Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

History

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • History

    This is a History discussion thread.

    Please debate anything in human history here.

    ---------

    I am going to start out with things that irritate me or things that are uncomprehending to my mind. I may jump around to random subjects, but I will try to eventually steer them to fit in a single theme.

    1) Men and women, mostly men for the bad things, have created our present world. We are born into the world and suffer the problems generated by a handful of men. There are natural world problems, but the goodness in civilization and science have tackled any of those obstacles.

    2) History being taught to children, especially The United States version of history is loaded solidly with half-truths, lies, myths and simplicity with one sided views.

    3) Some points of history are absorbed in the incorrect light. Instead of a student getting the idea of not to do something or adjust their behavior, they instead miss the lesson and absorb the bad elements of the even or they admire a historic figure for all the wrong reasons.


    Okay, now to some of the randomness:

    A) One man comes up with a false myth, Himmler for example, and delivers incorrect facts to control, and influence, a nation's population and people buy the make-believe tale. So much do they eat it up that the bad idea empowers the majority of soldiers to fight an entire world war. The whole time believing that they are superior to the rest of the world. In present day the white supremacists still adopt this philosophy and believe that the master race is based on scientific and historical fact. The Klan are even attempting the recruiting of people to their cause in California, right now. The idea made no sense in the 1930's and were historically proven to be factually wrong and morally wrong, yet the idea is still powerful and strong in this present day. It is difficult to comprehend how in an age of reason and logic that people believe something like that as the gospel. Sure, it's easy to sway the children, but what excuse do the adults have. Surely there are other ways for people to feel good about themselves other than lowering all other people down to a different inhuman level. It might do some good if our schools teach people not to be "played" and used for someone's selfish benefit.

    B) Heroes are great, wonderful and to be admired in life. Man you can learn from and apply their actions or wisdom to everyday life.

    Now to the dark side of war heroes:

    Often for someone to become a war hero, another person must pay a high price. For someone to 'win' and individual or individuals need to lose, and they either lose their lives, parts of their bodies or minds, their freedom or way of life. Sometimes their country or world as they know it is lost.

    The more I think of things, the more foggy those things become. Clear issues become more complex as time goes by. Mixed feelings result after learning new truths to history.

    We learn of the famous battles of General George Patton Jr. and that the end effect of his war efforts were mostly good and effective. Then you discover that the man hated the Slavic people. Then you learn about all his other controversies. Then you start wondering why we are placing some of these men in such high regard. Now, I do not want to take away all of his accomplishments. I would like to point out, however, that many men did pay the price for his fleeting glory, his own men and his enemies. He is by far not the worse example of a war general, but he did have many flaws and whatever past wars influenced his, basically made him the man he was in life. When you think and feel that you know what a man is supposed to be by past example, that is how you are going to behave and take actions in life to support your beliefs, whether they be religious, political, historical or scientific. (the applications of beliefs converted to actions)

    Another example. I love George Washington. When I over analyze historical events, I start coming up with new ideas on the subject and observe the facts from a different point of view. My observations cover many events, but for this example, I will use The Revolutionary War. This is another one of those confusing end results. I love American Independence and all the good in the world that resulted from that war. What is obscure now though is, George Washington attacking the British troops on Christmas, tactically clever and a brilliant maneuver yes, but isn't that considered a little dirty? I mean dirty or criminal enough to perhaps make a mention in the school level history books? After all, they were their former countrymen, and they were their countrymen only months to a few years before the battle, I did not look up the actual date in a long time. I am also saying that the world is hazy on what is justified action and what is not justified. In Iraq and Afghanistan, The United States decided not to attack on the enemy's religious holidays.

    Also, when the dust settles and the politicians poke their heads out into the sun once more, who is right in what they say? Which of the politicians, leaders and representatives of the world are right and justified when the blame game begins?

    Traitors to the Crown become Heroes of a new nations. In order to do something good, The Founding Fathers had to become traitors to one country and good soldiers and heroes to their own newly formed country. So even the word traitor is not an absolute term in it's meaning.

    All these grey areas are what is hurting and confusing us in modern life. The right and wrong of Gaza. Israel is further confused as to how to fix a problem. Sixty-nine years ago this month it is the anniversary of the Atomic bombing of Japan. Many civilians killed in the Pacific and European Theaters of that war. The US bombed Dresden during World War Two. We are sending out mixed signals from the past, and conflicting moralities.

