Forum: Author Hangout

(B)ut it is highly possible that any other random child's photo could of been taken during that particularly savage war (as far as impact on civilians goes in sheer number of casualties and wounded compared to combatants). would any other child or teen who's picture was taken but not elevated as much in the public's minds eye of been so easily found and life's documented, again see Afgan girl as a point of contrast.

I am writing a story about A Co. 1st Bn. 8th US Infantry Regiment of the 4th Infantry Division. The style of my story is based upon Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose (as well as Pegasus Bridge by the same author). However, not only do I not have any actual veterans to interview, but there also don't seem to be any contemporary sources down to that level. There are records of where the 1/8 Infantry was at on a near daily basis (and sometime A Co.) but little else.

A fellow member of my VFW Post, a veteran who served with 1/8th Infantry in Afghanistan and Iraq has gotten me a guest membership in the 1/8 Infantry association (I served in combat as an Infantry NCO, but with other units). I am able to gain some information and hope to continue my research though them.

I have a rather extensive personal library with many books about World War Two that I am using to research my story.

I chose A Co. 1/8 Infantry because there is little information about the individuals. I am writing a Fictional story based upon the known history of when and where the 1/8 Infantry was going back to soon after 1 September 1939 when Germany declared war upon and invaded Poland; thus instigating the Second World War.

While I have quite a bit of knowledge of the war, the general historical situation, and of the USA near the end of the Great Depression; I still am doing extensive research on numerous things to "flesh out" my fictional story. In particular I have found that railroad enthusiasts have a vast materials printed, as well as online documenting railroads from their beginnings in the 1820's and 1830's. I have been able to view copies of the schedules of particular trains (some mere weeks from the specific date I am writing about). There was a World's Fair in New York City in 1939, and other events too. I depict these because they are things that the soldiers of my story experienced and put context upon both the few professional soldiers as well as the majority "citizen soldiers" volunteers or draftees.

Part of my research has been to look up what would have been headlines about national and world events that my MC might have been aware of. Whereupon I discovered an image of a boy 8-10 years-old, wearing only short pants and a short sleeve shirt, squating in a street in Warsaw Poland, holding his head in his hands, behind him a multi-story building (an apartment?) is engulfed in flames after a bombing attack by the German Luftwaffe. I have been "haunted" by this image and some others of children who were the victims of World War Two. In particular a horrific scene of a half-dozen Ukranian Teen Girls being hanged by Nazis. Another picture is of an Italian Girl perhaps age 6, with a small tin bucket, being given food by American GIs. She appears nearly emaciated, her eyes are so big; yet Italy was not nearly as badly off as many other nations in 1943/44. Scenes of Children in China are often horrific as well.

My story will contain some depictions of US soldiers and encounters with civilians witnessing the big wargames of 1940 and 41. The aftermath of Pearl Harbor, and the build-up of the US armed forces. Encounters with British civilians during the preparation for Operation Overlord ("D-Day" June 6th 1944). Then encounters with children and other civilians in France, Belgium, Germany, and elsewhere.

One of my sources is the Holocaust Center in Seattle, Washington. They have a library there. I have also attended sessions where survivors who were teens at the time, talk about their experiences. One of the most interesting was an elderly woman, sharp in mind and spirit, she was only 15 but had attended a year+ of Nursing school, and was fluent in German. Her father was able to pay a Dutch civil servant, and the family obtained documents "proving" they were Dutch Christians; later the Dutch Resistance burned the records office preventing the Germans from being able to easily determine the veracity of documents obtained by many people, not just Jews. She had many pictures, transferred to computer, that she used in her presentation (aided by her granddaughter). Many of the images were of teenage "boys and girls" Young Men and Women; some Jews, some Gentiless; who were members of the resistance to the Nazis. Perhaps a third of them were killed by the Nazis!

Yeah, I ran into that when I wrote "Lonely War Widows" which starts with a fictitious battle in Italy and has flashbacks to Pearl Harbor. I have some real life people in it and real battles, but it's mostly fiction. I guess mine should be Historical FICTION with the "fiction" in all caps.

Paladin, I love your dedication to the research and getting it right. Ill follow you and wait for the story. I also look to get the historical details correct in anyting I write.

I have visited Berlin many times and alway stop by this SS museuem that has a sobering pitorial display, they may also have an achive. https://www.visitberlin.de/en/topography-terror

In Warsaw, where I lived for awhile. This was the first musume I visited and again has resorces. https://www.1944.pl/en/article/the-warsaw-rising-museum,4516.html

Anyway I look forwarded to your story.

