Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Do we ever learn from history ?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Aiden (U1707544) on Monday, 21st November 2005
I ask this question because of the attitude of the US forces in Iraq and the parallels which can be drawn to The Vietnam war.
There is no doubt that one of the reasons the US suffered such a humiliating defeat at the hands of a small nation such as the North Vietnamese forces was because of the Nazi-like atrocities commited on a large scale by the Americans against civilians.
This behaviour hardens the resolve of the opposing forces and reduces support at home.
This is an inetresting website which goes into detail on this issue
-
Message 2
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 21st November 2005
I think the quote is something like "those who do not learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat them". There are often certain forces, which start to take over in a given situation - for example, you can see that both Napoleon and Hitler engaged in invading Russia partly out of need for resources to feed the machime they had created. Often, therefore, historical events and people will move into a position, where forces, which they have little control over, continue to drive them in a certain direction - groupthink is an interesting psychological force, which takes over political leaders and their immediate entourage and leads them to believe that they are always right (viz. Tony's little terror problem last week).
-
Message 3
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Monday, 21st November 2005
I dare to call the 'certain forces'which had started to take over in this given situation-these are -papers and TV channels. Since 1966-67 they did all they could to delude the American people and break their will to fight.
At first L. Johnson lost his war in the USA itself... -
Message 4
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
I ask this question because of the attitude of the US forces in Iraq and the parallels which can be drawn to The Vietnam war.
There is no doubt that one of the reasons the US suffered such a humiliating defeat at the hands of a small nation such as the North Vietnamese forces was because of the Nazi-like atrocities commited on a large scale by the Americans against civilians.
This behaviour hardens the resolve of the opposing forces and reduces support at home.
This is an inetresting website which goes into detail on this issue
Ìý
I ask this question because of the attitude of the US forces in Iraq and the parallels which can be drawn to The Vietnam war. Ìý
Do tell us about the attitude of the U.S. Soldiers in Iraq, and the parallels to Vietnam.
There is no doubt that one of the reasons the US suffered such a humiliating defeat at the hands of a small nation such as the North Vietnamese forcesÌý
So the United States were defeated by North Vietnam? Do please elaborate on this.
was because of the Nazi-like atrocities commited on a large scale by the Americans against civilians.Ìý
There was isolated atrocities committed in Vietnam as is in most wars, but do tell me of the "Nazi-like atrocities committed on a large scale"
This behaviour hardens the resolve of the opposing forces and reduces support at home.Ìý
Would that account for the free counties of Ireland?
This is an inetresting website which goes into detail on this issue
Ìý
You have made these atrocious accusations against the United States and your reference is a left wing web site. This is a History board. Not a platform for your immature anti American sentiments. -
Message 5
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
"...Would that account for the free counties of Ireland?..."
Yes, all 6 of them. -
Message 6
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
I take it that the famous film of the last US embassy staff escaping ona helicopter from Saigon were the last stages of a tactical withdrawal? The US withdrew from the war and later sought peace in Paris - that is a deafeat in anyone's book.
As for Nazi-like atrocities, no doubt, you might tell us about Agent Orange and the international ban on the use of chemical weapons? Or is that something else, which only applies to other nations?
As for US army attitudes, the shooting of 5 Iraqis yesterady and the denial of civilian casualties in the west recently speaks volumes, along with Abu Greib of course - no doubt "they were only obeying orders".
As for Ireland, I think you will find that the IRA has abandoned its war - it might be the supreme irony if AQ's activitioes had finally stopped the US backing terror groups in Ireland. -
Message 7
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
I take it that the famous film of the last US embassy staff escaping ona helicopter from Saigon were the last stages of a tactical withdrawal? The US withdrew from the war and later sought peace in Paris - that is a deafeat in anyone's book.Ìý
Are you not supposed to be some kind of professional Historian or something? Let me help you out Dave. I would hate to see a professional like your self described self continue disseminating such rubbish. It makes me wonder about your publisher. No those were marine guards. The same guards that are at every American Embassy in the world, including the one in your capital. When that was filmed the American and allied forces were gone from Vietnam for more than two years. That was two years AFTER we withdrew in accordance with the Paris accords.
As for Nazi-like atrocities, no doubt, you might tell us about Agent Orange and the international ban on the use of chemical weapons? Or is that something else, which only applies to other nations?Ìý
As for the Nazi Agent Orange, it was a defoliant and not a chemical weapon. Are you so blinded by irrational assumptions on anything American that reality is too much for you to bear?
As for US army attitudes, the shooting of 5 Iraqis yesterady and the denial of civilian casualties in the west recently speaks volumes, along with Abu Greib of course - no doubt "they were only obeying orders".Ìý
The shooting of five Iraqis were because they refused to stop when told to do so, even after warning shots were fired at them. Should they have waited to see if it was another car bomb? Abu Greib was a crime and has been addressed as such. Which is more than can be said for your peon mercs in British Uniform.
As for Ireland, I think you will find that the IRA has abandoned its war - it might be the supreme irony if AQ's activitioes had finally stopped the US backing terror groups in Ireland. Ìý
The U.S. as you have constantly failed to prove has never supported the IRA. You are quite the professional Historian. Who is your publisher, The Daily Worker? If you are counting on your professional objectivity for a living, you would expire from malnutrition. -
Message 8
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
Abu Greib has been addressed by banging up the minions at the bottom and not looking at who set the policy - they also cited the claim that they were only obeying orders.