    ---------


    (on a side joking note, during The Revolutionary War, and after, how did we Americans get away with ripping off the music from The United Kingdom? They just kept the songs and changed the words, talk about plagiarism! The Americans did not even have to pay a fee for sampling a song. I guess those type of international laws did not exist. The first generation of the US were the original people to invent the illegal download without there being an existing download. I suppose it still could have been considered piracy. For people that wanted to separate themselves from something, I do not know why they could not wait to hire someone to compose some original American songs. It probaly still was confusing when the Yanks went to Great Britain in WWII)

    --------

    "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
    - Michael Moorcock

  • #2
    Lots of stuff there and I'll get back later, but to start off let me say that I think adults in our 'western' culture ultimately believe things for one of two reasons - that it reinforces a belief they have about themselves and makes them feel a certain way about themselves, and/or the belief fits nicely with one kind of worldly self interest or another. Maybe that's cynical? Well, if the shoe fits... but lots of stuff in your post I haven't had the chance to read yet.

    Comment


    • #3
      Had a great class in British Studies in high scruel (sophomore) and some quotes we took away are: History is written by the winners, history is the daughter of time and might makes right...that said I like what I heard Peter Gabriel once say, that history is our future; the subject of what did or didn't happen is by no means closed and certain but always changing by how we observe and understand what has happened, and it certainly affects our future. That, also, said I think one of the best ways to effect our future is to reevaluate and relearn how we view the past, i.e. rewrite history.
      In that sense the might of any given present will always be the winners-of-the-moment and will always subtly skew/view history differently, but if we can more consciously take it upon ourselves to skew history in light of present circumstances (and future gravities), I think we can get a better look at what happened...cause the past is nearly-always going to be relative to those in the present/future; I suppose it is looking at a 4th time perspective to understand what all this (history) really means and how to go-with-the-flow a bit better
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        There never seems to be so much of "Her story" in most of the History texts I have read in nearly half a century!...

        (Time for a Global Suffragette movement right about now, methinks!!!! )
        Last edited by Kymba334; 08-07-2014, 04:37 PM.
        Mwana wa simba ni simba

        The child of a lion is also a lion - Swahili Wisdom

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kymba334 View Post
          There never seems to be so much of "Her story" in most of the History texts I have read in nearly half a century!...

          (Time for a Global Suffragette movement right about now, methinks!!!! )
          I think Will Forte summed it up pretty well Women's Herstory; Did you see what I just did there?
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            C) The United States government can often be bought or manipulated.

            Justification:

            How can we really justify The United States' developments of the ICBM, missile program and the creation of NASA/rocket program?

            I think we need to face the fact that when The United States is backed into a corner, our morality goes out the window.

            Just because we may need something, or potentially need it for survival, or fear the loss of a new technology or weapon, how/why do we justify the end by giving a pass, pardon and a respected career to war criminals, while we sentence to prison or hang the rest of the non-useful war criminals?

            There had to been another way. Diplomacy with early post war Russia anyone?

            Some one else can become the less scrupulous, less above board bad guys, then we find another way to live in the world with them. Try to bring them around to do what is right, by negotiation and wisdom combined with a lot of common sense and common ground.

            ---------

            "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
            - Michael Moorcock

            Comment


            • #7
              D) How bad, really, would it have been for The United States of America to just let The Soviet Union invade Japan for the Allied Victory?

              In World War Two, the U.S.S.R. was one of our most important allies. Allies! Why did it matter which one of us got the job done?, brought the war to an end?, it shouldn't have been a competition. Job accomplished or sue for peace. The Soviet Union was the anvil anyway, taking much of the punishment and probably the majority of the work. I think their casualty list was up there pretty high.

              Even from a selfish point of view, the US could have let someone else get killed and saved money and equipment.

              My guess is that 95% less civilians would have been killed when Japan surrendered. They may have had even less military killed in action if it was a quick victory. Russia had the best tanks around, so if they get them ashore, Soviet Union invasion deaths may have been fairly low. A few more last sacrifices of the war to save all those civilians. The US would have only sacrificed a future naval base. A base, if never existed may have given us second thoughts on going to war with Korea and Vietnam? Korea was close to becoming the first country in a nuclear war.

