The quote is attributed to Lt. Gen Tom Griffen (US Army Ret)

-- seraphima (seraphima@aol.com), May 21, 1999

Answers

And what might that quote be?

-- Rich Miller (rmiller2@ix.netcom.com), May 21, 1999.

it went something like this

-- A. Idiot (yes@I.am), May 22, 1999.

The thread is below,

Now let's see here if I understand all this correctly. President Clinton has ordered our forces to engage an entrenched, politically motivated enemy, backed by the Russians, on their home ground, in a foreign civil war, in difficult terrain, with limited military objectives, bombing restrictions, boundary and operational restrictions, queasy allies, far across the ocean, with uncertain goals, without prior consultation with congress, the potential for escalation, while limiting the forces at his disposal, and the majority of Americans opposed to or at least uncertain about the value of the action being worth American lives.

So just what was it that he was opposed to in Vietnam?

-- seraphima (seraphima@aol.com), May 22, 1999.

Well for one thing, the war in Vietnam lasted 15 years and eventually 58,479 Americans were killed.

Kosovo: two months, no combat fatalities.

-- a (a@a.a), May 22, 1999.

"After I retired, it became much easier to see the mistakes in planning made by the new officers." (My former neighbor, a retired officer.)

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 22, 1999.

Seraphima,

I think you done broke the code. Now, I see on today's news that NATO has been busy destroying electrical generating sites, in order to black out a whole bunch of areas over there. Nice touch, huh? Do you suppose any of the *get-even* terrorist groups might figure turnabout is fair play, right here at home, sometime during the next 7 months or so?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 22, 1999.

Gilda,

Yes, it's amazing how our vision can clear up after we get out from under the "group dogma" that permeates any large organization. How many times have you read about someone being "rescued" from a religious cult and only then realizing how brain washed they had been? Even the respected Colin Powell has been making some public statements that he would never have mentioned while he was still in charge. As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and it is us."

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 22, 1999.

Seeing their mistakes in hindsight, hell. They are whores and they know it, both at the time and after they retire. Only difference is that once they get that comfy 3/4 pay check w/bennies every month, it's ok to admit it. If they admitted it BEFORE they retired, they'd have to resign and forgo the soft life.

And as for Colin Powell, I'll never forget him at one of the Gulf War press conferences, being asked about all the civilian casualties. He just said something about collateral damege being expected, and gave the most wicked smirk I've ever seen - pure evil. He knew damn well what he was doing.

-- klm (klm@nowhre.com), May 22, 1999.

klm - are you an Iraqi by chance?

-- Sadaam (Butcher@of.Bagdad), May 22, 1999.

No - just an American who doesn't cotton to dropping sticks of bombs on women and children... like we did then, like we're doing now. You?

-- klm (klm@nowhr.com), May 22, 1999.

That's no AMERICAN casualties...as if other people don't count. The diplomatic damage to the US alone is major.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), May 23, 1999.

And the UK Mad Monk.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 23, 1999.

klm: So you would have allowed Iraq to conquer the mid-east 8 years ago and would be happy now paying $5.00 a gallon for gas while Sadaam waved his newly acquired nuclear arsenal at us?

Unfortunately, things just aren't that simple, guy.

-- a (a@a.a), May 23, 1999.

That's the kind of jingoistic thinking that will come back to haunt us, a. There's a big difference between hitting military targets in the middle of a desert and bombing residential neighborhoods, even if they do contain some target of military 'value'.

As far as Saddam conquering the Mideat, your logic (rather, the lack of it) doesn't hold. In your reasoning, all of southeast Asia should be under the control of Vietnam by now - remember the domino theory?

As far as Saddam waving nukes at us, he doesn't have to - instead he's waving chemical/biological weapons at us - systems, I might add, that the U.S. provided the groundwork for.

Nothing is simple, that's true. The simple truth, however, is that we killed more than 150,000 non-combatants in Iraq, and Saddam is still in power, and better equipped to do damage than ever. The blood of innocents cries out from the ground, while the main players are doing just fine, thank you.

Hope you're enjoying your cheap gasoline, a, it only cost women and children's lives.

-- klm (klm@nwhre.not), May 23, 1999.

Uh - Southeast Asia is under the continued domination of the Communists now (China, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Hong Kong, Laos (still), Cambodia (after millions killed...) - true, Thailand held out, but now Red China is expanding into the Spratleys, re-threatening the people in South Korean, Taiwain, ....

You're right, the current war should not be untaken, and is being promoted by the liberals for some reason, but the former war was being opposed by the current liberals because it opposed the Communist expansion down there. Did you think the South Vietnamese who fled left that that country because they liked the idea of cruising pirate-infested waters for fun? Or becasue the y feared for their families' lives under Communists?

Granting too that the S. Vietnamese government was evil too - though to a lesser extent it still doesn't make it pure and "holy", and was corrupt - I wish they had been governed more honestly.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 23, 1999.

klm: I'm not saying that mistakes have not been made, in Kosovo, in the Gulf War, or Vietnam. There's little doubt its all a fucked up mess. But the fact of the matter is that Americans have prospered immensely (on average, and so far) from our military policies, and we continue to be the leader of the free world. I reiterate my position that Kosovo is a pre-emptive plan to forward deploy troops to the Eurasian theater in preparation for the inevitable chaos that will be unleashed by y2k and the associated economic collapse. Communism, as evidenced by the recent turning of events in Russia, China, N. Korea and other non-allied countries, is getting ready to ride again, and "democracy", however sinister some of its supports may be, will not, and should not, allow this to happen.

As long as you are armchair quarterbacking, explain how we could have handled these situations better.

Hint: Don't suggest diplomacy. That was tried and failed.

-- a (a@a.a), May 24, 1999.

a - "we continue to be the leader of the free world". The problem is that a country is only considered to be free if it meets with US (and :-( Canadian, and Britain) approval. 'If as a country, you are doing something of which we don't approve, you aren't free and we will take whatever steps we deem necessary to get you free' is what seems to be the order of the day. Communism is the 'old' enemy, now friends; the new enemy is cruel treatment of minorities - never mind how we treat the minorities in our own countries! Although we do not kill the minorities in Canada, we do allow our Native Americans to live in such a way that the life expectancy is about a third less of a white Canadian. In the US, how many minorities die in prison vs whites? I hardly think that either of our countries should be placing themselves in the position of casting the first stone (never mind the thousands of bombs we've used)!

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), May 25, 1999.

Tricia: like I said, "leader of the free world". I guess Switzerland is a more fair place to live, but they don't offer much in the way of keeping the world safe for democracy. This ain't Eden. That's what gripes me about the hard core conspiracy buffs here -- they don't have a better plan than the one that is now running. Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh.

-- a (a@a.a), May 25, 1999.