How many here think we didn't lose the vietnam war?

InI has real problems understanding things in context. He's picks certain words and sentences, takes them out of context, and argues them to death, thinking he has a point.

TFK

 

Vietnam was a war that can be compared to a 7 ft 300 pound martial arts expert losing a fight to a 4 ft 80 lb weakling. If he lost, he wanted to.

The US never invaded on a D Day scale North Vietnam, never carpet bombed day after day for year after year (only enough to force them to a peace conference), or allowed the military to do its job. Gen. Walker was forced to retire when he had the audacity to suggest the US have a two fron pincer movement - starting at the DMZ and an Inchon like landing near Hanoi - and increase the ranks of troops to 3 million to get the job done.

Vietnam was the only war in history that a country won every major battle and lost. We could have used nukes, but didn't.

Did the US lose? Yep, but only because we didn't want to win. It became obvious to the American people that our leaders were pussyfooting around by 1967, and had no intention of winning. That is what tore this country up, if we were not going to fight to win, then get out. Bush didn't learn that lesson.

58,000 lost their lives for nothing.

 

Under McNamara, we mostly bombed trees and fields, supposedly to show the power of the American military. Under Nixon and Johnson - to an extent - we did bomb the infrastructure of North Vietnam, but not to much of a degree.

 

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

 

:bears: Exactly. When there is doubt, ask Ol`Hairy. The man KNOWS his History.

 

If we are going to fight a war, yes. But if we are not going to fight a war, get out.

That is the senselessness of Iraq. If we were going to really go to war, and fight one as a war should be fought, then we should have bombed the hell out of their infrastructure, roads, everything.

If we are not going to do that, then don't start one. That is the stupidity of Bush. That is why I have been against war since Vietnam, because the US leaders use war as a political tool, to gain some imaginary diplomatic goal.

So in Iraq, since we should not have been there to begin with, we should not have invaded, and we should pull out immediately. Who gives a damn if the Shiites, Sunnis kill each other. No matter how long we stay, when we do leave, there is going to be a bloody, bloddy, civil war in Iraq.

I say, let's leave and let them solve their own problems.

 

Thank You. ld:

 

Whether they do or don't is really none of our business. As far as the "Yeah, but if Iran gets nukes...." question, Israel will bomb them to prevent that. And again, whether we are there or not, it will happen.

Let's stay out of it. I am a firm believer in George Washington's admonition in his farewell adress to stay out of foreign entanglements unless it is necessary.

If Iran is stupid enough to start an all out conflict with the US - who still has a nuclear arsenal of 2800 warheads (enough to destroy the world over many times, much less Iran) - then so be it. But in the meantime, if Imanutjob - or however you spell Iran's idiot leaders name - is crazy enough to go to war with Israel (who has nukes and WILL USE THEM) let it be on that regions hands, not ours.

It is time for us to quit being the world's policeman.ld:

 

Part of staying out of foreign entanglements is not supporting one side over another. Like it or not, we made our own trouble with Iran, and our totally biased and immoral support, funding and arming of Israel is a huge part of the problem in the Middle East.

To sit back and say that Israel ( a paranoid nation if there is one) is justified in nuking or attacking any nation/group that it feels is a threat, and that Iran should be bombed if it is suspected of trying to obtain nukes is the problem!

 

Godfather protests :nono:

:stir:

 

Does he have me on ignore?

 

No, just trying to get him to speak his biased opinion ::

 

:stir:

 

I disagree. Israel is paranoid? How many times have nutjob Muslim nations attacked her for no reason than just being Israel? Paranoid?

If I see my neighbor who hates me buy a rifle, put a laserscope on it, practice with it in his yard, and he has taken 4 potshots at me in the past, then I'm not justified to draw my gun and fire first if he points his rifle at me, cocks it, takes the safety off, and I have a little red laser point on my head? Give me a break. :doh:

 

Shit, Your the Man and you know it. :bears:

 

C'mon, Hairy, you have to know better than this! Just for being Israel??? What does that mean? Israel gives far more than it gets, and paranoia is a basic fact of Israeli existence. Harry Truman, George Marshall and the early Zionists knew that the existence of a Jewish State would cause constant warfare in the region, and the state was still founded in theface of the obvious. Israelis understand this. Why Americans deny this is beyond me.

Anyone who refuses to see the trouble that Israel causes in the region just isn't being honest, or is ignorant of the situation. The attack on the USS Liberty and the bombing of the Osirak reactor are two of many examples of Isreali paranoia and aggression.

 

Yeah, because the Muslims attacked Israel first. Riiiiiiight. If you want to compare Israel to the "neighbor who hates me," you'd hide in the bushes and assassinate him long before he has enough money to buy a rifle.

 

That would be the Israeli way of doing things, except they would jail, torture and interrogate other neighors into confessing knowledge of his plot to buy a gun, and spread phony rumors to the friends who are funding their operations in order to justify more money, a blind eye and better weapons in the future. And they would make sure to have friends put out a favorable story (if a proper scapegoat couldn't be agreed upon) in the neighborhood newsletter about their actions, while damning the dead neighbor to no end. What a charming bunch, those Israelis. :clap:

 

How is that a laughable statement?

 

Israel was created out of other people's lands, so it should be expected that the displaced people should want to take their land back.

Also, it simply isn't true that the Israelis only want peace and have no desire to expand further. At the very least, Israel is still aggressively expanding settlements in Palestinian territory, and at most still holds on to the idea of a Greater Israel, which has been a very real goal for many Israelis. There is absolutely no reason for Israel's neighbors to trust Israel's words.

As far as peace goes, the Israelis would take peace if their terms were met 100%, but who wouldn't? Otherwise, they have largely attempted to force the issue aggressively.

 

BOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

Warfare in the desert's always rough. You see the best of humans in the Middle East and the worst of humans in the Middle East. If Jesus Christ had been born in the jungle, celibacy might have been seen as big a taboo as nudity is in our world.

 

Another ignorant post based on nothing but stereotype and bias. Arafat recognize the existence of Israel and what did it gave the palestinians ????? Israel just has to withdraw to its 1947 borders and they'll be peace. And considering they still makes settlement and they still occupied lands who belong to other contries (Golan and shebaa farms as examples of non palestinian land ) it's ridiculously moronic to claim that israel don't want to expand in others region. And considering that Jordan and Egypt signed peace treaty with Israel blow out of the water pretty much all of your argument.