As for the US in Vietnam, I think you will find that running away from the battlefield usually means you have been defeated. As for Ireland, I suggest you read that FT piece - but no doubt you haven't and would prefer the delusions of the US Right?
As for Uk troops in Iraq, all those involve dhave been subject to proepr court martial and the guilty ones convicted. That is somewhat better than the attempts of our US "allies" to fit up Tim Collins with false claims? (With friends like that, who needs enemies?).
The US has now convicted a US-Arab for plotting to kill Bush - "Abu Ali said he made up the confessions in order to stop members of the Saudi domestic security police from torturing him.
Saudi officials deny the accusations of mistreatment. U.S. prosecutors -- who based most of their case against Abu Ali on statements made in Saudi Arabia -- said there was no evidence to prove Abu Ali had been tortured." Yeah, this is the Saudi regime - to whom no European country will extradite precisely because of the certainty of torture. We do not accept evidence obtained under torture nor do we have the death penalty as it is consiodered to be the mark of civilises society not to have it.
Oh and here is the latest one - allegedly Tony prevailed on Dubya not to bomb Al Jazeera's office in Qatar. Would be a strange thing to do given the number of US fores there - but maybe not given the deliberate bombing of the AJ office in Kabul and the "accidental" rocketing of the AJ ogffice in a hotel in Baghdad. So much for freedom and justice, eh? (Brought to you by the same people, who think the US was notd efeated in Vietnam).
As for Agent Orange, go and look at the malformed kids born where it was used. Then there is the white phosphorus in Iraq just the other day - chemicals for some but not others eh? -
Message 9
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
-
Message 10
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
Abu Greib has been addressed by banging up the minions at the bottom and not looking at who set the policy - they also cited the claim that they were only obeying orders.Ìý
The commander of the prison was a one star general. She has been reduced in rank to Colonel.
As for the US in Vietnam, I think you will find that running away from the battlefield usually means you have been defeated. As for Ireland, I suggest you read that FT piece - but no doubt you haven't and would prefer the delusions of the US Right?Ìý
I’m almost tempted to defer to your expertise on running away. However they are usually portrayed as some kind of victory so I shall refrain.
We killed 2.5 Million communists in Vietnam. The United States army has never been beat by any army in History, a battle yes, a war no. That of course includes the ass whipping our red necks gave y'all and your mercenaries.
As for Uk troops in Iraq, all those involve dhave been subject to proepr court martial and the guilty ones convicted. That is somewhat better than the attempts of our US "allies" to fit up Tim Collins with false claims? (With friends like that, who needs enemies?).Ìý
Tim Collins...is that a drink?
The US has now convicted a US-Arab for plotting to kill Bush - "Abu Ali said he made up the confessions in order to stop members of the Saudi domestic security police from torturing him.Ìý
I'm glad to hear he would not lie to keep out of trouble
Saudi officials deny the accusations of mistreatment. U.S. prosecutors -- who based most of their case against Abu Ali on statements made in Saudi Arabia -- said there was no evidence to prove Abu Ali had been tortured." Yeah, this is the Saudi regime - to whom no European country will extradite precisely because of the certainty of torture. We do not accept evidence obtained under torture nor do we have the death penalty as it is consiodered to be the mark of civilises society not to have it.Ìý
I hope you’re a better Historian than you are a Lawyer.
Oh and here is the latest one - allegedly Tony prevailed on Dubya not to bomb Al Jazeera's office in Qatar. Would be a strange thing to do given the number of US fores there - but maybe not given the deliberate bombing of the AJ office in Kabul and the "accidental" rocketing of the AJ ogffice in a hotel in Baghdad. So much for freedom and justice, eh? (Brought to you by the same people, who think the US was notd efeated in Vietnam).Ìý
You forgot the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade? If Bush doesn't bomb al jazeera I’m voting Republican. next time.
As for Agent Orange, go and look at the malformed kids born where it was used. Then there is the white phosphorus in Iraq just the other day - chemicals for some but not others eh?Ìý
I can look at our vet’s kids and see the same thing. It was not a known toxin. Nor was DDT, Did someone say Thalidomide ? -
Message 11
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Northern Ireland - while the US did not officially support the IRA, they were happy to have presidential meetings with Gerry Adams. Nor did they make any attempt to stop fund-raising for the IRA but then that would annoy the Irish vote. IMO it was only when the Loyalists struck back with atrocities that the Republicans were ready to talk.
Vietnam - the US won every battle but the end result was South Vietnam became Communist so has to be seen as a defeat. Agent Orange - as I understand - was not a deliberate attempt to poison but still should not have been used. 'We killed 2.5 Million communists in Vietnam' - yes, I'm sure a million peasants concerned only growing enough rice to feed their families were all die-hard reds and deserving of being napalmed - bravo.
AWI - some parallels with the Vietnam conflict - the British Army was successful 90% of the time but the rebels held on long enough to gain French and European support. Seeing it as the US hammering Britain and its 'mercenary peons' is somewhat jingoistic.
