253 replies to this topic

[Blodo]

If Iraq was really prepared you would actually have problems with blitzing to baghdad, cause of all those terrorists, mine fields etc. And before the obvious answer comes - yes i read on the facts and the iraqi army wasnt even fully mobilized, the terrorists started the show after you took baghdad.

Would I rather see an a-bomb tropped in Vietnam that see WW III? Hell yes, is that really supposed to support your position?

So your theory is that it would be much better if Russia and the US just nuked themselves to kingdom come? I dont get your point here one bit, provided there actually is a rational point in this phrase.

[Comrade Kal]

It was a bloody war. And as for comparing it to the hundred years war, they had far less numbers in their armies, far less efficient ways of killing people, incredibly slow transport, and the fighting in the hundred years war wasn't even close to constant - it was on and off all the time.

You left Vietnam before finishing the job. You failed to do what you went in there to do. Regardless of the reasons why. you lost.

[Tom]

Vietnam was pointless anyway, just like 90% of wars are. Just capitalists fighting communists because they were an easy target and they had a reason. The oppression.

[Silent_Killa]

If Iraq was really prepared you would actually have problems with blitzing to baghdad, cause of all those terrorists, mine fields etc. And before the obvious answer comes - yes i read on the facts and the iraqi army wasnt even fully mobilized, the terrorists started the show after you took baghdad.

the actual Iraqi army was doing very little, they were smart, they knew they stood no chance.

So your theory is that it would be much better if Russia and the US just nuked themselves to kingdom come? I dont get your point here one bit, provided there actually is a rational point in this phrase.

rofl, perhaps you don't understand... WW III would have been a nuclear war at that time... you're askin me if I would rather see one nuke dropped or thousands of them dropped... perhaps you should read my posts more closely, and not just quote pieces of them

You left Vietnam before finishing the job. You failed to do what you went in there to do. Regardless of the reasons why. you lost.

Vietnam was like a fight broken up before it was finished. We never really lost, we just withdrew

Vietnam was pointless anyway, just like 90% of wars are. Just capitalists fighting communists because they were an easy target and they had a reason. The oppression.

tell that to the Hmong... you know, the victims the of genocide in Vietnam? You might be able to live with it, but that bloods on your hands, not mine... it should have been finished, regardless of why it was started

[Blodo]

Im just gonna sum it up. You wouldnt withdraw if you werent been beaten up to a pulp. Several times over. And you wont admit it because youre too proud to say that youve lost one war against communists.

rofl, perhaps you don't understand... WW III would have been a nuclear war at that time... you're askin me if I would rather see one nuke dropped or thousands of them dropped... perhaps you should read my posts more closely, and not just quote pieces of them

I was asking you if youd like to see the starting nuke dropped on Vietnam. Its obvious everyone would fire theirs in retaliation after that.

[Tom]

Vietnam was pointless anyway, just like 90% of wars are. Just capitalists fighting communists because they were an easy target and they had a reason. The oppression.

tell that to the Hmong... you know, the victims the of genocide in Vietnam? You might be able to live with it, but that bloods on your hands, not mine... it should have been finished, regardless of why it was started

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blood isn't on my hands. I wasn't the one who sent people there to die pointlessly and withdraw when the going got tough. Genocide was a bad thing yes, bur even your soldiers killed relentlessly, burning civilian towns because they actually hated being there.

[Silent_Killa]

Im just gonna sum it up. You wouldnt withdraw if you werent been beaten up to a pulp. Several times over. And you wont admit it because youre too proud to say that youve lost one war against communists.

Hardly beaten to a pulp, we were winning...

I was asking you if youd like to see the starting nuke dropped on Vietnam. Its obvious everyone would fire theirs in retaliation after that.

hence WW III, I've no longer got any idea what you're trying to prove

Blood isn't on my hands. I wasn't the one who sent people there to die pointlessly and withdraw when the going got tough. Genocide was a bad thing yes, bur even your soldiers killed relentlessly, burning civilian towns because they actually hated being there.

Civilian towns? Define civilian in Vietnam... that was the hard part, work in the fields during the day, shoot you at night, not an easy situation. Soldiers killed relentlessly because that's what soldiers do, they kill. My point was that people who called the war pointless etc were the reasons why the US had to withdraw, hence, leaving people like the Hmong for the slaughter

[Comrade Kal]

You withdrew from a country you attacked without defeating the enemy and finishing the job you went to do. That is a loss. If it was the France-Vietnam war we'd never hear the end of it.

[Silent_Killa]

yes, but we didn't really lose any ground either... it just doesn't make any sense to call it a loss since we didn't lose anything that they didn't lose more of... I guess it's true... war has no winners

[Aircraftkiller]

Vietnam was pointless anyway, just like 90% of wars are. Just capitalists fighting communists because they were an easy target and they had a reason. The oppression.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's silly reasoning. We attacked it to contain the expansion of communism, and because we were asked to be there at the request of the South Vietnamese government.

[spider-man_2099]

Unless you were there to kill as much as possible and see who had a better kill/loss ratio, then you lost.