              Then we could have also avoided the side effects of all the radiation as well as all the other problems.

              Who really pushed for that aside from Truman, who didn't even know we had a nuclear bomb! Dougy M.?

              A US invasion would have been bloody for sure, but a Russian one might have went smoother and with a chance of early surrender.

              Heck, by 1945 we were pretty good to expert at amphibious assaults and landings. Why couldn't have the US made a naval blockade around the islands Japan? Cut them off for a while.

              Then you get UK, US and the U.S.S.R. to combine their forces to bring about a massive air and sea bombardment. Just wait until all the forces were together, take time, have all Allies bring food, water, fuel and supplies to the waiting assembled soldiers and sailors.

              Try for peace. If a failure, then send in the landing craft and Higgins boats, with air and sea cover fire. Ask for their surrender. Repeat until they can not possibly have any equipment to fight with. At some point even Japan would have to see they can not win the war.

              Who comes up with this Unconditional Surrender anyway? It discourage a person from surrendering. And if Japan only wanted their Emperor not to be killed, perhaps a little Conditional Surrender is in order.

              It's probably only fair to them if we tell them if they surrender we won't turn them into slaves, or torture or rape them in any way, or execute them, or march them around as trophies in a victory parade? Maybe this is a good idea? Maybe reassure them we are not going to beat their populace with big wooden sticks?

              I only offer other possibilities and ways of doing things.

              There had to be some other way.

              I think we have proven that we could be them at war. When Okinawa and Japan were the only places left to defeat, I would say that alone was a victory. It might have brought both sides to a certain reality and understanding.

              The Western World just should have had shown a stronger will of morality toward Russia. Work with them to meet a common goal, but don't make dirty deals. Come to some other sensible agreement with them. Reward them for their service and sacrifice another way.

              Don't let them take control of Poland and East Germany. Don't let them have a "naughty list" control and influence of an in other countries.

              There had to been another way, that avoided the future suffering, and removal of freedom, of/from civilians and non-civilians.

              That could have stopped The Cold War before it began.

              Side Note: To quote myself} lemec wrote- "1) Men and women, mostly men for the bad things, have created our present world."

              If Japan did not destabilize South East Asia, The United States may not have had to fight a war with Vietnam. Perhaps support France in some way. I do not think it would have been a prolonged war with so many deaths.

              "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
              - Michael Moorcock

              Comment


              • #8
                You might ask: There had to been another way?

                For starters, offer/give.....US citizenship, offer to send into the U.S.S.R., for a few years, US construction workers to rebuild the cities, offer gold and money, food, seed, grain, animal stock, give cargo ships, volunteer American husbands and brides, tractors, clothing, heat stoves and coal.

                (awards, honours, medals, parades, praise, applause, job training)

                After a scolding about Poland, of course, and make thing right with Poland the best you can.

                How about friendship and a friendly helping hand?......

                To avoid the oppression.

                "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                - Michael Moorcock

                Comment


                • #9
                  One thing they should teach in schools:


                  If there is an action/event that makes no sense to you, it probably is (or good chance of being) incomprehensible.

                  You can not apply logic to the irrational.

                  Who can fathom madness and it depths?

                  Not everything has a reason in terms of civilized culture.

                  "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                  - Michael Moorcock

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In terms of Japan and all-the-above; never thought of it that way, kudos
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      E) President Lincoln.

                      This may be somewhat of a twisted history viewpoint.

                      Lincoln might have done better if he had taken time to explore more ideas on how to take action to solve the problem of American slavery.

                      By starting a civil war, Abraham Lincoln came very near to and almost lost the entire United States of America forever. It would have been a totally different country with very different agendas and policy.

                      Freedom and the abolishing of slavery might have been set back two-hundred years or it never might have taken place.

                      The CSA would have had a different foreign policy. They may have fought different wars or none at all. The Confederate States of America may have completely avoided World War One and World War Two. Alliances would b different. For all we know the CSA could have joined the Central Powers, then later Axis Powers and with the mass production of equipment that the American mainland can produce, the Axis would have conquered the world.

