Could We Have Won Vietnam?

andyfox · #1 11-30-2007, 03:04 PM

How could it be described in any other way? 6,727,084 tons of bombs were dropped on Indochina during the Vietnam War. The bulk were dropped on South Vietnam, the "country" were were supposed to be defending. This is roughly twice the tonnage dropped by the Allies in World War II in both the European and Pacific theaters combined. One of every twelve South Vietnamese became a refugee because of the bombing.

How is this not terrorism?

BluffTHIS! · #2 11-30-2007, 03:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One of every twelve South Vietnamese became a refugee because of the bombing.

How is this not terrorism?

[/ QUOTE ]

andy,

Do you believe those refugees were mainly a) communist sympathizers or b) RVN supporters or does it matter?

And what is the standard for collateral damage being so disproportional (via the actual/potential harm being fought *if* such a goal is valid), so as for it to be correctly labeled "terrorism"?

andyfox · #3 11-30-2007, 05:11 PM

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

PokrLikeItsProse · #4 11-30-2007, 07:36 PM

[ 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"?

PLOlover · #5 11-30-2007, 07:38 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

anyone up for defending the phoenix program?

xorbie · #6 11-30-2007, 08:02 PM

[ 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.

Copernicus · #7 12-01-2007, 05:43 AM

[ 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].

MidGe · #8 12-01-2007, 06:01 AM

[ 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.

Copernicus · #9 12-01-2007, 06:11 AM

[ 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.

vulturesrow · #10 12-01-2007, 06:26 AM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is B.