I wouldn't particularly trust the official US government numbers either for essentially the same reason.

While I wasn't over there, one of my ROTC instructors had been in command of a battery of 105s. He had pictures from when they had to use beehive rounds fired at zero deflection because Charlie was RIGHT THERE. The way he explained it was, if they found a hand here, a leg there, and an arm over there, it counted as three killed, even if they probably came from the same body - mostly because a lot of times, there just wasn't enough left to tell HOW many there'd been attacking.

No matter what the body counts were, the Viet Cong was completely destroyed by 1970. Asymmetric warfare completely failed. What was successful for the North Vietnamese was completely conventional warfare conducted by regular NVA troops against a woefully underarmed South Vietnamese Army

Actually, you're quite correct and I completely agree with you.

It became so common place to kill civilians in mass in war, although that is strictly against the Geneva Conventions, that we had to invent the phrase "collateral damage" to cover it.

It's not like that's something modern, you know. The previous term for dealing with civilians after a battle was "Spoils of War."

You'll note I'm intentionally being a little provocative with my commentary here, and that's AS someone who is a military veteran. Did I actually see combat? No. Was I trained, as best as anyone could be considering what you could possibly see? Yes.

You see, there's an actual Star Trek TOS episode that points out what happens when you make all these nice, neat rules regarding warfare. 'A Taste of Armageddon' was where they'd taken all of the horrors, all of the brutality, all of what makes warfare so terrible, out of war. Mankind is not a peaceful animal - we never have been, and realistically, we never will be. You can decide that YOU will not fight today. That's fine - some asshole who believes what an Iman tells him will come along and make you his slave shortly.

In the meantime - yeah, it happens. It sucks for the civilians. Always has, always will. In the meantime, here's the first two paragraphs of a speech that I guarantee will melt every snowflake that hears it.

Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competitions in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base.

You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would be killed in a major battle. Every man is scared in his first action. If he says he's not, he's a goddamn liar. But the real hero is the man who fights even though he's scared. Some men will get over their fright in a minute under fire, some take an hour, and for some it takes days. But the real man never lets his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood.

Americans have never lost and will never lose a war

Other than Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria etc.

They're pretty rubbish at asymmetric warfare.

AJ

They're pretty rubbish at asymmetric warfare.

Except the first time. That worked out OK, with a bit of help from our friends in France. :-)

Except the first time. That worked out OK, with a bit of help from our friends in France. :-)

Yes, it did. Which means as it gets darker here, it's going to get really loud in my neighborhood every night this weekend.

Only a Weekend? You are Lucky!

I Live on FOB Muckleshoot and endure at least 45 Days of aural Bombardment! At ALL HOURS there are -cracks- BOOMS Bangs! Interspersed with the crackle of firecrackers and assorted other Mayhem!

It took me a few moments to realize we were having another drive-by because recreational fireworks don't include Bullet Impacts!

It took me a few minutes to realize we were having another drive-by because recreational fireworks don't include Bullet Impacts!

One nice thing about Oklahoma - you don't have a lot of drive-by shootings. You may end up with some shoot-outs, but there's not a lot of driving when the car the people doing the shooting are in can't outrun the return fire.

That, and if you pull that crap in my neighborhood, you're liable to piss off the people on the OTHER side of the road, especially if you miss. There's just something so not worth it about making the US Air Force mad at you, and suddenly having your little bit of fun suddenly become a massive Federal issue. Those boys don't fuck around.

I had to correct my post from "minutes" to Moments. Bullet impacts cause an understandable "spike" in my adrenalin!

Several of the NCOs who trained me used the line: "This is the AK-47 {AKM} it makes a Distinctive Noise When Shot At You." Years before Clint Eastwood popularized it as "Gunny Highway" in the movie Heartbreak Ridge.

Except the first time.

If you're talking about the American War of Independence, you're absolutely right. There's a common sentiment that the Brits won every battle but still lost the war.

I believe asymmetric tactics were successfully used in the American Civil War too.

Note - fear of being trapped an asymmetric war is why Russia is ethnically cleansing the Don Valley and the Crimea

AJ

If you're talking about the American War of Independence, you're absolutely right. There's a common sentiment that the Brits won every battle but still lost the war.

While the British and their "Loyalist" sympathizers won many battles, it was far from all. Perhaps two-thirds (as a SWAG).

