopes that I am proven wrong because if I were right it would mean that the terrible things we did did happen.
For instance I debated vocifeously on whether or not the WTC buildings were taken down through demolitin and not the jet planes that hit the buildings.
That led to me reading other accounts to come up with the conclusion that the buildings were brought down by the planes. I believe that because if there were a wealth of evidence showing they were brought down by explosions that too many people would know about it and it would leak somewhere. Since I could find no neutral sources on why the buildings fell as though explosives were used I no longer considered that it happened that way. Although there are still some dark spots that seem to lead to the feds knowing about the attack and letting it happen. But I have not sen enough evidence to forge that myth into fact so I fell back on my former position. Which was America was asleep behind the wheel out of laxity and not for more nefarious reasons.
I also still have a glimmer of doubt on that one but can find no reliable source that someone on our side coordinated intelligence in a way to abet the SAUDI'S that attacked us.
However, that leads me to believe that we should have all our forces in Afghanistan until we have rooted out Bin Laden. I'm not even sure that he is even a real target at present as the shift to Iraq was surely Bush spending public trust, patriotism and money to get his war. Had he stayed in Afghanistan, captured Bin Laden and NOT invaded Iraq I would have considered him one of the best presidents ever. Instead I see him as the worse, possibly even criminally speaking, I won't be surprised if he does get impeached. In fact I'd be more surprised that he was not.

Spartacus
May 20th, 2006, 12:43 PM
If you did something utterly stupid, senseless and quite probably involving extreme evil, war being all of those things, would you wanna talk about it?



P.

Certainly not to someone who makes statements like yours.

I've done a lot of things I don't feel the need to talk about. Not because the things I did were evil, stupid, or otherwise, ...but because I don't see the point in talking about them.
<br><i><font color="red">The below text has been automerged with this post.</i></font><br>

I won't be surprised if he does get impeached. In fact I'd be more surprised that he was not.

You are forgetting that we went to war in Iraq with the full support of the Congress. Yes indeed, our elected represntatives ratified what was in effect a declaration of war.

As far as intelligence and the reasons for going to war: Not only did the members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees have full access to all the raw intellignece, every iforeign intelligence agency of every major Western country had the same conclusion.

And even before the Iraq voite there was an earlier vote that gave Bush a hunting license to use any and all resources at his disposal to fight against international terrorism.

If the attitude today were prevailant when North Korea invaded the South I shudder to think how we would react today if our forces were being defeated time and time again as they were during the first year of that war.

America has become fat, dumb and stupid on foreign policy and military matters...an expected condition as the percentage of veterans in this countries shrinks every year the further along we proceed into our "volunteer only" professional military era.

If this nation is to endure, we will need to bring back the draft -- not to fill manpower needs, but to expand the number of citizens who know first-hand what is involved with military operations.

Dragon
May 20th, 2006, 01:45 PM
I at times will argue a point of view in the hopes that I am proven wrong because if I were right it would mean that the terrible things we did did happen.
For instance I debated vocifeously on whether or not the WTC buildings were taken down through demolitin and not the jet planes that hit the buildings.
That led to me reading other accounts to come up with the conclusion that the buildings were brought down by the planes. I believe that because if there were a wealth of evidence showing they were brought down by explosions that too many people would know about it and it would leak somewhere. Since I could find no neutral sources on why the buildings fell as though explosives were used I no longer considered that it happened that way. Although there are still some dark spots that seem to lead to the feds knowing about the attack and letting it happen. But I have not sen enough evidence to forge that myth into fact so I fell back on my former position. Which was America was asleep behind the wheel out of laxity and not for more nefarious reasons.
I also still have a glimmer of doubt on that one but can find no reliable source that someone on our side coordinated intelligence in a way to abet the SAUDI'S that attacked us.
However, that leads me to believe that we should have all our forces in Afghanistan until we have rooted out Bin Laden. I'm not even sure that he is even a real target at present as the shift to Iraq was surely Bush spending public trust, patriotism and money to get his war. Had he stayed in Afghanistan, captured Bin Laden and NOT invaded Iraq I would have considered him one of the best presidents ever. Instead I see him as the worse, possibly even criminally speaking, I won't be surprised if he does get impeached. In fact I'd be more surprised that he was not.


