The Arab's Berlin Wall has Crumbled

[Gray Fox]

And yet they still had enough forces left to invade cambodja and overtrow the khamear rouge.

Besides how where they to free vietnam, most of the people in vietnam wanted the communist government, if a democratic election was allowed by the US to be held, the communist party would have won by a large margin.

 

[kmack]

You only think the US lost because you don't understand their true goals. From a millitary standpoint, Vietnam was a huge sucess.

wow. that is an absolute load of crap. because we killed more people does not mean we win. And if we destroyed them so thouroughly then why was it us fleeing by helicopters and never stetting foot in there again?

 

[Calanen]

Originally Posted by kmack
I love the title "Arab's" lol, I hear they like being called that .


Is arab racist or something? So if someone calls me American or white I should look upon them in disdain?

They call themselves Arabs - they have an Arab League. They are Arabs.

 

[GhostFox]

wow. that is an absolute load of crap. because we killed more people does not mean we win.

Actually, that is exactly how you usually win wars. You kill the enemy. Any war that you wipe out the opposing army, you win.

And if we destroyed them so thouroughly then why was it us fleeing by helicopters and never stetting foot in there again?

Social pressure from home and abroad. Please learn history before coming into a thread and complaining about it being a "load of crap".

 

[kmack]

Actually, that is exactly how you usually win wars. You kill the enemy. Any war that you wipe out the opposing army, you win.



Social pressure from home and abroad. Please learn history before coming into a thread and complaining about it being a "load of crap".

You are the one who is claiming a military victory in Vietnam. Well get this, the U.S. lost 50,000 men (thats dead not wounded) south vietnam lost 400,000. North Vietnam lost 900,000 thousand. 450,000 to 900,000, militaristically, this is not an overwhelming victory even if we had prevailed, but, since we had to retreat, it becomes even less like a victory.

Don't come in here trying to say anything about a victory in Vietnam. It's off topic, make a new thread where i can shoot down your absurd ideas that we WON in Vietnam.

 

[GhostFox]

It's off topic, make a new thread where i can shoot down your absurd ideas that we WON in Vietnam.

There is nothing to debate. Study history instead of believing everything you hear. Columbus thought the world was flat too, right? Just because they teach you it in school doesn't make it true.

 

[kmack]

There is nothing to debate. Study history instead of believing everything you hear. Columbus thought the world was flat too, right? Just because they teach you it in school doesn't make it true.

What are you trying to prove? You answer my facts with the same stuff, you not presenting any substantial evidence and questiinging my knowledge of the subject, don't waste my time and everyone elses by saying something stupid, getting dominated by my response, then posting some innane comment on how everything I say is just ridiculous beliefs.

Do everyone a favor and keep the rest of your crap against me off the boards and PM me.

 

[GhostFox]

What are you trying to prove? You answer my facts with the same stuff, you not presenting any substantial evidence

I have nothing to prove. I am not going to debate who won the vietnam war millitarily anymore then I would debate that the sky is blue. I don't mind finding sources and making a debate for things that are contested and in question, but I will not waste my time debating things that anyone with any signifigant knowladge on the subject agree on.

This is nothing against you btw. I have nothing against you. I just wish people would do some of their own research before asking me to do it for them.

 

[kmack]

I have nothing to prove. I am not going to debate who won the vietnam war millitarily anymore then I would debate that the sky is blue. I don't mind finding sources and making a debate for things that are contested and in question, but I will not waste my time debating things that anyone with any signifigant knowladge on the subject agree on.

This is nothing against you btw. I have nothing against you. I just wish people would do some of their own research before asking me to do it for them.

And I just wish that some people would see past their own personal beliefs and look insurmountable fact in the face, then accept they are wrong.

IF ANYTHING, you said that militaristically vietnam was a success, that is absolutely untrue. Had you said economically it was a victory then (at least in the 80's till today) i would have given your words SOME merit.

nothing against you. Also what did i say about PMing?

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

Muslims don't hate non-Muslims, Muslim terrorists hate non-Muslims, get it right.

And the war will be justified when Coalition troops are out of Iraq and Iraq is standing tall on their own.

Its lookin justified.

 

[Calanen]

You only think the US lost because you don't understand their true goals. From a millitary standpoint, Vietnam was a huge sucess.

In terms of battle vs battle - the US won nearly every battle. But, the war was massive - and people at home would not stand for it.