The "Battles" (skirmishes) of Lexington and Concord were both tactical, operational, and strategic defeats for the British. (I rate them as battles because there were similar scale battles in the "French and Indian War" part of the Seven Years War.)

Tactically the British suffered significant casualties and parts of their force routed. They had to retreat to Boston in disgrace.

Operationally they failed to capture the arms, powder and cannons cached at Concord. Delayed by a premature engagement at Lexington Green. Those arms and powder were vital to the Yankees who would have had great difficulty replacing them in the early years of the revolution.

Strategically had the British successfully seized the arms cache at Concord the Insurrection that led to the Declaration of Independence probably would not have occurred. Also, they failed to capture John Hancock, John Adams, and other key leaders. The British defeat inspired many who were hesitant to believe the British could be beaten.

A few months later the Battle of Saratoga was a big tactical, operational and strategic defeat. Not only were the British beaten on the battlefield; the Yankees captured many cannons and a supply of powder.

Operationally those cannon were brought to Boston and essential to driving the British out of the city and key Port then used by the Yankees to import weapons and other war material.

There is a Monument on the Saratoga Battlefield of the Boot and lower leg of a "Nameless" Yankee General who was key to the rebels victory at Saratoga, and then transportation of the cannons to Boston. I won't name him; but, his name is synonymous with Tratior.

Strategically the British forces in Boston were encircled, but supplied by sea. The British were counting upon British forces from "Canada" coming down to Boston to relieve them. The British intended to split New England, similar to "Sherman's March to the Sea" instead the Yankees acquired the Cannons and powder at Saratoga and significant small arms seized by the British from Yankees and stored in Boston. Those arms were vital in the years prior to French, Spanish and Dutch support for the revolution.

The Battle of Trenton was small for the British, but vital to encourage reenlistment and further enlistments in Washington's Continental Regulars.

Cowpens, and numerous other small battles.

The victory at Yorktown was a tactical, operational and strategic victory. The garrison was defeated and taken prisoner, including the regional commander.

This was the utter defeat of British forces in the middle third of the Thirteen Colonies.

It directly led to the negotiations to end the war.

No insurgents have inflicted such defeats upon the USA in Vietnam, Iraq, nor Afghanistan.

Politicians trying to have a 'polite PC' war never works.

Again, Star Trek TOS 'A Taste of Armageddon' being the perfect reference for that.

Of the three, Afghanistan serves as the worst example.

I believe the Government of the USA abandoning South Vietnam was the worst!

South Vietnam, the USA and their Allies (primarily South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines) had by 1968/69 defeated the "Viet Cong" "insurgency" (mostly cadres and increasingly Conscripts from North Vietnam) {albeit some of the most committed ARVN officers were Catholics from Hanoi and other urban areas in the north}.

Starting in 1969 "Vietaminzation" of the conflict was well under way. By 1971 nearly all US ground combat units were out of the RVN (South Vietnam). Advisors and some air units, and some technical experts to assist the RVN armed forces remained.

The Paris Peace Accords of 1972 resulted in the withdrawal of the last few USA Army and Marine units in return for a guarantee that the USA/RVN would not invade the DPRV (North Vietnam).

The RVN continued some operations against communist forces in Laos and Cambodia that had been conducting "cross-border incursions" into the RVN. For all intents and purposes the war inside South Vietnam had ended, as had direct conflict between the DPRV and RVN.

Kissinger/Nixon were successfully negotiating with Communist China to drive a wedge between the CCP and the USSR (in return for technology, investments, and Recognition as the Permeant UN Seat of China over ROC/Taiwan) {How wise that was is another discussion!} Not to mention long-time animosities between the Chinese and Vietnamese were surging.

The 1973 Arab-Israeli War was a humiliation for the USSR. High members of the Soviet Politburo were angry at the USA and looking for a way to humiliate the USA. Insurgencies in Central America (or elsewhere in Latin America) held little promise. The Soviets believed the Arabs were hopeless. A proxy war between the Soviet client state of Iraq vs. Iran seemed an even worse idea. Africa didn't have much to offer, even Rhodesia was standing fast, and South Africa was much stronger.

The North Vietnamese had made the Port of Hanoi available to the Soviet Union/Russia, however, nearby Chinese bases (as well as USA/SATO bases) limited the utility of the port. Port, and in particular naval facilities were rudimentary. Mostly it was a political advantage in the rivalry against Communist China.