Actually i would agree more. But then again i look at how we "contained" Iraq and Hussein and realized that we didnt have to contain in the first place. Because at the time over and over the Iraqi nationals and freedom fighters of then against Iraq are probably the same ones now that are angery with us and are the same ones that are insurgents. Want to know why? because the anti-war people of that time said it was not our duty to go all the way. And now we are at this stage of where we are in a bind of what is right and what is not. Personally, i would of hoped we put our full militayr into afganistan too, but we didnt because of the international community AND the anti-war people. I heard repeated by those that we dont have the rights to move in militarly in afganistan, which boiled my mind at that time.
Thats why i get angery every time i see a anti-war protest near my home or where ever, because i see them as hypocrits.

CC
May 21st, 2006, 12:42 PM
Spart:
You are forgetting that we went to war in Iraq with the full support of the Congress. Yes indeed, our elected represntatives ratified what was in effect a declaration of war.
No. They had the info that Bush wanted them to have. None of which was substantiated and in fact, as is now clear that indeed Bush wnated Iraq more than Bin laden. Iraq is supposed to be the footprint of PNAC being carried forward. The way things are looking at present, PNAC will have been a pipe dream because it's agenda was obscured from most of America. So we can forget about any noble reasons to be in Iraq, as there are none. It was never about liberating anyone, it was about building an empire.

Dragon:
Thats why i get angery every time i see a anti-war protest near my home or where ever, because i see them as hypocrits.
There was NO signifigant protesting about going into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban that was harboring Bin Laden. There were more protest about why we were not invading their country of origin, Saudi Arabia.
As well, it was the anti war protesters that brought the truth about Vietnam into the public mainstream that greatly helped to end a war that costs us 50,000 deaths with no end game in sight.
When protests scatter across America in huge numbers there has historically been something to protest about. (like Iraq now) The squeak of protests about Afghanistan was not even bolstered at the time by anyone other than the relatatively few who would protest war at all.

So protesters have a very important role in America. In the long run it allows truths to come out from a cloud of deceptions. As the deceptions in Iraq were uncovered, more people protested. Now that we know the facts were being fixed around the policy the protests will only get louder until we stop the empire building we are trying to create in the ME.

cat's meow
July 4th, 2006, 11:59 PM
My father was active duty during the Korean War (US Navy) and I was active duty (US Army) during the first Gulf War (Desert Storm). Luckily, neither of us were in battle. Your question is a good one and before I entered the armed forces (at your age, a bit older) I had little understanding too. The following writing is coming from a slightly left of moderate Democrat (me), keep that in mind. I do loath the Bushanostra also.

I was very sceptical of the endoctrination process of 'basic training' (Army) or 'boot camp' (Navy, Marines), let alone battle. I had seen many films like 'Full Metal Jacket" and was a bit uneasy. Basic training and what they do FOR YOU (and they really do) is basically three things:

1. How to kill the 'enemy'
2. HOW TO SAVE YOUR OWN DAMN LIFE!
3. Become a part of the 'whole,' a force that all works to do the right thing

And the drill sergeants get nothing but my highest praise for the training provided (Basic is not really portrayed well in ANY movie I know of, and many of the characters in anti-war films of the past 35 years would have been thrown into the Federal Prison in Ft. Levanworth KS so fast it would make your head spin). I have several good friends that served in battle zones during the war (1st Gulf War) and they tell you that the training you get is a bit like what real war is but not really. But, if you stick to the training and REALLY do what you are told you will have a damn good chance to survive and even get your job done. ALL OF THEM hate to talk about death and killing people, it was part of the job and they hated it; not one is a bloodthirsty killer. ALL OF THEM are very patriotic and really love this country. I may not like this administration but the personell fighting in the Middle East with American uniforms on are VERY GOOD people, the best. My attitude about the military in our country changed drastically after being in it for 6 years. The Abu Graib prison scandal and the recent problems with several Marines up on charges of rape and murder in Iraq saddens me but you will never get me or the vets I know to say they shouldn't be prosecuted or defend them in some strange, maudlin way. I stay out of that and justice will have to work as per the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) by military standards, they are in the middle of a very difficult situation.

When you talk to a vet please take them seriously and never, ever vote to cut veteran's benefits; every damn person coming back less than whole from Iraq should sue the living crap out of this administration for disability payments. They have a REAL vested interest in this country that no-one else can equal and the administration placed them in battle. Shame on the White House, shame on them...this is a subject I cannot watch on TV when it comes up becuase I am here and see that more of my 'comrades in arms' die everyday (those are young officers and enlisted in the prime of their lives, and far too many with families that depend on them). I am sitting here being able to have gained the benefit of a VA house mortgage for the rest of my life and one of my college degrees paid for off the GI Bill. These guys only half my age have had their lives snuffed out for what?