                      One group would have had all the nuclear weapons, the new Axis global army.

                      Back to reality, Abraham Lincoln caused the death and wounding of many of his fellow citizens of the US that as President, Lincoln was sworn to protect and defend their Constitutional Rights, not to send Americans to kill them and also have the US Army/Navy getting killed in the process. In unnecessary quantities. Lincoln and Jefferson Davis should have had a more firm understanding of the modern weapon technology. They should not have copied tactics of the Europeans who in their last war were a quantum leap behind in the weapons technology department than what the US and the world developed a few years later. Also, after fighting the "Indian Way" in the late 1700's, how could they go back to toe to toe combat?

                      Lincoln might have considered punishments and rewards, maybe a few government deals, to end slavery. Perhaps some international assistance?

                      -before leading the country into the most brutal war on US soil.

                      Lincoln said, "...shall not perish from this earth."

                      He almost did not get to write that speech.

                      If Lee was a little more patient, he could have waited for better ground and conditions at Gettysburg, or just left them in their defensive position and marched on Harrisburg. Being caught on open field on the way to Harrisburg may have went in Lee's favor, if not intercepted, he may have won the war that way.

                      If the Union Army was not up to their best on those three days in July, Lincoln would have lost everything. No more US. The world would have suffered the loss of the US. Slavery would have flourished. There would never have been a moment for The Civil Rights movement. The rest of the world would have advanced and moved on. The CSA would have been stuck in 1863 thinking forever. Until they were invaded or something, but I think at that point, the rest of the world would have simply ignored the CSA. (as much as the world economy could ignore them)

                      President Lincoln, you have won and failed at the same time.


                      Abraham Lincoln, I do not think that you have done a good job, or lived up to your responsibilities.

                      All the after effects of the American Civil War, and after feelings, were mostly bad for the country.

                      What is more, when freedom from slavery was given, the hurt feelings from the war did not make life easy or fair for the former slaves. In fact in hurt 'everyone of colour' and minorities for years and years. Over 150 years later, the people of this nation stiff suffer from that war.

                      Lincoln should have made sure that all the Rights went along with the new Freedom. He should have had jobs and careers available, ready to go, for the transition. He had hardly any plans for what we were going to do after the war. How could he not see that the war was going to be a very bad thing and that the way he went about it was very bad to outright evil. Lincoln is also responsible for war crimes against the South.


                      A surprise conquering of the South in 1861, before the succession, by an overwhelming Union force might have been more humane. Just outright walk in and take the slaves from the slave owners. Lincoln would have only had a few murders on his head that way, of the few initial resistance of slave owners trying to defend their land and property. Maybe a hundred people would have been killed.


                      Well, they messed up big time letting slave owners strong arm the writers of The Constitution in the first place.

                      Even if Independence failed, it would have been more noble for a few slave free colonies to fight and rebel against the British.

                      After that failure of being divided, then maybe the survivors could have seen the error of his ways, abolished slavery, formed the US and fought off the British troops.

                      US-

                      365,000 total dead.
                      275,200 wounded.





                      CS-

                      260,000 total dead.
                      137,000+ wounded.


                      Strength:

                      US- 2,100,000 CS- 1,064,000

                      Lincoln outnumbered them 2 to 1 and had better equipment and was not cut off from the rest of the world by a naval blockade, and he still almost lost the war.

                      He also had many more dead and wounded on the Union side, it's like he just kept throwing more lives at the problem.

                      Lincoln obviously did not have a good plan for war either.


                      All the dead and wounded combined are all American citizens that Lincoln failed to defend and protect.


                      What a price for not finding a slightly less warlike and more peaceful way to end slavery. (plus all the suffering and harships the residents of the former CSA had to endure, during and after the war)

                      A price, and cost of war, that The United States is still paying for, up to and including this present day.
                      ---------

                      "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                      - Michael Moorcock

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        a) Concerning war crimes. The President of The United States of America gives a Presidential Pardon to the former and previous President. This method continues with each and every US President.

                        This way, there are never any consequences for the war actions taken by a President and they will never be held accountable for any crimes, foreign or domestic.