The downfall and near impeachment of POTUS Nixon had the USA focused on domestic issues (so to the aftermath of the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973).

The last major North Vietnamese direct attack against South Vietnam had been soundly defeated by ARVN ground and air forces, strongly supported by USA air and naval forces. Rivalry between the USSR and CCP had resulted in replacement of much of the material losses of the North Vietnamese (allowed by the Paris Peace Accords).

So to the USA had been building up the forces of the RVN (South Vietnam). However, some key shipments of M-60 tanks and warplanes had been sent to Israel, and the US Congress had not appropriated funds to replace the diverted shipments.

When the 1975 war started the North Vietnamese attacked the RVN invaded with More Tanks and AFVs than Nazi Germany used to invade France in 1940! Nonetheless, the ARV forces responded with determination and vigor inflicting significant losses, and holding off the invasion...

Until the Democrats in the US Congress, "feeling their oats" refused to cooperate with POTUS Ford, and worse refused to Honor US Treaties with South Vietnam! Demoralized by the betrayal of the USA, and lack of munitions; and the abandonment by the USAF/USN because of a Refusal to Fund such operations by the US Congress; the Republic of Vietnam rapidly began to crumble!

The USA had ostentatiously "avoided foreign entanglements" in particular military alliances for the first 150 years of our existence. That changed drastically in 1945 with the end of the Second World War and the acceleration of the "Cold War" (against the USSR in particular).

Not 30 years later the USA abandoned an important ally the RVN. In 1972 we severely undercut another ally the ROC (Taiwan). In the next several we would abandon numerous allies: Nicaragua, Iran, South Africa (although not "officially an ally), and others; most recently the Kurds. Arguably, we had abandoned our "first" ally too the Bey of Tripoli whom we put on his throne in the early 1800's in our War against the Barbary Pirates. Sadly, our diplomats were negotiating with his opponent because they were "certain" the US Navy & Marines couldn't possibly win... So, soon after our victory, we abandoned him in the night and sailed away...

The USA won its war in Vietnam 1965 (or 64) to 1972 that ended with the Paris Peace Accords treaty.

It could be said that the USA were fickle bastards by Failing to live up to our treaties with RVN (South Vietnam) by failing to commit material, and ultimately naval and air power to assist the RVN when they were attacked in a New War in 1975.

America and the western world knew what a disaster it was for the Soviets, yet they followed the same playbook.

The Generals in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the upper levels in the chain-of-command Lacked the Moral Courage to tell POTUS GW Bush that invading Afghanistan was a "Bad Idea" (my own opinion to follow).

So, instead the "Brass Hats" put forward a "plan" So Stupid anyone with 2 functioning brain cells would reject it. They basically offered the "Soviet Plan of 1979" invade Afghanistan with 3 or 4 "Heavy Divisions" and associated supporting units!!!

(by c.1990 the USA no longer had Armored nor Mechanized Infantry Divisions, they were "Heavy Divisions" each with 10 Ground Maneuver Battalions (Armored {Tank} or Mech. Inf., an Armored Cavalry Squadron, 3 Artillery Battalions, and a MLRS Battery, 2 Attack Helicopter Battalions, and Air Cavalry Squadron, 1 or 2 Transport Helicopter Bn, and Service, Support, and Logistics units)

The Brass Hats managed to Convince POTUS that They were idiots, and not to be listened to! Thus, VPOTUS Cheney, and Sec Def Rumsfeld, USSOCOM and the CIA convinced him that several ODAs, a supporting B-Team, some CIA paramilitary agents, and an "Air Assault" (helicopter mobile) Battalion/Brigade or two would be capable of hunting down the terrorists and stabilizing the Northern Alliance.

Even they though it would take a couple of years. The "plan" had been to gain control of Mazir-Sharif in northern Afghanistan before winter of 2001-2002 set in; then begin hunting terrorists over the next couple of years, mostly through the Northern Alliance and local tribal leaders/warlords by offering Duffle Bags Full of Cash.

To the amazement of Everyone the Taliban collapsed like an apartment building in the Congo built with Chinese steel! Several ODAs, some mounted on Horses! Others riding in Toyota Land Cruisers and Hi-Lux pick-ups, calling in J-DAMS dropped from B-52's and B1B's, went through Afghanistan like Gas Station Sushi through a hapless tourist!

Then the "Checkered Pants class" from "Foggy Bottom" caught a severe case of "Victory Disease" and decided it would be "Easy Peasy" to "Nation Build" in Afghanistan...

By 2001 the Taliban, backed by the finances of the Pakistani ISI (but only nominally "controlled" by them) were becoming an international problem. They were harboring many more terrorist organization then just Daesh (aka Al Queda) and their titular leader OBL/UBL. While they were pressing the Northern Alliance hard; the Taiban were hated outside of the Pashtun areas in SW Afghanistan.

Establishing a half-dozen ODAs (US Army Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha aka "A-Team") in Northern Afghanistan, with a FOB near Mazir-Sharif with a "Brigade" sized force to guard the "C-Team" (C4I and Logistics for the ODA's & B-Teams) as well as aviation units, Logistics, and a Light Infantry/Air Mobile Battalion to provide QRFs for select operations was easily possible.

Most operations would be conducted Northern Alliance or local warlords for cash and other considerations.

The locals would have welcomed a small US (and probably some Allies) presence as a safeguard from Taliban/Pashtun incisions; as well the "backsheesh" (cash). Because the Islamic terrorist crazies were conducting attacks inside Russia (and their allies), Communist China, India, and even Iran; our very small presence would have been tolerated. Probably even tacitly supported (remember in 2001-2002 even Iran granted the USA overflight privileges and said aircraft in distress could land on their territory!

Less than 1% of the people of Afghanistan wanted any "Nation Building" to create a secular and homogenous nation with Walmarts and Gay Pride Parades! Those who falsely claimed they did were conniving Grifters seeking to Millions of Dollars (Ha! Billions, actually Trillions, Squandered Wealth beyond Dreams of Avarice!)

We have a working model in the Kurdish areas of Iraq. We established a presence with them in 1990/91. By the time we kicked off Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 they had multiple battalions of very capable light infantry. They built airports and other infrastructure. By 2005 they had scheduled commercial flights into Europe.

We Shouldn't have tried to "nation build" we exchange cash for them killing terrorists. IF they ask for some people to be sent to medical school, or building a clinic or school, we do what They want as part of our "payments" We can afford to be generous with building clinics, schools, and infrastructure, They ask for. Parsimonious with weapons and such.

If the Communist Chinese want to mine for "Rare Earths" let them! The ChiCom "Belt & Road" initiative, Let them! No skin off our nose. Russians want to build a petroleum pipeline, Okay; that's up to them and the locals. If the locals want to stay in the 12th Century; Fine. If they want to build internet cafes and educate their children, we'll subsidize that.

Some terrorist of whatever flavor wants to establish a base, we drop a J-Dam on them, or pay a Dari warlord in gold equal to the weight of our enemy's head! Everybody is Happy! (Don't the fanatics Want to be Martyrs?)

Other than Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria etc.

Two things - did you notice the SOURCE for this speech? It's old blood and guts himself, George S. Patton. And this isn't the movie speech by George C. Scott playing Patton, this is the actual one. Which also means he was dead before any of those wars happened, and probably (okay, I'm the one who writes about conspiracy theories in his fiction that reality keeps proving aren't theories) on purpose.

The other thing is - we didn't lose any of those wars - ON THE BATTLEFIELD. We lost them because the politicians literally didn't listen to Patton. You go in, you kick ass, take names, and you do what you have to do to win the war. That's why Korea is still a mess. We beat North Korea - then China got involved, and we didn't do what we should've done to win there militarily.

The other thing is - we didn't lose any of those wars - ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

In an asymmetric war the whole country is the battleground. The gung ho sabre rattlers went in, won a few straight battles, but couldn't conquer the whole country. So when the US pulled out with its tail between its legs, the South Vietnamese, the Syrian Kurds and the elected Afghan government were shafted.

AJ

when the US pulled out with its tail between its legs, the South Vietnamese

As Paladin mentioned, the US didn't do that militarily, but politically. We beat the North Vietnamese (we'd actually and effectively completely destroyed the Viet Cong)- made our treaty with the South Vietnamese, and withdrew from the country. Then, when North Vietnam came back in with massive conventional forces - we didn't do what we said we'd do.

Colonel Wendell Fertig showed how well we DO understand asymmetrical warfare in the Philippines, even when going up against a military that IS brutal.

Never mind, you won the war in Grenada. The USA is still a superpower ;-)

AJ

The US entered Vietnam to stop a take over by the Viet Minh. The US eventually left, the Viet Minh took power. By any method of scoring the US lost the Vietnam war. Arguing over whether you had the right quarterback or pitcher is only a distraction from the final score.