There is 'necessary war,' I cannot deny that and learned a hell of a lot more about it when I was in the military (and that was even after I had been to college and had BA/MA degrees). We have to be VERY careful who we put in the White House because that is REALLY the direct 'boss' of the military (they show you the 'flow chart' of that during basic). I am absolutely positive the best presidents we have had in terms of handling the military had served in actual battle (Dubya did not and it shows). I cannot believe Gore and Kerry were overlooked by the American public, these guys REALLY would have thought twice about a completely stupid thing like what we are doing now in Iraq and then made sure we had Bin Laden's head on stick ASAP(they had been in battle during Vietnam, very bloody battle, the OFFICIAL service records prove it). When seeing speeches of Gore and Kerry they are VERY serious, like the referece to the vets posted; when refering to war and battle. Bush Dubya the son has no idea, Bush HW the dad REALLY knew when dealing with this stuff; again his service as a Naval pilot in the Pacific theatre during WWII made a big difference (he was even shot down inthe middle of the ocean on one mission).

Think about all this the next time you vote, that is all I ask.

Dragon
July 7th, 2006, 02:22 PM
No i will not vote for a man or woman even if they been in the military when they show incompetence(which Kerry and Gore showed) Quite frankly it shouldnt matter if the President has been in the military or not. And quite frankly this notion of the anti-war people using hte idea of generalizing the acts of that prison or the acts of a isolated soldiers commiting crimes to making it larger...like the old saying of making a mole hill into a mountain comes to mind....situation.

Squatch347
March 29th, 2007, 03:24 PM
As far as the original subject goes. I would only humbly add my experiences to those who fought in Vietnam or WWII, Iraq is nothing like those conflicts. Our life there was pretty easy. I wonder how many of them don't like to talk because its hard to make yourself understood. I enjoyed it, even the violence, and its hard to tell anyone that without making it sound like you are a maniac or a psychopath. I doubt thats true for all, or even most vets, but I just wanted to throw another viewpoint out there.

Pasipo
May 15th, 2007, 10:12 PM
I am also a veteran, disabled in fact.
I agree with Squatch, the Iraq war is not the same as Vietnam. Not to mention today's youth are raised with so much violence that some, even many, troops today do enjoy the violence. My father in law however was in Vietnam and has never talked about it with my wife. He has shared a few stories with me which surprised my wife very much since she's never heard him talk about it.

Squatch347
May 16th, 2007, 02:17 PM
I'm not sure if the enjoyment of it has anything to do with the generation though. I have found very few people currently in that have felt the same way I do. Actually I find more kinship with WWII vets, oddly enough they are the ones that have seem to have had the same 'battle lust' as I felt.

princefigs
March 5th, 2008, 12:25 PM
I think Fruit and CC are the only vets on the board. But I have to ask this since it concerns a theory I have regarding war vets.

Today was my Grand Uncle Harold "Duke" Daily's 60th birthday. Honestly, I didn't even know Duke wasn't his real name until today. But my other grand Uncle Bill was there. Duke served in Vietnam, and Bill served in WWII. BOTH refuse to talk about their experiences outside a few things.

For Duke, if he talks about Vietnam, all he talks about is the weather and how they had some monstrous leeches. I heard ONE story regarding his less than happy time there, and I had to hear it from my Aunt Linda, who was NOT happy to tell it...and I understand why. It's horrifying.

My uncle Bill however, he talks about how he used to have this Harley back during the war and how he used to ride it everywhere when he was on leave. But even then, he has that same look in his eyes that my uncle Duke has. They look like at any moment in telling the story they could cry.

I wanna know if this is common among veterans. I know why most vets wouldn't talk about the parts of war we hear so often, though not being a veteran myself I can't say I UNDERSTAND why. But I just wanna know, is this common?

I was a Marine from 2002 to 2007 and served two tours in Iraq. I, personally, do not have any issue with telling people about my involvement during said tours. Some people do, some do not I guess

Spartacus
March 6th, 2008, 07:18 PM
As far as the original subject goes. I would only humbly add my experiences to those who fought in Vietnam or WWII, Iraq is nothing like those conflicts. Our life there was pretty easy. I wonder how many of them don't like to talk because its hard to make yourself understood. I enjoyed it, even the violence, and its hard to tell anyone that without making it sound like you are a maniac or a psychopath. I doubt thats true for all, or even most vets, but I just wanted to throw another viewpoint out there.


