Quote Originally Posted by KafirChobee
The last part; "Further, kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war."
Oh boy here we go again with the rethoric of the far far left that is Kafir.

Sound at all familiar? It is the exact same statement used by Westmoreland to justify his policy in 'nam in 1966, before the S__t hit the fan.
Not at all - Westmoreland wanted to know the kill ration because of the politics involved. Who actually ordered the information to be gathered can be debated - my bet is on a certain democratic president.

Now multiple histories will back this up - but here is some that are the web - take them with a grain of salt though because we all know how truthful information is on the web - kind of like your statement here is "truthful"

Quote Originally Posted by link
Westmoreland, in the face of continuous vetoed plans, opted for importing larger and larger numbers of U.S. soldiers. Once simply advisors to the South Vietnamese government, the U.S. now entered the tropical battlefield. Westmoreland devised what was called the "search and destroy" strategy. This strategy ordered helicopter-borne troops to find and erase all evidence of the largest enemy units. The goals of the war soon became blurred. MACV, the Military Assistance Command of Vietnam were suddenly blinded by body counts, kill ratios, and all sorts of statistical information. With no definition of what constituted winning the war, the men in uniform were left with no direction. Without direction, the increased amount of soldiers only meant an increased amount of death.
http://www.trincoll.edu/classes/hist300/westmore.htm

Thus, the administration escalated in response to North Vietnamese actions. Its objective was to inflict a level of pain on the North Vietnamese that was sufficient to make them bargain in earnest. Thus Vietnam became a war of attrition. Johnson would regularly characterize his decisions as taking the middle ground. He would not "pull out" as the "doves" and "nervous Nellies" suggested nor would he go "all out" as the "hawkish" military advisors recommended.

Fighting a war with limited and political objectives had an added liability. It was difficult to define and convey the idea of "progress" to the public. There were few set piece or conventional battles and American objectives were not defined in geographical terms (e.g., Berlin and Tokyo). Instead, the administration was forced to create and essentially sell indicators of progress to the public. Herein lies the origin of such commonly used terms as "pacification zones" and "kill ratios."
http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.html

If you want more - feel free to ask - but point your finger at the democratic party which was in control of Washington D.C. at the time.

Well, it has hit the fan again. Due to the causes of our (USA) previous FUBAR - arrogance, ignorance and ego's run amock in a situation they did not have the inteligence (well, they had the real CIA info, but chose to ignore it. And, the military intelligence; which they opted to retire the offending officers for showing them - but, they weren't bright enough to realize the quagmire they were drawing us into. Or, they didn't care).
You just can't help yourself can you?

As to the original premise of the CIA running an illegal (by U.S. law - prior ro Cheney, Wolfowitz and gang) network of prisons, it is fact. It is noted, it is.

Pity of it all is that there are those still attempting to justify an illegal war. One created by an administration so caught up in the past, they can't see the present - let alone the future.
You might want to check on the definition of illegal - it seem the United States Congress authorized the use of force. Oh wait their all corrupt politians except for the democratic party - to bad they also voted for the most part in favor of using force against Iraq.

My nephew just got back from "there". My son is just got "there" (as a hired gun), and my niece's husband is in a hospital because of "there" (lucked out, only lost his foot).


Justifying an unjust and ill needed war, is like proclaiming ones self a warmonger. Which is fine; given the proper circumstance one could accuse me of such. But, to preclude the evidence of the issue by saying that we are doing things within International Law? Well, what planet are we talking about? Surely, you don't mean Earth. Or, do you?
Maybe we live on the same full of hyprocrisy planet.