                        The President become Untouchable and each President knows, while in office this fact of the pardon, and they will know that they can get away with just about anything that they want to do while in office. Maybe short of getting caught murdering the Vice President with a knife or something like that, unless the President uses a Drone to commit the murder, then it will not only be okay, the President will probably receive high praise for his action. -or Congress would declare for him that there was no other option available and he acted in accordance to morality and the laws of the government.

                        "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                        - Michael Moorcock

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          F) 9/11 Part 1: F for Failure. Catastrophic Failure.

                          Would it have been better to have an agency such as Interpol, or an international detective group, or even a small group of the more respectable mercenaries look into the crime and find those responsible and capture them?

                          It was terrorism and a crime, but not a traditional uniformed armed attack using marked aircraft of a sovereign nation or government. It was not like Pearl Harbor in that sense. They said "Never Again" then allowed it to happen again less than 100 years later.

                          The world was dealing with aircraft terrorism for many years, so it definitely should have been prevented. There were far too many warnings and clues.

                          There is so much to talk about 9/11.

                          Again, going on 13 years after the attack, the US is back to bombing Iraq, the newer Iraq war is 11 years ago this year as well. We and others are still paying the price of 9/11 and all the choices of that event.

                          The Patriot Act is a huge Failure and Crime against humankind.

                          The Boston Bombing proved how unsafe we are and it proved how much Freedom we have lost. It showed the true soul of the government, there the were, searching house to house and having armored vehicles with paramilitary police on the streets. There were plenty of high definition photographs of the police marching up the streets in a residential area and searching each property. What happens next time when these street invasions are not as justified?

                          World Standing: A Failure.

                          Two Wars and Many Other Military Terror-Related-Actions: Failure.

                          We did not have to treat it any different from a normal crime of mass murder, aside from trying to prevent more harm, but without breaking Constitutional Law.

                          It was not an attack followed by further attacks.

                          We did not have bombs going off in night clubs, buses and restaurants.

                          We did not have an armed invasion of enemy soldiers.

                          We did not have a biological or nuclear attack.

                          We have had no acts of sabotage. In the 1800's they could wage a more creative and effective war than what they did on 9/11.

                          Fear and Gut Reaction is what the terrorists wanted and our representatives gave it to them big time.

                          War, they gave it. American sacrifices, the government gave them to the enemy.

                          An iron grip on a formally free nation and people, they gave it up as ordered.

                          The United States government was played like a prized fiddle.

                          More fear, more laws broken, more civilians killed, more war crimes more international interference, more war, everything the terrorists wanted and more.

                          Americans pretending they're Canadians when traveling: Failure.

                          Reputation: Failure.

                          Citizens of the US being constantly spied on, listened to and total surveillance upon a once free people, rights violated, privacy violated of the people: Failure.


                          Reaction, Reaction, Reaction.

                          The US, from day one of September 11th should have adopted a policy similar to a phrase George W. Bush uttered far later into the war.

                          Something like,"We don't know were he is, but I'm not worried about him, we'll get him when we get him."

                          Not worried.

                          What happened to Wanted Dead or Alive?, Yellow Cake Uranium?, in a form of a mushroom cloud and several other catch phrases?

                          We should have had that attitude. We will investigate, find the guilty and we will find them when we happen to find them. When found, then bring them to justice.

                          In the mean time, help the victims families, help American effected financially, emotionally and physically from the attacks, and calm down and start helping people throughout the world with all that military might and spending. Learn why we are hated and correct it at it's source. Make arrests were needed. Spread good will. Do not go to war over a single man.


                          The actual attackers were already dead. They needed only to find the masterminds and those people who gave the orders and paid money for the plan, people who I noticed that they never committed suicide themselves.
                          Last edited by lemec; 08-10-2014, 02:21 PM. Reason: spelling, grammar, keyboard key errors.

                          "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                          - Michael Moorcock

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            F) 9/11 Part 2: Iraq.


                            We find out much later that ObL and SH were not BFF or very close friends.

                            We learn that there are no substantial WMDs. Unless they were trucked over to Syria. In which case, that might be Saddam's gas used on the rebels.

                            I guess that I am an armchair general on this one, but I will say it anyway.

                            What was the hurry on the ground troops?

                            Other than the producer of the Humvee making money off the government. What purpose does the Humvee serve, especially the ones that do not have reinforced armor?

