Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

imagine my surprise, the US covers up policy of murdering civilians. not!

http://www.thestar.com/article/203254

"Six years after declaring the U.S. killing of Korean War refugees at No Gun Ri was "not deliberate," the U.S. Army has acknowledged it found – but did not divulge – that a high-level document said the U.S. military had a policy of shooting approaching civilians in South Korea.

The document, a letter from the U.S. ambassador in South Korea to the State Department in Washington, is dated the same day in 1950 when U.S. troops began the No Gun Ri shootings, in which survivors say hundreds, mostly women and children, were killed.

Exclusion of the embassy letter from the army's 2001 investigative report is the most significant among numerous omissions of documents and testimony pointing to a policy of firing on refugee groups – according to undisclosed evidence uncovered by Associated Press."

but this document that the US had , but did not divulge in order to clear itself (self-serving)

Is but one of numerous omissions of documents.

Let's see deliberate cover-up of intentional civilian murders, mostly women and children.

bringing democracy and freedom ????

and who is the terrorist??

well that's nothing new under the sun, IMO. it is quite likely the same murdering of civilians is going on in Iraq, as it did in Korea, as it did in Vietnam......

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

Posted
well that's nothing new under the sun, IMO. it is quite likely the same murdering of civilians is going on in Iraq, as it did in Korea, as it did in Vietnam......

As it did in Somalia....GO Airborne Regiment!!!

Oh, and why would it make any difference if it's men, women or children being murdered? Is it OK to slaughter male civilians and (unborn babies)?

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

well that's nothing new under the sun, IMO. it is quite likely the same murdering of civilians is going on in Iraq, as it did in Korea, as it did in Vietnam......

As it did in Somalia....GO Airborne Regiment!!!

Oh, and why would it make any difference if it's men, women or children being murdered? Is it OK to slaughter male civilians and (unborn babies)?

nope it's not ok to kill male civilans either, but , if you read the entire article, you would realize, I am just quoting from it.

it's just another nail in the coffin, for the myth of US democracy bringing, and 'tries not to harm civilians" as so many claim.( particularily scriblett)

Time to smell the coffee, or the roses, whichever you prefer, the US intentionally targets civilians, wether it is Vietnam, Korea, or Iraq, they have and they will and they still do.

The US military also cover's up their attrocities, for as long as they can.

No moral high ground can ever be claimed by the US.

simple as that.

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

Posted

Lt Calley was found guilty of premeditated murder of 22 of the villagers of My Lai. His sentence, after all the post trial reductions from life imprisonment at hard labor ended up as six months of house arrest.

and the worst of the criminals were never even put on trial

“Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD

Posted
nope it's not ok to kill male civilans either, but , if you read the entire article, you would realize, I am just quoting from it.

it's just another nail in the coffin, for the myth of US democracy bringing, and 'tries not to harm civilians" as so many claim.( particularily scriblett)

Time to smell the coffee, or the roses, whichever you prefer, the US intentionally targets civilians, wether it is Vietnam, Korea, or Iraq, they have and they will and they still do.

The US military also cover's up their attrocities, for as long as they can.

No moral high ground can ever be claimed by the US.

simple as that.

There is no moral high ground....Canada tortured and murdered Somalis and the "punishment" for the criminals was laughable. Same deal in Haiti. Same deal in Serbia (NATO strike packages, including CF-18's, killed civilians). Same deal in Afghanistan.

Morality begins at home....LOL!

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

nope it's not ok to kill male civilans either, but , if you read the entire article, you would realize, I am just quoting from it.

it's just another nail in the coffin, for the myth of US democracy bringing, and 'tries not to harm civilians" as so many claim.( particularily scriblett)

Time to smell the coffee, or the roses, whichever you prefer, the US intentionally targets civilians, wether it is Vietnam, Korea, or Iraq, they have and they will and they still do.

The US military also cover's up their attrocities, for as long as they can.

No moral high ground can ever be claimed by the US.

simple as that.

There is no moral high ground....Canada tortured and murdered Somalis and the "punishment" for the criminals was laughable. Same deal in Haiti. Same deal in Serbia (NATO strike packages, including CF-18's, killed civilians). Same deal in Afghanistan.