So it had to pack up and leave. If it had been allowed to stay, it would have won, eventually. North Vietnam was running out of people. And som1 is saying that the NVA lost 900,000. I've heard reports of the north losing like 2 million. We will never know for sure.

But the Paris Accords was what lost the war. Otherwise we could have had something similar to Korea going on with North and South. But the North invaded the South and the people of the USA did not have the will to fight for it anymore. So it was lost. Vietnam on any level, whatever your politics was a defeat - the war that is. Even though we inflicted more casualites on the enemy, they won and took over. Should we have tried to stop the North Vietnamese communists? Hell yeah. Were we successful, in this instance, No. But in the end, the West defeated communism overall. This was just one battleground, during the Cold War where the communists had a victory.

There is a movie, an Australian movie, called Dirty Deeds with Bryan Brown. Great movie. But the nephew in the film comes back from service in Vietnam and his uncle said 'You reckon we're gonna win over there?'

"Nah mate - he says - we'd have to kill the whole f_cking lot of em'

'Mad bastards you reckon mate?'

'Nah mate - just they've got nothing lto lose. The women, the children,old men, the ducks, they are all in the joke. '

The major differnece between Iraq and Vietnam, and there are many, is that there is not China and the Soviet Union funnelling state of the art planes, tanks, rocket launchers, whatever else to the terrorists. Also, the NVA were a real army, whereas these terrorists are a rabble. If CHina and Russia were funding the terrorists in Iraq, Id be a lot more pessimistic as to the outcome.

 

[bliink]

"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."

I think thats a very profound statement.

 

[Calanen]

By that logic we should bomb the US, Great Britian, France, Germany, Spain (among other places), and nuke Iraq, because well, terrorists operate in each of those places in some form or another.

Thats just silly stuff - and you know it is. And if there was a terrorist supply line that went over the Pyrennes mountains, similar on the Cambodian border - then hell yeah bomb them.

US forces had engaged VC and NVA forces repeatedly on that Cambodian border, and had them run over into Cambodia. War is unrestricted, if you start letting the enemy mess you about by playing games around a border, you will lose the engagement. Kill them wherever they may go. There was seriously no other option but to bomb the VC and NVA operating in Cambodia, rather than give them a safe haven.

And these were military units, colums of armour, tanks, Russian choppers....not a terrorist living in a house in the north of England.

So its absured to compare the two...

 

[Calanen]

Wow, you really are a proper neo-con! Never met one before, you see, I'm a "neo-con virgin". Although, does this count because we're on the internet? It's a bit like having cyber and then saying you had sex

Let me tell you something about me. I am not a 'neo-con' whatever the hell that means. I am, me - who makes up his own mind about issues, and says what he thinks. I do not care whats trendy, or in vogue or politcally correct.I dont need editorials to tell me what to think in a few catchphrases.

I just say what I think. My own values and conscience dicate what i believe, and I could not give a stuff whether I was the most unpopular man in the universe for believing it.

I am not part of the champagne socialist set, who know all about the suffering of the working classes, minorities and victims of war and yet have never experienced any suffering of their own in their life. I am not one of those armchair critics who have never made any significant managerial or command decisions in their own life, yet purport to know exactly how things *should* have been done without having any experience, training or credibility.

I try and see both sides of the argument - but at the end of the day, I make my decisions on what I think would be best. I don't care if Bill O'Reilly agrees with me (No Limit keeps saying Im plagiarising Bill O'Reilly) or whether Noam Chomsky does. I believe it, because my own reason, intelligence, brings me to that conclusion.

It may surprise you to learn that I clash with a lot of people in my own party, for the following reasons:

- I think that abortion should be legalised, though I detest it;

- I think that some drugs should be legalised for addicts;

- I am ambivalent about firearms but generally believe that I am better off with angry fools not having high powered weapons.

- I am agnostic.

So don't just think you can get a pre-fabbed 'Neo-con' list and say thats what Calanen believes. Because it most likely will not be.

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."

I think thats a very profound statement.

A very false statement.

 

[Calanen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bliink
"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."

I think thats a very profound statement.

A very false statement.

I don't think you got the point of it. What I think, was meant, was that wars like earthquakes and all conflict cause horrific destruction on both sides, so like an earthquake, no1 really 'wins'. They just surive it and continue. Neither earthquakes, nor war can be avoided.