                            Instead of crossing over the actual desert landscape like in Desert Storm it seems to me that the Army mainly ran over concrete or asphalt roads in Enduring Freedom and whatever else they called those military operations.

                            Because of this, the insurgents know which route the US soldiers need to take and can plant bombs on the road and get at the weakness of the Humvee.

                            Veterans have said that the Humvee turret is a soft target. The other areas are maim areas, they used the same war tactics as the VC.

                            The bombs take off limbs and the other soldiers need to care for them and it slows the Army down in their mission. The enemy produces mind games and fear to hurt the soldiers as well. A call for more armor and equipment was mostly ignored. At least in the early days of the war.

                            Why did they need a fast moving vehicle in such a major role? They had columns of Humvee and unprotected trucks. It seems that most of the units were infantry on the ground, the trucks and Humvee.

                            From what I understand, you need infantry and faster vehicles to protect the tanks, other armored units and artillery. To protect them from enemy foot troops using bombs and RPG type weapons, or something else that can hurt tanks. -however, you only need a few of these lighter vehicles to go back and forth, circle and protects the rest of the Army, not to spearhead an invasion or a mission.

                            Therefore, I say, what is the hurry. I think most of the goals and military targets were not actually leaving Iraq, or have any chance to escape.

                            The US had naval support, modern, compete with cruise missiles, in The Persian Gulf. And most importantly, aircraft carriers or at least one with other aircraft stationed in nearby air bases. They also can fly some of those combat planes all the way from The United States mainland.

                            The US had Air Dominance. The Iraqi air units were no longer a threat.

                            I feel that, since they were there to stay a long time, the US military could have carried out most missions with the high tech Abrams tanks supported by armored, tracked, personnel carriers, which are supported by air airstrikes, missile strikes and Apache and other helicopter units.

                            They could have avoided the roads altogether and used mine clearing vehicles. Why do they invent and build these things if they are going to hardly use them? They obviously needed things like that.

                            They could have avoided the roads altogether by driving over the land or fly over the roads and the land with soldier carrying Helicopters, like the Blackhawk and Bell HE type from The Vietnam War. They have the twin rotor one and a few other designs, I think. The have the attack helicopters to help protect the individual soldiers and equipment. Now they have combat drones.

                            The the government went on to claim that the camera smart-bombs are not as effective as they pretended them to be in Desert Storm. ???

                            In the first few hours they could and did wipe out the traditional and conventional targets that offered a threat to the US forces. Most of the damage can be caused by air and ship units.

                            It may be difficult to target enemy soldiers, terrorists or insurgents, since they appear small and move around a lot from the view of the ships and airplanes, but helicopter seem to be able to track them down easily.

                            They might have saved more lives and had less casualties if they had less soldiers out in the open and had used more helicopters for various functions. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines should have been more protected at the land combat soldier level.

                            More madness.

                            It just seems that the US government, like in past wars, just continue to throw more lives at the problem. It is not at all like the sacrifices made on D-Day, when the Allies really needed, at All Cost, to puncture the coastal defensive line at a point where they could re-organize the Army and head deeper into enemy territory and to eventually move onward to the East to end the war. The Allies really needed that second Front from the Western side of the theater. It had design and purpose. The US, Canadian and British needed to sacrifice to break through because our Ally the U.S.S.R. were making great human sacrifices against the enemy and they were waiting for the rest of the Allies to give them some help and relief, in order to win, before the enemy could turn the progress around on them and still achieve some enemy victory.

                            In modern warfare, it seems that the only purpose to put a person in an open turret, for example, is to have them killed or wounded.

                            The need for visual targeting and application can be achieved in modern times by many other means. There are cameras, periscopes, driving slits, special protective glass, protective armor, satellite pictures and intelligence, and aerial surveillance.

                            Only as a last resort, or if the completion of the mission requires, like the entering of buildings, should the infantry be exposed to enemy fire. When going from A to B, I do not think it is needed to become a living flesh target with a huge bulls-eye painted on your torso or face.

                            -especially since this is the enemy's preference of attack.

                            IEDs, RPGs and sniper fire. The Humvee is not good at defending from these attacks.