Morality begins at home....LOL!

No , really, so don't claim any BC, k?

I am not the one that posts on a forum that the west is on a mission from god, to save the world from evil.

That's a load of BS

I leave that to you, to pull the wool over the heads , of what was your word, the 'pollyannas'.

Yeah, that was it.

The believers, the brainwashed, the people who have no grip on reality.

The "good germans"

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

Posted
No , really, so don't claim any BC, k?

I am not the one that posts on a forum that the west is on a mission from god, to save the world from evil.

That's a load of BS

I leave that to you, to pull the wool over the heads , of what was your word, the 'pollyannas'.

Yeah, that was it.

The believers, the brainwashed, the people who have no grip on reality.

The "good germans"

Huh? Are you mad? I don't believe in your "god" or anybody elses! I don't care about your burps of moral judgement uttered as you suck from the very "evil" teats you condemn.

Americans kill people. Canadians kill people. In far off places...with government support.

Deal with it.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted
I am not the one that posts on a forum that the west is on a mission from god, to save the world from evil.

That's a load of BS

And to counter you show a newspaper article of some event from 1950 ? How is that relevant today? Things were different then.

Pretty sure if we could all get into lost or hidden CDN govt files we could find papers that might just shock you.

We are a nation that likes to look after our people...yet we also sterilized the mentally deficient against their wishes for nothing more than eradication of the "stupid" . Got to keep those genes out of the soup.

Americans kill people. Canadians kill people. In far off places...with government support.

Deal with it.

Sad but true.

Posted

of course, the way to "deal with it" is to expose the murderers and make them answer for their crimes in a court of law

“Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD

Posted

I am not the one that posts on a forum that the west is on a mission from god, to save the world from evil.

That's a load of BS

And to counter you show a newspaper article of some event from 1950 ? How is that relevant today? Things were different then.

Pretty sure if we could all get into lost or hidden CDN govt files we could find papers that might just shock you.

We are a nation that likes to look after our people...yet we also sterilized the mentally deficient against their wishes for nothing more than eradication of the "stupid" . Got to keep those genes out of the soup.

Americans kill people. Canadians kill people. In far off places...with government support.

Deal with it.

Sad but true.

that's today's news, did you read it?

How is that relevant today, you ask?

read the article, it's obviously relevant to historical documentation, relevant to the survivors.

It's the same old, same old, as stated , nothings changed.

the rest of your post, is IMO, pointless, words, meant to say, i don't know what, in relation to the topic at hand.

Americans kill people , canadians kill people, all manner of people, mostly for no good reason at all.

"we are a nation that likes to look after our people"

what the heck is that about, besides the fact that it's alot of bull.

IMO your way off topic.

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

Posted

name='guyser' date='Apr 15 2007, 03:59 PM' post='208133']

Americans kill people. Canadians kill people. In far off places...with government support.

Deal with it.

Canada is believed to have had as many as forty thousand volunteers in Vietnam.

Posted
Canada is believed to have had as many as forty thousand volunteers in Vietnam.

Ann Coulter certainly believed it:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter: "I don't think that's right."

McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"

McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."

Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."

McKeown: "No."

Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."

McKeown tags out in script:

"Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."

“Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD

Posted

Canada is believed to have had as many as forty thousand volunteers in Vietnam.

Ann Coulter certainly believed it:

You are away in over your head. Canada didn't send the troops, they went and joined the American military. What Canada did was to supply billions of dollars worth of munitions to the US.

Posted

Canada is believed to have had as many as forty thousand volunteers in Vietnam.

Ann Coulter certainly believed it:

You are away in over your head. Canada didn't send the troops, they went and joined the American military. What Canada did was to supply billions of dollars worth of munitions to the US.

prove it

“Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD

Posted
prove it

....But while Canada as a nation was not involved, Canadians themselves formed the largest foreign contingent in the U.S. military during the Vietnam era. Some estimate that their numbers far suppressed the more than 30,000 Americans draft dodgers who fled to Canada to avoid military service during the war. While exact numbers are impossible to obtain, from my work as a military historian with the Canadian War Museum, I estimate that of the many thousands who served in the U.S. Vietnam-era military, some 12,00 Canadians actually served in Vietnam itself.

http://www.vwam.com/vets/allies/canadians.html

http://www.mystae.com/reflections/vietnam/canada.html

The American Armed Forces are permitted to recruit from Canada's First Nations (Jay Treaty).