Also, contain communism expansion because...

[ComradeJ]

Vietnam was pointless anyway, just like 90% of wars are. Just capitalists fighting communists because they were an easy target and they had a reason. The oppression.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's silly reasoning. We attacked it to contain the expansion of communism, and because we were asked to be there at the request of the South Vietnamese government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IIRC, Vietnam was divided into a communist north and a capitalist south. After a couple of years there'd be elections to decided wether the whole of Vietnam would become communist or capitalist. The results, I believe, were that the communists had a great majority of the votes, and after that the southern government called in the US to protect the capitalist way of life that most of the citizens obviously didn't want.
If the US was there to halt the communist expansion and the commies eventually took the entire country... wasn't that failure, a lost war?

[Comrade Kal]

Yes. But most of the citizens did want a communist government, otherwise they could have just done it the democratic way.

[Silent_Killa]

alright, basically what I'm trying to say is that Vietnam was a military success, just not a political one... I'm not trying to say the US won, we did fail to achieve our objective, and failed in that sense, but the military did everything it was supposed to

Yes. But most of the citizens did want a communist government, otherwise they could have just done it the democratic way.

most of the citizens did, or at least they wanted something different from what they had... remember though, the minority also has rights, rights that the N Vietnamese did more than violate

[skoolkid]

Vietnam was pointless.

No it wasn't.

Im just gonna sum it up. You wouldnt withdraw if you werent been beaten up to a pulp. Several times over. And you wont admit it because youre too proud to say that youve lost one war against communists.

Name instances where the "beaten up to a pulp" occurred.

You withdrew from a country you attacked without defeating the enemy and finishing the job you went to do.

Attacked? Quite the contrary. Unlike the current war in Iraq, we did not start this fight.

As for the "elections", they were rigged.

Edited by skoolkid, 27 April 2005 - 04:39 AM.

[Blodo]

Attacked?  Quite the contrary.  Unlike the current war in Iraq, we did not start this fight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeh great reasoning. Guess Vietnam invaded the US then?

As for the "elections", they were rigged.

Prove it.

Name instances where the "beaten up to a pulp" occurred.

Everywhere? Most importantly your forces couldnt hold ground such as to prevent north vietnam moving all over into the us taken territories, despite the fact that you dropped more explosives in that war then the entire ww2 had used. Meanwhile everyone went along with the idea that the vietnamese arent capable of any usage of tactics, which was just downright stupid. Along with that America was just not prepared to keep losing high numbers of people for such limited progress in a difficult jungle war, for which they were definatly not suited or trained. Hence the demonstrations after it was clear to everyone except the military, that the war is lost.

Why do you people even continue on this anyways? Im not afraid to admit that my country lost a few wars, but every guy from the USA keeps making this fuss that "america did not lose a war". Why is it so important to you?

And before the obvious answer comes along: no, i am not an "America hater".

[Silent_Killa]

Yeh great reasoning. Guess Vietnam invaded the US then?

no, but they did invade a few non coms

other than that, US involvememnt was initially quite minimal, but as hostilities increased things got fucked up

Prove it.

I find it laughable that we must prove that our elections weren't rigged, but a country like Vietnam doesn't... doesn't anybody else think that's funny... oh well

Everywhere? Most importantly your forces couldnt hold ground such as to prevent north vietnam moving all over into the us taken territories, despite the fact that you dropped more explosives in that war then the entire ww2 had used. Meanwhile everyone went along with the idea that the vietnamese arent capable of any usage of tactics, which was just downright stupid. Along with that America was just not prepared to keep losing high numbers of people for such limited progress in a difficult jungle war, for which they were definatly not suited or trained. Hence the demonstrations after it was clear to everyone except the military, that the war is lost.

wrong, the problem was that the people would work in the fields during the day, then grab their gun and shoot you up at night

The losses of the US weren't much compared to the Veitnamese, the difference was the American public was... soft at the time (still is really, along with most western nations)

The demonstrations were a result of people afraid to fight, work, and just about anything other than smoke, the military was the only part of the country that succeeded in the war

Why do you people even continue on this anyways? Im not afraid to admit that my country lost a few wars, but every guy from the USA keeps making this fuss that "america did not lose a war". Why is it so important to you?

dunno, why do you continue to argue?

And before the obvious answer comes along: no, i am not an "America hater".

you most likely are, and I don't care, I'm tired of this politically correct shit where nobody is allowed to hate anything

Edited by Silent_Killa, 28 April 2005 - 01:26 AM.

[Hostile]

Those who live in the US know the elections aren't rigged. Too many eyes watching. You can have have all the conspricay theories you like. US elections rigged please...

Not possible, no matter what the extremist media leads you to believe...

[Blodo]

dunno, why do you continue to argue?

Because you do. And the circle closes itself

you most likely are, and I don't care, I'm tired of this politically correct shit where nobody is allowed to hate anything

LoL i dont care about political correctness. I can say here and now that i hate american politics and your selfish pride, but i dont hate the country or the people living in it. So there

Edited by Blodo, 28 April 2005 - 08:12 AM.