The USA entered the Counter Insurgency to support the RVN (Republic of [South] Vietnam against the Viet Cong guerrillas.

While the USA bombed limited parts of North Vietnam because of their activities in South Vietnam. The USA made clear they would not invade the DPRV (North Vietnam) unless conventional forces of the DPRV crossed the DMZ.

(Although North Vietnamese conventional formations did that during the 1968 Tet Offensive.)

By 1969 the Insurrection was defeated; only North Vietnamese were fighting, and their "guerrillas" were driven out of South Vietnam. The war ended when North Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Accords with the RVN and USA.

That war was OVER!

Either we accept Peace Treaties as the End of a War... or ONLY THE UTTER ANILILATION of EVERY HUMAN BEING in the Enemy Nation/Locale is the ONLY WAY TO END A CONFLICT!!!

"Want. to. Play. a. Game..."

Funny how North Vietnam were able to establish a Communist state covering the whole of Vietnam, thus achieving its objective.

You say peace treaty, I say surrender document.

AJ

The US entered Vietnam to stop a take over by the Viet Minh. The US eventually left, the Viet Minh took power. By any method of scoring the US lost the Vietnam war. Arguing over whether you had the right quarterback or pitcher is only a distraction from the final score.

The USA entered the Counter Insurgency to support the RVN (Republic of [South] Vietnam against the Viet Cong guerrillas.

While the USA bombed limited parts of North Vietnam because of their activities in South Vietnam. The USA made clear they would not invade the DPRV (North Vietnam) unless conventional forces of the DPRV crossed the DMZ.

(Although North Vietnamese conventional formations did that during the 1968 Tet Offensive.)

By 1969 the Insurrection was defeated; only North Vietnamese were fighting, and their "guerrillas" were driven out of South Vietnam. The war ended when North Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Accords with the RVN and USA.

That war was OVER!

In 1965 North Vietnam started a New War against South Vietnam and invaded across the DMZ using more Tanks and AFVs than Nazi Germany did to invade France in 1940! Conventional forces of North Vietnam fought a war of Conquest.

That was Not a "victory" by Viet Minh guerrillas! The North Vietnamese politiburo had eliminated or outlived the "Viet Minh" (effectively by 1969).

It would be as if the British had eliminated the Yankees, Minute Men, Continental Regulars, George Washington, the Continental Congress and appointed Loyalist Tory governors and the British armed forces went home. Then France invaded and claimed the 13 colonies as a Department ("State") of the Kingdom of France!
(and then "historians" claim the Yankee Rebels won...)

Either we accept Peace Treaties as the End of a War... or ONLY THE UTTER ANILILATION of EVERY HUMAN BEING in the Enemy Nation/Locale is the ONLY WAY TO END A CONFLICT!!!

"Want. to. Play. a. Game..."

With current news in mind, the probability of it happening increases by the day. The most likely theatre being in and around Tiawan.

You mentioned the 'T' word. You will now be blacklisted from visiting China, and after China defeats the USA, be forced into a labour and re-education camp.

AJ

There is no Tiawan.

So why is the People's Republic so hostile when people mention it?

AJ

There is no Tiawan

Correct - it's Taiwan. You're also correct - sort of - that they (the Republic of China) claim everything held by the People's Republic of China. (As an aside, the only way to get even more oppressive and communistic is to add the word Democratic to the title - like The People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.)

I ended up doing a chunk of research on the matter just to figure out whether or not Cal should intervene in A True History. These two lines from Book One, Chapter 28, took me most of an evening to dig through a LOT of documents.

The Republic of China in Taiwan was recognized as an independent nation by other nations of the world before the People's Republic of China was formed here on the mainland. In addition, there is a legally binding agreement between the two nations and their governing parties.

I didn't make that any of that up. When the ROC government fled to Taiwan, there were multiple nations that recognized them. The PRC and ROC did end up signing agreements about their two respective governments and lands, as well. Of course, the UN doesn't recognize the ROC, but ... it's the UN, and they're about as worthless as AJ. :)

Of course, the UN doesn't recognize the ROC, but ... it's the UN, and they're ...

basically servants of the People's Republic, particularly the World Health Organisation, which made great efforts to cover up the origins of the Wuhan Flu.

In a move that proves the UN is not fit for purpose, Taiwan was kicked out of the UN in 1971.