AJ - from what I can tell it is no more propoganda than any other news service, only that its from a different perspective. -
Message 12
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
They would not have won the AWI, which was only a land grab anyway, but for the French - but some people are just ungrateful (cf. all the tiems we are told to be grateful for US help in WW2).
As for killing "all those commies", it is like "killing all those Iraqis" - that is why the US still has 150K troops in Iraq 30 months after "operations finished".
AM - we do not accept torture evidence here nor did we find any evidence against those held at Gitmo. That may just be why the US is not too popular in the ME at the moment, but indeed, some people just do not learn. We do not extradite anyone to the US without a guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied.
I see you have not read the FT item then? Frightened of what it says? -
Message 13
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Well,men......We are at it again I see......Paris accords, which were signed by R. Nixon,were a right deal for America....
I've chosen a couple of books on this subject:
Herbert Y.Shandler,The unmaking of a President:Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam
(Princetone 1977)
Will:The Autobiography of G.Gordon Liddy(London 1981)....and
Richard Nixon,Public Papers,1969
(Washington DC 1971) -
Message 14
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
I had heard that the US had agreed to pay reparations as part of the Paris treaty - does anyone know if this is true?
-
Message 15
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
They would not have won the AWI, which was only a land grab anyway, but for the French - but some people are just ungrateful (cf. all the tiems we are told to be grateful for US help in WW2).Ìý
Lets hear it for those French soldiers that kicked Redcoats backsides and their mercs asses.
As for killing "all those commies", it is like "killing all those Iraqis" - that is why the US still has 150K troops in Iraq 30 months after "operations finished".Ìý
Just because we have the Brits hiding out in Basra to give Blair cover does not mean operations are over. They are over for your lot. But then again you are only there for window dressing anyway.
AM - we do not accept torture evidence here nor did we find any evidence against those held at Gitmo. That may just be why the US is not too popular in the ME at the moment, but indeed, some people just do not learn. We do not extradite anyone to the US without a guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied.Ìý
What Britain’s extradition policies are or are not is hardly a qualifier for your perception of morality. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
I see you have not read the FT item then? Frightened of what it says? Ìý
That’s right Dave, I'm going to let you dictate quotes from (that remains elusive)a London newspaper for your twisted interpretation of my country supporting the IRA. At least you never referenced The Daily Worker. -
Message 16
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
I had heard that the US had agreed to pay reparations as part of the Paris treaty - does anyone know if this is true?Ìý
Nice try. -
Message 17
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
expat, you badly need to calm down.
Vietnam was a defeat for the US. any other interpretation is the same as what you criticise the uk for doing - dunkirk etc.
Its ok to lose once in a while !
I sugest that you read titles such as 'Nam' by mark baker, Once a warrior king, Marine sniper, chickenhawk etc to get a feel for some of the things that happened. Yes everyone looks at my lai, and it was an atrocity - but there were many smaller versions of my lai.
atrocities happen in war, on both sides, but to suggest that the US is innocent, esp in vietnam is rubbish. Grow up and take the blinkers off.
The us refused to pay reparations to vietnam, even after it agreed to this at paris. Anyone agreeing to pay reparations accepts a certain amount of giult and are usually the losing party.
The paraleels with vietnam and iraq are very real. I think the people in the us are slowly seeing this.
The us justice system constantly refused to hand over ira bombers because because they would not get a fair trial. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you shout foul.
I have seen american citizens collect money for noraid. I have seen them give a cheer when brit soldiers were killed, i have heard them have support for the ira. Now if i did the same for alqueida, the us would call me an enemy and probably try and arrest me or worse. -
Message 18
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Vietnam - the US won every battle but the end result was South Vietnam became Communist so has to be seen as a defeat. Ìý
North Vietnam invaded the South in violation of a signed agreement in Paris. (The Paris Accords)
We can hardly be held accountable for the history that followed after we left.
Agent Orange - as I understand - was not a deliberate attempt to poison but still should not have been used. 'We killed 2.5 Million communists in Vietnam' - yes, I'm sure a million peasants concerned only growing enough rice to feed their families were all die-hard reds and deserving of being napalmed - bravo.Ìý
The people killed were hardly planting rice. Within living memory it was your country's policy to deliberatly bomb civillians in Germany.
That is 90% of what the RAF bomber wings accomplished in the entire war. Who needs Naplam when you have Dresden.
AWI - some parallels with the Vietnam conflict - the British Army was successful 90% of the time but the rebels held on long enough to gain French and European support. Seeing it as the US hammering Britain and its 'mercenary peons' is somewhat jingoistic.Ìý
We kicked your backside, plain and simple. Come to think on it,What army hasn't ? -
Message 19
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
"North Vietnam invaded the South in violation of a signed agreement in Paris. (The Paris Accords)
We can hardly be held accountable for the history that followed after we left."
Really? So killing and bombing for decades bears no responsibility.
Oh and what about Cambodia, helping to overthrow Siahnouk and installing Lon Nol - thus firing up the K Rouge? And then refusing to support Vietnam when it overthrew this genocidal regime.
Was this a US success too? Looks like another defeat.
