CYC simply retarded (greatest hits)

Oh, never mind. You are stupid. Here's a picture of a bombing of Hanoi:

 

:laughing:

 

In the opening months, they weren't allowed to bomb within 50 miles of Hanoi, but that later changed.

 

How about this for a good lord.

A video of the bombing history over North Vietnam.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...46&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

 

You stupid retard. You are showing some bullshit explosions that I ALREADY KNEW ABOUT.

Show me were Hanoi was leveled and destroyed ??

You fuckin can't because Hanoi WAS NEVER leveled and destroyed.

Here is a pic of Rotterdam. Now thats fuckin leveled and destroyed.

 

Here is what happend to Hanoi.

During the Vietnam War Hanoi's transportation facilities were disrupted by the bombing of bridges and railways, which were, however, promptly repaired. Following the end of the war, Hanoi became the capital of Vietnam when North and South Vietnam were reunited on July 2, 1976.

 

Um, I repeatedly stated that Hanoi wasn't leveled and destroyed. I was responding to this stupid comment by YOU:

You. Were. Clearly. Wrong. We clearly bombed the North Vietnamese infrastructure. Did we level Hanoi? Of course not.

Do you, by any chance, not understand the word "infrastructure?" I'm assuming that this is simply a vocabulary problem.

 

Hanoi still functioned as always and as stated above , repairs were made promply. So with that said , their infrastucture was still functioning throughout the war. So its you who have a lack of understanding about infrastucture functioning throughout the war years. If a bridge is operational for 350 days out of a 365 day year , I would say that part of infrasucture is a contributing factor.

Bottom , line , Hanoi functioned throughout the war , was never leveled or bombed , and even became the capital.
That doesn't sound like it sustained so much damage the city shut down like so many did in WW2.
Look at that pic of Rotterdam. That city was non functional at that point.

 

You said that the infrastructure wasn't bombed, not that it wasn't bombed effectively. Sure, I'll agree that Hanoi continued to function throughout the war, but that's not what you said.

 

I said bombed and leveled though and referenced what Berlin looked like.
Is there not a difference ?
So if we threw a grenade into a city , I should retract and say they were bombed ? :dunno: ::

 

No. You said this:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by CleanYourClock
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by I and I
Do you stil stand by your statement that we didn't bomb any north vietnamese infrastructure?





</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Infrastucture "WITH-IN" the major cities - like I originally stated , yes I do stand by that statement.
The war suppling mechanics with-in the major cities were always still capable of producing the needed supplies.

Now if you decide to come back with how we bombed some bullshit warehouse building on the outskirts of a city , that is not what I'm talking about so don't waste your time.
</STRONG>
</B>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Bro , if you want to count a bridge that was repaired in a few days , that is your opinion if you want to look at that as destroying infrastucture.

My opinion that if a bridge was bombed and repaired in afew days and continued to function and support the war, that is not taking out infrastucture because it did nothing.

This is a far cry to how we PERMANTLY STOPPED industry , vital infrastucture in WW2 which I originally referenced in the first thread on this issue.

 

Yes , it all continued to function so I stick by my statement.

 

Um, you didn't say "destroying" infrastructure. You said "bombing" infrastructure.

I mean, this is going to turn into your version of "spelt" if you don't admit that you worded your various posts poorly.

 

Only if people choose to argue that point because they have nothing else to bring to the table.
I'm not sure about other people but , when someone is explaining something , I can usually understand the point they are making.

 

I'm not going to waste my time arguing something so meaningless.
Really Rubio , this last reply sounds like IandI typed it.
I would normally not expect you to lower yourself to that level because you normally don't.

 

Um, I and I is completely right on this issue.

• At best: Your case was badly, badly worded.
• At worst: You were full of shit.

 

Bro , when you couple the word "bombed" with "leveled" and then reference what Berlin looked like after WW2 , that is a completely different meaning then just the word bombed all by itself.
How could you not understand such a thing ?
Did you not get the meaning of what I was saying ? :dunno:

 

I never did such a thing, and there's no logical reason to do so. You said that the infrastructure wasn't bombed. You were wrong.

 

Semantics.
Any normal person knows "bombed" coupled with "leveled" then an added visual reference to a specific place has a whole different meaning then the word bomb all by itself.
I mean didn't the reference to Berlin give you a nice thought base and visual understanding to work from ? ::

 

That sums up all of CYC's posts

 

:: ::

Fuckin retard.

 

CYC, your post made sence. You specificly said bombed like berlin was. I dont know why they want to twist all of this shit. Everyone knows what you ment. Keep up the good work bro.:bears:

 

Thank You 60/40 !
I was wondering how they could not know. I was puzzled at how they just couldn't understand something so clear. :doh: