Reply With Quote
Would you walk up to a the Vietnam Memorial and say what you said Smeagol? I reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally ing doubt it.
The things I said about the Falkands war years ago were wrong. I have no qualms admitting that.
I guess it might help if you were more specific in your comparison. Some parallels can be drawn, but as we have seen blanket statements can really piss people off.
Would you walk up to a the Vietnam Memorial and say what you said Smeagol? I reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally ing doubt it.
The things I said about the Falkands war years ago were wrong. I have no qualms admitting that.
Nice to see you've grown up because at the time, in that same thread, you said something like "I do not have to appologize for a joke . . ."
Again, why is my statement so wrong. I view the Vietnam war as a mistake. I see the US, at the time, taking justice in it's own hands and going thousands of miles away, to fight a war on premisses that were weak. I have nothing against the soldiers who fought that war. I would never disrespect them (as I would never disrespect the ones fighting the Iraq war).
I would have no problem saying that the Vietnam war was a mistake to anyone (the same way I have no problem saying the Iraq war is a mistake).
I fail to see your logic. So you are saying that 20 years from now, people should not say the Iarq war was a mistake to families of Iraq Vets?
Bottom line: if somebody explains to me why my comments were disrespectful, or if anybody feels offended (and explains why) I will take back my comments in a second.
You did not say the Vietnam war was a mistake. Reread your statement.
I'm not sure what you read into my post.
What I meant is that Vietnam was a mistake, 40 yrs have gone by, the US has not learnt any lessons from that mistake and now has made a new mistake: Iraq.
Now tell me what you think I meant with my post.
Does NOT equalI guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.
in any sense of the words used. First of all, the vast majority of this country is against the damn war. 2nd of all, your post is insulting to our country. If a guest came into my home and insulted my family, would I not be upset?The Vietnam war was a mistake
Whatever, I'm over it, but your words did annoy me. Perhaps next time you'll choose your words more carefully, but don't try to paint a picture as though you said that Vietnam was a mistake, because thats not at all what you said.
Does NOT equalI guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.
The Vietnam war was a mistake
The generals didn't get GWB elected. and
I don't want to bust anyone's bubble but the Generals execute
Policy they don't establish it,and havenot since WWII go look at the recent retirements, they are beginning to find that out themselves, they didn't hear about Truman firing McCarther
Ask Gen Zunni, or in the case of Vietnam, Westmorland, Powell,etc,etc
LBJ said, " they can't even Bomb an Outhouse, without my Permission"
Maybe the fn Democrats will cut off the money for the war in Iraq.
I hope they don't cut off the $ for the War in Afganistan. LOOK
for a major influx of troops in afganistan by March/April for a BIG
Spring offensive.
IMO we backed IRAQ against IRAN during that war,(MISTAKE) so now if we back IRAN it would make the Russian's happy, along with a lot of others.
The best you can say is Bush = LBJ?
That's your argument?
NO CHUMP
Bush or any other President doesn't have to listen to Generals
Clinton didn't, LBJ didn't, it is something called the cons ution.
It seems your argument is "Let the Generals run the War"
what would have happened if McCarther wasn't fired by Truman
What would have happened if General Curtis LeMay had not ran
for vice -President but stayed in the Military and ran the Air Force?
No Comment on" IMO we backed IRAQ against IRAN during that war,(MISTAKE) so now if we back IRAN it would make the Russian's happy, along with a lot of others."
So your argument is, Bush = LBJ = Clinton
How proud you must be.
Remember, Bushie said he would listen to the Generals.
Was he lying?
Now you are bashing Reagan? Is this Bizarro AFE7FATMAN?No Comment on" IMO we backed IRAQ against IRAN during that war,(MISTAKE) so now if we back IRAN it would make the Russian's happy, along with a lot of others."
Nope, I don't know how to get it to you
but the President is the Head of the Military.
Now as for
REAL HISTORY OF VIETNAM for those too young to remember & those that haven't learned
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48728
So presidents have never taken the advice of the military in matters of war because they weren't required to by the Cons ution.
Was Logic your major?
Nope and neither was it for Presidents
So presidents have never taken the advice of the military in matters of war because they weren't required to by the Cons ution.
For the most part the advice of the Military is just that ADVICE.
The President has the final decision, scarry isn't it.
