British Commander Compares US Troops to Nazis

[a_unique_person]

What truth am I trying to avoid? I am vary aware of the atrocities of Vietnam. I'm not trying to gloss over them. I accept that the scope of that conflict ensured that such incidents would occur and they will occur again. But you cannot claim that the Americans were equivelant to the Nazis who commited attrocities on such a grand scale (please see links above).

No, there were not millions of Jews killed, but millions of Vietnamese. It is quite common knowledge that the Arabs are often referred to as 'sand ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊'. The video link provided Clancie makes it pretty clear that the injured man was shot in cold blood. The attacks on Fallujah are killing innocent civilians, and ensuring that for generations to come, people who may not have hated the US before will hate them with a passion now.

 

[RandFan]

Mai Lai was most definitely not one incident.

Australians faced up to what was being done in Vietnam, even if it was not Australian troops involved in this event.

It was my word and I used it as it is defined in the dictionary.

in·ci·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ns-dnt)
n.

An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident.

In which case it most certainly WAS one incident.

But hey let's get into a three day argument over the word incident. I did NOT intend to mean a single death. AND I said there were others.

 

[RandFan]

No, there were not millions of Jews killed, but millions of Vietnamese.

The U.S. did not set up a system to efficiently target and kill civilians. The U.S. did not do all of the things that I listed above.

It is quite common knowledge that the Arabs are often referred to as 'sand ni**ers'. The video link provided Clancie makes it pretty clear that the injured man was shot in cold blood.

The epithets used by our soldiers is wrong. That does not make your argument. The video link provided by Clancie is anecdotal. Please see the links that I provided above and tell me the two equate.

The attacks on Fallujah are killing innocent civilians, and ensuring that for generations to come, people who may not have hated the US before will hate them with a passion now.

Perhaps, but this does not equate with the deliberate genocide and many other atrocities carried out by the Nazis. You are failing to make your argument.

 

[demon]

I see you edited your post RandFan

AUP:
"The attacks on Fallujah are killing innocent civilians, and ensuring that for generations to come, people who may not have hated the US before will hate them with a passion now."

There is something wrong here. Everyone can formulate their own explanations for it, but it goes something like this: even our best media are +not+ outraged by the mass killing of unallied, Third World people - even unarmed men, women and children (even tiny infants) - by Western troops. They find it neither shocking, nor horrific; it's not considered cruel or questionable. It is considered something that simply happens from to time. Dying en masse is just what Third World people do.

Think of the complete absence of outrage in our media and political system over Falluja and then recall the impassioned pretexts for war on the need to protect the Iraqi people from a violent dictator.

It`s also to do with the pro-war left's sense of a "price worth paying" - it's a given that they can determine this for others because their "values" represent a superior form of life.
Although they wouldn't admit it, the attitude of the cruise-missile leftists to the deaths of Iraqis is pretty much identical to the Pentagon's - when pushed, the five-asiders will tell you "Iraq's free and you can't put a price on freedom". It's why they don't count casualties - 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000 - so what?

Denis Halliday always says if you ask an American student how many people died in the Vietnam war, they'll tell you 58,000 because that's the number on the monument. The millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who lost their lives simply don't register.

Someone forwarded to me email correspondence they'd had with Johann Hari (a uk journalist), about the use of DU in Iraq. Hari agreed it was deplorable - it would still be killing people 20 years from now -but

"..the casualties will be far, far lower than Saddam's.."

So, there you have it; journalists and politicians convinced of their moral superiority, in denial and pig-ignorant.

 

[RandFan]

I see you edited your post RandFan

Yes, I'm very visceral. No mater how hard I try I get angry, respond and then regret the response.

My appologies.

 

[demon]

No problem RandFan but appreciated....I`ve said much worse than that on these forums in the past.

 

[Elind]

Senior British commanders have cond...astard out of your bed, along with your wife.

 

[a_unique_person]

The U.S. did not set up a system to efficiently target and kill civilians. The U.S. did not do all of the things that I listed above.

The epithets used by our soldiers is wrong. That does not make your argument. The video link provided by Clancie is anecdotal. Please see the links that I provided above and tell me the two equate.

Perhaps, but this does not equate with the deliberate genocide and many other atrocities carried out by the Nazis. You are failing to make your argument.

It may not have set out to do that, and I don't think the US is as bad as the Nazis. The massacres against the Vietnamese, however, are evidence of a systemic failure that has still not been addressed.

 

[RandFan]

It may not have set out to do that, and I don't think the US is as bad as the Nazis. The massacres against the Vietnamese, however, are evidence of a systemic failure that has still not been addressed.

I will give you that.