Have been a few haven't there , Somalia, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia and now Iraq where even the secretary of Defence says his forces "can't win".
Even Afghanistan is turing sour.
Comes from relying on technology and an utter ignorance of the countries and people's involved.
"The people killed were hardly planting rice. Within living memory it was your country's policy to deliberatly bomb civillians in Germany.
That is 90% of what the RAF bomber wings accomplished in the entire war. Who needs Naplam when you have Dresden."
So you admit the point. Good. The indiscriminate killing of civilians is another paralell between Vietnam and Iraq.
"We kicked your backside, plain and simple. Come to think on it,What army hasn't ?"
Wacky do. Worst disaster to strike the US. If the British remained ther would have been indpendence with no civil war, and no slavery.
And its also true the british army has been defeated in the past, but it does tend to learn from its defeats - hence Basra. -
Message 20
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Whatever happened to civilised debate guys?
You're all back to "Yes our country did this bad thing, but yours did this one!"
Very mature.
Considering the title of the thread is "Do we ever learn from history" then hell no! Of course we don't. We don't even learn from arguments on the subject, let alone the subject intself! -
Message 21
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Too simplistic. Switzerland seems to have learned from history pretty effectively and so has Sweden.
However in each case iot does depend on what you consider learning to be -
Message 22
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Dl,
Have to agree, the point of the thread has long since been lost. -
Message 23
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Your question is realy interested.
The answer is yes because evryday you learn something from history because history is some ''lesson'' to your life.
Now something else I like histry specialy world war 2 and the years of Adolf hitler,all his regime and the most the eastern front you know opreaion Barbarosa.
So if you have more informaion to guve me on that war just send me messege -
Message 24
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Yes,DL
I also can see that our 'activities' didn't go a long way towards solving the problems and questions which exist.
You are right-'let alone the subject intself!' -
Message 25
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
I thought there were 26 free counties.
Regards
Spike "...Would that account for the free counties of Ireland?..."
Yes, all 6 of them.
Ìý -
Message 26
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
"North Vietnam invaded the South in violation of a signed agreement in Paris. (The Paris Accords)
We can hardly be held accountable for the history that followed after we left."
Really? So killing and bombing for decades bears no responsibility.
Oh and what about Cambodia, helping to overthrow Siahnouk and installing Lon Nol - thus firing up the K Rouge? And then refusing to support Vietnam when it overthrew this genocidal regime.
Was this a US success too? Looks like another defeat.
Have been a few haven't there , Somalia, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia and now Iraq where even the secretary of Defence says his forces "can't win".
Even Afghanistan is turing sour.
Comes from relying on technology and an utter ignorance of the countries and people's involved.
"The people killed were hardly planting rice. Within living memory it was your country's policy to deliberatly bomb civillians in Germany.
That is 90% of what the RAF bomber wings accomplished in the entire war. Who needs Naplam when you have Dresden."
So you admit the point. Good. The indiscriminate killing of civilians is another paralell between Vietnam and Iraq.
"We kicked your backside, plain and simple. Come to think on it,What army hasn't ?"
Wacky do. Worst disaster to strike the US. If the British remained ther would have been indpendence with no civil war, and no slavery.
And its also true the british army has been defeated in the past, but it does tend to learn from its defeats - hence Basra.
Ìý
This post is so devoid of substance, reality, or any degree of maturity that I will not be dignifying it with an answer. Instead I suggest you do a little more research before trying to spout the Anti American rhetoric that the ill informed of your country appear to wallow in. -
Message 27
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
expat, you badly need to calm down.
Vietnam was a defeat for the US. any other interpretation is the same as what you criticise the uk for doing - dunkirk etc.
Its ok to lose once in a while !
I sugest that you read titles such as 'Nam' by mark baker, Once a warrior king, Marine sniper, chickenhawk etc to get a feel for some of the things that happened. Yes everyone looks at my lai, and it was an atrocity - but there were many smaller versions of my lai.
atrocities happen in war, on both sides, but to suggest that the US is innocent, esp in vietnam is rubbish. Grow up and take the blinkers off.Ìý
You make it sound like I’m excited, even if I was that is no leverage for you. It was a Political defeat I agree. That is because the American people stopped the Vietnam war, and not the Vietnamese on the battlefield.
I have about 80 books on the Vietnam war and I sure don't need any redundant instructions from you. I have already said there were war crimes in Vietnam. But that is a whole different thing than a national policy that is being inferred. If you want to trade personal insults that’s fine by me, but make sure of what you are getting into.
The us refused to pay reparations to vietnam, even after it agreed to this at paris. Anyone agreeing to pay reparations accepts a certain amount of giult and are usually the losing party.Ìý
There was NO agreement to pay Vietnam anything.
The paraleels with vietnam and iraq are very real. I think the people in the us are slowly seeing this.Ìý
You're free to think what you want.
The us justice system constantly refused to hand over ira bombers because because they would not get a fair trial. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you shout foul.Ìý
Tell me about the IRA bombers we would not handover. Once again, not hearsay, not some British rag, an official U.S. or U.K. document.
I have seen american citizens collect money for noraid.Ìý
And ?
I have seen them give a cheer when brit soldiers were killed,Ìý
Perhaps because the Black and Tans dragged his Grandad out of his house at 3 in the morning and shot him on the street.
i have heard them have support for the ira.Ìý
and ?
Now if I did the same for alqueida, the us would call me an enemy and probably try and arrest me or worse.Ìý
We would not have to, your own government would do it. -
Message 28
Posted by KCLUndergrad (U2561619) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Which is more than can be said for your peon mercs in British Uniform.
Ìý
I’m almost tempted to defer to your expertise on running away
Ìý
Lets hear it for those French soldiers that kicked Redcoats backsides and their mercs asses.
Ìý
This has hardly been the most objective thread in history, and for one side to call the other immature (whichever side does it) is clearly the pot calling the kettle black, as a few choice quotations above show, Mr. Expat.
I would like to give some points on both sides, in an attempt to restore some kind of historical objectivity rather than jingoistic flag flying.
The United States army has never been beat by any army in History, a battle yes, a war no
Ìý
Expat, please read up on the War of 1812.
Simon21, a few points also. Afghanistan was a joint operation between the US and the UK, and more besides. This was done in a much more even type of alliance than Iraq was. The UK was the first into Afghanistan, and the first to command NATO forces there, making good headway. Every subsequant country to take control has also done well. With Afghanistan soon to come under British control again, you would probably do well with not wishing it to go badly for the sake of trying to win an argument, British soldiers will die if you get your grim prediction right.
You should also exercise caution when trying to predict what would have happened had Britain maintained control of the 13 colonies. They were independent in all but name and the AWI was more a battle of new americans against old americans than United America against a vile oppressor - how can you say with such certainty there would have been no civil war?
Related to the above point, don't say that the British Army has learnt from experiences of the past: look at Basra until forces have finally left the region, there is still time for bloodshed.
I hope, probably in vain, that BOTH sides will now revert to objective arguments, and these pathetic accusations of immaturity are not seen again... -
Message 29
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Hi KCLUndergrad,
Is there anything else you would like ?
Expat, please read up on the War of 1812.
Ìý
British were finally able to divert more resources to North America. British invasions of American territory resulted in the burning of Washington, D.C. and the capture of part of the District of Maine, but the British counteroffensive was turned back at Lake Champlain, Baltimore, and New Orleans. The Treaty of Ghent (ratified in 1815) restored the status quo ante bellum between the combatants.
The War of 1812 ended as a stalemate and is often only dimly remembered
-
Message 30
Posted by KCLUndergrad (U2561619) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
What was the american objective of the war? Answer: Conquering of the remaining British North American colonies. Did they succeed? No. Sounds like an American defeat to me. Of course, that is a historical interpretation and we could get into the whole "what is victory" debate which has caused many thouosands of trees to be felled and still doesn't have a conclusion...
I would also be very careful when basing your entire knowledge of a subject on wikipedia, good resource though it is. However dimly a war is remembered, does not mean that it happened. Have you ever considered that it is not remembered because the American people have chosen to write it out of their history? Just like the British hardly ever speak about the American War of Independence?
Hi KCLUndergrad,
Is there anything else you would like ?
Ìý
Yes! I would like the debates to be more like this, where each side puts across reasonable arguments instead of resorting to blind patriotism. Thank you for replying to me so quickly, and for being more civil in your last post. -
Message 31
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Hi again,
I would also be very careful when basing your entire knowledge of a subject on wikipedia, good resource though it is.Ìý
Don't you find your above statement just a little bit presumptive ? In any event as you cant refute the findings any other point is mute.
Yes! I would like the debates to be more like this, where each side puts across reasonable arguments instead of resorting to blind patriotism. Thank you for replying to me so quickly, and for being more civil in your last post.Ìý
Normally they are, but as you are new to these boards your assumption is understandable, and BTW welcome. I suggest you drop the patronizing attitude. It will wear thin quickly.
Cheerz. -
Message 32
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
'I' Expat,
Let's take as an example the Indian Tribes.
Some historians and writers prefer to blame the modern USA in all human sins which exist when they begin to talk about.
But....
it was really a wrong idea to launch the war against New
England between 1675 and 1677 with that aim to
MASSACRE THE WHITE SETTLERS as King Philip (Metacomet) did. It was the brightest example of injustice towards the white settlers ..but this fact from the American history was missed by
Helen Hunt Jackson (1830-85) who wrote the book A Century Of Dishonour where she stated of American injustice to the Indians...
A wrong idea is to see only these facts from history
which are to suit very well to your own views on things and bring a shadow on these ones which are not to go
IN LINE....and simualtaneously trying to accuse people in conducting the line of'double-standards' in an offhand manner....
It is a lie that American citizens lost the war
in Nam.
But it is the truth that L.Johnson&Co suffered from the lacking a stomach to win.
May be here is the point.
The US President R.Nixon was a real man.But 'Helen Hunt Jackson's finished him off as a politician during the Watergate.
Cheers. -
Message 33
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
1986:05793 The US-UK supplementary extradition treaty Abraham D Sofaer Terrorism
Reprint of statement to Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Aug 1985, justifying the amendment to the 1972 UK-US extradition treaty which would enable IRA members to be extradited from the US to face terrorist charges in Britain without being able to use the loophole that they were committintg political acts.