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted
No moral high ground can ever be claimed by the US.

simple as that.

Are you suggesting Koreans would be better off if the north had won? The US suffered nearly 170,000 casualties to see that they didn't.

"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC

Posted

you'll have to do better than this - do you have something official - or even real?

The following text was written for the Canadian Encyclopedia and may be used or posted only if the following source recognition is given to the publisher McClelland & Stewart: Title: The l998 Canadian & World Encyclopedia, McClelland & Stewart, 481 University Ave, Suite 900, Toronto, Ontario,M5G2E9, email: [email protected]; website: tceplus.com

Poor poor woody. A Phd writes it for an encyclopedia, which subsequently publishes it, but it's not "real" to woody. This must be a variation of his usual: "that's a lie".

Posted
... This must be a variation of his usual: "that's a lie".

you make up quotes for everyone who shows you up Skippy - have you finally passed that remedial English Word Meanings Class yet?

Or at least gotten past, 'hegemony?'

“Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD

Posted
No moral high ground can ever be claimed by the US.

simple as that.

Are you suggesting Koreans would be better off if the north had won? The US suffered nearly 170,000 casualties to see that they didn't.

do you see what the article is about?

it is about US Korean war policy, that saw the US gunning down civilians.Intentionally.

run with that, ok?

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).

Posted

To put this regretable and still controversial incident into context, one has to look a bit at what was happening during the Korean War at the time. It was early in the war during the massive, well planned North Korean surprise attack. The tiny UN force and the South Korean army were retreating away from Seoul towards Pusan under fire. The North Koreans were using infiltration tactics to get in amoungst the retreating soldiers. One of the most effective, apparently, was to hide amoungst South Korean civilians fleeing south from the fighting. It became such a problem, by accounts, that the apparent 'shoot first ask questions later order' was issued. Desperate times.

The retreat continued until the UN/ROK force was surrounded in a tiny perimeter at Pusan at the very south of the peninsula. This UN force was mainly made up of green US Army units stationed in Japan and even cooks and clerks were put into action...not the best troops. It was about then that MacArthur saved the day with his brilliant amphibious attack at Inchon, driving the North Koreans back all the way to the Yalu. He went too far as we know, prompting the Red Chinese to come to North Korea's aid with an army of well over a million men...the retreat was on again.

This policy...still debated as to it being an official order or one issued by an officer further down the chain...would be moot once the front line became stable. The majority of the South Korean refugee problems were only during the initial retreat, as well. Once the line became stable...it barely moved for the rest of the war.

This wiki page on No Gun Ri has a good overview plus excellent sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri

If unfamiliar with the events of the Korean War, wiki also has an excellent summary of events...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Other suggested links:

http://www.korean-war.com/

http://www.kmike.com/MarineCorpsKorea/Marines.htm

http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_boo...ermansen/2.html

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...j/kirtland.html

http://www.koreanwar.org/html/maps.html

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/Maps/

http://www.landscaper.net/kortime.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have a little action up here. All we need is some men who won't run when they see tanks. We're going to move you up to support the ROKs [Republic of Korea soldiers] and give them moral support.

---Brigadier General John H. Church, Korea, July 1950

Posted

DoP...you should change your name.

:D :D :D

Thanks Dog, that makes sense.

You're welcome.

:)

A further note would be that there were millions of civilians flooding towards Pusan...had the US/UN/ROK's official policy been to shoot them willy-nilly on sight...there'd be a lot more dead civilians than the 35 on the low end...350 on the high end that are atributed to this 'policy'.

Perhaps kuzadd has some more information...

-----------------------------------------------------

I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.

---Harry S Truman

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,017
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    taylor66
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...