[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:00:05 -0500
John: It was used against Germany and Japan in WWII
Eric: One of the more deadly recapitulations I've read -- this
one versus Japan in WW 2 and versus Iraqis in Gulf War I -- was
the use of bulldozers to bury entrenched positions.
When no white phosphorus was immediately available, for whatever
reason, and faced with an entrenched enemy that refused to
surrender, bulldozers were called in, and under suppressing fire,
the bulldozers simply buried the troops alive in their redoubts.
Bulldozers were used a lot against the Japanese in the later
island campaigns and against the Iraqi sand fortifications in
Gulf War I.
The latter use is particularly brutal, given Saddam's strategy of
using his raw conscripts (children, the elderly) as human shields
for the Republican Guard. Saddam used the same strategy against
the Iranians: send the infirm and untrained to the front lines
and use them as fodder to drain the enemy's firepower, then call
in the Republican Guard to counterattack. In Gulf War II of
course, we just kept advancing.
However I wonder if strategies like Saddam's shouldn't be labeled
as war crimes in themselves? It's a particularly cruel way of
throwing away the lives of raw recruits.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit