Thoughts On War

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Wed Nov 10 18:22:33 MST 1999


At 05:12 AM 11/10/99 EST, Richard A Whitenight wrote:
>                        Thoughts On War
>                     by Richard Whitenight
>                       November 6th 1999
>
>     Wars are fought over ideas, theology, resources and
>domination. Regardless for the reasons of war, the ultimate
>outcome inevitably is death, physical wounds and mental scars.

>     Wars, no matter how good the reasons may seem to be, strip
>a nation of its populace, consumable goods, and its reserves.
>Those who survive a war, whether they be the victor or the
>vanquished, incur the same results. In war, there are no winners, only >
losers.

        *UNLESS* you are fighting to preserve freedom.......still, war is not to
be romanticized.

> Yet, nations never learn and only repeat their same mistakes later.

        When living in a world of fools.......

>     In 1933 Adolf Hitler became Prime Minister of Germany. In
>the ensuing years before Germany's expansion beyond its borders,
>Hitler blamed the failing German economy on the Communist and
>the Jews. He used an idea to feed his militaristic means. His
>aim was to obtain as much land as possible and simultaneously
>exterminate as many unfavorable's (i.e. Jews, Non-Arians) as
>possible. Germany used its scientists and engineers to develop
>the beginnings of the atomic bomb and the jet age. Fortunately,
>Hitler was not the greatest military leader, and if he had
>listened to his military leaders, World War II might have had a
>different ending. In the end, it was the strength of the Allied
>powers overcoming the ever-growing personnel and material
>weaknesses of Germany.

        Actually, Richard, I recommend that you read "The Shadows of Power", by
James Perloff. It shows beyond doubt that the same source of funding
propped up *BOTH* sides for each World War.

>     In the early 50's, the French were driven out of Vietnam,
>and by the late 50's and early 60's, powers to be in the United
>States, saw a chance to gain an ally by providing South Vietnam
>with military advisors and hardware, mostly under the guise of
>the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). When our military
>advisors came under increasing fire and we began losing
>personnel, Presidents were able to convince Congress that more
>men and hardware were needed.

        This was a U.N. "police-action". The United Nations set the tone and
agenda. They wrote the "rules" and we were stupid enough to comply. Same
goes for the Korean "conflict". My dad was in that one. The U.N. was just a
fledgling organization and didn't have a whole bunch of weight to toss
about at that point.

> By late 1969, America's strength in South Vietnam grew to almost
three-quarter million military personnel (not counting thousands of
civilian engineers, United Service Organization personnel, etc). By early
1979, President Nixon decided it was time to reduce America's military
strength
>in Vietnam, and allow "early outs" for personnel who would have
>less then 180 and later 365 days in their military contract.

        Wait a sec.......Nixon resigned on August 2, 1974! We'd left 'Nam by then.

> It was the later that allowed me to shorten my four year commitment
>by one year. In early 1970, while I was stationed with Commander, U S >
Naval Support Activity, DaNang, a Navy personelman asked me to sign a > 12
month extension, and if I were to do so, he'd guarantee me my next duty >
location. How many times have ex-military heard that line? By the time I
> was transferred to Commander, Naval Forces, Saigon, the Navy's
>involvement in South Vietnam had been reduced from 500,000 to
>approximately 350,000 or less.  In order to defer the high cost
>of returning military hardware (i.e. trucks, planes, river
>boats, etc) back to the United States, said hardware was
>released to the South Vietnam government free of charge. Vietnam
>became the first war (or should that be correctly named a
>"military police action"), where the aim of the United States
>was not to win the war. Congress, and what I felt like was
>Communist lobbyists,

        *CORRECT*!

>  hand-cuffing the United States ability to
>fight this military police action in a manner in which we
>possibly could have "won" it. I think our leaders were worried
>more about "saving face", than finishing something we basically
>started. Vietnam veterans returned to the United States after
>their tour of duty, not to a hero's welcome, but to the liberal
>element who called us "baby killers" and spit in our general
>direction. When I returned in October of 1970, my first sight at
>San Francisco Airport, was "flower power" and the Hari Krishna
>movement.

        I saw the same folks in June of the following year! 'Cept, I was on
vacation, rather than coming back from a tour of duty.

>     In the early 90's, our men and women of the United States
>armed forces were once again called to fight a battle against a
>nation whose forces had crossed over a neighboring nation's
>border, purportedly to have control over one of the world's
>largest consignment of oil. Saddam Hussein moved his forces
>across his southern neighbor, Kuwait, and basically dared the
>United State and its allies to correct the situation.

        Once again, orchestrated by the United Nations........

> Operation Desert Storm saw primarily the military forces of the United
>States and Great Britain using their air and ground forces to
>overpower the statistically weak air force of the Iraqi's and
>their emotionally weak ground forces. We were able to use our
>superiority in aircraft and weapons to quickly control the air
>war and within a short period of time, Saddam's Royal Military
>Guard were forced out of Kuwait in quick retreat, where they
>were destroyed on the road back to Baghdad. At one point in
>time our armed forces were no more than 50 miles south of
>Baghdad and it probably would not have been that difficult to
>take military control of Baghdad, but instead of the aim being a
>total win, we took the diplomatic win and regained control of
>Kuwait.

        We couldn't "win", since it was important to keep Saddam around to heap
scorn on from time-to-time.

>     The Desert Storm veterans came back to a hero's welcome,
>and for the first time that I can remember, Vietnam veterans
>were honored, along with the Desert Storm veterans, in a ticker
>tape parade. I sincerely hope this was closure for many Vietnam
>veterans who felt they never gained the respect of the civilian
>public when they returned from their respective military
>conflict.

>     There's no doubt in my mind that our sons and daughters
>will once again be sent to a foreign shore to fight the
>politician's battle.

        In Kosovo, there is a huge gold reserve underground.........FYI.

> I sincerely hope we learn from our past mistakes and ensure that any >
military endeavor we find ourselves in, we make sure the final result is a
> successful completion and not returning without having completed the job.

        Best way to "complete the job" is to tell the U.N. to "<bleep> off!" Boot
them out of the country and forbid them to return.


JAQ



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list