Legal adviser, US Department of State.
Category Codes: A7.1
Keywords: EXTRADITION
Geographical Index: UK, USA
expat
read and weep.
no extradition if their bombings and killings were seen as political. so many ira men used this in there defence -
Message 34
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
There was certainly a case in Califpornia of an escapee from the Maze, who was not sent back as his crimes were political. It is like the FT - whioch quoted the FBI - but then expat does not like a few facts.
I was amused by his reaction over hte subject of torture - the European Council has now demanded that all its members provide information about secret camps in eastern Europe used by the CIA to torture people they do not like. While evidence has yet to come forward, it is interesting that the rumours have already led to this - and the basis of the action? The CIA does not want its captives to challenge the legitimacy of their detention before the US courts!
When we add in Dubya's plans to wipe out Al Jazeera, so much for "freedom of speech" and hte "rule of law". Expat would prefer the use of blunt foirce -w ell, until it comes back the other way, when suddenly it is wrong.
Perhaps the wanswer to the original point is "you real what you sow". -
Message 35
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
or a case example................
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Barbara A. Caulfield, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 1995--San Francisco, California
Filed July 27, 1995
Before: Joseph T. Sneed, Mary M. Schroeder, and Warren J. Ferguson, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Schroeder
COUNSEL
Sara Criscitelli, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the plaintiff-appellant.
Karen L. Snell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, California, for the defendant-appellee.
OPINION
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:
This is a proceeding brought by the United States on behalf of the United Kingdom to extradite James J. Smyth to Northern Ireland. Smyth was convicted of the attempted murder of a prison officer in Belfast, Northern Ireland in 1978 and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. He escaped from the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland in September of 1983 and arrived in San Francisco several months later. The United States, at the request of the United Kingdom, seeks Smyth's extradition to Northern Ireland to serve the remainder of his prison term. Extradition is sought pursuant to the United States - United Kingdom Extradition Treaty, June 8, 1972, U.S. - U.K., 28 U.S.T. 227, and the Supplementary Extradition Treaty, June 25, 1985, U.S. - U.K., art. 3(a), reprinted in S. Exec. Rep. No. 17, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. 15-17 (1986)(Supplementary Treaty).
The district court denied certification of extradition. This government appeal requires our court, for the first time, to examine the unique defense to extradition found in the 1986 Supplementary Extradition Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. See Supplementary Treaty. The Supplementary Treaty followed in the wake of a series of decisions by United States courts refusing to extradite to Northern Ireland individuals who had been charged with or convicted of acts of political violence. The treaty provisions, negotiated by President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher, and modified by the United States Senate, represent a difficult compromise between outrage and compassion: the outrage of the British government over the refusal of the United States to extradite persons whom the United Kingdom considered terrorists, and the compassion of the United States for individuals who, if extradited, might suffer unfair treatment and incarceration on account of their religious or political associations, not because of their criminal acts.
The Supplementary Treaty's key substantive provision, Article 3(a), creates a defense to extradition. It provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Supplementary Treaty, extradition shall not occur if the person sought establishes to the satisfaction of the competent judicial authority by a preponderance of the evidence that the request for extradition has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or that he would, if surrendered, be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted
in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.
Supplementary Treaty, art. 3(a).
he was not extradited.
Smyth was one of 38 Republican prisoners who made the 1983 escape from the Maze, a Northern Ireland maximum security prison. He arrived in San Francisco, California, and lived and worked in the Bay area until June 3, 1992, when he was arrested on a charge of making a false statement on a passport application in violation of 18 U.S.C. S 1542, and taken into custody. On September 14, 1992, the U.K. filed a formal request for Smyth's extradition to serve the remainder of his sentence for the 1978 attempted murder conviction.
The district court held numerous hearings in the matter and eventually ruled that Smyth would, if extradited, face discriminatory detention and punishment both within the Maze Prison and upon his release into the general population. The court therefore denied the government's request for the certification of extradition. Neither the validity of Smyth's underlying conviction for attempted murder nor his 20-year sentence are challenged on appeal
The reasons were felt by some in america to justify the non extradition of killers. ok. the diploc court system was unfair in a normal society - no jury and 3 judges. however, ni was not a normal society. it was too dangerous for members of the public to appear in juries, and most refused.
At least there was a trial, with defence lawyers.
Very different than the system used in guantanimo. Do you agree therefor that we should refuse to extradite terrorists on the samr ground ???? -
Message 36
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Well gooserss,
Let me compliment you on providing a reference instead of the usual shrilling of the bad Americans crowd. On the face of it you are presenting me with a point that I have trouble arguing with. My initial thought is that this " the compassion of the United States for individuals who, if extradited, might suffer unfair treatment and incarceration on account of their religious or political associations, not because of their criminal acts." maybe the stumbling block.
This is our law and this is what he is dealing with. You can hardly describe the situation he would be going back to as impartial. Britain has similar laws regarding extradition to the United States because we have the death penalty. It works both ways. I concede however you have made a legitimate point and from a Brits position in this individual case I would say you have a valid complaint.
Cheerz. -
Message 37
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Good point this one!