                            Another complaint, it is shameful to have so many friendly fire incidents in a war that has so much military intelligence, modern communication technology and superiority in training, numbers, weapons, tools and equipment. Some of the air attacks can become hard to avoid accidents, but I feel that friendly-fire against land units and land units could be avoided more often. By communication, identification and aerial spotting. Maybe they should have a transponder that only our military can detect, something used for quick identification. We could go back to signal flags and banners if we have to find news ways to avoid horrible mistakes and tragedies.

                            All those years of warfare and it seems as though they do not really learn from one war to another. This leads me to believe that those in government simply do not care about the lives of it's population.

                            All that technology, know-how, military inventions, new weapons, new protective gear, new defensive vehicles, the study of military history, actual veteran soldier experience, morality, insight and new tools, and it seems like all that knowledge, accumulation of military wisdom and all the invention, creation and military evolution is all for nothing if the Commander-In-Chief, Situation Room members, political representatives, and The President's Military Staff, Admirals, Generals etc. do not make use of it and wield their power and might for practical means and methods.

                            All the way to protect the infantry and the government places the ground forces as moving targets on the battlefields. Shooting galleries and shooting fish in a barrel come to mind. A war mission should not be an 'Operation: Cannon Fodder' type conflict in any war, battle, skirmish, clash, fight or military action or intervention.

                            There is even video of soldiers asking for better armor for their Humvee, or at the very least, the raw material so they can make it themselves, and they are flatly turned down. Turned down by a flimsy excuse. Something like,"We have to fight the war that we are in, not the war we would like it to be."

                            Well Donald Rumsfeld, I think the point is to Mold and Shape the war to the way We Want to Fight It, Not the Way the Enemy Wants to Fight It.

                            Fight it in such a way that it protects human life as much as possible. Protect US and Ally life and protect civilian life. Only kill an enemy when it is the last resort, the only way to protect our soldiers, or to defend our civilians and innocent people around the world.

                            Dear World Governments,

                            Please try thinking, common sense and logic for one thing.

                            Please stop killing people for no good reason.

                            Please stop letting our military people get killed or wounded when there are ways to protect them. Please stop putting them in harm's way for no reason.

                            When we need to go to war, please protect and defend our soldiers as much as possible. Take the extra steps and measures to protect them.
                            ---------

                            Just in case you world powers were waiting for me to spell it out for you, lease read the above. Thank you.
                            ---------

                            "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                            - Michael Moorcock

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              G) Lies, Misinformation, Bad Intelligence.

                              Rumsfeld equated stress positions, AKA Torture, to him standing beside his desk for eight hours.

                              There are conflicting stories concerning the death of bin Laden. Official says he was shot after the SEAL Team ran up the stairs. The other story says he was shot through the window minutes before.

                              The government lies about many things.

                              Lied about secret bases.

                              Lied about giving orders, then blamed someone else for actions and events. Blamed the lower ranks.

                              Lied about how wars are started.

                              Lied about the activities of the politicians.

                              Lied about spying on people throughout the world.

                              Lied about spying on Iran until a Spy Drone fell into their backyard.

                              Lied about not being able to imagine an attack using hijacked planes.
                              ---------

                              Lied about not knowing an attack was coming, after getting a declaration of war from ObL shortly after President Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and failed. The US was really at war after the bombing of U.S.S. Cole. It should have been announced publicly as a war. Clinton should have known that you can not have a failed hit on a man, (with cruise missiles), and expect that man not to hit back like 1920's gangsters.

                              1) You think carefully before ordering a hit or assassination (which I thought was banned for year prior) and try really hard not to go that route.

                              2) You never, never, never, fail on a hit. Failure is not an option.

                              3) Should have visual kill confirmation. Need soldiers on the ground, confirm identity, make sure it's done right.

                              ---------

                              Lied about experimenting with LSD on our own Army soldiers.

                              Lied about other experiments.

                              Lied about safe radiation levels.

                              Lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

                              ---------

                              We still don't know what caused Gulf War syndrome.

                              There are so many things out there that we never learn the whole truth.

                              Then we are always purposely distracted from things, people, places, actions and events.

                              Again, we are forced to forget , when there is something new (or learned new about old), and react to something else. It's only an eternal streaming of reactions to past reactions.

                              "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
                              - Michael Moorcock

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X