Korean Job Discussion Forums

[drygoodslvc]

I've been doing alot of reading on American military history in relation to the Indian Wars and I was struck not by how cunningly deceitful some of their tactics were, but rather how duplicitous the way the American military has represented the cowardly hit and run guerilla tactics of its enemies in the last 50 years or so.

--During the first Seminole War US naval captain McKeever intentionally disguised his fleet as British. Mistaking the identity of the fleet, the Creek/Seminole leaders Hillis Hadjo and Himollemico set out to greet them, were captured and hanged by the orders of Andrew Jackson

--During the Second Seminole War a deceiving white flag of truce under US General Thomas S. Jessup invited Seminole leader Osceola where the unsuspecting Osceola was captured imprisoned and dead months later

I've just reached up to the Second Seminole War, beyond which I can't relate anymore instances of US militray deceit.

Now, one could argue that deceit was common to both sides and therefore not entirely unacceptable. But this is undermined by the fact that Jessup's tactic caused quite the outrage in the US at the time so if anyone thought it was justified there wouldn't have been such a fuss.

In more contemporary wars, and here I'm thinking of Vietnam and Iraq, we constantly hear about the evasive cowardliness of the other side. One might argue that America is bound to a certain ethical warfare and therfore has the right to complain when the other side acts evasively. But even here surely they must know that in the same way that Americans in the Seminole Wars had to rely on certain tactics so too the Vietnamese and Iraqis had/have to rely on certain tactics in consideration of America's advantages, including the ultimate evasiveness of taking to the sky or having the specter of a big bomb that can always be deployed.

So what's the fuss with all this US military lingo on "enemy cowardice" or "not fighting like men" or "not meeting us face to face"?

I guess the real question is: can contemporary America, on the one hand, illustriously represent the struggles of its founding fathers, while, on the other hand, complain about the deceitful evasiveness of its current enemies?

[thepeel]

May I introduce you to Gopher?

Gopher, meet drygoodslvc. Ya'll will get along well.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[pesawattahi]

Actually its the media pundits and politicians that call them cowardly and such. The military generally sees their enemies for what they are, dangerous, cunning, (of course using deceits, lies, and tricks what do you think being cunning is?) and such. The folks charged with finding and killing the enemy doesn't have the luxury of deceiving themselves as to what the enemy is.

[igotthisguitar]

[pesawattahi]

Ha! If you think excessive drinking and smoking is something new to the military you have been living under a rock.

By the way I like how you edited my quote. Hows this?

[bacasper]

[pesawattahi]

Not yet he didn't. Though one could argue that the quotation marks would change the tone of the sentance therefore veering from the original meaning. That is pretty much how misinformation starts, kind of like Loose Change.

Even though I didn't have much to work with I do think mine was more creative.

[jkelly80]

If I may quote Herm Edwards: "You play to win the game."

[igotthisguitar]