I'm going to have to throw in the Babar Ahmad case for comparison. Smyth was a convicted terrorist, who escaped from prison, and extradition was refused by a US court.
Babar Ahmad is currently appealing extradition to the US on charges of fund raising for the Taliban. He has not been convicted of anything yet, and is not even being allowed to defend this extradition in court. Double standards anyone?
DL -
Message 38
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
I thought there were 26 free counties.
Regards
Spike "...Would that account for the free counties of Ireland?..."
Yes, all 6 of them.
Ìý Ìý
You mis-counted.
kindest regards
Tim -
Message 39
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
"Some historians and writers prefer to blame the modern USA in all human sins which exist when they begin to talk about.
But....
it was really a wrong idea to launch the war against New
England between 1675 and 1677 with that aim to
MASSACRE THE WHITE SETTLERS as King Philip (Metacomet) did. It was the brightest example of injustice"
This is bizzare. For one thing the settlers had taken land, introduced vile diseases and openly regarded the indians as sub-humans.
What should they have done, given the settlers medals?
"It is a lie that American citizens lost the war
in Nam.
But it is the truth that L.Johnson&Co suffered from the lacking a stomach to win."
No it is a fact. Or are you saying the Americans "won". In which case kindly explain the difference in your mind between defeat and victory, they seem very similar.
Revisionism can be a fine thing. The past must always be reinterpreted, views challenged.
But views, not facts. We can debate the relative strength of Germany at the start of WW1, what we can't do is claim it won.
That isn't history it is fantasy.
History in the US, as AC mentioned in his last few broadcasts, apart from being taught extremely badly, is simply an extension of contemprary politics.
Proper discussion is just about impossible because many of the facts are disputed. -
Message 40
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
I thought there were 26 free counties.
Regards
Spike "...Would that account for the free counties of Ireland?..."
Yes, all 6 of them.
Ìý Ìý
You mis-counted.
kindest regards
TimÌý
Spike, You're priceless.
Cheerz my friend. -
Message 41
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Good point this one!
I'm going to have to throw in the Babar Ahmad case for comparison. Smyth was a convicted terrorist, who escaped from prison, and extradition was refused by a US court.
Babar Ahmad is currently appealing extradition to the US on charges of fund raising for the Taliban. He has not been convicted of anything yet, and is not even being allowed to defend this extradition in court. Double standards anyone?
DLÌý
DL I confess i'm not familiar with this case so if I step on my **** forgive me.
If he has been fund raising for the Taliban why has he not been charged in the U.K. ? -
Message 42
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
I don't have a clue!
Here's a link to the story on it anyway.
From what I gather, the US State Department haven't even forwarded any evidence against him either. It is a bit of a worrying case to say the least! -
Message 43
Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
At that particular point in time, the North Vietnamese army was arguably the best light infantry in the world....ask The Japanese, the French Foreign Legion, remember Dien bien Phu... vague chilhood memories of file shown on our first TV come to my mind. I ask this question because of the attitude of the US forces in Iraq and the parallels which can be drawn to The Vietnam war.
There is no doubt that one of the reasons the US suffered such a humiliating defeat at the hands of a small nation such as the North Vietnamese forces was because of the Nazi-like atrocities commited on a large scale by the Americans against civilians.
This behaviour hardens the resolve of the opposing forces and reduces support at home.
This is an inetresting website which goes into detail on this issue
Ìý -
Message 44
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
About two years ago in true poodle mode, the UK changed its extradition arrangements with the US, so that the US merely had to say it wanted that person for a specified offence and that would be it. There is no reciprocal arrangement and we do not have such an agreement with any other country.
The reason he has not been tried here is probably that there is no evidence againbst him. -
Message 45
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
I don't have a clue!
Here's a link to the story on it anyway.
From what I gather, the US State Department haven't even forwarded any evidence against him either. It is a bit of a worrying case to say the least!
Ìý
The websites are said to call for support for terrorist causes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, as well as encouraging the transfer of money and useful equipment via the sites.
It is also alleged Mr Ahmad tried to set up a terrorist training camp in Arizona.
His lawyers have said Mr Ahmad would be at risk of the death penalty if he was sent to the US and transferred to military jurisdiction. Ìý
It could be your Govt would prefer him tried in the U.S. rather than at home, or what is against the law in the U.S. may not be the case in the U.K. Its worth watching.
Thanks DL. -
Message 46
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
At that particular point in time, the North Vietnamese army was arguably the best light infantry in the world....ask The Japanese, the French Foreign Legion, remember Dien bien Phu... vague chilhood memories of file shown on our first TV come to my mind.Ìý
In the words of Colonel David hackworth " If you give him half a chance Charlie (v.c.) will, hand you your ass" -
Message 47
Posted by KCLUndergrad (U2561619) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Don't you find your above statement just a little bit presumptive ? In any event as you cant refute the findings any other point is mute.
Ìý
Perhaps you imploring me to not be so presumptuous should go back in your direction, I am not new to these boards, but recently ‘updated’ my account after being inactive since June - my original subscription dates to 2002. As for patronising, I was actually being sincere in my imploring the ad hominem arguments and petty name calling stop, not thanking you for being civil to belittle you.
