| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Your point appears to be that the US will never be used, owned or pawned because of its plentiful supply of 200kg rednecks with guns. An optimistic position given the US military failed to win a jungle guerilla war against a country which spent less per annum on its military than Americans spent on ice cream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aarontendo
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Location: Daegu-ish
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Would that be the same country that didn't get supplied massive amounts of gear / weapons / tanks from the USSR? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He's seriously lucky he didn't get shot.
If i was one of those policemen i actually mighta "tasered" him.
I give the TO cops credit, they seem to have been total pros in that situation.
Nice work gents  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your point appears to be that the US will never be used, owned or pawned because of its plentiful supply of 200kg rednecks with guns. |
Correct.
| Quote: |
| An optimistic position given the US military failed to win a jungle guerilla war against a country which spent less per annum on its military than Americans spent on ice cream. |
Incorrect.
Little known fact 496,844-H: America won the Vietnam war. Here's why:
The U.S. remains the number one economy in the world, despite having fought the commies all over the world for 50+ years.
Vietnam's lovely economy? Hell, they're not even on the f*cking list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| ...the US military failed to win a jungle guerilla war against a country which spent less per annum on its military than Americans spent on ice cream. |
American armed forces decimated the Vietcong something along the lines of 10:1 during Tet and the year following it. The Vietcong effectively ceased to exist and Hanoi had to use its own troops after 1968.
Tet demoralized LBJ, however. McNamara had already resigned or been fired for losing his edge on this. LBJ and his advisors no longer wanted to escalate the war for fear it would drag on indefinitely and it was all for nothing.
Nixon came in promising peace with honor. He reengaged China, reconfirming the Sino-Soviet divide -- "triangular diplomacy" -- and that fact made the Vietnam War irrelevant in a single stroke.
Some say we lost the war because we left and Saigon could not stand alone against Hanoi. But those critics have no Chinese expansion or other East-Asian wars of national liberation -- which, I remind you, Mao was promising and was what brought us there in the first place -- to point to either... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Didn't take the conservative revisionists all that long to pipe up, I see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Your point appears to be that the US will never be used, owned or pawned because of its plentiful supply of 200kg rednecks with guns. |
Correct. |
And why will these people be a deterrant to an invading army - 300 million Chinese for example?
Don't get me wrong. If the Chinese invaded the US - which they won't, ever - I would totally support the Americans, but I'd be interested to hear why you feel these people are standing in the way of that state of affairs.
Seems like a cliche to me. Mind you, I've no idea what you mean by "owned, used, pawned" - I took as meaning total (military) defeat and change from one state of affairs to a completely different one.
| Quote: |
Incorrect.
Little known fact 496,844-H: America won the Vietnam war. Here's why:
The U.S. remains the number one economy in the world, despite having fought the commies all over the world for 50+ years.
Vietnam's lovely economy? Hell, they're not even on the f*cking list. |
You've introduced a red herring. The US to this day (and immediately after Vietnam) being the world's #1 economy does not mean they won the Vietnam War. Germany has a vastly superior economy to the British, but the Germans lost the Battle of Britain and eventually the whole war.
The Vietnam war resulted in the unification of Vietnam under the communist government of the North - the scenario the Americans and South fought to avoid. Wikipedia states that over 1.4 million military personnel were killed in the war (approximately 6% were members of the United States armed forces), thus 84,000.
Hey, maybe it's me who's freakin' nuts, fellas, or being terribly strict in my definition of win/lose, but I say 84,000 dead Americans + reconciliation of the South and North under Communism = defeat for the Americans.
Not that this is relevant. I was being facetious really. I just wondered why, if the US military suffered a defeat to a vastly inferior enemy, is it assumed that an invading enemy would have difficulty with American civilian resistance. Feel free to answer it if you want, but it's kind of off-topic and the topic's introduction was kind of a joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atomic42
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Location: Gimhae
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Uh huh. 
At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Didn't take... |
Did Mao back any further wars of national liberation after Vietnam escalated or did he not? If not, why not?
And what were America's strategic goals in fighting in Vietnam again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Did Mao back any further wars of national liberation after Vietnam escalated or did he not? If not, why not? |
Good question. Did China play any role at all in Afghanistan in the '70's/'80's? I've never seen anything, but find it difficult to believe that China sat on its hands while the Soviets tried to dominate a neighbor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And why will these people be a deterrant to an invading army - 300 million Chinese for example? |
Please explain how 300 million Chinese are going to bypass our navy and air force to put people on the ground in the U.S. (or Canada or Mexico or anywhere in our "sphere" for that matter).
My point is, anyone who gets through to the U.S. (from wherever), in whatever numbers, will be facing not only the regular U.S. army, but also a population of gun enthusiasts that includes everyone except babies.
| Quote: |
You've introduced a red herring. The US to this day (and immediately after Vietnam) being the world's #1 economy does not mean they won the Vietnam War. Germany has a vastly superior economy to the British, but the Germans lost the Battle of Britain and eventually the whole war.
|
My point is, we bombed the Vietcong back into the stone age and they're only just now pulling themselves out of there. It took the U.S., what, a few years, a decade or so, to get back in the saddle and defeat the commies? Russia just gave up, and China has become a de facto capitalist country. Win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sleepy in Seoul
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
| America won the Vietnam war. |
So America won the Vietnam War and then left their the South Vietnamese army (their comrades in arms) and and a vulnerable population to the mercies of the now defeated enemy who had, by some miracle, lost while forcing America and its allies out and then somehow losing to the South Vietnamese army by having them surrender quickly. America also left the South Vietnamese to be sent to re-education camps by the hundreds of thousands and tens of thousands died after America won and ran home. If that's what America lets happen to its friends, then it's no wonder that America has precious few of them.
Good one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
My point is, we bombed the Vietcong back into the stone age and they're only just now pulling themselves out of there. It took the U.S., what, a few years, a decade or so, to get back in the saddle and defeat the commies? Russia just gave up, and China has become a de facto capitalist country. Win. |
Russia and China are not fascist, not capitalist. And Russia has not given up.
Why is Vietnam doing well?
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=53 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