I can not sleep unless I have a 1911 within reach with a fully loaded magazine in it. When I travel the 1911 comes with me, or I don't sleep well at all. I keep an M-4 within easy reach too with two magazines clipped together and loaded with 27 rounds ea. of Hornady TAP while I am at home. My surefire flashlight is always right there too -- and I live on a wooded acre in an upscale quaint little town where the biggest crime is bored housewives shoplifting at the local Coldwater Creek outlet.

My wife and kids learned many years ago to not make any sudden noises while I am sleeping.

I still miss my M-203 though.:cry: In the past, I would never move in an urban environment (or certain nameless heavily foliated areas) without a custom-loaded 40mm shotgun round in the chamber. A great ambush buster:evil:

Slipnish
March 6th, 2008, 07:57 PM
As far as the original subject goes. I would only humbly add my experiences to those who fought in Vietnam or WWII, Iraq is nothing like those conflicts. Our life there was pretty easy. I wonder how many of them don't like to talk because its hard to make yourself understood. I enjoyed it, even the violence, and its hard to tell anyone that without making it sound like you are a maniac or a psychopath. I doubt thats true for all, or even most vets, but I just wanted to throw another viewpoint out there.

Naw. Just a testosterone infested American... It's easy to get addicted to the rush when you're young and in shape... When you get older, the toll on your body makes the recovery so much harder that you begin to "not look forward" to those moments as much...

And, you have to figure that we're all a bit different. "One man's meat is another's poison." I'm sure not all the vets enjoy the violence. It's a brain thing...

It's a bell curve, like most things in life.

sylouette
March 6th, 2008, 08:14 PM
I was in R.O.T.C. in high school! :)

Squatch347
March 6th, 2008, 08:20 PM
Spartacus, I agree, I enjoy a snub nosed pistol with hollow points. It becomes a bit difficult to have weapons like that out when kids are around and you learn to make compromises.

Slip, agreed, it is definitely a individual thing. One of the problems as I see it with our military today is that it despises the warrior ethos and has unknowingly forced out most of the officers I have known who possess it.

Spartacus
March 7th, 2008, 05:58 AM
Spartacus, I agree, I enjoy a snub nosed pistol with hollow points. It becomes a bit difficult to have weapons like that out when kids are around and you learn to make compromises.

Slip, agreed, it is definitely a individual thing. One of the problems as I see it with our military today is that it despises the warrior ethos and has unknowingly forced out most of the officers I have known who possess it.

The US Army Officer corps is flat out corrupted. Careerism trumps professionalism.

All duds and no studs.

"Col. Sir, how about I take my men to that intersection where radar shows the (expletive deleted) lay in their mortar every day to hit us and and set an ambush to kill those little (explicitive deleted)?"

"No son, we can't do that. Someone might get hurt and your men might actually kill someone."

A conversation like this actually happened in Tajil(sp?) in 2004, between a SF-qualified officer recently activated aftet many years as a civilian to go fght the bad guys and a certain flag officer. The silly, captain, he just wantd to kill all the bad guys so he could get back to his civilian life. The Captain actually thought that all the tactics and doctrine the Army had spent millions of dollars teaching him had some real-world applications.



Oh, and as for the "rush". Adrenalin is normal. Other than jumping out of an airplane for the first few times though, nothing compares with being shot at and surviving. Most guys don't talk about it though, because I think it is usually accompanied by a guilt of having survived while some of their buddies did not. Society compells people to think that there is something wrong if you enjoy the thrill of combat (gusy who get off on that are either in Spec. ops or psych wards "we don't need those types in the modern Army." - so much BS)

Squatch347
March 7th, 2008, 08:49 AM
Hehe, now I know for sure you've been there. I've had that same conversation a thousand times. Almost ended my career when I shot a dog with two broken legs.

We should start a thread based on our most outrageous military stories, I can think of quite a few. Like when a captain ordered me to go tell a group of insurgents trying to escape that they weren't the people we were looking for. :-D

princefigs
March 7th, 2008, 11:41 AM
The US Army Officer corps is flat out corrupted. Careerism trumps professionalism.

The Marine Corps is no different on that level.

The Staff NCO ranks are corrupted in a similar fashion as well.


Yay!!!! post number 100