What do you mean ‘can‘t refute the findings’?! What is history but arguments about conclusions and ‘findings’? The ‘findings’ are that the war ended in status quo ante bellum. My personal interpretation is that a war in which the aggressor does not achieve their aims, and in which their capital is razed, is a loss for the aggressor. Those are my ‘findings‘, but I’m never going to say that you can’t refute them because that wouldn’t be history.
Trying desperately to claw us back to the original topic, I don’t think humans ever learn from history (that’s my finding, Expat, but feel free to refute it). We say ‘never again’ when we think of the Holocaust, and then allow genocide to happen in places all over the world from Rwanda to Cambodia. Our secondary school children are taught to deplore the continual bypassing of the League of Nations which led to its downfall, and then our leaders bypass the UN. I could go on. In the specific case of Iraq, it doesn’t surprise me that we went to war - you cannot be afraid of acting just because of one specific failure forty years previous. What does surprise me is that there was no plan for after the war, no nation building strategy which everyone could see was going to be necessary - naively I think most of us (certainly me) believed they had one. -
Message 48
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Hi KCL,
Perhaps you imploring me to not be so presumptuous should go back in your direction, I am not new to these boards, but recently ‘updated’ my account after being inactive since June - my original subscription dates to 2002. As for patronising, I was actually being sincere in my imploring the ad hominem arguments and petty name calling stop, not thanking you for being civil to belittle you. Ìý
In thinking you new to the boards and welcoming you, as others had who have been contributors a lot longer than I, I was indeed presumptive.
What do you mean ‘can‘t refute the findings’?! What is history but arguments about conclusions and ‘findings’? The ‘findings’ are that the war ended in status quo ante bellum. My personal interpretation is that a war in which the aggressor does not achieve their aims, and in which their capital is razed, is a loss for the aggressor. Those are my ‘findings‘, but I’m never going to say that you can’t refute them because that wouldn’t be history.Ìý
Lets run it all the way back shall we? I said "The United States army has never been beat by any army in History, a battle yes, a war no"
You told me to "Expat, please read up on the War of 1812." Being the trying to please gent that I am, I did as asked. I returned with a reference from en.wikipedia.org that confirmed a stalemate. You then presumptively said "I would also be very careful when basing your entire knowledge of a subject on wikipedia" You cannot refute the findings of WIKIPEDIA? They may not be your findings but they are undisputably THEIRS.
That of course does not infer that History's conclusions or findings cannot be questioned. You have given your findings on 1812, and mine are as follows. We never won that war, it was a stalemate, We never lost that war either because of the conclusion. Thus again, The United States army has never been beat by any army in History, a battle yes, a war no. A stalemate is not a win. A stalemate is not a loss. Nor did I refer to either with my original statement. The Russians razed Moscow. They never lost the war.
Trying desperately to claw us back to the original topic, I don’t think humans ever learn from history (that’s my finding, Expat, but feel free to refute it). We say ‘never again’ when we think of the Holocaust, and then allow genocide to happen in places all over the world from Rwanda to Cambodia. Our secondary school children are taught to deplore the continual bypassing of the League of Nations which led to its downfall, and then our leaders bypass the UN. I could go on. In the specific case of Iraq, it doesn’t surprise me that we went to warÌý
The downfall of the league of Nations was IMO that, it would not enforce its own resolutions. Did somebody say U.N.? Rwanda was inexcusable, without a doubt. Regards Cambodia the U.S. has not long come out of Vietnam. There was no way any U.S. President could have intervened without a revolution. It does not take a superpower to right all wrongs.
you cannot be afraid of acting just because of one specific failure forty years previous. What does surprise me is that there was no plan for after the war, no nation building strategy which everyone could see was going to be necessary - naively I think most of us (certainly me) believed they had one.Ìý
The insurgency was not expected. In my opinion they are a combination of the now disposed Saddam groupies and foreign wannabe martyrs. Eventually the Iraqis themselves will deal with it. They are just not ready yet. That is no reason to cut and run.
Cheerz. -
Message 49
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
'That isn't history it is fantasy.'
History belongs to the people,Simon.
People in Communist Vietnam had seen nothing
of
good things after their 'win'.
This is the fact.
I wouldn't be dared to say the same words about
citizens of USA after their so-called 'defeat'. -
Message 50
Posted by KCLUndergrad (U2561619) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Expat
In the "trying desperatly..." part of my last post, I was not forwarding points to attack the US. I'm saying that 'we', taking to mean mankind (or maybe just 'the west') definatly do not learn from the past, and those were my points. They are not an effort to continue the ridiculous anti-american arguments which have been so prevalent in the rest of the post...Britain did not have a post-war strategy for the south of Iraq just like the US didn't have one for the North, and i definatly don't think our forces should cut and run (although if they did, maybe my thesis that we don't learn from the past would be reinforced still further!).
As for Cambodia, thinking about it the US were probably the only ones who could have done anything so could have come across as anti-american - I apologise. Looking closer to home, despite the EU banging on about how they should deal with conflicts in their own back yard post-Bosnia, they then did not learn and it was left to America to take the lead on Kosovo 1999. I really don't think we learn from the past.
Sorry about the ambiguity in the last post.
KCL
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.