Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The deliberate targeting of civilians as if they were combatants is terrorism. I don't think it was collateral damage, it was deliberate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "collateral damage" or "terrorism"?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Scare populace into admittng defeat". Hard to call it terrorism since it was part of a declared war between two nation states though. I'm also not particularly interested in talking semantics.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9klk7iSCII

McCain:

"Congressmen, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict."


[/ QUOTE ]

The Vietnam War was never about "winning battles". The notion of a battlefield covering a specific area and of a battle lasting speficic hours or days was obsolete long before the first American advisor set foot in Vietnam. The exception which was Dien Bien Phu came about because of French stupidity - which the Americans later duplicated with gusto.

Late in that war, the U.S. Marines finally formulated the correct approach for it, by using small units in long-term, deep-range engagements -- and they started to seriously, finally, putting a dent on Charlie. It's indicative that the North Vietnamese demanded when the peace talks started for the Marine operations to cease.

Charlie was right in wanting his country free from foreigners. (Charlie was not fighting for the dictatorship of the proletariat!) And Charlie was right in his battle methods. I'm glad Charlie won the war.

There is now very little to stop a total rapprochement between Ho Chi Minh and Washington. Except for the pair of nincompoops at the White House.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The deliberate targeting of civilians as if they were combatants is terrorism. I don't think it was collateral damage, it was deliberate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt matter whether it was deliberate or not. Citizens are at risk in a war, period. It isn't terrorism when it is carried out by uniformed soldiers in the context of a war.

That has nothing to do with whether the action was right or wrong, but labels are important, and this one doesnt fit.

No comment on the statistics? I see youve brushed up on your Chompsky, "Its our fault, it wouldnt have happened if we hadn't been there".

Disgusting [censored].

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9klk7iSCII

McCain:

"Congressmen, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict."


[/ QUOTE ]

The Vietnam War was never about "winning battles". The notion of a battlefield covering a specific area and of a battle lasting speficic hours or days was obsolete long before the first American advisor set foot in Vietnam. The exception which was Dien Bien Phu came about because of French stupidity - which the Americans later duplicated with gusto.

Late in that war, the U.S. Marines finally formulated the correct approach for it, by using small units in long-term, deep-range engagements -- and they started to seriously, finally, putting a dent on Charlie. It's indicative that the North Vietnamese demanded when the peace talks started for the Marine operations to cease.

Charlie was right in wanting his country free from foreigners. (Charlie was not fighting for the dictatorship of the proletariat!) And Charlie was right in his battle methods. I'm glad Charlie won the war.

There is now very little to stop a total rapprochement between Ho Chi Minh and Washington. Except for the pair of nincompoops at the White House.

[/ QUOTE ]


No war is about winning the battles, but no war is won without winning battles. And no political victory between warring factions can be won without military victory first.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter whether it was deliberate or not. Citizens are at risk in a war, period. It isn't terrorism when it is carried out by uniformed soldiers in the context of a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it is not terrorism when the USA secretly bombs a country, say Cambodia, and because the bombing is secret and they are not supposed to be there, the rules of engagement in force in Vietnam, are ignored? [The reason being that since they are not there, officially, they are not bounds by the rules].

You guys are totally nuts and don't have the beginning of an understanding as to why the US is so unpopular world-wide, with the exception of a few puppet regimes propped up by the US, although even that seems to be failing more and more.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]


It isn't terrorism when it is carried out by uniformed soldiers in the context of a war.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to Kyl and Lieberman.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter whether it was deliberate or not. Citizens are at risk in a war, period. It isn't terrorism when it is carried out by uniformed soldiers in the context of a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it is not terrorism when the USA secretly bombs a country, say Cambodia, and because the bombing is secret and they are not supposed to be there, the rules of engagement in force in Vietnam, are ignored? [The reason being that since they are not there, officially, they are not bounds by the rules].

You guys are totally nuts and don't have the beginning of an understanding as to why the US is so unpopular world-wide, with the exception of a few puppet regimes propped up by the US, although even that seems to be failing more and more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just being an ass? How is your post responsive to the contemporary meaning of "terrorism".

Oh, it doesnt. STFU.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It isn't terrorism when it is carried out by uniformed soldiers in the context of a war.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to Kyl and Lieberman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get the reference to those two in particular?

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just being an ass?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is B.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just being an ass? How is your post responsive to the contemporary meaning of "terrorism".

Oh, it doesnt. STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I get your drift but I don't agree with. You mean the US is always right and everyone else that disagree with her, whatever she does, are the bad guys.

Get real!