Think what it was like when varous Presidents had thir fingers on the Nuke Button.
Was Logic your major?
You still have not explained why saying 40 yrs since the Vietnam war has not taught the people who have started another unnecessary war (Iraq) is so disrespectful.
And I cannot understand why you fail to see the parallelisms between the two wars.
Even though IMO the Vietnam war has more justifications than the Iraq war, I still think both could have been avoided were the US slower to pull the trigger.
In the 1960s the US goes to war in a remote country in SouthEast Asia most Americans didn't it even existed to stop communism (or so they say) and in the 2000s they go to a remote country to stop terrorism (or so they say). In the first war, there was a true threat in Vietnam (communism was taking over the country). No real threat of terrorism in Iraq, IMO. At least none until the US invaded.
But as I said, if you feel disrespected by my words, I will take them back.
"true threat in Vietnam (communism was taking over the country)."
so ing what. The VN "domino" fell to ... Vietnamese wanting to unite their country (under the pretext of communism). The VN didn't want Chinese or Russian Communist running/all over VN. The VN did not want to and did not invade and take over all of SE Asia for Communism.
No other dominoes fell, and not because the Communists were scared of defeated US "committment", becasue after the US pulled out of VN, there was no commitment by US to invade on SE Asia countries imagined to be at risk form Communsim. The traumatized US public would not have supported invading another SE Asian country.
The VN war was fought by the US to stop Communism is VN. The US pulled out and VN "fell" to native Communists. iow, the US invasion of VN failed to achieve its objective, no matter how the Army has tried to spin it since.
Just like the Aghans outfought and out-waited the Russians in Afgahnistan, just like the VN got out-fought but out-waited the US in VN, the Iraqis will out-wait the US invasion. Iraq will "fall' to the Islamic Iraqis, obliterating all trace of US invasion, just as happened with the foreign invaders in Afghanistan and VN.
The US invasion of Iraq is failing, and will fail, sooner or later. Saddam in power was much, much better than what Iraq will become after the US leaves.
Last edited by boutons_; 12-21-2006 at 02:33 PM.
First, the kooks, liberals and leftest pulled defeat from the jaws of victory
in VN.
Second, over a million VN citizens died after the communist took control
of the South and millions more were imprisoned in so called re-education
centers.
Third there was a domino effect, Cambodia fell to the communist and
millions more died and suffered from their rule.
Get your damn facts straight before spouting off.
While I agree that he should get his facts straight, he never will, nor will the suggestion you have given merit him looking into his statements because he has you on ignore. Just like he has everyone on ignore that doesn't agree with him.
Smeagol, if you feel the Vietnam war is more justified than the Iraq war then I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that you have very little understanding of either war.
The Vietnam war was a CIVIL war which the US had absolutely no need to be involved with.
The Iraq war has been a poorly exectuted preemptive war to remove a dictator with WoMD.
Yes, there are similarites but that you would feel the US more justified to be involved in a civil war is ridiculous.
So, what else can you teach us about Vietnam, Smeagol?
I might have little understanding of the Vietnam war but what I do know is that ultimately, the US went there to fight communism (same as Korea War).
I know as much as you do on the Irak war, so don't play the condesending card.
Before I answer any questions, why don't you further explain why is it that my comment about the Vietnam war was so offensive inlight of my further explanations.
Manny, another question.
You say:
which is essentially what I'm saying, that the US could've avoided going into that war.
So again, why are you so mad at what I said?
"why are you so mad at what I said?"
He blew another forecast, no SA snow this weekend.
Smeagol, if you feel the Vietnam war is more justified than the Iraq war then I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that you have very little understanding of either war.
The Vietnam war was a CIVIL war which the US had absolutely no need to be involved with.
The Iraq war has been a poorly exectuted preemptive war to remove a dictator with WoMD.
Yes, there are similarites but that you would feel the US more justified to be involved in a civil war is ridiculous.
So, what else can you teach us about Vietnam, Smeagol?
So you are saying that Germany, East vs West,
Korea, North vs South were not civil wars? Just
what are you saying? We should not have been
involved?
oh, and back on the thread. The Master Stroke has
happened. The dimm-o-craps are back in power.
And it's Christmas. Oh, I forgot, the holidays.
Hey, X, what do you want to see done in Iraq?
Are you pro-surge?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