AJ

In a move that proves the UN is not fit for purpose, Taiwan was kicked out of the UN in 1971.

AJ

Dammit, AJ! Now, I have to go and consider apologizing for thinking you're worthless. I won't, but I at least have to consider it. :)

Seriously, I completely agree with you.

Any thoughts on whether this really is a biowar scenario - which is what I think - or simply 'an accident'?

as worthless as AJ

Logically I reckon that should be 'worthleast', emphasising its derivation from the Old English word meaning 'devoid of'.

Otherwise , it just begs to ask, 'less than what?'.

Likewise useleast.

or possibly worthnought, cf dreadnought

AJ

They're pretty rubbish at asymmetric warfare.

Similar to the bit in Monty Python's Life of Bryan, about the Romans: "What asymmetrical conflicts has the USA won? Other than in Columbia, Panama, Peru, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, New Guinea, Nigeria, Liberia, etc. Other than all those places, where has the USA won an asymmetrical conflict?"

Columbia, Panama, Peru, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, New Guinea, Nigeria, Liberia

I'm not familiar with most of those but it seems to me that if the USA had 'won' a war against insurgents in those countries, they would have been left with stable, democratic governments.

AJ

Iraq and Iran proved we suck at nation building

Careful, or the true believers will target you. "We're the best of the best of the best." ;-)

AJ

It's not about Nation building, it's about pipeline building.

Would you consider it a conspiracy theory to think things are run by billionaires, with the politicians only puppets on their strings?

Or just reality?

A conspiracy on that scale simply isn't feasible. Far too many assholes and egos involved.

True, but it's also a case of those with billions tending to work together. There are still a lot of people who don't think the Rockefellers and Rothschilds worked together, either, and all those 'theories' were proven forty years ago.

Would you consider it a conspiracy theory to think things are run by billionaires, with the politicians only puppets on their strings?

What? George Soros isn't a billionaire? No wonder he never replies to my begging letters.

AJ

No wonder he never replies to my begging letters.

Are you running for political office? If not, that's probably why. (He just sent Beto a million dollars to help campaign.)

Sadam Hussein al Tikriti and Iraq was a Soviet client state. The Soviet Union (later Russia), and Communist China were the major arms and technology suppliers to Iraq since the overthrow of the Monarchy in the mid-1950's. (British client state 1919-1956).

The USA never supplied any weapons to Iraq until 2004.

The USA did provide some military intelligence to Iraq in the mid-1980's to prevent an Iranian victory that would have destabilized the Middle East further.

2003 Gulf War II - The United States based its rationale for the invasion on claims that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program[68] and posed a threat to the United States and its allies.

Bush's poodle, Tony Blair, let slip that Iraq had long range missiles that could reach the UK.

It turned out the 'dodgy dossier' making that claim had no supporting evidence and was therefore fabricated.

AJ

Iraq used Soviet/Russian chemical weapons, and some manufactured by Communist China.

The Stockholm Institute for Peace documented the Iraqi use of Soviet manufactured chemical weapons against Kurds, other minorities, and the majority Iraqi Shites.

Iran was a client state of the USA; until the overthrow of the Shah. In the 1980's Iran still had mostly USA and UK weapons systems. France, Brazil, and South Africa were among the major arms suppliers to Iran in the 1980's. Israeli arms dealers (who had a relationship with Iran under the Shah) also covertly supplied Iran with second hand material and spare parts from the USA (mostly to tie up the Arab nations).

Iraqs artillery and rocket systems were Soviet made (or Communist Chinese knockoffs). Thus, their projectiles were also Soviet and Chinese manufacturer.

The USA supplied Anthrax to Iraq under an international Treaty. To prevent the development of biological weapons, Anthrax, and cures for it are tightly controlled. The USA is one of the nations allowed to keep stockpiles for research and treatment. Anthrax poisoning occurs to people who work in slaughter houses, handling leather hides, tanning, ranching, and veterinarians. The USA suspected Iraq of experiments with bio weapons, however, could not prove it until 1991. So, they were compelled under international Treaty to provide limited amounts of Anthrax and treatments to Iraq.

Too many media sources conflate the facts. The Soviet Union/Russia was using the same Chemical Weapons in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and providing similar weapons to Burma in the 1980's; that were used by Iraq!

Then what was the point? Were the armed forces bored?

AJ

Yes, those confounded asymmetrical wars ;-)

AJ